plan is called internet-avgift, internet-fee in English.
I think this is the root cause of the pirate bay's entire problem with the local MAFIAA.
Apparently the word "avgift" translates as "fee." So, the MAFIAA saw that the pirate bay was facilitating the gifting of all kinds of audio-visual material, they thought the pirate bay was raking in the fees and so the MAFIAA wanted their cut.
Has anyone explained to the MAFIAA that none of the users gave the pirate bay any fees?
I know what Apple thinks. But Apple is wrong in this case. No harm in Apple trying though
You are apparently unfamiliar with the concept of barratry. There is plenty of harm in Apple trying. In fact, due to the huge amount of resources they can bring to bear, there is plenty of harm in them even saying they might try.
Whatever happened to those two girls charged with distribution of child porn for taking pictures of themselves and sending them to their boyfriends? This reminds me of that.
The fact that the NSA was willing to participate at all strongly suggests to me that the NSA was just playing games, and was not in fact utilizing anywhere near their full capabilities in this exercise. Which says something pretty impressive about the NSA.
That's circular reasoning. You are impressed by the NSA because they are so awesome they wouldn't normally play these reindeer games.
The RIAA won't stop working with Apple if they allow BitTorrent apps on the iPhone, but you can bet that they will give Apple a much harder time of it, costing Apple lots of money just to deal with it.
The MAFIAA are known for being ruthless. I doubt that what Apple does here is going to make any substantial difference in their negotiations with the MAFIAA. Sure, the MAFIAA might use something like this as a bargaining stick, but if not this, its going to be something else anyway. The MAFIAA ain't going to leave any money -- or control -- on the table that they don't absolutely have to.
A good sense of humor includes the ability to detect humor even when you don't think it's funny. You not only didn't understand the pleasure received from the irony of the situation described, you read far more intent into it than was written. Of course I knew throwing the papers back wouldn't make them stop - but nothing I could do, short of fire-bombing the place, was going to make them stop either. So I took what I could get.
Let's get this straight - you think a "little brother" of disorganized and chaotic individuals with hand-held cameras is somehow proof that well-funded, state-controlled camera systems connected to ever more featureful databases aren't likely to be used for nefarious purposes? You really believe that power purifies? That there is no such thing as feature-creep? That no one within the upper ranks of law enforcement has ever thought that making their job easier was more important than the privacy and civil rights of the people? That the path to hell is NOT paved with good intentions?
What a perfect world you live in.
Re:There aren't "millions" of CCTV cameras.
on
The Road to Big Brother
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
CCTV cameras are not solely the domain of the government. The term CCTV is just an acronym for Closed-Circuit Television - i.e. practically any connected set of cameras and recording devices. Practically every store will have at least one, any store larger than the average cornershop is going to have many of them. Include ALL of those and I'm sure there are millions of CCTV cameras in the UK.
My first response was to throw them back in the street, but then my neighbor complained, and was not able to understand my argument that I wasn't the one responsible for the garbage.
Shoulda thrown them on his lawn since he clearly has no problem with it, he surely would enjoy two copies twice as much as one!
(If you never told them who you were, I don't see why you would ever expect that they would know where your house was, or even be able to stop delivering papers to that crank who brings the paper back on Mondays)
Gee, what a pronounced lack of humor you have there.
Re:Free needs to be combined with demand
on
The "Dangers" of Free
·
· Score: 2, Funny
My brother didn't want one of them, and he fought bitterly with the provider to stop "littering" his door with them. If you go away for a couple of weeks, the piled up papers become a neon sign saying "No One Is Home"... Try as he might, he could not get the door delivered paper to stop showing up.
For a while, my daily commute took me right past the offices of one such "free" newspaper. It only took about 30 extra seconds to swing through their parking lot and toss the copy of the paper they had left for me onto the sidewalk in front of their office's front door. It never stopped them from littering on my property but it felt good every time I did it.
I thought a little bit about this when Sun Microsystems started talking about how it could monetize JRE downloads by offering the installer as a marketing channel to advertisers.
It may be moot now, but that's not what Sun was talking about. Or at least that's not what Schwartz said in his blog. He was talking about monetizing their free stuff in a lot more useful way to the customer - not force-feeding things down their throats. For example, an online print bureau could pay to have access built into OpenOffice so that they would be a standard option on the Print dialog. Or an online storage provider could pay to be built into the Save and Open dialogs.
Your only constraint is that if you redistribute, you must pay the licensing fee to the original team.
Your proposal has gots lots of problems
1) It is just another variant on creating artificial scarcity of a non-scarce resource. Trying to restrict distribution is like trying to prevent people from talking to each other.
2) Few people are going to contribute casually to any such project due to the restrictions on redistribution and the almost certain unfairness in distribution of funding. For example: who should get paid more - the average coder who churns out hundreds of lines of code and spends hours each day doing it, or the smart guy who frequently does the equivalent in a few minutes and a handful of lines? Whose going to decide without a complete employee/employer relationship?
Like the article said, if you want to make money, you need to focus on controlling what is naturally controllable - scarce resources like the labor that goes into the creation of the software.
First question - are you just in it for the money or in it because you like the technology and money is secondary?
If the former, get your masters, without a love for the tech you will not be an over-achiever, at least not long-term. So a masters degree will help bolster average performance and keep your earning power up better than a regular clock-puncher without a masters.
However, if you are the later, skip the extra degree and gets your hands dirty. If you haven't done so already you need to be interning as part of your bachelors program. The most learning you will ever do is in the real world, so the more real-world experience you get under your belt the more you will be able to excel.
Incidentally, excelling at the job (and keeping your eyes open for opportunities) is the best way to make good money. It is, however, not usually an option for most clock-punchers.
And let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.
I guess that's why George Washington penned over 100 prayers in his lifetime and spent quite a bit of time corresponding with clergymen.
While I have no idea if he wrote any prayers or not, it certainly doesn't contradict that he thought religion was good for keeping people in line. Prayers just being one of many tools in such an arsenal. Similarly, as his belief was that religion was for the dummies, it certainly makes sense that he would instruct clergymen in just what to tell their flocks to keep them in line.
You are all kinds of wrong on claiming the founding fathers of the United States were "a type of atheists". 1.9% were Catholic, 1.9% were unitarian, and the balance were Protestant Christians. (http://www.adherents.com/gov/Founding_Fathers_Religion.html)
Something too glossy about the reporting on that website. For example, George Washington went to church for show, he wrote that he thought religion was only good for stupid people because the fear of hell made them behave. That's not a particularly ringing proclamation of faith.
You would be surprised at how poorly policed title transfer is. I have a good friend who bought a $50K used car from a dealer only to have the FBI impound it between the point when he paid the dealer and when the shipping company should have picked it up later that week - and the only reason the FBI impounded it was because the real owner had connections to LE, even then it took 2 months before they did. The dealer had an officially issued title, it turned out that the car was stolen through fraud (fake cashiers check). My friend had to sue the dealer to get his money back and even though he won in court the dealer declared bankruptcy so my friend was basically fucked.
Having a gun in a fight works if the fight is nearly fair. Two men with pistols each have a decent chance of winning a gunfight. We aren't talking about that here. We're talking about a civilian against soldiers, plural. Guns don't help there. Other weapons do.
If every group of soldiers suffered just one serious casualty for every group of jews or whatever group they were assigned to bring in, morale would plummet to the point of mutiny pretty quickly. Even if soldiers ended up slaughtering everyone in each group, there would still be a pretty good chance of them taking one casualty in the process.
It's very much like anti-theft measures at retailers and built into cars. The folks who put them in place know darn well that they won't stop everybody, but if they stop the bottom 80%, then it's a worthy investment.
One big difference is that few people are thieves, but it is human nature to share stuff, especially when you can give it away to people and still keep it at the same time. So while anti-theft measures only have to contend with a very small portion of the population, anti-piracy measures are up against nearly 100% of the human race. Simply scaring a few people off here and there isn't sufficient.
I think the Windows 7 Release Candidate was the only one
I'm too lazy to double-check, but I would be mightily surprised if MS had consented to unregulated 3rd party distribution of any version of windows. Just because MS lets people freely download it from their own servers, and possibly those of a handful of designated 3rd parties, doesn't mean they've given permission for just anyone to distribute it.
People have been saying for years that we're about to reach the end of the line in terms of Moore's law. So far they've all been proven wrong, and scaling continues unabated.
That means that if we're at 45nm today (Intel's 32nm chips are slated for 2009), and we're assuming size shrinks 50% every 18 months, in less than 72 months we'll have reached the practical lower limit for silicon features.
I don't know if you realize it, but you are really just confirming the OP's point -- you are just another person predicting the end of Moore's law based on the technical obstacle du jour.
Moore's law is solely about the number of transistors on a single IC for a constant cost. Feature size may appear to be a limiting factor, but that doesn't mean it will be one when we get to that point. Just like leakage for features sizes below roughly 100nm was once thought to be an insurmountable obstacle to Moore's law, and then some smart people figured out how to handle it, or how lithography processes were also considered a limiting factor below roughly 60nm -- until they weren't any more.
So maybe 4nm really is a hard limit, somebody will come up with something to get around that obstacle - like say 3D ICs - adding a couple of layers and you've easily doubled the number of transistors on the same size chip.
In short, unless there is a major materials breakthrough, or materials change, I would expect Moore's law to hold for the next five years or so, but not much longer after that.
The smart money is on the breakthrough, we've had plenty of them before and there is no reason to believe they are going to stop coming.
Slashdot Mirror
plan is called internet-avgift, internet-fee in English.
I think this is the root cause of the pirate bay's entire problem with the local MAFIAA.
Apparently the word "avgift" translates as "fee." So, the MAFIAA saw that the pirate bay was facilitating the gifting of all kinds of audio-visual material, they thought the pirate bay was raking in the fees and so the MAFIAA wanted their cut.
Has anyone explained to the MAFIAA that none of the users gave the pirate bay any fees?
I know what Apple thinks. But Apple is wrong in this case. No harm in Apple trying though
You are apparently unfamiliar with the concept of barratry.
There is plenty of harm in Apple trying.
In fact, due to the huge amount of resources they can bring to bear, there is plenty of harm in them even saying they might try.
Whatever happened to those two girls charged with distribution of child porn for taking pictures of themselves and sending them to their boyfriends? This reminds me of that.
Nothing, yet.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124026115528336397.html
The fact that the NSA was willing to participate at all strongly suggests to me that the NSA was just playing games, and was not in fact utilizing anywhere near their full capabilities in this exercise. Which says something pretty impressive about the NSA.
That's circular reasoning. You are impressed by the NSA because they are so awesome they wouldn't normally play these reindeer games.
You really think that if the NSA went to Microsoft and asked for source code, that Microsoft would say no?
Hell, MS even said yes when China asked.
Open-source just levels the playing field for the rest of us.
The RIAA won't stop working with Apple if they allow BitTorrent apps on the iPhone, but you can bet that they will give Apple a much harder time of it, costing Apple lots of money just to deal with it.
The MAFIAA are known for being ruthless. I doubt that what Apple does here is going to make any substantial difference in their negotiations with the MAFIAA. Sure, the MAFIAA might use something like this as a bargaining stick, but if not this, its going to be something else anyway. The MAFIAA ain't going to leave any money -- or control -- on the table that they don't absolutely have to.
The DMCA does not cover jailbreaking.
Apple begs to differ.
A good sense of humor includes the ability to detect humor even when you don't think it's funny.
You not only didn't understand the pleasure received from the irony of the situation described, you read far more intent into it than was written. Of course I knew throwing the papers back wouldn't make them stop - but nothing I could do, short of fire-bombing the place, was going to make them stop either. So I took what I could get.
Let's get this straight - you think a "little brother" of disorganized and chaotic individuals with hand-held cameras is somehow proof that well-funded, state-controlled camera systems connected to ever more featureful databases aren't likely to be used for nefarious purposes? You really believe that power purifies? That there is no such thing as feature-creep? That no one within the upper ranks of law enforcement has ever thought that making their job easier was more important than the privacy and civil rights of the people? That the path to hell is NOT paved with good intentions?
What a perfect world you live in.
CCTV cameras are not solely the domain of the government. The term CCTV is just an acronym for Closed-Circuit Television - i.e. practically any connected set of cameras and recording devices. Practically every store will have at least one, any store larger than the average cornershop is going to have many of them. Include ALL of those and I'm sure there are millions of CCTV cameras in the UK.
My first response was to throw them back in the street, but then my neighbor complained, and was not able to understand my argument that I wasn't the one responsible for the garbage.
Shoulda thrown them on his lawn since he clearly has no problem with it, he surely would enjoy two copies twice as much as one!
(If you never told them who you were, I don't see why you would ever expect that they would know where your house was, or even be able to stop delivering papers to that crank who brings the paper back on Mondays)
Gee, what a pronounced lack of humor you have there.
My brother didn't want one of them, and he fought bitterly with the provider to stop "littering" his door with them. If you go away for a couple of weeks, the piled up papers become a neon sign saying "No One Is Home"... Try as he might, he could not get the door delivered paper to stop showing up.
For a while, my daily commute took me right past the offices of one such "free" newspaper.
It only took about 30 extra seconds to swing through their parking lot and toss the copy of the paper they had left for me onto the sidewalk in front of their office's front door. It never stopped them from littering on my property but it felt good every time I did it.
I thought a little bit about this when Sun Microsystems started talking about how it could monetize JRE downloads by offering the installer as a marketing channel to advertisers.
It may be moot now, but that's not what Sun was talking about. Or at least that's not what Schwartz said in his blog. He was talking about monetizing their free stuff in a lot more useful way to the customer - not force-feeding things down their throats. For example, an online print bureau could pay to have access built into OpenOffice so that they would be a standard option on the Print dialog. Or an online storage provider could pay to be built into the Save and Open dialogs.
Your only constraint is that if you redistribute, you must pay the licensing fee to the original team.
Your proposal has gots lots of problems
1) It is just another variant on creating artificial scarcity of a non-scarce resource. Trying to restrict distribution is like trying to prevent people from talking to each other.
2) Few people are going to contribute casually to any such project due to the restrictions on redistribution and the almost certain unfairness in distribution of funding. For example: who should get paid more - the average coder who churns out hundreds of lines of code and spends hours each day doing it, or the smart guy who frequently does the equivalent in a few minutes and a handful of lines? Whose going to decide without a complete employee/employer relationship?
Like the article said, if you want to make money, you need to focus on controlling what is naturally controllable - scarce resources like the labor that goes into the creation of the software.
First question - are you just in it for the money or in it because you like the technology and money is secondary?
If the former, get your masters, without a love for the tech you will not be an over-achiever, at least not long-term. So a masters degree will help bolster average performance and keep your earning power up better than a regular clock-puncher without a masters.
However, if you are the later, skip the extra degree and gets your hands dirty. If you haven't done so already you need to be interning as part of your bachelors program. The most learning you will ever do is in the real world, so the more real-world experience you get under your belt the more you will be able to excel.
Incidentally, excelling at the job (and keeping your eyes open for opportunities) is the best way to make good money. It is, however, not usually an option for most clock-punchers.
And let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.
--George Washington's Farewell Address
I guess that's why George Washington penned over 100 prayers in his lifetime and spent quite a bit of time corresponding with clergymen.
While I have no idea if he wrote any prayers or not, it certainly doesn't contradict that he thought religion was good for keeping people in line. Prayers just being one of many tools in such an arsenal. Similarly, as his belief was that religion was for the dummies, it certainly makes sense that he would instruct clergymen in just what to tell their flocks to keep them in line.
You are all kinds of wrong on claiming the founding fathers of the United States were "a type of atheists". 1.9% were Catholic, 1.9% were unitarian, and the balance were Protestant Christians. (http://www.adherents.com/gov/Founding_Fathers_Religion.html)
Something too glossy about the reporting on that website. For example, George Washington went to church for show, he wrote that he thought religion was only good for stupid people because the fear of hell made them behave. That's not a particularly ringing proclamation of faith.
You would be surprised at how poorly policed title transfer is. I have a good friend who bought a $50K used car from a dealer only to have the FBI impound it between the point when he paid the dealer and when the shipping company should have picked it up later that week - and the only reason the FBI impounded it was because the real owner had connections to LE, even then it took 2 months before they did. The dealer had an officially issued title, it turned out that the car was stolen through fraud (fake cashiers check). My friend had to sue the dealer to get his money back and even though he won in court the dealer declared bankruptcy so my friend was basically fucked.
Having a gun in a fight works if the fight is nearly fair. Two men with pistols each have a decent chance of winning a gunfight. We aren't talking about that here. We're talking about a civilian against soldiers, plural. Guns don't help there. Other weapons do.
If every group of soldiers suffered just one serious casualty for every group of jews or whatever group they were assigned to bring in, morale would plummet to the point of mutiny pretty quickly. Even if soldiers ended up slaughtering everyone in each group, there would still be a pretty good chance of them taking one casualty in the process.
It's very much like anti-theft measures at retailers and built into cars. The folks who put them in place know darn well that they won't stop everybody, but if they stop the bottom 80%, then it's a worthy investment.
One big difference is that few people are thieves, but it is human nature to share stuff, especially when you can give it away to people and still keep it at the same time. So while anti-theft measures only have to contend with a very small portion of the population, anti-piracy measures are up against nearly 100% of the human race. Simply scaring a few people off here and there isn't sufficient.
I think the Windows 7 Release Candidate was the only one
I'm too lazy to double-check, but I would be mightily surprised if MS had consented to unregulated 3rd party distribution of any version of windows. Just because MS lets people freely download it from their own servers, and possibly those of a handful of designated 3rd parties, doesn't mean they've given permission for just anyone to distribute it.
Mininova collapses.
Mini-blackhole?
People have been saying for years that we're about to reach the end of the line in terms of Moore's law. So far they've all been proven wrong, and scaling continues unabated.
That means that if we're at 45nm today (Intel's 32nm chips are slated for 2009), and we're assuming size shrinks 50% every 18 months, in less than 72 months we'll have reached the practical lower limit for silicon features.
I don't know if you realize it, but you are really just confirming the OP's point -- you are just another person predicting the end of Moore's law based on the technical obstacle du jour.
Moore's law is solely about the number of transistors on a single IC for a constant cost. Feature size may appear to be a limiting factor, but that doesn't mean it will be one when we get to that point. Just like leakage for features sizes below roughly 100nm was once thought to be an insurmountable obstacle to Moore's law, and then some smart people figured out how to handle it, or how lithography processes were also considered a limiting factor below roughly 60nm -- until they weren't any more.
So maybe 4nm really is a hard limit, somebody will come up with something to get around that obstacle - like say 3D ICs - adding a couple of layers and you've easily doubled the number of transistors on the same size chip.
In short, unless there is a major materials breakthrough, or materials change, I would expect Moore's law to hold for the next five years or so, but not much longer after that.
The smart money is on the breakthrough, we've had plenty of them before and there is no reason to believe they are going to stop coming.
This is just a minor nitpick, but knowing what your customers want is part of the marketing.
Good marketing includes hookers and blow.
Give 'em that and then your customers will buy whatever you are selling.