the article I believe was talking about an inherent design flaw that when a certain set of data were inputted, the chip did random things(namely, possibly calling for massive decompression of the cabin). If there is an inherent design flaw, the same set of conditions on any chip should cause the same outcome on all of them(unless it is truly random, at which point it is russian roulet).
but that is very different from paid-for content. You don't pay for the patches that you are downloading. So bandwidth is a way of 'paying' for the content(or ease of accessibility). Now the question is, if you were paying 50 dollars for a game, would you give up much of your bandwidth? woudl the game still be worth 50 dollars if the real price included a good chunk of your upload stream?
except, self service gas stations and self checkout lanes both have major perks for me as a user. the self service check out lines give me an option of getting through the line much faster when I only have 1 or 2 items, a major improvement.
Self service gas stations have always been cheaper than full service and most of the time I don't require the full service. Frankly, I"ll take the discount.
on the other hand, I get nothing out of giving away my upload bandwidth. I don't necesarilly get faster transfers so unless it all comes to me cheaper, I'm not buying it as a distribution method.
as a major counterpoint that has been given on this site before, why in the world would I offer up for free my bandwidth to help a company have better distribution. I had better get a very hefty discount on the price of the product. furthermore, if I give a load of bandwidth, i would expect a much larger discount than someone else. It is only a great delivery method because you have millions of people right now giving away their bandwidth for free. but this could very well change as soon as the person is paying for the content.
While bit torrent has these capabilities with just some slight extensions, it still is a very tenuous business model that is not nearly as straight forward as you seem to think.
Britney Spears is a really really weak argument as she has sold more albums than most pop stars ever. while I hate her music, the public has voted her as the favorite. Just because a single person doesn't like it doesn't mean it isn't generally popular.
With the sheer number of movies we have had in the last 5 years that have broken the 250 million dollar mark(its ridiculous, just looking at comic book movies there are at least 4), movies are still pretty damn popular. The problem is, you can really say how much piracy is costing you. It really comes down to this major question, would the person who downloaded it, watched it, nad decided not to see it in the theaters have gone to see it if he didn't have the download available? And when you look at blockbusters, they are probably not going to be majorly effected(though one could argue it lost several repeat customers to extremely high quality pirated versions).
The real problem comes with a lot of the B and C movies. If someone can check it out online and then it isn't the blockbuster that will make them want to see it in the movie theater, there is a better chance that was a lost sale.
Then, there are those sleeper movies where the download gets them to go see it(while I have never met someone who has done this, I can't deny there is a possibility of it happening) which could on its own inspire a great deal more money spent than just a movie ticket. So it stays as an almost impossibly complex system to analyze because no one who pirates at all has any reason to give a truthful answer.
You can bet, though, that the movie studios would rather give up that benefit to not have to deal with that loss, and that is their perogative as the person who holds the copyright.
nobody knows it because we didn't do both, we coudln't have. its all a big if. There isn't any concrete evidence either way. Historians have argued this point and there is no consensus in the academic community.
Of course, school children also beleve that the pilgrims on the mayflower all came over for religious freedom(not true, money was a major factor), columbus returned after his first voyage and no one appreciated the discovery(they very much did, He was immediately equipted for a second, much larger voyage to procure land and slaves) and don't know that President Wilson was a disgusting white supremist(commenting about Birth of a Nation, he said "It is like writing history with lightning, and my only regret is that it is all so true").
So I would be highly suspect of what school children "know", most of it is either a blatant lie, or an over-simplification to make them feel better about all of the United State's actions abroad.
everything but the main search engine is beta at google. It is probably some wierd internal company idea that since you can't perfect software, it should never leave beta. If google is going to say that all its services are beta, it is equivalent to saying none of them are.
Is it really so hard to just say google can't make a web based email service that is perfect for everyone. Or even worse, they left out what is usually considered a basic email service. It happens. They probably weren't trying to make an email service that was like every other service out there.
I never said this guy was truly embracing the open market. well, looking over what I said, I might have. But that isn't what I meant. what I should have said is that his comments have a vein of truth in them and it makes sense from a purely economic stand point. Most people, though, don't embrace economics when it looks like it might effect them negatively.
on a completely unrelated note, best sig I have seen in a while.
From his point of view, he is entitled to better sales because his company's work is part of what makes the Ipod popular. He is really arguing that the Ipod wouldn't be successful if it wasn't for the music that people could put on it(obvious, I know, but stick with me). He is also arguing that the Itunes music store is not pulling in as much money as it could if it let some prices rise and others fall to the market optimizing point. Right now, he probably feels like the music industry is not maximizing on its profits and Apple is using this to its advantage so it can sell more Ipods(namely, by giving false discounts on popular music at the Itunes music store).
It makes a great deal of sense. I have to agree. I see no reason for the music industry to do less than optimally just so the Ipod can sell better. Of course, thinking this way does leave out the fact that very few people buy a 40 GB ipod with the purpose of filling it with legal music(most people would have a hard time filling it with illegal music, frankly).
not really, what I mean to say is be reasonable in what you have it scan. when I download trusted items, it gives me the option of not scanning it, and that is what I do. When MS or redhat or OO.org's download sources become infected, well, I'm screwed. But it doesn't take long if I am downloading a movie for it to tell me if there is a problem so I let those run.
while I use firefox because I find it much better, its automatic updates are really terrible(it isn't obvious when a major update is needed)
and not having activex is not a security improvement. Its leaving out a feature that is hard to secure. So really lynx is the way to go if that is what you call security.
Firefox is only better if you don't use lots of activex(and a few other things regularly). Else something else is better.
I use Norton AV and it works fine, I never have a real slowdown. I just have the settings so that it doesn't try to scan every single file that comes in(I quake in fear as to how long it would have taken to scan through all of OO.org 1.9 release).
I just run the AV scan once a week while I sleep at night and check the log in the morning. Oh, and keeping the computer up to date helps.
so what is the slow down you are talking about? maybe when you instal all like 19 of the programs symantec offers?
of course not, that has to do with adding features. if 1.0 is expected to open 9.0, you don't have that much of an improvement. at somepoint you have to let the older versions go.
yep, and they get that much richer because they are that much more valuable in producing real things than the other people. The essense of capitalism is a system that really does weed out the best people.
so..... you're complaining about capitalism as a theory now. That is capitalism at its core(under the assumptions of not perfect information, where people's perception is what is important). If they actually take your idea, we have patent and copyright protection to fend that off(unless you don't like those, at which point that is no longer a valid complaint).
in lots of songs, the singer still holds the copyright. It is the singers who are having the RIAA proxy for them(which is all part of being part of the big 4, included in the protection). A singer still has the right to deny the RIAA the right to sue based on infringement at any given time.
But in many cases of today's pop music, the RIAA holds the copyright. But remember, the song isn't usually written by the singer in that genre so its not terribly surprising.
obviously, you've never seen the boys on wall street get there hands on excel. When they are using shortcuts to four keys, they are pretty much hitting most of what excel can do.
For 99% of people, excel is a sledgehammer. For about 0.9%, its perfect. For the other 0.1%(academia) its a joke(use mainly SAS, and now STATA).
Lots of OSS stuff is amazing. I'm a huge fan of a lot of small projects(especially those that assist in learning japanese). But you are also taking two very diametrically opposed examples. Comparing the base kernel is a very tightly controlled project to programs that need those little features that someone might use. If open office never gets those features, it will be hard pressed to really beat MS office(though it can easilly become the lowend of office software). But comparing the windows kernel and the linux kernel, the one that is most stable and safe and fast will usually win.
the idea is the RIAA has never actually taken someone to court(well, not forlong anyhows). paying the 3500 or so is there idea of saying, "ok, I won't take you to court" so what they do is avoid going to court to win(most of the cases are obvious wins) and pay there lawers many tens of thousands to get 5000 dollars from some debt laden family.
The RIAA doesn't want to go to court, its not profitable. this isn't exactly minting money but they are probably doing just enough cases to come close to breaking even(3500*10000= 35 million dollars, and that is if they have only finished 2/3, which is probably an underestimate). So as long as they can keep breaking even, they can be an endless presense that every now and then gets to shutdown something like suprenova(a big victory).
I would bet that is all the executives are looking for. But of course, I'm not one of them, so I don't know. You can go to civil court to fight them, but then you could be up for millions in damages(instances of copyright infringement can carry up to a 250,000 dollar fine, just watch the beginning of an old VHS tape). So you might be hard pressed to be told 7000 is a lot.
you can counter sue for invasion of privacy and for filing a suit without grounds and if you win, they may have to pay for your legal expenses. Loser pays is amazingly affective.
yeah, but nintendo I think has done the best at programming games that actually scale with skill. If I go play the original Halo(not an X box owner, but have played before) I get slaughtered. Its not intuitive how to do a lot of the stuff you do in the game.
now take something like the mario games or the zelda games, almost always all the controls a personal can instantly learn(so it appeals to people who don't want to spend 20 hours practicing to be decently competitive) but it can scale amazingly well. Yes, you can beat a person doing boring old stuff, but if you want, you can get as creative as you want and probably still do it.
I find most nintendo titles don't have everyone beating something the same way. but that is my opinion.
anyways, I believe when they are talking about the mainstream, they are talking about the vast majority of people that don't play games that you might be able to suck in to a "here is something I can have 20 minutes of fun with and move on" mindset. there are a lot of those people. When I was a kid, I played a lot. As an adult, I feel I have better things to do with my time(personal choice) so I would love to have games that are easily accessible for me. Its why I will never buy an x box, and the only games I would buy a PS2 for are the old nintendo titles(final fantasy, etc).
as you probably also then know, there are a hell of a lot more variables when shooting a real gun and using a mouse.
ever played the arcade games where you have a hand gun? Standing damn near full distance from the screen(that the cord permits) I can hit about any target , moving or not. There are a great deal fewer things to worry about when you are playing a game. even the slightest movement or lack of steadiness can be shown while shooting a real gun. These are the things that they program to not respond to because they are slight.
a simple example would be breathing. any professional sniper does not breathe while he is firing because it adds one more variable to compensate for. Games never have this type of compensation(or wind for that matter, which is huge).
I"m not trying to be scathing or anything, but I think you are comparing two things that can't ever be compared. Firing a real gun is worlds apart from any game or mouse and will still be worlds apart from this.
doubtfully, exploits aren't just from original code. Every time someone tries to add something new to Firefox, there is the real possibility of an exploit.
Just because an app has been around doesn't mean they could have fixed all the errors. Maybe in that original bit of ocde that still exists, it is error free. It will still take a lot of time to find the exploits that are caused my new insecure code and those problems will always be around.
not the poster, but he could easily be referring to the loads of people who still wont' leave their homes even now when the national guard will provide free transportation.
if I'm hauling ass? probably 50 miles a day. That gives me 5 hours on the storm inland which means it would be significantly weaker. Anyways, the danger is not the storm or the wind. It is the storm surge. So just being 30 miles inland is an amazing improvement, with or without shelter. Remember, all these problems were caused by massive flooding of the city, not wind damage.
The people who rode it out are just like people I know down here in florida who ride it out. Frankly, they have most likely been through much worse(at least it seems so, a lot of these people went through andrew) so they should be able to take this. Hell, I've been through so many now I might not have left(though I"m not familiar with New Orleans, there are places in Florida where I wouldn't stay and others I would).
Frankly, staying in the city so close to the shore was just a dumb idea in hindsight. But if the leevees hadn't broken, most everyone would have been fine. I think people are creditting the story for more damage that it caused on its own, bad construction played a role as well.
Slashdot Mirror
the article I believe was talking about an inherent design flaw that when a certain set of data were inputted, the chip did random things(namely, possibly calling for massive decompression of the cabin). If there is an inherent design flaw, the same set of conditions on any chip should cause the same outcome on all of them(unless it is truly random, at which point it is russian roulet).
but that is very different from paid-for content. You don't pay for the patches that you are downloading. So bandwidth is a way of 'paying' for the content(or ease of accessibility). Now the question is, if you were paying 50 dollars for a game, would you give up much of your bandwidth? woudl the game still be worth 50 dollars if the real price included a good chunk of your upload stream?
except, self service gas stations and self checkout lanes both have major perks for me as a user. the self service check out lines give me an option of getting through the line much faster when I only have 1 or 2 items, a major improvement.
Self service gas stations have always been cheaper than full service and most of the time I don't require the full service. Frankly, I"ll take the discount.
on the other hand, I get nothing out of giving away my upload bandwidth. I don't necesarilly get faster transfers so unless it all comes to me cheaper, I'm not buying it as a distribution method.
as a major counterpoint that has been given on this site before,
why in the world would I offer up for free my bandwidth to help a company have better distribution. I had better get a very hefty discount on the price of the product. furthermore, if I give a load of bandwidth, i would expect a much larger discount than someone else. It is only a great delivery method because you have millions of people right now giving away their bandwidth for free. but this could very well change as soon as the person is paying for the content.
While bit torrent has these capabilities with just some slight extensions, it still is a very tenuous business model that is not nearly as straight forward as you seem to think.
Britney Spears is a really really weak argument as she has sold more albums than most pop stars ever. while I hate her music, the public has voted her as the favorite. Just because a single person doesn't like it doesn't mean it isn't generally popular.
With the sheer number of movies we have had in the last 5 years that have broken the 250 million dollar mark(its ridiculous, just looking at comic book movies there are at least 4), movies are still pretty damn popular. The problem is, you can really say how much piracy is costing you. It really comes down to this major question, would the person who downloaded it, watched it, nad decided not to see it in the theaters have gone to see it if he didn't have the download available? And when you look at blockbusters, they are probably not going to be majorly effected(though one could argue it lost several repeat customers to extremely high quality pirated versions).
The real problem comes with a lot of the B and C movies. If someone can check it out online and then it isn't the blockbuster that will make them want to see it in the movie theater, there is a better chance that was a lost sale.
Then, there are those sleeper movies where the download gets them to go see it(while I have never met someone who has done this, I can't deny there is a possibility of it happening) which could on its own inspire a great deal more money spent than just a movie ticket. So it stays as an almost impossibly complex system to analyze because no one who pirates at all has any reason to give a truthful answer.
You can bet, though, that the movie studios would rather give up that benefit to not have to deal with that loss, and that is their perogative as the person who holds the copyright.
are you sure that wasn't quickly followed by the second coming or the apocolypse??? ;-)
nobody knows it because we didn't do both, we coudln't have. its all a big if. There isn't any concrete evidence either way. Historians have argued this point and there is no consensus in the academic community.
Of course, school children also beleve that the pilgrims on the mayflower all came over for religious freedom(not true, money was a major factor), columbus returned after his first voyage and no one appreciated the discovery(they very much did, He was immediately equipted for a second, much larger voyage to procure land and slaves) and don't know that President Wilson was a disgusting white supremist(commenting about Birth of a Nation, he said "It is like writing history with lightning, and my only regret is that it is all so true").
So I would be highly suspect of what school children "know", most of it is either a blatant lie, or an over-simplification to make them feel better about all of the United State's actions abroad.
everything but the main search engine is beta at google. It is probably some wierd internal company idea that since you can't perfect software, it should never leave beta. If google is going to say that all its services are beta, it is equivalent to saying none of them are.
Is it really so hard to just say google can't make a web based email service that is perfect for everyone. Or even worse, they left out what is usually considered a basic email service. It happens. They probably weren't trying to make an email service that was like every other service out there.
I never said this guy was truly embracing the open market. well, looking over what I said, I might have. But that isn't what I meant. what I should have said is that his comments have a vein of truth in them and it makes sense from a purely economic stand point. Most people, though, don't embrace economics when it looks like it might effect them negatively.
on a completely unrelated note, best sig I have seen in a while.
From his point of view, he is entitled to better sales because his company's work is part of what makes the Ipod popular. He is really arguing that the Ipod wouldn't be successful if it wasn't for the music that people could put on it(obvious, I know, but stick with me). He is also arguing that the Itunes music store is not pulling in as much money as it could if it let some prices rise and others fall to the market optimizing point. Right now, he probably feels like the music industry is not maximizing on its profits and Apple is using this to its advantage so it can sell more Ipods(namely, by giving false discounts on popular music at the Itunes music store).
It makes a great deal of sense. I have to agree. I see no reason for the music industry to do less than optimally just so the Ipod can sell better. Of course, thinking this way does leave out the fact that very few people buy a 40 GB ipod with the purpose of filling it with legal music(most people would have a hard time filling it with illegal music, frankly).
I think what you want is to learn to use LateX. if you want stuff that is powerful like that, there is no substitute for your own personal design.
not really, what I mean to say is be reasonable in what you have it scan. when I download trusted items, it gives me the option of not scanning it, and that is what I do. When MS or redhat or OO.org's download sources become infected, well, I'm screwed. But it doesn't take long if I am downloading a movie for it to tell me if there is a problem so I let those run.
This isn't turning it off, its calculated risk.
while I use firefox because I find it much better, its automatic updates are really terrible(it isn't obvious when a major update is needed)
and not having activex is not a security improvement. Its leaving out a feature that is hard to secure. So really lynx is the way to go if that is what you call security.
Firefox is only better if you don't use lots of activex(and a few other things regularly). Else something else is better.
I use Norton AV and it works fine, I never have a real slowdown. I just have the settings so that it doesn't try to scan every single file that comes in(I quake in fear as to how long it would have taken to scan through all of OO.org 1.9 release).
I just run the AV scan once a week while I sleep at night and check the log in the morning. Oh, and keeping the computer up to date helps.
so what is the slow down you are talking about? maybe when you instal all like 19 of the programs symantec offers?
of course not, that has to do with adding features. if 1.0 is expected to open 9.0, you don't have that much of an improvement. at somepoint you have to let the older versions go.
yep, and they get that much richer because they are that much more valuable in producing real things than the other people. The essense of capitalism is a system that really does weed out the best people.
so..... you're complaining about capitalism as a theory now. That is capitalism at its core(under the assumptions of not perfect information, where people's perception is what is important). If they actually take your idea, we have patent and copyright protection to fend that off(unless you don't like those, at which point that is no longer a valid complaint).
in lots of songs, the singer still holds the copyright. It is the singers who are having the RIAA proxy for them(which is all part of being part of the big 4, included in the protection). A singer still has the right to deny the RIAA the right to sue based on infringement at any given time.
But in many cases of today's pop music, the RIAA holds the copyright. But remember, the song isn't usually written by the singer in that genre so its not terribly surprising.
"Look at all the useless features in Excel"
obviously, you've never seen the boys on wall street get there hands on excel. When they are using shortcuts to four keys, they are pretty much hitting most of what excel can do.
For 99% of people, excel is a sledgehammer. For about 0.9%, its perfect. For the other 0.1%(academia) its a joke(use mainly SAS, and now STATA).
Lots of OSS stuff is amazing. I'm a huge fan of a lot of small projects(especially those that assist in learning japanese). But you are also taking two very diametrically opposed examples. Comparing the base kernel is a very tightly controlled project to programs that need those little features that someone might use. If open office never gets those features, it will be hard pressed to really beat MS office(though it can easilly become the lowend of office software). But comparing the windows kernel and the linux kernel, the one that is most stable and safe and fast will usually win.
the idea is the RIAA has never actually taken someone to court(well, not forlong anyhows). paying the 3500 or so is there idea of saying, "ok, I won't take you to court" so what they do is avoid going to court to win(most of the cases are obvious wins) and pay there lawers many tens of thousands to get 5000 dollars from some debt laden family.
The RIAA doesn't want to go to court, its not profitable. this isn't exactly minting money but they are probably doing just enough cases to come close to breaking even(3500*10000= 35 million dollars, and that is if they have only finished 2/3, which is probably an underestimate). So as long as they can keep breaking even, they can be an endless presense that every now and then gets to shutdown something like suprenova(a big victory).
I would bet that is all the executives are looking for. But of course, I'm not one of them, so I don't know. You can go to civil court to fight them, but then you could be up for millions in damages(instances of copyright infringement can carry up to a 250,000 dollar fine, just watch the beginning of an old VHS tape). So you might be hard pressed to be told 7000 is a lot.
you can counter sue for invasion of privacy and for filing a suit without grounds and if you win, they may have to pay for your legal expenses. Loser pays is amazingly affective.
yeah, but nintendo I think has done the best at programming games that actually scale with skill. If I go play the original Halo(not an X box owner, but have played before) I get slaughtered. Its not intuitive how to do a lot of the stuff you do in the game.
now take something like the mario games or the zelda games, almost always all the controls a personal can instantly learn(so it appeals to people who don't want to spend 20 hours practicing to be decently competitive) but it can scale amazingly well. Yes, you can beat a person doing boring old stuff, but if you want, you can get as creative as you want and probably still do it.
I find most nintendo titles don't have everyone beating something the same way. but that is my opinion.
anyways, I believe when they are talking about the mainstream, they are talking about the vast majority of people that don't play games that you might be able to suck in to a "here is something I can have 20 minutes of fun with and move on" mindset. there are a lot of those people. When I was a kid, I played a lot. As an adult, I feel I have better things to do with my time(personal choice) so I would love to have games that are easily accessible for me. Its why I will never buy an x box, and the only games I would buy a PS2 for are the old nintendo titles(final fantasy, etc).
as you probably also then know, there are a hell of a lot more variables when shooting a real gun and using a mouse.
ever played the arcade games where you have a hand gun? Standing damn near full distance from the screen(that the cord permits) I can hit about any target , moving or not. There are a great deal fewer things to worry about when you are playing a game. even the slightest movement or lack of steadiness can be shown while shooting a real gun. These are the things that they program to not respond to because they are slight.
a simple example would be breathing. any professional sniper does not breathe while he is firing because it adds one more variable to compensate for. Games never have this type of compensation(or wind for that matter, which is huge).
I"m not trying to be scathing or anything, but I think you are comparing two things that can't ever be compared. Firing a real gun is worlds apart from any game or mouse and will still be worlds apart from this.
doubtfully,
exploits aren't just from original code. Every time someone tries to add something new to Firefox, there is the real possibility of an exploit.
Just because an app has been around doesn't mean they could have fixed all the errors. Maybe in that original bit of ocde that still exists, it is error free. It will still take a lot of time to find the exploits that are caused my new insecure code and those problems will always be around.
not the poster, but he could easily be referring to the loads of people who still wont' leave their homes even now when the national guard will provide free transportation.
it could go both ways, is all I"m saying.
if I'm hauling ass? probably 50 miles a day. That gives me 5 hours on the storm inland which means it would be significantly weaker. Anyways, the danger is not the storm or the wind. It is the storm surge. So just being 30 miles inland is an amazing improvement, with or without shelter. Remember, all these problems were caused by massive flooding of the city, not wind damage.
The people who rode it out are just like people I know down here in florida who ride it out. Frankly, they have most likely been through much worse(at least it seems so, a lot of these people went through andrew) so they should be able to take this. Hell, I've been through so many now I might not have left(though I"m not familiar with New Orleans, there are places in Florida where I wouldn't stay and others I would).
Frankly, staying in the city so close to the shore was just a dumb idea in hindsight. But if the leevees hadn't broken, most everyone would have been fine. I think people are creditting the story for more damage that it caused on its own, bad construction played a role as well.