Can't speak for the AC you're replying to, but indeed, I don't care. Because I neither watch nor click that Ad, and I'd rather the web page load faster without it.
1. Session cookies are key in allowing Google to track and store more data than it should.
2. In France at least, the EC expressed concerns about the French government storing too much, not too little. So, not sure where you get the idea of the EU promoting police states.
3. Historically, the EU has always progressed in times of crisis. The US got federalism more or less right two centuries ago. We'll get it more or less right soon enough.
4. Unless the Euro breaks up (which I think is unlikely), rebalancing will likely occur through fiscal union, pan-EU projects (à la Ariane or Airbus), and increased (some already exist) subsidies from more competitive regions to less competitive ones.
5. Actually, Iceland recently made news because it was at the EU's door, almost begging to enter, and rather eager to adopt the Euro. The part they got right, which neither you nor we did, is to lock up their bankers in jail after clawing their wages back. (And I'm confident we'll get it right too, eventually.)
TFA also forgets an equally important links to prior security material released by Apple, which discusses the technical details and architecture contrary to what TFA suggests.
The oddest part, to me, is that they kind of admit to the same issues in TFA:
Our map-makers are real experts, many having over 20 years' experience in the field. And we harness the local knowledge of our 60 million satnav customers, who can make corrections through TomTom Map Share.
Surely a disgruntled employee can be do a better job at keeping disgruntled users in check, than a community of volunteers...
Trouble is, the content today invariably sucks, and there invariably is a better source, free, somewhere. Newspapers are toast.
For starters, you've tweeters, bloggers and social networks. Nevermind Joes and Janes posting cat videos. I mean citizen journalists who tweet, blog, connect and react through Facebook on local events, etc. who provide grassroot coverage. Muslim revolutions would never have occurred where it not for them. And we'd barely know what's going on in Syria if not for them.
Next, you've aggregator sites like Google News, Facebook in some ways, Slashdot, Reddit, Twitter trends, buzz monitors of all sorts, the list is innumerable. These must stay free to retain eyeballs, and attract eyeballs they do.
One might want to argue at this point that the journalist adds value over the latter channels, in the form of story background, fact checking, and good analysis. If anyone needs convincing that the contrary is more often true, consider reading a few pieces by the Macalope. Or think about this study from last year, that showed that people who regularly followed Fox News tended to be less well informed than people who didn't follow the news at all. The situation will likely get worse, since revenues are low, eyes are fickle, advertisers demand eyeballs, and click-baiting requires sensationalist garbage. It would help the journalists' case, too, if they actually broke news every now and then, and if they reported news on a same- or next-day basis when they don't.
Last week was quite illustrative of how journalists do everything wrong. A backdoor was identified on ZTE Android phones. It got posted on Pastebin, picked up on Reddit the same day, by ZDNet shortly after. (ZDNet presumably reads Reddit or its reader tips, contrary to the few IT sites I sent the story to; I learned about the backdoor the same day on a finance blog, of all places.) And then... nothing. The story eventually went mainstream 5 days later. Don't even get me started on the analysis part: the above-mentioned finance blog is the only place that chopped through ZTE's BS autoupdater excuse and mentioned the obvious, i.e. that having root access on your dissidents' or ennemies' phones must be convenient indeed.
In the end, I suspect the real problem is that you can get the fact reporting from all kinds of places; the only question is then how much analysis you want with the facts. Just about raw is good enough for the bulk of users, which the Internet allowed to become fickle. For these, any place goes, including raw news feeds on Yahoo or Facebook. So forget trying to make them pay. What remains are the more sophisticated readers. Most are sharp and, to put it mildly, underwhelmed by journalists. Some eventually turn to a few blogs run by sharp engineers and don't look back. So, on the one side you need to go full blast delivering garbage; on the other, you need to attract the best columnists, bloggers and commentators (who take their readers with them).
Take a dozen sharp minds, then place them on the same site, make part of the content exclusive. That, I think, is tomorrow's "newspaper". For everything else, there are computerized news and social networks.
Er, no. Funding FDA trials is a non-issue: public funding is there already. It funds almost all drugs from A to Y.
By the time a drug company actually take part in trials, drug R&D is at Z: the drug is demonstrably not a placebo, its side effects are identified and benign, and the only real questions are securing the FDA's approval and any IP claims (both involve arcane paperwork),
The drug companies, to defend their entitlements, would like you to believe they funded the whole thing and deserve proper compensation for taking outsized risks. But the truth is, they seldom fund anything besides the paperwork and the marketing. When they do fund drug research, it invariably is about iterating on an existing drug whose IP is about to enter the public domain.
And where does that $20-something valuation come from?
I'd say it's worth $0.01 because it's the next MySpace, but I'm admittedly not ashamed to say that this figure is pulled out of my arse. The fact is I've no idea, and neither do you.
Also repell patents on drugs that were funded in a material way by the public. Because nearly all drugs are funded by the public. Labs almost invariably hook into the process at the very last stage, when the gory details have been worked out already, and reap the benefits for the entire process.
Best I can recollect, HTML5 is not standard yet. Or did I miss a boat at some point?
If anything, implementing or supporting HTML5 is militantism. Doing can arguably lead to de facto standards (see Apple with h.264), but that doesn't necessarily make it right.
Oh please, be honest with yourself and others. A "way too expensive for [your] limited budget" DVD sets cost under 30 euros at leading electronics stores in France. You also have a DVD player on your computer, unless a MacBook Air somehow managed to fit into your limited budget. The truth is that you like to hang out with script kiddies on IRC -- you'd pay nothing no matter what.
Also, call me dumbfounded that script kiddies still use.rar files in 2012... The.rar file format became popular in the 1990s because its archives were split on 3.5" floppy disks sized chunks. Insofar as I'm aware, that was it's only use. Irrespective, it evidently survived the CD-burner, the DVD-burner, and peer-to-peer networks. That's a quite the resistant dinosaur.
I wonder how much this idiotic douchebag would complain if someone said, "'I want to reduce drug use, and sending all users to prison doesn't do that.' He'd praise them for their insightfulness, even though they have no evidence to back it up.
Actually, there is plenty of evidence supporting that:
1. Criminalizing drug use and drug distribution costs trillions to the tax payers, to no effect.
2. Legalizing drugs, all of them, no exceptions, generates new tax revenues (which is why prohibition was repelled, btw) in addition to removing the costs related to 1).
3. It also decreases the healthcare costs by keeping the drug quality in check and maintaining specialized structures (see Switzerland or Portugal: if you must, do it; but preferrably here, with a clean needle and a doctor on hand).
4. Criminals deprived of their revenue fizzle out (as happened when the prohibition was repelled), further extending the benefits in 1).
5. Educating and informing drug/booze/tobacco users does work, as seen for tobacco and alcohol, and this comes at no additional charge given the prior points. In fact, the tax revenue alone handily pays for boosting information and education campaigns.
Gee, how did not anyone think about there being relation between different body parts when cancer spreads??
Well yeah, that's how science research works. The bloody obvious must be consensually established before it gets considered a valid work hypothesis or argument. And once a consensus takes hold on the wrong conclusion, it takes an impressive amount of contrarian data to shift opinions.
Maybe the 80s cyberpunk authors weren't so off the mark, between the economic recession (depression?) and this kind of medical/cybernetic development...
Why so? The past 15 years offer plenty of examples of businesses being built on top of copyleft, artists distributing their music on the Internet, etc. As for science, most researchers would rather see their work more widely available, not less.
Slashdot Mirror
[http://www.digitimes.com] [paywall, sorry]
Wait... People actually pay to read the BS Apple rumors that digitimes is constantly reporting?
Can't speak for the AC you're replying to, but indeed, I don't care. Because I neither watch nor click that Ad, and I'd rather the web page load faster without it.
Err...
1. Session cookies are key in allowing Google to track and store more data than it should.
2. In France at least, the EC expressed concerns about the French government storing too much, not too little. So, not sure where you get the idea of the EU promoting police states.
3. Historically, the EU has always progressed in times of crisis. The US got federalism more or less right two centuries ago. We'll get it more or less right soon enough.
4. Unless the Euro breaks up (which I think is unlikely), rebalancing will likely occur through fiscal union, pan-EU projects (à la Ariane or Airbus), and increased (some already exist) subsidies from more competitive regions to less competitive ones.
5. Actually, Iceland recently made news because it was at the EU's door, almost begging to enter, and rather eager to adopt the Euro. The part they got right, which neither you nor we did, is to lock up their bankers in jail after clawing their wages back. (And I'm confident we'll get it right too, eventually.)
TFA also forgets an equally important links to prior security material released by Apple, which discusses the technical details and architecture contrary to what TFA suggests.
The oddest part, to me, is that they kind of admit to the same issues in TFA:
Our map-makers are real experts, many having over 20 years' experience in the field. And we harness the local knowledge of our 60 million satnav customers, who can make corrections through TomTom Map Share.
Surely a disgruntled employee can be do a better job at keeping disgruntled users in check, than a community of volunteers...
[citation needed]
The truth is simple: people won't pay for trash.
Trouble is, the content today invariably sucks, and there invariably is a better source, free, somewhere. Newspapers are toast.
For starters, you've tweeters, bloggers and social networks. Nevermind Joes and Janes posting cat videos. I mean citizen journalists who tweet, blog, connect and react through Facebook on local events, etc. who provide grassroot coverage. Muslim revolutions would never have occurred where it not for them. And we'd barely know what's going on in Syria if not for them.
Next, you've aggregator sites like Google News, Facebook in some ways, Slashdot, Reddit, Twitter trends, buzz monitors of all sorts, the list is innumerable. These must stay free to retain eyeballs, and attract eyeballs they do.
One might want to argue at this point that the journalist adds value over the latter channels, in the form of story background, fact checking, and good analysis. If anyone needs convincing that the contrary is more often true, consider reading a few pieces by the Macalope. Or think about this study from last year, that showed that people who regularly followed Fox News tended to be less well informed than people who didn't follow the news at all. The situation will likely get worse, since revenues are low, eyes are fickle, advertisers demand eyeballs, and click-baiting requires sensationalist garbage. It would help the journalists' case, too, if they actually broke news every now and then, and if they reported news on a same- or next-day basis when they don't.
Last week was quite illustrative of how journalists do everything wrong. A backdoor was identified on ZTE Android phones. It got posted on Pastebin, picked up on Reddit the same day, by ZDNet shortly after. (ZDNet presumably reads Reddit or its reader tips, contrary to the few IT sites I sent the story to; I learned about the backdoor the same day on a finance blog, of all places.) And then... nothing. The story eventually went mainstream 5 days later. Don't even get me started on the analysis part: the above-mentioned finance blog is the only place that chopped through ZTE's BS autoupdater excuse and mentioned the obvious, i.e. that having root access on your dissidents' or ennemies' phones must be convenient indeed.
In the end, I suspect the real problem is that you can get the fact reporting from all kinds of places; the only question is then how much analysis you want with the facts. Just about raw is good enough for the bulk of users, which the Internet allowed to become fickle. For these, any place goes, including raw news feeds on Yahoo or Facebook. So forget trying to make them pay. What remains are the more sophisticated readers. Most are sharp and, to put it mildly, underwhelmed by journalists. Some eventually turn to a few blogs run by sharp engineers and don't look back. So, on the one side you need to go full blast delivering garbage; on the other, you need to attract the best columnists, bloggers and commentators (who take their readers with them).
Take a dozen sharp minds, then place them on the same site, make part of the content exclusive. That, I think, is tomorrow's "newspaper". For everything else, there are computerized news and social networks.
I can already picture hackers drooling at the idea of turning Google's cloud into the ultimate zombie network.
Er, no. Funding FDA trials is a non-issue: public funding is there already. It funds almost all drugs from A to Y.
By the time a drug company actually take part in trials, drug R&D is at Z: the drug is demonstrably not a placebo, its side effects are identified and benign, and the only real questions are securing the FDA's approval and any IP claims (both involve arcane paperwork),
The drug companies, to defend their entitlements, would like you to believe they funded the whole thing and deserve proper compensation for taking outsized risks. But the truth is, they seldom fund anything besides the paperwork and the marketing. When they do fund drug research, it invariably is about iterating on an existing drug whose IP is about to enter the public domain.
And where does that $20-something valuation come from?
I'd say it's worth $0.01 because it's the next MySpace, but I'm admittedly not ashamed to say that this figure is pulled out of my arse. The fact is I've no idea, and neither do you.
Worked out well for those who invested Japanese in the late 1980s... Or not...
The stock market doesn't go up, up, up. After 1929, it took over two decades to reach a new inflation adjusted high.
Also repell patents on drugs that were funded in a material way by the public. Because nearly all drugs are funded by the public. Labs almost invariably hook into the process at the very last stage, when the gory details have been worked out already, and reap the benefits for the entire process.
Best I can recollect, HTML5 is not standard yet. Or did I miss a boat at some point?
If anything, implementing or supporting HTML5 is militantism. Doing can arguably lead to de facto standards (see Apple with h.264), but that doesn't necessarily make it right.
Oh please, be honest with yourself and others. A "way too expensive for [your] limited budget" DVD sets cost under 30 euros at leading electronics stores in France. You also have a DVD player on your computer, unless a MacBook Air somehow managed to fit into your limited budget. The truth is that you like to hang out with script kiddies on IRC -- you'd pay nothing no matter what.
Also, call me dumbfounded that script kiddies still use .rar files in 2012... The .rar file format became popular in the 1990s because its archives were split on 3.5" floppy disks sized chunks. Insofar as I'm aware, that was it's only use. Irrespective, it evidently survived the CD-burner, the DVD-burner, and peer-to-peer networks. That's a quite the resistant dinosaur.
At this rate, people will soon go buy MacBook Airs at Apple stores because they're cheaper than their Windows counterparts.
Meh, that would only be one in a very very long list:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies
I wonder how much this idiotic douchebag would complain if someone said, "'I want to reduce drug use, and sending all users to prison doesn't do that.' He'd praise them for their insightfulness, even though they have no evidence to back it up.
Actually, there is plenty of evidence supporting that:
1. Criminalizing drug use and drug distribution costs trillions to the tax payers, to no effect.
2. Legalizing drugs, all of them, no exceptions, generates new tax revenues (which is why prohibition was repelled, btw) in addition to removing the costs related to 1).
3. It also decreases the healthcare costs by keeping the drug quality in check and maintaining specialized structures (see Switzerland or Portugal: if you must, do it; but preferrably here, with a clean needle and a doctor on hand).
4. Criminals deprived of their revenue fizzle out (as happened when the prohibition was repelled), further extending the benefits in 1).
5. Educating and informing drug/booze/tobacco users does work, as seen for tobacco and alcohol, and this comes at no additional charge given the prior points. In fact, the tax revenue alone handily pays for boosting information and education campaigns.
Anyway, your point was?
Picture they using this to iterate through a chaotic system's evolution, e.g. a climate model.
http://www.imho.com/grae/chaos/chaos.html
Gee, how did not anyone think about there being relation between different body parts when cancer spreads??
Well yeah, that's how science research works. The bloody obvious must be consensually established before it gets considered a valid work hypothesis or argument. And once a consensus takes hold on the wrong conclusion, it takes an impressive amount of contrarian data to shift opinions.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiable#Kuhn_and_Lakatos
Several client businesses of mine have stated a zero tolerance for slacking off unless it's on your lunch break time.
Might one of them be named Foxconn? Because that sounds just like them.
Maybe the 80s cyberpunk authors weren't so off the mark, between the economic recession (depression?) and this kind of medical/cybernetic development...
Why so? The past 15 years offer plenty of examples of businesses being built on top of copyleft, artists distributing their music on the Internet, etc. As for science, most researchers would rather see their work more widely available, not less.
As would patent trolls...
But one could argue good riddance in both cases.
Trademarks are different/not limited in time in the same manner as copyright and patents, so the last point is irrelevant.
You forgot the most important part of that quote: citation needed.