"Yes, you can give me a lot of money and I will provide you with rock-solid assurances about things that will or will not happen after you die."
Dude, why not just give your money to a church?
Yes! Along these lines, I have been thinking about my friends who have not yet read Cryptonomicon, and might enjoy it. They need to read it now, because in another couple of years (like, 5), it will be hopelessly quaint. It will require effort to remember how difficult communication used to be.
Are you suggesting that change that is faster than "people" can "cope" with, simply doesn't happen?
This would come as quite a surprise to coal miners, polar bears, Iranian ayatollahs, newspaper publishers, and the RIAA, to name a few.
I took a little bit more out of this, and maybe extrapolating too far but probably not. The important story here is that the iPhone App Store, at least for games, is a mature market. The market pressure means that not only will you not get rich, and not only will you not break even if you spend actual money developing, but you very likely won't make any money at all. I agree with previous posters that this guy's $4.99 price point is laughable, but let's figure he could sell 20x the volume with a $0.99 price point-- that's still nothing-- $3,800 gross sales, before Apple's (and the IRS') cut. Enough to pay your developer, if your developer is also your cat.
And that's worth knowing, because it's not true in many computer marketplaces. Bottom-feeders still have a path to profits in many areas, but apparently iPhone games is no longer one of them.
If you wonder why people (esp. Americans) insist on referring to Ukraine as "The Ukraine," I believe the answer lies with the Parker Bros. board game "Risk". Their wikipedia entry http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Risk_(game)#Territories doesn't say this, but I'm pretty sure older boards had a space that was not called Ukraine, but "The Ukraine". Corroboration from Seinfeld: http://www.seinfeldscripts.com/TheLabelMaker.html
If you're wondering if Americans learned geography from any source more reliable than a board game, well, you already know the answer.
Relevant passage:
5-705. Methods of Destruction. Classified material may be destroyed by burning, shredding, pulping, melting, mutilation, chemical decomposition, or pulverizing (for example, hammer mills, choppers, and hybridized disintegration equipment). Pulpers, pulverizers, or shredders may be used only for the destruction of paper products. High wet strength paper, paper mylar, durable-medium paper substitute, or similar water repellent papers are not sufficiently destroyed by pulping; other methods such as disintegration, shredding, or burning shall be used to destroy these types of papers. Residue shall be inspected during each destruction to ensure that classified information cannot be reconstructed. Crosscut shredders currently in use capable of maintaining a shred size not exceeding 1/32 inch in width (with a 1/64 inch tolerance by 1/2 inch in length) may continue to be used. However, any crosscut shredders requiring replacement of the unit and/or rebuilding of the shredder blades assembly must be replaced by a crosscut shredder on the latest NSA Evaluated Products List of High Security Crosscut Shredders. The list may be obtained from the CSA. Classified material in microform; that is, microfilm, microfiche, or similar high data density material; may be destroyed by burning or chemical decomposition, or other methods as approved by the CSA.
My first thought was, "Great! Maybe this will pave the way for somehow getting music onto my phone from Linux!" I am currently trying to get the XP side of my dual-boot machine running again, after 6 months of inactivity since I switched to Ubuntu, just so that I can run iTunes and load some music onto my iPhone!!
I have had luck with Wine for other things, but current itunes has status of "Garbage" at winedev, and even in the comments for the older versions I can find no testimony of successful xfer of music to ipod under wine. Good thing I didn't wipe that XP partition....
The body of knowledge related to engineering manned space flight systems resides 50% in thousands of volumes of documents from Apollo forward, and 90% in the minds of a small group of very capable engineers. Any 1-year gap in productively employing those people, and they, being capable, will move on to something else for which they can be paid. When you finally assemble the $$$, you find that the expertise needed to provide the return has retired or otherwise moved on.
That's at the design level. At the execution level, a similar effect occurs, but in this case you can lose a lot even if you don't lose the personnel. In an effort as complicated as a manned launch, there are about 100,000 things that can go wrong. 99,900 of those things are documented, with preventatives and correctives-- somewhere. But if you haven't been through the process for five years, you're better off starting from scratch than trying to re-assemble an execution system.
I don't give a hoot about manned space flight. But if we can see ourselves doing it in 2020, we have two choices: either a) plan on spending 2015-2020 ramping back up, with attendant casualties; or b) don't stop.
How does that link to "Ron Paul 2008" fit in to your point about optimism/delusion? Please email your response, I have a feeling I'll be tied up with Natalie Portman the rest of the day.
It didn't take much of a jujitsu move for an effective terrorist to scare the bulk of the American people to quickly decide that fascist rule was in their interest.
... the crime wave will recede from Eastern US cities like Baltimore, where every single property in the entire city was painted with lead right up until the ban in 1978. Thing is, lead paint was used because of its durability, so there is no guarantee that these cities are even in the downward part of the curve yet, as the paint may just now be starting to chip and find its way into children's lungs/guts.
The trouble is this: with all 4 open access conditions, $4.6bn might win the auction, but it wouldn't matter a lick to Google if they won or not, they would have unfettered access to the spectrum at wholesale. With the halfway compromise of 2/4, winning the auction would be worth a lot to Google. And $$ for $$, they most certainly could win. BUT, the amount of $$$ Google could make on the OPEN spectrum is much less than what TheEvilOnes will be able to make buying that spectrum and closing it up. With the spectrum open, EVERYONE makes more $$$; with it closed, the WINNER TAKES ALL.
Implications: 1) "Win the auction" and "do no evil" and "make a profit" are mutually incompatible; 2) Bad guys win; 3) This is not a market failure, it's a regulatory failure.
- The rules of the game encourage monopolistic abuses;
- Google therefore attempts to change the rules;
- Google loses, and it just so happens we all lose.
I do not expect the interests of the consumer to continue to be aligned with The Goog, but in this instance they are, and that is what makes it such a shame that Google cannot, as a profit-motivated corporation, play to win this auction.
Indeed, the most astute commentators I have seen* point out that if Google's conditions had been satisfied, then both
1) The 4.6bn might actually have won the auction; and
2) Google would have had no incentive to bid any higher, since they would have wholesale access regardless of who won.
Now, with the conditions rejected, the cost will be higher, but the stakes are higher as well. Much as I would have loved to see Google win, I am afraid thinking it through that they will, indeed, not bid.
The reason here is that while opening the spectrum would start a chain of events that would lead to EVERYONE making more money, that does not mean the AUCTION WINNER would make more money under those circumstances. And Google, for all of their strategic brilliance and visionary insight, is beholden to shareholders, and NO corporation could ever:
1) Buy the spectrum at the price it is worth to the monopolizers; and then
2) Forgo monopoly benefits. Thus, according to "don't be evil," Google can't bid enough to win. Not because they don't have the money, but because even their best plan can't produce as much revenue for Google from the open spectrum as Whichever Telco Bastard Wins can make from monopolizing that spectrum.
Bad guys win. Not a good day.
*Cringely wrote a crazy column on this, he might have been smoking dope, because for the first time ever, the comments section on his blog makes more sense than the column itself.
Let's think about this for a second. I may be way off-base, but I'm thinking back to some discussions where F/OSS folks were describing how, and why, you *could* successfully and morally profit from F/OSS software. The idea is that GPL does not permit you to conceal source code from your customers, and so you cannot sell the product-- to anyone will to build it from source. Now, this is/., so I'm sure there are thousands of people here who would say, "I would happily build M$ Winblows from source-- wait, no I wouldn't-- hold on..."
If Microsoft opened the source code and made all patches available as source code, could they then offer Windows Update as a for-pay service? Would your employer pay for it? I know mine (the US gov't) would.
Interesting this furor over WGA, which seems actually to be moving Microsoft one step closer to Red Hat's business model.
Slashdot Mirror
"Yes, you can give me a lot of money and I will provide you with rock-solid assurances about things that will or will not happen after you die."
Dude, why not just give your money to a church?
Yes! Along these lines, I have been thinking about my friends who have not yet read Cryptonomicon, and might enjoy it. They need to read it now, because in another couple of years (like, 5), it will be hopelessly quaint. It will require effort to remember how difficult communication used to be.
Destroying the earth is notoriously difficult.
Are you suggesting that change that is faster than "people" can "cope" with, simply doesn't happen? This would come as quite a surprise to coal miners, polar bears, Iranian ayatollahs, newspaper publishers, and the RIAA, to name a few.
I took a little bit more out of this, and maybe extrapolating too far but probably not. The important story here is that the iPhone App Store, at least for games, is a mature market. The market pressure means that not only will you not get rich, and not only will you not break even if you spend actual money developing, but you very likely won't make any money at all. I agree with previous posters that this guy's $4.99 price point is laughable, but let's figure he could sell 20x the volume with a $0.99 price point-- that's still nothing-- $3,800 gross sales, before Apple's (and the IRS') cut. Enough to pay your developer, if your developer is also your cat.
And that's worth knowing, because it's not true in many computer marketplaces. Bottom-feeders still have a path to profits in many areas, but apparently iPhone games is no longer one of them.
If you wonder why people (esp. Americans) insist on referring to Ukraine as "The Ukraine," I believe the answer lies with the Parker Bros. board game "Risk". Their wikipedia entry http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Risk_(game)#Territories doesn't say this, but I'm pretty sure older boards had a space that was not called Ukraine, but "The Ukraine". Corroboration from Seinfeld: http://www.seinfeldscripts.com/TheLabelMaker.html If you're wondering if Americans learned geography from any source more reliable than a board game, well, you already know the answer.
Relevant passage: 5-705. Methods of Destruction. Classified material may be destroyed by burning, shredding, pulping, melting, mutilation, chemical decomposition, or pulverizing (for example, hammer mills, choppers, and hybridized disintegration equipment). Pulpers, pulverizers, or shredders may be used only for the destruction of paper products. High wet strength paper, paper mylar, durable-medium paper substitute, or similar water repellent papers are not sufficiently destroyed by pulping; other methods such as disintegration, shredding, or burning shall be used to destroy these types of papers. Residue shall be inspected during each destruction to ensure that classified information cannot be reconstructed. Crosscut shredders currently in use capable of maintaining a shred size not exceeding 1/32 inch in width (with a 1/64 inch tolerance by 1/2 inch in length) may continue to be used. However, any crosscut shredders requiring replacement of the unit and/or rebuilding of the shredder blades assembly must be replaced by a crosscut shredder on the latest NSA Evaluated Products List of High Security Crosscut Shredders. The list may be obtained from the CSA. Classified material in microform; that is, microfilm, microfiche, or similar high data density material; may be destroyed by burning or chemical decomposition, or other methods as approved by the CSA.
My first thought was, "Great! Maybe this will pave the way for somehow getting music onto my phone from Linux!" I am currently trying to get the XP side of my dual-boot machine running again, after 6 months of inactivity since I switched to Ubuntu, just so that I can run iTunes and load some music onto my iPhone!!
I have had luck with Wine for other things, but current itunes has status of "Garbage" at winedev, and even in the comments for the older versions I can find no testimony of successful xfer of music to ipod under wine. Good thing I didn't wipe that XP partition....
Well, you got the long-term part right.
The body of knowledge related to engineering manned space flight systems resides 50% in thousands of volumes of documents from Apollo forward, and 90% in the minds of a small group of very capable engineers. Any 1-year gap in productively employing those people, and they, being capable, will move on to something else for which they can be paid. When you finally assemble the $$$, you find that the expertise needed to provide the return has retired or otherwise moved on.
That's at the design level. At the execution level, a similar effect occurs, but in this case you can lose a lot even if you don't lose the personnel. In an effort as complicated as a manned launch, there are about 100,000 things that can go wrong. 99,900 of those things are documented, with preventatives and correctives-- somewhere. But if you haven't been through the process for five years, you're better off starting from scratch than trying to re-assemble an execution system.
I don't give a hoot about manned space flight. But if we can see ourselves doing it in 2020, we have two choices: either a) plan on spending 2015-2020 ramping back up, with attendant casualties; or b) don't stop.
How does that link to "Ron Paul 2008" fit in to your point about optimism/delusion? Please email your response, I have a feeling I'll be tied up with Natalie Portman the rest of the day.
... the crime wave will recede from Eastern US cities like Baltimore, where every single property in the entire city was painted with lead right up until the ban in 1978. Thing is, lead paint was used because of its durability, so there is no guarantee that these cities are even in the downward part of the curve yet, as the paint may just now be starting to chip and find its way into children's lungs/guts.
This site should be called /./.
The trouble is this: with all 4 open access conditions, $4.6bn might win the auction, but it wouldn't matter a lick to Google if they won or not, they would have unfettered access to the spectrum at wholesale.
With the halfway compromise of 2/4, winning the auction would be worth a lot to Google. And $$ for $$, they most certainly could win. BUT, the amount of $$$ Google could make on the OPEN spectrum is much less than what TheEvilOnes will be able to make buying that spectrum and closing it up. With the spectrum open, EVERYONE makes more $$$; with it closed, the WINNER TAKES ALL.
Implications:
1) "Win the auction" and "do no evil" and "make a profit" are mutually incompatible;
2) Bad guys win;
3) This is not a market failure, it's a regulatory failure.
- The rules of the game encourage monopolistic abuses;
- Google therefore attempts to change the rules;
- Google loses, and it just so happens we all lose.
I do not expect the interests of the consumer to continue to be aligned with The Goog, but in this instance they are, and that is what makes it such a shame that Google cannot, as a profit-motivated corporation, play to win this auction.
I just want to say that I am deriving incredible joy from reading this thread in the voice of the Comic Book Store Guy from the Simpsons.
/. threads are better that way, but this one is classic.
Truth to tell, a lot of
Indeed, the most astute commentators I have seen* point out that if Google's conditions had been satisfied, then both
1) The 4.6bn might actually have won the auction; and
2) Google would have had no incentive to bid any higher, since they would have wholesale access regardless of who won.
Now, with the conditions rejected, the cost will be higher, but the stakes are higher as well. Much as I would have loved to see Google win, I am afraid thinking it through that they will, indeed, not bid.
The reason here is that while opening the spectrum would start a chain of events that would lead to EVERYONE making more money, that does not mean the AUCTION WINNER would make more money under those circumstances. And Google, for all of their strategic brilliance and visionary insight, is beholden to shareholders, and NO corporation could ever:
1) Buy the spectrum at the price it is worth to the monopolizers; and then
2) Forgo monopoly benefits.
Thus, according to "don't be evil," Google can't bid enough to win. Not because they don't have the money, but because even their best plan can't produce as much revenue for Google from the open spectrum as Whichever Telco Bastard Wins can make from monopolizing that spectrum.
Bad guys win. Not a good day.
*Cringely wrote a crazy column on this, he might have been smoking dope, because for the first time ever, the comments section on his blog makes more sense than the column itself.
Let's think about this for a second. I may be way off-base, but I'm thinking back to some discussions where F/OSS folks were describing how, and why, you *could* successfully and morally profit from F/OSS software. The idea is that GPL does not permit you to conceal source code from your customers, and so you cannot sell the product-- to anyone will to build it from source. Now, this is /., so I'm sure there are thousands of people here who would say, "I would happily build M$ Winblows from source-- wait, no I wouldn't-- hold on..."
If Microsoft opened the source code and made all patches available as source code, could they then offer Windows Update as a for-pay service? Would your employer pay for it? I know mine (the US gov't) would.
Interesting this furor over WGA, which seems actually to be moving Microsoft one step closer to Red Hat's business model.
Hey, that's good information. Have you considered contributing to the wikipedia article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One-Click ?