With everyone hiring in Bangalore, who's left to hire that's any good?
Actually, wages in Bangalore (and China, for that matter) are being bid up through the ceiling. All the multinational CEOs gossip with each other, and the herd mentality has them headed for India, China, Russia, etc. for "lower wages" on behalf of their stockholders. Except when they get there they are all bidding for the same workers. (Of course, you don't see them hiring CEOs, CIOs, COOs, etc. overseas -- you know, the high-paying jobs that would really make a difference to the stockholders' interests.)
It reminds me of when all the semiconductor companies in the US moved into Albuquerque in the 1980's. Within a year all the employees were being paid at the top of the pay ranges, and you couldn't find anyone to replace people who quit. It lasted all of about two years until they were at parity paywise with the rest of the US.
It is not the act of sharing that violates copyright, its the concurrent use afterwards, and
Defining "file sharing" broadly and casually, gets in the way of identifying a solution among mutually exclusive constraints. (This is from the Theory of Constraints and the Evaporating Clouds method in Goldratt's Thinking Process. You can choose to call it word games, if you must -- its not. Exactitude is crucial to making it work. Note that the solution proposed above would be rejected under the casual definition we started with.)
Finally, given all the music services that are finally here, its easily conceivable to add the ability to buy music to the system, such that you overcome your objection to it not generating revenue for the musicians. The fact that the incentive to do so is lessened, is a consequence of the technology moving forward (and really independent of this solution in a world of file sharing technology). Its a reality that the Music Industry is clumsily failing to deal with today. Being able to get priority to listen to the songs that you have contributed to the pool, would likely be sufficient incentive to buy an additional copy of your favorites. Especially since you have lowered the barrier of the foregone opportunity (buying a different song) by 1 over i (the number of other users who could buy that other song).
Wouldn't you have to catalog all the objects in the solar system to be able to do that calculation?
Given that we just discovered this, I would claim you don't know all the variables yet (unless you think this is the last undiscovered object in the solar system, galaxy, or universe).
you'd likely find that the affect on the rest of the solar system to be zero, to any meaningful level of precision
Really interested in knowing its impact to the Earth. But my point is you have to do the analysis, first. I mean, putting rockets on the back of the Moon and pushing it into the Earth would also have negligible impact to the solar system, overall. I just don't want to be here on Earth when it lands.
If you haven't bothered to identify all the impacts of moving the object, and don't understand it well enough to know that there are no undesireable impacts, you haven't done your homework. Come back with the proposal after you have. Neat idea, now go work out the details.
Where's the KA-BOOM? There's supposed to be an earth-shattering KA-BOOM. -- Marvin the Martian
That would be your conclusion, not mine. I'm just advocating that we at least understand the consequences, and take action to deal with them. No different that why we do environmental impact assessments before starting projects today.
We all know an action has unpredictable consequences, but those that cannot possibly be evaluated should be ignored
This has become an excuse to not think things through at all. Consider nuclear technology. The creation of nuclear waste was clearly forseeable, yet we jumped all over it without thought of how to deal with the consequences, and look at the mess we have created. We have thousands of "temporary" burial sites (many of them located on flood plains). Material with 1000 year half-life and no plan to take care of the problem after the 20 years of temporary storage are up. Are you advocating that we should just ignore all that waste and let the spring floods take care of it for us?
Likewise, genetic engineering is going full guns, with no idea on how to undo the consequences of introducing even a single gene to the environment. When we glom onto ideas without 1) analyzing the consequences, and 2) preparing to deal with them, we do so at our own peril. If you are proposing the application of a technology, you need to have done enough research and analysis to be able to predict the consequences, and have a plan to deal with them. Not just "boldly going where no [one] has gone before". And if you are going to do something, you need to know how to undo it as well.
Don't just pull the trigger on our doom, take the money and run, and say "oops" later.
No, I'm not playing wordgames. I'm merely pointing out that the crime is not in sharing. Its when you create persistent copies without due consideration to the owner of the copyright. And we have the technology to keep it from being persistent duplicates (its just not implemented that way today).
Imagine this. All the songs that i users own. A network of the shared songs, shared in a common pool. And a player that's smart enough to only allow n copies to be played at any instance among all the i users (where n is unique to each song -- i.e., a different n for each song, acording to how many copies of each have been shared in the pool by the users).
We have the technology, and it wouldn't be copyright violation as long as the participants in the pool didn't keep persistent copies. We just haven't implemented it that way today. But we could. (I'm also not saying that it would be trivial to implement because you'd have to work through the details to accomodate timeouts and recovery. But its feasible with the technology we have today.)
The whole point is that we currently overconstrain the problem, when we assume that all sharing is a copyright violation. I've clearly shown a counterexample that isn't (and its not just semantics or "wordgames").
"Sharing" music on a P2P network is stealing, yes,...
"Stealing" - No.
If sharing were a violation, all libraries would be guilty. The violation is in copying.
If I lend you a book, you are not stealing to read it. If I copy a book, and sell it to you it is stealing.
I can't possibly listen to all the songs that I have ripped to.mp3 at the same time. If technology exists that allows me to share my music, yet preserves the principle of only one listening to it at a time, no copyright violation should have occurred.
Compare the music and publishing industries' approach to the technology: one is fighting it tooth and nail, the other is embracing it. And look at who is prospering. You don't win markets by pissing off your customers. And when times change, you change with them or perish.
which comes out to about $1 per file... (which isn't really any more than what they would have cost if purchased via iTunes anyway)
This, of course ignores the fact that iTunes didn't exist at the time of the original infractions. And it ignores the fact that RIAA was doing everything in its power to kill the technology (e.g., Napster's demise).
If moving one tiny asteroid would bring any harm whatsoever, then the solarsystem would have been destroyed long ago.
And yet that's the whole point of the butterfly example and chaos theory. Listing examples of when a move didn't cause harm does not serve as proof that no move will cause harm. You can't prove the null hypothesis.
Here's the fallacy of the assertion, above. Take the case of a revolver. Put one bullet in the 6th position away from indexing under the hammer. Does putting it to your head and pulling the trigger one time without incidence prove that no harm can ever come? Even , two, three, four, or five times?
Just because the number of objects in our solar system is a large finite number and the relative mass of any one is insignificant, doesn't mean you can prove moving a single, specific one has no consequences. Yet, the burden of proof is on those who would advocate change. Good luck proving the null hypothesis.
You can get a 2-axis Analog Devices accelerometer kit for $19.50 for the Mark III mini-sumo robot at The Mark III Store (scroll down a page to the "Accelerometer Kit"). There's a handful of discrete components, and this is essentially a retail price, so figure $15.
The part is actually a MEMS device, so figure 1) a manufacturer can probably buy it at half that price in volume, and 2) there are cheaper non-MEMS devices available on the market.
Independent of the applications' use of accelerometers, this would be the perfect candidate for the controller in a roaming home robot. Using the accelerometer you could significantly improve on its navigation capabilities. I just ran across a book on this last weekend The Ultimate Palm Robot, by Kevin Mukhar and Dave Johnson. And now I find the perfect controller for it, too. Coincidence or Kismet?
Hey, let's change orbit of that thing and have another space station
Interesting idea, but we have no idea of what the consequences are of rearranging the momenta of the solar system, or any other "environmental" impacts. How would you make such a decision without adequate knowledge of the impacts?
(Turns out that this body is scheduled to intercept an Asteroid, but because we messed with it, Bruce Willis dies in Armageddon).
The desperation of company founders and marketing departments to find new names sometimes brings ludicrous results. To single out some of the worst, a California naming company has created the Shinola Awards; recent "winners" -- futuristic, forgettable, pseudo-Latinate, barely pronounceable -- include ACHIEVA, ALTRIA and CRUEX.
WOW, now I have something more to live for than the Darwin Awards. The name is very apt, and its about time.
Intel talked about this at the last developers conference. Its the ability to run OSes and applications in partitions that are protected from trashing each other. Here's a blurb from one of the keynote addresses (about halfway down):
You may remember at the last IDF, Paul Otellini in his keynote did a demonstration and introduced a new technology, a new star "T" called Vanderpool Technology or VT. In that demo, he was in a home environment where he demonstrated by creating different stations in a virtualized station. You are able to run your PVR in one partition and the games in another partition without interfering with each other.
VT has applications not just in the digital home but also in the digital office. What are some of these usage models? Let's take a look. VT, likewise, can be used in business computers to create different partitions, to provide an IT partition where the IT mission-critical applications are well protected and not compromised by the user. At the same time, it can create partitions that can provide legacy support. In other words, applications that may not run under the new operating system.
Now, this is the kind of thing that's actually fairly common encountered in both large enterprises as well as more medium business.
An example we see in accounting software or asset tracking software, they're written and validated on an old operating system that have not been reported or validated.
As an example, my sister is a dentist and she has a billing system on her computer. She wouldn't dare to upgrade it because there's no support of porting that billing system to a new OS. And as a result, she continues to run on old hardware, old OSs, that expose herself to productivity and security issues. Not a good situation.
So let's take a look at how this actually works. I'd like to invite Jason Davidson out here to show us how VT benefits the enterprise.
(Demo begins and ends.)
BILL SIU: So in the coming several years, we'll be working with many of our business colleagues, many of you present here, to develop this capability and bring this kind of improvement to the enterprise. We think this is of just great value to manageability, providing both end user benefits as well as IT value.
One assumes the demo shows them crashing an application yet the other application keeps on working.
Given that there seemed to have been an affinity for it to hit certain brands more than others (2 Ford Garages), it is more likely to not be random. However, that data-point is subject to autocorrelation: if the reporter only called two garages and they were both the two Ford garages, say, at the top of page 1351 in the Yellow Pages, you would get the same result. Hey, give 'em a break -- they got a deadline to make. Besides newsies don't have to be accurate or even consciencious, just absent of malice.
YetAnotherGeekGuy
Freedom of the Press is only important if you have a printing press.
You can open the door with the remote key fob, or you can put the key into the only exterior door lock on the driver's side. In either case the engine computer is interogating the chip in the key.
Now, the Ford Dealership charges $30 for a duplicate key. However, you can go to any hardware shop and get a duplicate key cut for $3 -- it just doesn't have the chip. When you use the chipless key in the lock, the alarm goes off because there's no chip to interogate when you put it in the lock. So, as far as Ford is concerned, if the key openning the lock doesn't pass the challenge-response between the car and the key, its a break-in.
So the failure mode where the key fob won't work, but opening-the-door-with-the-key-triggers-the-alarm makes perfect sense. That's what Ford programmed it to do. Given that the fob isn't working, you already know that a failure has occurred. Its not that much of a stretch to believe that its a single point of failure that would also keep the door from interogating the door key, too. And the beauty of this failure theory is you don't need nefarious little green men, or a non-inept branch of the government (oxymoron? an ept branch?) behind it.
YetAnotherGeekGuy
Hi. I'm from the Government. I'm here to help.
>> Will somebody please give these guys a giant dope-slap to the back of their heads?
Actually, the location of the reset button on CEO-2003 is on the forehead.
You often see them slapping it with their hand and then remember something that eluded them before the reset.
Slashdot Mirror
Rather they will hire the workers in Bangalore.
With everyone hiring in Bangalore, who's left to hire that's any good?
Actually, wages in Bangalore (and China, for that matter) are being bid up through the ceiling. All the multinational CEOs gossip with each other, and the herd mentality has them headed for India, China, Russia, etc. for "lower wages" on behalf of their stockholders. Except when they get there they are all bidding for the same workers. (Of course, you don't see them hiring CEOs, CIOs, COOs, etc. overseas -- you know, the high-paying jobs that would really make a difference to the stockholders' interests.)
It reminds me of when all the semiconductor companies in the US moved into Albuquerque in the 1980's. Within a year all the employees were being paid at the top of the pay ranges, and you couldn't find anyone to replace people who quit. It lasted all of about two years until they were at parity paywise with the rest of the US.
PR
For when the Truth just won't do.
- It is not the act of sharing that violates copyright, its the concurrent use afterwards , and
- Defining "file sharing" broadly and casually, gets in the way of identifying a solution among mutually exclusive constraints. (This is from the Theory of Constraints and the Evaporating Clouds method in Goldratt's Thinking Process. You can choose to call it word games, if you must -- its not. Exactitude is crucial to making it work. Note that the solution proposed above would be rejected under the casual definition we started with.)
Finally, given all the music services that are finally here, its easily conceivable to add the ability to buy music to the system, such that you overcome your objection to it not generating revenue for the musicians. The fact that the incentive to do so is lessened, is a consequence of the technology moving forward (and really independent of this solution in a world of file sharing technology). Its a reality that the Music Industry is clumsily failing to deal with today. Being able to get priority to listen to the songs that you have contributed to the pool, would likely be sufficient incentive to buy an additional copy of your favorites. Especially since you have lowered the barrier of the foregone opportunity (buying a different song) by 1 over i (the number of other users who could buy that other song).Sure we do.
Wouldn't you have to catalog all the objects in the solar system to be able to do that calculation?
Given that we just discovered this, I would claim you don't know all the variables yet (unless you think this is the last undiscovered object in the solar system, galaxy, or universe).
you'd likely find that the affect on the rest of the solar system to be zero, to any meaningful level of precision
Really interested in knowing its impact to the Earth. But my point is you have to do the analysis, first. I mean, putting rockets on the back of the Moon and pushing it into the Earth would also have negligible impact to the solar system, overall. I just don't want to be here on Earth when it lands.
If you haven't bothered to identify all the impacts of moving the object, and don't understand it well enough to know that there are no undesireable impacts, you haven't done your homework. Come back with the proposal after you have. Neat idea, now go work out the details.
Where's the KA-BOOM? There's supposed to be an earth-shattering KA-BOOM. -- Marvin the Martian
By your reasoning, we shouldn't do anything, ever
That would be your conclusion, not mine. I'm just advocating that we at least understand the consequences, and take action to deal with them. No different that why we do environmental impact assessments before starting projects today.
We all know an action has unpredictable consequences, but those that cannot possibly be evaluated should be ignored
This has become an excuse to not think things through at all. Consider nuclear technology. The creation of nuclear waste was clearly forseeable, yet we jumped all over it without thought of how to deal with the consequences, and look at the mess we have created. We have thousands of "temporary" burial sites (many of them located on flood plains). Material with 1000 year half-life and no plan to take care of the problem after the 20 years of temporary storage are up. Are you advocating that we should just ignore all that waste and let the spring floods take care of it for us?
Likewise, genetic engineering is going full guns, with no idea on how to undo the consequences of introducing even a single gene to the environment. When we glom onto ideas without 1) analyzing the consequences, and 2) preparing to deal with them, we do so at our own peril. If you are proposing the application of a technology, you need to have done enough research and analysis to be able to predict the consequences, and have a plan to deal with them. Not just "boldly going where no [one] has gone before". And if you are going to do something, you need to know how to undo it as well.
Don't just pull the trigger on our doom, take the money and run, and say "oops" later.
You're playing wordgames.
No, I'm not playing wordgames. I'm merely pointing out that the crime is not in sharing. Its when you create persistent copies without due consideration to the owner of the copyright. And we have the technology to keep it from being persistent duplicates (its just not implemented that way today).
Imagine this. All the songs that i users own. A network of the shared songs, shared in a common pool. And a player that's smart enough to only allow n copies to be played at any instance among all the i users (where n is unique to each song -- i.e., a different n for each song, acording to how many copies of each have been shared in the pool by the users).
We have the technology, and it wouldn't be copyright violation as long as the participants in the pool didn't keep persistent copies. We just haven't implemented it that way today. But we could. (I'm also not saying that it would be trivial to implement because you'd have to work through the details to accomodate timeouts and recovery. But its feasible with the technology we have today.)
The whole point is that we currently overconstrain the problem, when we assume that all sharing is a copyright violation. I've clearly shown a counterexample that isn't (and its not just semantics or "wordgames").
"Sharing" music on a P2P network is stealing, yes, ...
.mp3 at the same time. If technology exists that allows me to share my music, yet preserves the principle of only one listening to it at a time, no copyright violation should have occurred.
"Stealing" - No.
If sharing were a violation, all libraries would be guilty. The violation is in copying.
If I lend you a book, you are not stealing to read it. If I copy a book, and sell it to you it is stealing.
I can't possibly listen to all the songs that I have ripped to
Compare the music and publishing industries' approach to the technology: one is fighting it tooth and nail, the other is embracing it. And look at who is prospering. You don't win markets by pissing off your customers. And when times change, you change with them or perish.
which comes out to about $1 per file... (which isn't really any more than what they would have cost if purchased via iTunes anyway)
This, of course ignores the fact that iTunes didn't exist at the time of the original infractions. And it ignores the fact that RIAA was doing everything in its power to kill the technology (e.g., Napster's demise).
If moving one tiny asteroid would bring any harm whatsoever, then the solarsystem would have been destroyed long ago.
And yet that's the whole point of the butterfly example and chaos theory. Listing examples of when a move didn't cause harm does not serve as proof that no move will cause harm. You can't prove the null hypothesis.
Here's the fallacy of the assertion, above. Take the case of a revolver. Put one bullet in the 6th position away from indexing under the hammer. Does putting it to your head and pulling the trigger one time without incidence prove that no harm can ever come? Even , two, three, four, or five times?
Just because the number of objects in our solar system is a large finite number and the relative mass of any one is insignificant, doesn't mean you can prove moving a single, specific one has no consequences. Yet, the burden of proof is on those who would advocate change. Good luck proving the null hypothesis.
pretty crappy accelerometer costs 25 - 40$
You can get a 2-axis Analog Devices accelerometer kit for $19.50 for the Mark III mini-sumo robot at The Mark III Store (scroll down a page to the "Accelerometer Kit"). There's a handful of discrete components, and this is essentially a retail price, so figure $15.
The part is actually a MEMS device, so figure 1) a manufacturer can probably buy it at half that price in volume, and 2) there are cheaper non-MEMS devices available on the market.
Independent of the applications' use of accelerometers, this would be the perfect candidate for the controller in a roaming home robot. Using the accelerometer you could significantly improve on its navigation capabilities. I just ran across a book on this last weekend The Ultimate Palm Robot , by Kevin Mukhar and Dave Johnson. And now I find the perfect controller for it, too. Coincidence or Kismet?
Hey, let's change orbit of that thing and have another space station
Interesting idea, but we have no idea of what the consequences are of rearranging the momenta of the solar system, or any other "environmental" impacts. How would you make such a decision without adequate knowledge of the impacts?
(Turns out that this body is scheduled to intercept an Asteroid, but because we messed with it, Bruce Willis dies in Armageddon).
The desperation of company founders and marketing departments to find new names sometimes brings ludicrous results. To single out some of the worst, a California naming company has created the Shinola Awards; recent "winners" -- futuristic, forgettable, pseudo-Latinate, barely pronounceable -- include ACHIEVA, ALTRIA and CRUEX.
WOW, now I have something more to live for than the Darwin Awards. The name is very apt, and its about time.
Intel talked about this at the last developers conference. Its the ability to run OSes and applications in partitions that are protected from trashing each other. Here's a blurb from one of the keynote addresses (about halfway down):
You may remember at the last IDF, Paul Otellini in his keynote did a demonstration and introduced a new technology, a new star "T" called Vanderpool Technology or VT. In that demo, he was in a home environment where he demonstrated by creating different stations in a virtualized station. You are able to run your PVR in one partition and the games in another partition without interfering with each other.
VT has applications not just in the digital home but also in the digital office. What are some of these usage models? Let's take a look. VT, likewise, can be used in business computers to create different partitions, to provide an IT partition where the IT mission-critical applications are well protected and not compromised by the user. At the same time, it can create partitions that can provide legacy support. In other words, applications that may not run under the new operating system.
Now, this is the kind of thing that's actually fairly common encountered in both large enterprises as well as more medium business.
An example we see in accounting software or asset tracking software, they're written and validated on an old operating system that have not been reported or validated.
As an example, my sister is a dentist and she has a billing system on her computer. She wouldn't dare to upgrade it because there's no support of porting that billing system to a new OS. And as a result, she continues to run on old hardware, old OSs, that expose herself to productivity and security issues. Not a good situation.
So let's take a look at how this actually works. I'd like to invite Jason Davidson out here to show us how VT benefits the enterprise.
(Demo begins and ends.)
BILL SIU: So in the coming several years, we'll be working with many of our business colleagues, many of you present here, to develop this capability and bring this kind of improvement to the enterprise. We think this is of just great value to manageability, providing both end user benefits as well as IT value.
One assumes the demo shows them crashing an application yet the other application keeps on working.
You could add to the list: Random Chance
Given that there seemed to have been an affinity for it to hit certain brands more than others (2 Ford Garages), it is more likely to not be random. However, that data-point is subject to autocorrelation: if the reporter only called two garages and they were both the two Ford garages, say, at the top of page 1351 in the Yellow Pages, you would get the same result. Hey, give 'em a break -- they got a deadline to make. Besides newsies don't have to be accurate or even consciencious, just absent of malice.
YetAnotherGeekGuy
Freedom of the Press is only important if you have a printing press.
You can open the door with the remote key fob, or you can put the key into the only exterior door lock on the driver's side. In either case the engine computer is interogating the chip in the key.
Now, the Ford Dealership charges $30 for a duplicate key. However, you can go to any hardware shop and get a duplicate key cut for $3 -- it just doesn't have the chip. When you use the chipless key in the lock, the alarm goes off because there's no chip to interogate when you put it in the lock. So, as far as Ford is concerned, if the key openning the lock doesn't pass the challenge-response between the car and the key, its a break-in.
So the failure mode where the key fob won't work, but opening-the-door-with-the-key-triggers-the-alarm makes perfect sense. That's what Ford programmed it to do. Given that the fob isn't working, you already know that a failure has occurred. Its not that much of a stretch to believe that its a single point of failure that would also keep the door from interogating the door key, too. And the beauty of this failure theory is you don't need nefarious little green men, or a non-inept branch of the government (oxymoron? an ept branch?) behind it.
YetAnotherGeekGuy
Hi. I'm from the Government. I'm here to help.
I'm sure someone will prove its existence, eventually.
So in pure math terms existence would be just one example. All we need now is patience.
YetAnotherGeekGuy
To the Engineer, the glass is neither half full, nor half empty. Its just two times too big.
FCC will expand the wireless spectrum
... just two times too big.
Nice trick if you can do it, I guess.
Like Scotty sez: "Its again' the laws o' Physics."
To the Engineer the glass is neither half full nor half empty
"He's scaled back from an X-Prize launch"
He may no longer be going after the X-prize, but, I gotta say, it sure sounds like a Darwin Award just waiting to happen.
>> Will somebody please give these guys a giant dope-slap to the back of their heads? Actually, the location of the reset button on CEO-2003 is on the forehead. You often see them slapping it with their hand and then remember something that eluded them before the reset.