Although we all know that noncompetes hold little water, I wonder if the Apple employees have noncompetes in their employment contract that might stop them or at least cause them some pain/frustration.
Trying to protect jobs like that does not work in the long run. Take it on a smaller scale. What if Michigan decided not to buy any software made outside of Michigan because of state security? What if the Mayor of NYC decided that it was against their security policy to buy software written outside of NYC? Where do the boundries begin and end. Commerce wants to be free -- just like software. Ok, that's a broad generalization, but at least something to think about.
The *only* reason to disallow software from another entity is because you believe it will hurt the sanctity of your own entity. If China believes that Windows has hidden backdoors that could eventually be used as a weapon, then banning it is perfectly legitimate and Windows would be a threat to national security. Buying a grenade from someone that could be set-off by the seller's country at anytime would be bad to me.
I mean kids cannot agree on which movie to watch in the car?!? In my times we read a book. Sheesh...
Did you read the same book at the same time?;) Ok, maybe you read it out loud. I agree that it is a shame, but movies do help past the time on long road trips. And, you could load only educational shows on the video iPod. Content is still your choice.
I would expect an iPod Video to be different from a normal iPod. Maybe even completely different. Afterall, Apple does do a ton of marketing research and they may completely revise our understanding of how an iPod Video would work. You mentioned a couple of the obvious features:
* Larger video screen.
* Ability to capture video: however, the counter point is -- does the iPod capture audio? Not without additional third party add-ons.
There could be many more features -- firewire connectivity for faster transfer of files and ability to use the iPod Video as a storage container for digital camcorders, and a screen that is NOT viewable from wide angles so that the person sitting next to you on the commuter train can't see what you are watching.
I disagree with all of those that think the video iPod is not a natural extension. Here are just a few reasons:
* Plug a couple into the car to let a couple kids that can't agree on a movie watch whatever they want.
* Use it to demo videos to clients. (Send an entire iPod to a client as a promotional gift with the new commercial that you created for them. Admittedly this is 0.0005% of the market!)
* Take a movie over to a friends house -- just plug your iPod into the RCA jacks and play the entire Lord of the Rings trilogy.
* Last, but certainly not least for Slashdot geeks, take porn with you everywhere!
iPod Photo is a half a step away from iPodVideo. Natural extension -- like putting on comfy slippers after having worn around sandals all day.
It could also be a *huge* market. Not that competitors have ever swayed Apple, but xBox, Sony Playstation Portal (or whatever it's called), and now cell phones will have video capabilities of different sorts. Apple has a strong track record with music and can bring that expertise to video.
A person logging in using a fake identity to sound knowledgable is unethical. Paying for placement in movies should be disclosed in the credits. PR/Advertisers just need to disclose such payments and stop being sneaky about it.
It's simple. If you are a publically traded company, then payments for endorsements etc... should be publically filed with the SEC. I'm not even concerned about actual payment amounts, although that might tell an investor how out-of-control a company has become with their PR.
If a business is too embarrassed to disclose the individuals that they paid off, then maybe that should be a hint that it was probably an unethical move!
Every accessory manufacturer in the world wants their accessories to look like the machine they are making their accessory for. (Ok, at least the good ones.) If it was an actual computer, then sure. Sue the hell out of them -- particularly if it is a Windows PC. If it could only run Linux then as a proper Slashdotter, I would be required to say that Apple machines should come pre-installed with Linux anyway and it Apple's fault.
If I make an aquarium that looks like a Mac, could I be sued?
Re:Ads should be distinguishable from non-ads
on
Google Upgrades AdSense
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
I think that Google's old method of embedding text ads in search result pages was a little bit underhanded. While they were off in another column of the screen, they looked just like regular search results.
What? You couldn't tell the difference? Are you really reading Slashdot?
Adding graphics to the advertisements seems to be a logical way of extending the power of advertising while at the same time minimizing the confusion of users.
No, no, no. How about more intelligent ads? How about understanding the context of what the user is looking for and placing appropriate ads? A previous poster mentioned that they were discussing milk allergies and that they would obviously want soy or other products, but because the search engine wasn't intelligent enough, it put milk products up.
How about timing the user's interest. Why bother the user at all until they are at the point of actually wanting to do research. So, during the first three e-mails with their friend, do not put up any ad. On the fourth e-mail put up a tastefully worded ad about soy products. Wouldn't this at least convey the impression of Google trying to understand the conversation before putting ads on the e-mail?
How about something of value within the ad. I'm not talking about FREE this or that, but rather *gasp* intelligent ads that talk about their product. How about just banning the word "FREE" from all ads and make them come up with something more useful -- like "trial pack" or "we will give you something to get hooked on our product in order to bash the competition into the ground."
How about introducing some sort of user rating system or ad review service that rated ads based on usefulness to the reader? Sure, this would be difficult to pull off, but Google can do anything, right?
There are plenty of ways to make advertising more effective without resorting to flashy crap. Yes, it is more difficult. Flashy crap pays for itself more quickly and supports graphic artists, which lord knows don't get paid enough, but that's another story.
It's not paying for this *one* file format. Imagine if every camera manufacturer did this and then they started doing it for every camera that they had. Adobe would become one of their biggest revenue sources and you would pay double for Photoshop.
Adobe could come up with a creative in-between product as a pluggin to Photoshop. Then just let people know the reason they have to pay for a ridiculous plugin is because their camera manufacturer wants to milk them for more money.
Adobe is not the knight in shining armor either, but then again what corporation is perfect? Google?
But the reporting and writing that paper does is superior to just about everyone else.
Actually that isn't true. In the 80's there was a study done on the content of the WSJ and they found that nearly 80% of the articles were press releases printed verbatim.
Since then, they might have improved. I have been a subscriber to the print edition on-and-off in the 90's and didn't find the content particularly enlightening, but then again, I read Slashdot!
Unforutnately it does not appear that Java 1.5 is going to be available when they initially release Tiger (at the end of April). Still, I enjoy using Mac OS X when you don't need the latest JVM.
Canada is in America. So is Mexico. So is Peru. So are many other countries. North America and South America are part of America. If it was United States Online then it would be an oxymoron.
I want to write code that is so good it doesn't -require- support, and be paid for it.
The last time I saw a developer that good...was...well, hell, I haven't seen one that good.
I actually believe that developers should always sit on the support lines for the products they write. Surprisingly enough, practical, well-built interfaces start to appear after the developer is forced to take the 900th call concerning a poorly implemented feature.
Four fucking pages?!? The guy claims to comprehensively contradict some of the best known and most studied concepts in astro-physics, and his proof covers FOUR PAGES? And contains almost no equations?
e=mc2
Despite my poor formatting, it's considerably less than four pages.
Open office should include something that Microsoft and others have refused: an open standard for document rights management. I know. That seems counter to the open source culture, but it really isn't. Open source advocates don't trust DRM because it's usually not open source. So, if it is made open source and included in OO, then it would be a huge boost.
Also, the U.S. is not where open source in general is going to be embrased on the *desktop*. Foreign countries worried about embedded NSA/CIA back doors are the ones that will swarm to the viable alternative.
Unfortunately, this same species is also the only life form known that attempts to control others for their own personal gain.
There are leaders exploiting others throughout the animal kingdom. A significant number of species have leaders that become such for personal gain. The strongest lion becomes the leader of the pride. This type of dominance is for personal gain (more food and mating privileges) as well as for the longevity of the species (the strong survive the weak perish). It is homo sapiens who infuse the idea of fairness. It's not fair that person x can control person y based on financial, personal or other pressures.
Since the courts, congress, bush, and big business are on the controlling side, and those of us that are creative and support GPL (and possibly other nearly fully free licenses) are mainly on the other side, the forces at work are not really in balance.
Open source licensing is flipping those sides. Big business is understanding that in order to stay competitive, they must learn to leverage open source properly or suffer by having to re-invent the wheel. Apple could never have staged a comeback without open source. They would still be spinning their wheels coming up with a good kernel or a web browser. IBM would be at Microsoft's mercy had it not been for Linux. Open source is starting to actually drive business and be a significant tool for companies (both large and small).
It's precisely the attitude of who controls who that drives a wedge between open source advocates and big business. There is a balance to be reached. However, beyond that there is an new attitude to be reached as well.
Slashdot Mirror
Although we all know that noncompetes hold little water, I wonder if the Apple employees have noncompetes in their employment contract that might stop them or at least cause them some pain/frustration.
It'll die just like the iPod.
Just like radio stations were destroyed by music and podcasts.
The *only* reason to disallow software from another entity is because you believe it will hurt the sanctity of your own entity. If China believes that Windows has hidden backdoors that could eventually be used as a weapon, then banning it is perfectly legitimate and Windows would be a threat to national security. Buying a grenade from someone that could be set-off by the seller's country at anytime would be bad to me.
Did you read the same book at the same time? ;) Ok, maybe you read it out loud. I agree that it is a shame, but movies do help past the time on long road trips. And, you could load only educational shows on the video iPod. Content is still your choice.
I would expect an iPod Video to be different from a normal iPod. Maybe even completely different. Afterall, Apple does do a ton of marketing research and they may completely revise our understanding of how an iPod Video would work. You mentioned a couple of the obvious features:
* Larger video screen.
* Ability to capture video: however, the counter point is -- does the iPod capture audio? Not without additional third party add-ons.
There could be many more features -- firewire connectivity for faster transfer of files and ability to use the iPod Video as a storage container for digital camcorders, and a screen that is NOT viewable from wide angles so that the person sitting next to you on the commuter train can't see what you are watching.
I disagree with all of those that think the video iPod is not a natural extension. Here are just a few reasons:
* Plug a couple into the car to let a couple kids that can't agree on a movie watch whatever they want.
* Use it to demo videos to clients. (Send an entire iPod to a client as a promotional gift with the new commercial that you created for them. Admittedly this is 0.0005% of the market!)
* Take a movie over to a friends house -- just plug your iPod into the RCA jacks and play the entire Lord of the Rings trilogy.
* Last, but certainly not least for Slashdot geeks, take porn with you everywhere!
iPod Photo is a half a step away from iPodVideo. Natural extension -- like putting on comfy slippers after having worn around sandals all day.
It could also be a *huge* market. Not that competitors have ever swayed Apple, but xBox, Sony Playstation Portal (or whatever it's called), and now cell phones will have video capabilities of different sorts. Apple has a strong track record with music and can bring that expertise to video.
A person logging in using a fake identity to sound knowledgable is unethical. Paying for placement in movies should be disclosed in the credits. PR/Advertisers just need to disclose such payments and stop being sneaky about it.
It's simple. If you are a publically traded company, then payments for endorsements etc... should be publically filed with the SEC. I'm not even concerned about actual payment amounts, although that might tell an investor how out-of-control a company has become with their PR.
If a business is too embarrassed to disclose the individuals that they paid off, then maybe that should be a hint that it was probably an unethical move!
Scientific America Article giving up on evolution. [www.sciam.com]
This one is called the Fossil Fallacy [www.sciam.com] and has a very interesting viewpoint on the debate.
Every accessory manufacturer in the world wants their accessories to look like the machine they are making their accessory for. (Ok, at least the good ones.) If it was an actual computer, then sure. Sue the hell out of them -- particularly if it is a Windows PC. If it could only run Linux then as a proper Slashdotter, I would be required to say that Apple machines should come pre-installed with Linux anyway and it Apple's fault.
If I make an aquarium that looks like a Mac, could I be sued?
What? You couldn't tell the difference? Are you really reading Slashdot?
Adding graphics to the advertisements seems to be a logical way of extending the power of advertising while at the same time minimizing the confusion of users.
No, no, no. How about more intelligent ads? How about understanding the context of what the user is looking for and placing appropriate ads? A previous poster mentioned that they were discussing milk allergies and that they would obviously want soy or other products, but because the search engine wasn't intelligent enough, it put milk products up.
How about timing the user's interest. Why bother the user at all until they are at the point of actually wanting to do research. So, during the first three e-mails with their friend, do not put up any ad. On the fourth e-mail put up a tastefully worded ad about soy products. Wouldn't this at least convey the impression of Google trying to understand the conversation before putting ads on the e-mail?
How about something of value within the ad. I'm not talking about FREE this or that, but rather *gasp* intelligent ads that talk about their product. How about just banning the word "FREE" from all ads and make them come up with something more useful -- like "trial pack" or "we will give you something to get hooked on our product in order to bash the competition into the ground."
How about introducing some sort of user rating system or ad review service that rated ads based on usefulness to the reader? Sure, this would be difficult to pull off, but Google can do anything, right?
There are plenty of ways to make advertising more effective without resorting to flashy crap. Yes, it is more difficult. Flashy crap pays for itself more quickly and supports graphic artists, which lord knows don't get paid enough, but that's another story.
Adobe could come up with a creative in-between product as a pluggin to Photoshop. Then just let people know the reason they have to pay for a ridiculous plugin is because their camera manufacturer wants to milk them for more money.
Adobe is not the knight in shining armor either, but then again what corporation is perfect? Google?
Actually that isn't true. In the 80's there was a study done on the content of the WSJ and they found that nearly 80% of the articles were press releases printed verbatim.
Since then, they might have improved. I have been a subscriber to the print edition on-and-off in the 90's and didn't find the content particularly enlightening, but then again, I read Slashdot!
Unforutnately it does not appear that Java 1.5 is going to be available when they initially release Tiger (at the end of April). Still, I enjoy using Mac OS X when you don't need the latest JVM.
Another article covering it here [www.newscientist.org].
As if gamer's legs are ever used anyway. Moving a little would be a good thing.
Or don't tell me, you play Dance-Dance Revolution all of the time. ;)
Canada is in America. So is Mexico. So is Peru. So are many other countries. North America and South America are part of America. If it was United States Online then it would be an oxymoron.
That's why programs such as Hibernate are important -- to prevent vendor lock-in. Of course this begs the question, what's the option for Hibernate?!?
The last time I saw a developer that good...was...well, hell, I haven't seen one that good.
I actually believe that developers should always sit on the support lines for the products they write. Surprisingly enough, practical, well-built interfaces start to appear after the developer is forced to take the 900th call concerning a poorly implemented feature.
e=mc2
Despite my poor formatting, it's considerably less than four pages.
Yes, ah, have you been around one of those lately? Duh, "teenage" combined with anything is horrific.
Which is best for the jobs that they both can accomplish?
In what areas are they mutually exclusive so that this arguement can be held moot for those points?
Also, the U.S. is not where open source in general is going to be embrased on the *desktop*. Foreign countries worried about embedded NSA/CIA back doors are the ones that will swarm to the viable alternative.
There are leaders exploiting others throughout the animal kingdom. A significant number of species have leaders that become such for personal gain. The strongest lion becomes the leader of the pride. This type of dominance is for personal gain (more food and mating privileges) as well as for the longevity of the species (the strong survive the weak perish). It is homo sapiens who infuse the idea of fairness. It's not fair that person x can control person y based on financial, personal or other pressures.
Since the courts, congress, bush, and big business are on the controlling side, and those of us that are creative and support GPL (and possibly other nearly fully free licenses) are mainly on the other side, the forces at work are not really in balance.
Open source licensing is flipping those sides. Big business is understanding that in order to stay competitive, they must learn to leverage open source properly or suffer by having to re-invent the wheel. Apple could never have staged a comeback without open source. They would still be spinning their wheels coming up with a good kernel or a web browser. IBM would be at Microsoft's mercy had it not been for Linux. Open source is starting to actually drive business and be a significant tool for companies (both large and small).
It's precisely the attitude of who controls who that drives a wedge between open source advocates and big business. There is a balance to be reached. However, beyond that there is an new attitude to be reached as well.