So, not sure where the fear is. Good publishers refine author's works into something readable in many cases and they distribute and market. Amazon is a solution for distribution, but it doesn't quite cut the mustard for the other two. Sure, for authors that are professionals, they need less help. Those that are starting out most likely need some help. It would be interesting to see the opportunity cost of an author using a publisher versus DIY either way.
It was my understanding the Microsoft has a patent to draw electricity from the skin. In any case, the tattoo could be solar and store up the energy to make an update.You could also maybe do something with magnetism and inductance to create a current to update the tattoo. Someone mentioned a wand below and that would be a good external device. Hopefully, it uses SSL.
Why couldn't you put a transparent e-ink display as part of a tattoo on your skin that runs from the electricity in your skin? There is no confusion as to it being real ink. Maybe new adhesives are created for the bond between skin and the display so that it looks like it is part of your skin. That doesn't seem to be to far-fetched, now does it?
What about punishing the people that put the politicians into office? It seems that the people are responsible for who leads them in a democracy. I have never been to a voting booth where a corporation is allowed to vote. How many votes do corporations get?
Really? If this is a discussion about US corporations and wall street, I am not sure of an example of what you assert. Please share. Maybe you do not understand the system.
I understand and am sympathetic to what you say...but we are not "victims". Most likely we agreed to terms and conditions that specify they own the data you generate or upload. So, we should take responsibility for controlling our information - not artificially hoist it onto third parties. No one is holding a gun to anyone's head that says you must use so-and-so's site and you must generate such-and-such traffic and you must agree to give up your identity which is very easy to assemble when gathering data from a federation of sites that use a centralized tracking cookie.
I am unsure of the unregulated gathering comment. What do you think the government should do if you reveal your information in public? The only kind of regulation there should be is to correct erroneous data that may harm your reputation, etc. Other than that, it is up to the consumer to be aware that information released to the public can be gathered by the public.
Hooray for Google wanting to compete and steering Facebook development to things that people want. Google is a great way to impact Facebook's future to Google's expense and chagrin.
Is this a plug on slashdot to gather criticism about Google+ for the benefit of Google? Come on, there are better ways to get direct feedback than to shroud your research in the form of a controversial article pitting Facebook versus Google+ to solicit criticism.
How did you arrive at the conclusion that Google+ doesn't offer anything over Facebook that people want? That is a pretty big conclusion for very little information. I think there is one thing above all others that people want - their friends. There does not need to be any other reason if that is reason enough and social networks sort of require people to be social. So, please explain your statement that "doesn't offer anything" and what you consider anything.
You have a misunderstanding of law. For one, if law was black and white, there would be no need for judges which may be your point. People may miss judges if we went with black/white law because there will be no evolution in law. There are always new issues to litigate and ponder like stem cells, hacking, deep packet inspection, copyright on the internet, robotic rights, clones, artificial intelligence, etc. How does a robot respond to new ideas that are not covered by law? Constitutionalists seem to argue this point frequently as they would prefer the law was black and white and administered the way the authors of the constitution "intended". Robots would suit them nicely, but I am sure they are not prepared for the consequences of living with law that was made centuries ago.
C'mon, treaspassing is illegal. So, these guys are hackers with a conscience. Oh boy! I can appreciate the value that hacking can bring, but it should always be at the behest of those who own the property that will be hacked. Otherwise, hacking is criminal. If you are going to be a criminal, then this agreement is a handicap. A prosecutor is not going to do a litmus test to see whether you are a unconscionable or ethical hacker. I wonder if they will have a Thieve's Cant. The only way this code means anything is if it can be enforced. Are we going to see hacker wars as the good fight the bad?
It amazes me, but understandable, the tenacity that organizations desire to undermine privacy. Privacy is a concept. How do you hack a concept? I imagine the problem is when the concept is manifested through case law. Hacking of privacy must have to do with studying case law and then arguing that privacy has been defined and certain concepts are not included in the old world understanding of "privacy".
The lack of technology was not the issue for why privacy came to be - essentially, there is no way to know private information with primitive technology so by default we will grant privacy. So, why is it that now we have technology, the concept somehow is antiquated? Isn't this a slippery slope that all generations have to struggle with?
Um, what is wrong with the FBI collecting data? How else are you going to have intelligence unless you collect it? It does not mean that anything untoward is going to happen, but society is better informed. I would think it is in the interest of any society to track groups in its society.
Interestingly, the "fair doctrine" is not fair. I do not think the fair doctrine intends to present speech from Devil Worshippers. However, on the net, Devil Worshippers do have a seat without the "fair doctrine" so not sure why it is needed.
I am not sure how this is news. Sure, it is fascinating that Japan has a system to alert for earthquakes through phones. But according to the article, most phones in Japan have this feature. So, how is iOS being late to the game news? And the article is very GRAND about how iOS does this for the people of Japan. Bullshit. It does it because of the feature that is supported on iOS finally.
Big whoppee! IS slashdot being used as a marketing spam engine like bitcoin to get any news out on Apple? Gimme a break!
Um, because 4% or even 2% of browsers could represent 100% of your revenues. Do you collect analytics on the business impact of that segment? Maybe firefox users are cheap asses and linux users even cheaper and even though they may represent more percentage wise, is it best to develop by percentage of usage only?
In any case, I am not sure how you jump from 35% of complaints indicates that the 2% is made up of pirates. How do you know that even.1% of the 2% represents the 35% of complaints? Way to generalize.
But if those potential customers possibly represented 50% of your revenue, then I would say it is retarded. How are you going to know if you do not service them and collect analytics on their business impact? That is retarded.
Are you not sure he has a right to sell to who he wants to?
The fortune 500 I work for services other corporate clients, as well as the public, and IE6 is still substantial in the corporate world. In any case, I imagine an individual that does not consider IE6 a browser also lumps 7 and 8 in there too, but maybe not. Why is IE7 any better of a browser than IE6? It was a POS too.
Slashdot Mirror
Need more be said. Hard drives are so last year.
So, not sure where the fear is. Good publishers refine author's works into something readable in many cases and they distribute and market. Amazon is a solution for distribution, but it doesn't quite cut the mustard for the other two. Sure, for authors that are professionals, they need less help. Those that are starting out most likely need some help. It would be interesting to see the opportunity cost of an author using a publisher versus DIY either way.
It was my understanding the Microsoft has a patent to draw electricity from the skin. In any case, the tattoo could be solar and store up the energy to make an update.You could also maybe do something with magnetism and inductance to create a current to update the tattoo. Someone mentioned a wand below and that would be a good external device. Hopefully, it uses SSL.
Why couldn't you put a transparent e-ink display as part of a tattoo on your skin that runs from the electricity in your skin? There is no confusion as to it being real ink. Maybe new adhesives are created for the bond between skin and the display so that it looks like it is part of your skin. That doesn't seem to be to far-fetched, now does it?
Then you could send messages to people via your tattoo like "Screw off!"
What about punishing the people that put the politicians into office? It seems that the people are responsible for who leads them in a democracy. I have never been to a voting booth where a corporation is allowed to vote. How many votes do corporations get?
Really? If this is a discussion about US corporations and wall street, I am not sure of an example of what you assert. Please share. Maybe you do not understand the system.
I understand and am sympathetic to what you say...but we are not "victims". Most likely we agreed to terms and conditions that specify they own the data you generate or upload. So, we should take responsibility for controlling our information - not artificially hoist it onto third parties. No one is holding a gun to anyone's head that says you must use so-and-so's site and you must generate such-and-such traffic and you must agree to give up your identity which is very easy to assemble when gathering data from a federation of sites that use a centralized tracking cookie.
I am unsure of the unregulated gathering comment. What do you think the government should do if you reveal your information in public? The only kind of regulation there should be is to correct erroneous data that may harm your reputation, etc. Other than that, it is up to the consumer to be aware that information released to the public can be gathered by the public.
Hooray for Google wanting to compete and steering Facebook development to things that people want. Google is a great way to impact Facebook's future to Google's expense and chagrin.
Is this a plug on slashdot to gather criticism about Google+ for the benefit of Google? Come on, there are better ways to get direct feedback than to shroud your research in the form of a controversial article pitting Facebook versus Google+ to solicit criticism.
How did you arrive at the conclusion that Google+ doesn't offer anything over Facebook that people want? That is a pretty big conclusion for very little information. I think there is one thing above all others that people want - their friends. There does not need to be any other reason if that is reason enough and social networks sort of require people to be social. So, please explain your statement that "doesn't offer anything" and what you consider anything.
Is chronic applicable in this process?
Is there a comparable chronic curve? If so, what would be an example of something developed on the chronic curve?
You have a misunderstanding of law. For one, if law was black and white, there would be no need for judges which may be your point. People may miss judges if we went with black/white law because there will be no evolution in law. There are always new issues to litigate and ponder like stem cells, hacking, deep packet inspection, copyright on the internet, robotic rights, clones, artificial intelligence, etc. How does a robot respond to new ideas that are not covered by law? Constitutionalists seem to argue this point frequently as they would prefer the law was black and white and administered the way the authors of the constitution "intended". Robots would suit them nicely, but I am sure they are not prepared for the consequences of living with law that was made centuries ago.
err, I mean Hacker's Cant.
C'mon, treaspassing is illegal. So, these guys are hackers with a conscience. Oh boy! I can appreciate the value that hacking can bring, but it should always be at the behest of those who own the property that will be hacked. Otherwise, hacking is criminal. If you are going to be a criminal, then this agreement is a handicap. A prosecutor is not going to do a litmus test to see whether you are a unconscionable or ethical hacker. I wonder if they will have a Thieve's Cant. The only way this code means anything is if it can be enforced. Are we going to see hacker wars as the good fight the bad?
I guess it depends on your SDLC so I would think it is somewhat relevant when it comes to customizing it for how you do your work.
It amazes me, but understandable, the tenacity that organizations desire to undermine privacy. Privacy is a concept. How do you hack a concept? I imagine the problem is when the concept is manifested through case law. Hacking of privacy must have to do with studying case law and then arguing that privacy has been defined and certain concepts are not included in the old world understanding of "privacy".
The lack of technology was not the issue for why privacy came to be - essentially, there is no way to know private information with primitive technology so by default we will grant privacy. So, why is it that now we have technology, the concept somehow is antiquated? Isn't this a slippery slope that all generations have to struggle with?
What a misdirection? Besides, styluses are for good nose picking.
Um, what is wrong with the FBI collecting data? How else are you going to have intelligence unless you collect it? It does not mean that anything untoward is going to happen, but society is better informed. I would think it is in the interest of any society to track groups in its society.
Interestingly, the "fair doctrine" is not fair. I do not think the fair doctrine intends to present speech from Devil Worshippers. However, on the net, Devil Worshippers do have a seat without the "fair doctrine" so not sure why it is needed.
I am not sure how this is news. Sure, it is fascinating that Japan has a system to alert for earthquakes through phones. But according to the article, most phones in Japan have this feature. So, how is iOS being late to the game news? And the article is very GRAND about how iOS does this for the people of Japan. Bullshit. It does it because of the feature that is supported on iOS finally.
Big whoppee! IS slashdot being used as a marketing spam engine like bitcoin to get any news out on Apple? Gimme a break!
Um, because 4% or even 2% of browsers could represent 100% of your revenues. Do you collect analytics on the business impact of that segment? Maybe firefox users are cheap asses and linux users even cheaper and even though they may represent more percentage wise, is it best to develop by percentage of usage only?
In any case, I am not sure how you jump from 35% of complaints indicates that the 2% is made up of pirates. How do you know that even .1% of the 2% represents the 35% of complaints? Way to generalize.
But if those potential customers possibly represented 50% of your revenue, then I would say it is retarded. How are you going to know if you do not service them and collect analytics on their business impact? That is retarded.
Are you not sure he has a right to sell to who he wants to?
The fortune 500 I work for services other corporate clients, as well as the public, and IE6 is still substantial in the corporate world. In any case, I imagine an individual that does not consider IE6 a browser also lumps 7 and 8 in there too, but maybe not. Why is IE7 any better of a browser than IE6? It was a POS too.