More than Google, it would be the private equity investors looking for an exit on their investment in the company that would be driving for an IPO so that they can realise the incremental value of their early stage finance.
Additionally, there is an SEC doctrine that triggers a corporate compulsion for a company to maintain it's books openly once it's past a certain quantum of revenue. Given that doctrine, the company would surely opt for an IPO so that it can also raise money from the capital markets vs. having to only serve out it's financial accountability.
The SEC regulation does not require them to go public, only to maintain their books openly in the manner of a public company.
Given such a scenario (of being openly accountable), any company would surely consider an IPO route to raise capital from the market vs. only that headache (once again, of being accountable).
This liquid is apparently a bad conductor of electricity. Most bad conductors of electricity are also insulators of heat (except for one I know that works otherwise -- DOW CORNING Thermal Grease -- good conductor for heat, bad for electricity).
If Sapphire has implications as a fire-retardant fluid in museums, as a non-wetting retardant, it must be working by insulating the covered surface from external heat just as much as it works to suffocate a fire.
Therefore if it is essentially a insulator of heat, how then will it server the purpose of a heatsink.
But with a system like this you're still going to end up having to stop a lane full of cars even if you want to stop only that one car moving over the speed limit. Surely you don't expect a stop light mechanism that pulls the offender temprarily to the side of the road while allowing other cars through. A red light plain and simple means that to all cars moving in the direction of the light.. STOP!
How then does it matter if the cars moving in the same lane are immediately behind the offender or multiple car lengths behind. Inevitably they are going to have to come to a stop as they line up behind the red light. And these cars that follow are being forced to stop for no fault of their own, except that they happened to be moving in the same direction of someone who couldn't hold back his horses.
But that's the whole point isn't it.. to be "honest". No I don't mean the sordid implication of honesty from the POV of the producer, it mean it's implication in the context of the consumer.
Think why some people won't buy foods with Histamine in them -- and what prompts them against doing so. It's the food labels. Back to when the food labels were legislated into compulsion for all food products companies, I'm sure someone could have made an equally good arguement that they could hear the food processors right now "Oh sure I'm going to label my food as possibly allergic to some. Great deal of good that will do to my sales then eh!"
The right to full information on products for consumption should be imperative in my opinion. Doesn't matter then if the products are the tangible bundles of cells that form our food or the relatively intangible streams of zeroes and ones that constitute software.
This proposed implementation sounds outright silly to me. Here's why:
1. You're going to be stopping a lane (or more) full of cars to try and contain a single offender. Not hard to imagine how much of an irritant this will potentially turn into for everybody in the lane behind an offender who's singled out by the stoplight for "redding" (if not all the traffic flowing in the same direction as the offender).
2. As if trafic flow management wasn't complicated enough in it's own right (with look forwards and look backwards to ensure smooth flows through out the system).. that now you have some individual control unit throwing a switch because someone somewhere needed to be pulled up for speeding. So instead of pulling out that one offender, you decide to pull up a whole bunch of non-offenders who are only guilty on account of being in the vicinity. tch tch!!
What next? Personalized commuter flow?
I much rather prefer what the brits do... traffic cams installed over stoplights to snap photographs of licence plates of speeding cars. That license plate photograph is then used by the traffic department to draw a ticket on the registered user. It's more appropriate automation in my opinion.
That was true for the first movie also.. looked plasticky there too. Till you saw it in a movie theater where it didn't look as out of place.
But you get back home and watch it when it's playing on cable and it's back to the glossy makeover for spidey.
Guess it's a function of the display scale then. Also true of some the graphics from LOTR.. look out of place on a smaller screen such as on 15" computer monitor.. but look perfectly ingrained in to BG on a big screen.
Prior art apart, this is more a case of practical application on a scale previously unknown for this device.
The main reason for any award that this "device" would be eligible for is of course its social impact. If a simple arrangement of clay pots can prolong the life of perishable food in areas that don't have our "off the shelf from the supermarket perceptual abundance", it's got my vote. If it can drive more kids to school rather than have them vending out on the streets, it should have your vote too.
You might be well right when you say that this is an old invention. But I would caution against demeriting it simpy on account of that. Once again, clearly, the impact of the invention's application counts just as much as (maybe even more than) the invention itself.
One more example of applied commonplace knowledge -- Freeplay radio. Just how long have we known of windup springs and their potential energy???
This infact is a kitsch smorgasbord of information that's quite off-putting.
I ask to be saved from the hordes of designers who monger (only) variable text sizes as epitomes of visualization. Visualization, by it's very nature, is defined as the process of formation of a mental image. It's what's inherent to photographs and pictures amongst other entities. Surely not much of a (memorable) image being formed here.
Personally, I much rather prefer the more subtle, appropriate and to the point layout practiced by news.google.com.
I dont' believe that situatued software is contrary to the idea of code reuse.
The only thing I beleve this approach is contrarian to is to the idea of "mass-use" software being developed to appeal to the lowest common denominator. Rather than ending up as trying to be something to everyone, the ideology here is more inclinded towards trying to be everything to someone (more or less).
If you want to reuse code to attain the objective, it's surely fine. I mean it's in no way mandated that situational design should always be from the ground up. That would be outright silly.
Yeah, I guess today you are quite screwed if you want access to a mainstream band commited to either one of the major record lables or to any of their subsidiaries. Unless of course the guys at Divendo can get the major record labels to back them.
Don't see that happening unless the Divendo people are as well entrenced in the media space as Steve Jobs is.. i.e. to be able to do enough to influence that sphere by breaking "new ground".
An interesting application for content distribution nonetheless. Even more so as the online music retail space (in all it's infancy) is dropping no hints for now on how it'll eventually evolve in the face of the innovations it's being subjected to.
Yes, Amway works in a pyramid sceme. But that is attributed as a pyramid because (as I understand) no matter how deep you go, the payments always percolate to the top, to the initiator.
I think Divendo is clear that you buy and you (and only you) benefit if someone else downloads from you (acquires from you). I don't see any mention of sharing your benefits with anyone else -- that's the difference from a pyramid scheme here -- I don't think the benefits cascade all the way up to the primary initiator. It reads pretty clear to me. You get paid a percentage of the cost you paid for your purchase once someone else downloads the same content from you. Then either you or that someone else get's paid depending on whether someone_totally_else decides to acquire content from you or from (umm) someone else.
They all seem to be disjointed transcations to me here, and not piled one upon the other as in a pyramid scheme. I think it's a great model for the future of distributing content online. It's practically like bittorrent, only taking torrent to the next level with a payment mechanism.
My only reasoning was the case for a new business model outside the realm of a terrestrial retail model that is aped to the internet as in the case of iTunes.
That apart, I don't believe that Divendo is anything alike a pyramid scheme as it doesn't seem to include a cascading benefit for the primary initiator of the transactions. If I got it right, it's an extended P2P sharing service, that basically makes publishers of content sharers and allows them to get paid for the content they share -- unlike the content that they share for free right now.
In essence it allows them to still render their content free from sharing it with others.. and isn't file-sharing second nature to file-sharers.
But this is what I read into it. It seems innovative and exciting enough to me to merit a mention. YMMV.
I agree. Get music for free is the mantra of the day.
But what if you could take that to the next level and get paid for sharing your purchased music. What would you rather have then?
A system that allows you to download music for free (and maybe illegally so)?
Or a system where you pay for music but which then allows you to get paid too for sharing it -- and which infact allows you to recoup more than the original price that you paid for the song itself.
Somone new could well come along with an alternate business model that would easily upset the archaic retail system (from having simply moved terrestrial retail to the internet) that Apple is built on and that MSFT too is looking to base itself on.
It's too early to make a call. I mean even the million+ traffic on iTunes right now is a small percentage of the billion+ exchanged and transacted over P2P right now. Once again too early to call coz you never know what way legistation will rear it's ugly head and how effective it will if at all if it comes to a legistated crack-down on P2P.
Firstly, I'm all for DRM free content too. In all it's entirity, DRM is such a false hope anyway for now.. or for at least as long as we still need to bridge the digital-analog divide in order to render music perceptible to us.
Secondly, on the evils of the record industry and it's plague of the record labels, I think we should do well to ensure that musicians are rightly compensated by making use of services such Divendo and Mercora that are seemingly "non-feudal" and apparentely "more appropriate" in a contemporary context.
True and actually more like hardly any improvement on the terrestrial retail model at all.
The real revolution in sharing music and retailing content online is coming from some of the smaller and more innovative (although little heard of) companies like Divendo and Mercora.
But still, if you truly want to be able to recoup all those "costs" and make some money over and above the cost of the music you purchase by sharing it.. try Divendo
I agree with your doubts on the workability of this.
Additionally, I was wondering:
If the profits are going to be divvied based on a tracking system, wouldn't a system like that vulnerable to highjacking -- an artist / label setting up multiple download servers transacting between themselves across interchangeable IP address. This is unlike radio, where the control is in the hand of the content pusher and easier to regulate versus here where it is also with content puller too. That duality makes it more vulnerable to hijacking.
This would effectively kill the "gatekeepers to the land of distribution" ability of the record-labels -- and that would ensure a serious lack of support from them. The ability of the record-labels is clearly diluted in the age of the internet, but that they still have legality from it. Essentially, atleast in the near term, a solution like this could well plummet to oblivion from lack of a decent library of content in the face of a record-label boycott.
There are so many other new solutionscoming up that are more bent on driving user choice (versus compulsory / obligatory licensing) and that ensure a more legal regime from incetivizing pay-for-doanloads rather than -- again -- compulsory / obligatory licensing regimes in one form or the other. Incentive driven pay-to-share services that drive consumers to pay will surely be more effective that those that obligate / force them to do so.
I think that the EFF is getting carried away by "rigtheousness" here.
Slashdot Mirror
True.. most importantly.. quis custodiet ipsos custodes!?
Why do they need to go public?
More than Google, it would be the private equity investors looking for an exit on their investment in the company that would be driving for an IPO so that they can realise the incremental value of their early stage finance.
Additionally, there is an SEC doctrine that triggers a corporate compulsion for a company to maintain it's books openly once it's past a certain quantum of revenue. Given that doctrine, the company would surely opt for an IPO so that it can also raise money from the capital markets vs. having to only serve out it's financial accountability.
The SEC regulation does not require them to go public, only to maintain their books openly in the manner of a public company.
Given such a scenario (of being openly accountable), any company would surely consider an IPO route to raise capital from the market vs. only that headache (once again, of being accountable).
Just how reasonable does that sound if it's your office/home in the corner that up to get [sic] bonked (even if not dented as you say)?
Wouldn't exactly be pleasant to see a Skoda on your desk one fine time of the day would it?
YMMV of course.
Even in jest, you must have surely meant "on" the sand.
Under the mid-day / early afternoon sun (at the hottest time of the day), though it's baking hot "on" the sand, it's always cool "in" the sand.
And that obviously goes for every desert, not just the Sahara.
I don't get it.
This liquid is apparently a bad conductor of electricity. Most bad conductors of electricity are also insulators of heat (except for one I know that works otherwise -- DOW CORNING Thermal Grease -- good conductor for heat, bad for electricity).
If Sapphire has implications as a fire-retardant fluid in museums, as a non-wetting retardant, it must be working by insulating the covered surface from external heat just as much as it works to suffocate a fire.
Therefore if it is essentially a insulator of heat, how then will it server the purpose of a heatsink.
Just my hypothesis.
But with a system like this you're still going to end up having to stop a lane full of cars even if you want to stop only that one car moving over the speed limit. Surely you don't expect a stop light mechanism that pulls the offender temprarily to the side of the road while allowing other cars through. A red light plain and simple means that to all cars moving in the direction of the light.. STOP!
How then does it matter if the cars moving in the same lane are immediately behind the offender or multiple car lengths behind. Inevitably they are going to have to come to a stop as they line up behind the red light. And these cars that follow are being forced to stop for no fault of their own, except that they happened to be moving in the same direction of someone who couldn't hold back his horses.
But that's the whole point isn't it.. to be "honest". No I don't mean the sordid implication of honesty from the POV of the producer, it mean it's implication in the context of the consumer.
Think why some people won't buy foods with Histamine in them -- and what prompts them against doing so. It's the food labels. Back to when the food labels were legislated into compulsion for all food products companies, I'm sure someone could have made an equally good arguement that they could hear the food processors right now "Oh sure I'm going to label my food as possibly allergic to some. Great deal of good that will do to my sales then eh!"
The right to full information on products for consumption should be imperative in my opinion. Doesn't matter then if the products are the tangible bundles of cells that form our food or the relatively intangible streams of zeroes and ones that constitute software.
I agree.
.. that now you have some individual control unit throwing a switch because someone somewhere needed to be pulled up for speeding. So instead of pulling out that one offender, you decide to pull up a whole bunch of non-offenders who are only guilty on account of being in the vicinity. tch tch!!
This proposed implementation sounds outright silly to me. Here's why:
1. You're going to be stopping a lane (or more) full of cars to try and contain a single offender. Not hard to imagine how much of an irritant this will potentially turn into for everybody in the lane behind an offender who's singled out by the stoplight for "redding" (if not all the traffic flowing in the same direction as the offender).
2. As if trafic flow management wasn't complicated enough in it's own right (with look forwards and look backwards to ensure smooth flows through out the system)
What next? Personalized commuter flow?
I much rather prefer what the brits do... traffic cams installed over stoplights to snap photographs of licence plates of speeding cars. That license plate photograph is then used by the traffic department to draw a ticket on the registered user. It's more appropriate automation in my opinion.
That was true for the first movie also .. looked plasticky there too. Till you saw it in a movie theater where it didn't look as out of place.
.. but look perfectly ingrained in to BG on a big screen.
But you get back home and watch it when it's playing on cable and it's back to the glossy makeover for spidey.
Guess it's a function of the display scale then. Also true of some the graphics from LOTR.. look out of place on a smaller screen such as on 15" computer monitor
Prior art apart, this is more a case of practical application on a scale previously unknown for this device.
The main reason for any award that this "device" would be eligible for is of course its social impact. If a simple arrangement of clay pots can prolong the life of perishable food in areas that don't have our "off the shelf from the supermarket perceptual abundance", it's got my vote. If it can drive more kids to school rather than have them vending out on the streets, it should have your vote too.
You might be well right when you say that this is an old invention. But I would caution against demeriting it simpy on account of that. Once again, clearly, the impact of the invention's application counts just as much as (maybe even more than) the invention itself.
One more example of applied commonplace knowledge -- Freeplay radio. Just how long have we known of windup springs and their potential energy???
I agree.
This infact is a kitsch smorgasbord of information that's quite off-putting.
I ask to be saved from the hordes of designers who monger (only) variable text sizes as epitomes of visualization. Visualization, by it's very nature, is defined as the process of formation of a mental image. It's what's inherent to photographs and pictures amongst other entities. Surely not much of a (memorable) image being formed here.
Personally, I much rather prefer the more subtle, appropriate and to the point layout practiced by news.google.com.
YMMV of course.
I don't agree.
I dont' believe that situatued software is contrary to the idea of code reuse.
The only thing I beleve this approach is contrarian to is to the idea of "mass-use" software being developed to appeal to the lowest common denominator. Rather than ending up as trying to be something to everyone, the ideology here is more inclinded towards trying to be everything to someone (more or less).
If you want to reuse code to attain the objective, it's surely fine. I mean it's in no way mandated that situational design should always be from the ground up. That would be outright silly.
Yeah, I guess today you are quite screwed if you want access to a mainstream band commited to either one of the major record lables or to any of their subsidiaries. Unless of course the guys at Divendo can get the major record labels to back them.
Don't see that happening unless the Divendo people are as well entrenced in the media space as Steve Jobs is.. i.e. to be able to do enough to influence that sphere by breaking "new ground".
An interesting application for content distribution nonetheless. Even more so as the online music retail space (in all it's infancy) is dropping no hints for now on how it'll eventually evolve in the face of the innovations it's being subjected to.
Big blue's move to give MSFT the blues?
You're excused all right.
Yes, Amway works in a pyramid sceme. But that is attributed as a pyramid because (as I understand) no matter how deep you go, the payments always percolate to the top, to the initiator.
I think Divendo is clear that you buy and you (and only you) benefit if someone else downloads from you (acquires from you). I don't see any mention of sharing your benefits with anyone else -- that's the difference from a pyramid scheme here -- I don't think the benefits cascade all the way up to the primary initiator. It reads pretty clear to me. You get paid a percentage of the cost you paid for your purchase once someone else downloads the same content from you. Then either you or that someone else get's paid depending on whether someone_totally_else decides to acquire content from you or from (umm) someone else.
They all seem to be disjointed transcations to me here, and not piled one upon the other as in a pyramid scheme. I think it's a great model for the future of distributing content online. It's practically like bittorrent, only taking torrent to the next level with a payment mechanism.
My only reasoning was the case for a new business model outside the realm of a terrestrial retail model that is aped to the internet as in the case of iTunes.
That apart, I don't believe that Divendo is anything alike a pyramid scheme as it doesn't seem to include a cascading benefit for the primary initiator of the transactions. If I got it right, it's an extended P2P sharing service, that basically makes publishers of content sharers and allows them to get paid for the content they share -- unlike the content that they share for free right now.
In essence it allows them to still render their content free from sharing it with others.. and isn't file-sharing second nature to file-sharers.
But this is what I read into it. It seems innovative and exciting enough to me to merit a mention. YMMV.
I agree. Get music for free is the mantra of the day.
But what if you could take that to the next level and get paid for sharing your purchased music. What would you rather have then?
I'm not sure I agree with you.
Somone new could well come along with an alternate business model that would easily upset the archaic retail system (from having simply moved terrestrial retail to the internet) that Apple is built on and that MSFT too is looking to base itself on.
It's too early to make a call. I mean even the million+ traffic on iTunes right now is a small percentage of the billion+ exchanged and transacted over P2P right now. Once again too early to call coz you never know what way legistation will rear it's ugly head and how effective it will if at all if it comes to a legistated crack-down on P2P.
Firstly, I'm all for DRM free content too. In all it's entirity, DRM is such a false hope anyway for now.. or for at least as long as we still need to bridge the digital-analog divide in order to render music perceptible to us.
Secondly, on the evils of the record industry and it's plague of the record labels, I think we should do well to ensure that musicians are rightly compensated by making use of services such Divendo and Mercora that are seemingly "non-feudal" and apparentely "more appropriate" in a contemporary context.
True and actually more like hardly any improvement on the terrestrial retail model at all.
The real revolution in sharing music and retailing content online is coming from some of the smaller and more innovative (although little heard of) companies like Divendo and Mercora.
Couldn't agree with you any more.
But still, if you truly want to be able to recoup all those "costs" and make some money over and above the cost of the music you purchase by sharing it.. try Divendo
.. is a Google API and here's how it works:
Have you tried cooking with google?
I agree with your doubts on the workability of this.
Additionally, I was wondering:
I think that the EFF is getting carried away by "rigtheousness" here.