It actually works for celebrities, where I believe the term was coined.
For celebrities, bad stuff makes them more human and reduces the distance between them and their fans, especially when it is so horrible the fans can say "I would never do that" - now you are actually superior to your idol, at least in one aspect. There is such a thing as "too perfect", and it has sunk many more careers than bad news about drinking or drug habbits have.
focusing on "how can we get marketshare" shows a complete and utter misunderstanding of the entire market and asking the wrong question. The first question should be "how can we make a great phone with a great experience". Not "why aren't people buying this"?
Bingo.
And that is why Apple could break the rules and get away with it. They knew the original iPhone would sell to a select audience. They were not concerned with market share. And yet they had Nokia running scared the moment it hit the shelves.
i) being Microsoft. Both developers and the general public generally assume that you don't get it right until the 3rd version, so they avoid the first two like the plague.
People are used to their PCs crashing and freezing and generally being troublesome. But they don't (yet) accept the same behaviour from their phones.
If you want to teach games, the first one should not be a computer game. Make it a board game, a card game or something else that you can create with paper and pens.
Anything beyond that adds complexities that distract from the game design itself. There is very little design-wise in a computer game that you can't have in a board game.
And yes, I am a (hobby/indy) game designer. I've made some board games, a card game, a play-by-mail game, two pen&paper roleplaying games and a bunch of computer games. Largely in that order.
"My better competitor is an exception" is a cop-out. Find out what makes them the exception, why they could break the rules and not only get away with it, but be successful doing so. Just saying "they're an exception" is on the same order as "these are not the droids you are looking for" - if you're not a Jedi, it just makes you look stupid. Because you didn't explain anything, and least of all the failure you're trying to cover up.
Really? Journalism is going downhill with the standards hitting all-time lows, I fear.
No, schooling will not be replaced by Kindles. There is a lot more to education than making the kids read stuff, or reading it to them. There's a reason we have a whole field of science dedicated to teaching - educational science.
Arguably if it hadn't been for our presence in West Germany throughout the Cold War, life would have sucked for a very large number of Europeans. There was very little gratitude for that at the time, which never made much sense to me.
As a german, I can explain it to you. It is a matter of disappointment.
Immediately after WW2, the USA was a land of dreams for most germans, much like it had before for some, just more so (just look at emmigration numbers). American soldiers were generally liked, seemed affluent to an impoverished people in a bombed-out country, and the re-education regarding the whole Nazi thing worked well in framing you as the good guys despite having bombed us like you had no other hobbies.
But the US overstayed its welcome and turned into an occupation power. Many west germans had relatives on the other side of the wall, so we never accepted the "all communists are evil monsters" mindset that the McCarthy era brought to America. For us, they were humans just like ourselves, and your military presence didn't feel much like protection. Against whom? Our own relatives?
In addition, after WW2 you were very successful in turning the german people into a peaceful nation. So much that we didn't support your Cold War very much, and when you brought nuclear missiles into our country against our wishes, it became clear that you were not here to help us, but to defend your own interests.
And that's when anti-americanism started here. When we realised your friendship wasn't real, it was practical.
Just pointing out that it's hypocritical to make fun of another country's establishment of self-defense rights, when the lessons of history tell us all too clearly what happens when the state is given a monopoly on the use of force.
Quite to the contrary. The Weimar Republic - the Germany that put Hitler in control - had gun laws much closer to the 2nd than the much stricter gun controls of Germany nowadays.
In a way, though, it is. There are actually fewer actions that need to be taken from the economic side than from the technological side; indeed economic actions can have very measurable and lasting effects in a short amount of time while technological actions are generally worthless.
Do you say that as an economist or as a technician? Because I would take a bet that the other side would say the same thing, only in reverse.
You may have misread me on that matter. Economic solutions are not inherently political, even though politics is inherently tied to economics. However, the companies who are on the financial take in the matter can be influenced without the necessity of legislative action.
If it were that simple, someone would have done it by now, don't you think? If it is just that nobody has done it, then why don't you?
Spammers don't have a lobby. There is no special interest working for them, it's simply that the problem is so distributed that few people really care about it all that much.
Of course games are more fun - they're designed to be fun.
Watch more children. They are intensely curious, and something new and interesting will take their interest off any game in a second.
At some point, one has to crack down and work. And the work ethic is also something that needs to be taught along with reading, writing, math and technology.
There is no ethic in work, and if you believe there is, you have been brainwashed.
And there is no work in basic skills. Most kids actually want to learn to read by the time they enter school.
Our education is seriously fucked up because it is built on the mental model of a factory - generating a continuous stream of output of identical units. It's no surprise the units disagree on the idea and rebel against it in their own little ways.
If I can get more sales using a publisher - through marketing, more reach, whatever reason - and sales times my cut is more this way then the other, then it is a good deal for me. If self-publishing makes my sales times my cut larger, than that is the better deal.
Really, it isn't so hard. What works for Konrath may or may not work for others. It's a good read, and something to keep in mind, but you still have to decide for yourself which way is best for you.
The only one who feels that you have to save anyone from anyone else is you.
Because the rest of the world has understood decades ago that when you leave, the "saved" are generally a lot worse off than they were before.
The only time you ever saved anyone without bringing total ruin was WW2, and the laurels from that are getting old as the people who actually remember are dying off.
Whatever you say or think, lots of people outside the US feel that way, you better take these words to heart even if they hurt your ego.
And it doesn't do what you allege it does. There is no such thing as a "programming language for the general public" anymore than there are nuclear power station DIY kits.
This isn't "virtual arms" we are talking about, it is virtual fashion accessoirs. Virtual arms would be something that can do virtual damage. The "virtual" equivalent of the 2nd would be the right to own DDoS tools or something.
Just because it is a virtual something that looks like a firearm doesn't make it the virtual equivalent of one. If you can't shoot someone with it, even virtually, it is not a firearm. It's something that looks like one. But the 2nd doesn't give you the right to own things that look like firearms, it gives you the right to own things that are firearms. Very important difference.
There's a lesson from NLP: There's no failure, only feedback.
If the pupils use the iPads for gaming during class, that is a very strong feedback that the games are more interesting than school.
Maybe that is the root cause, not the technology? If they don't have iPads, they'll go back to playing games on paper, like pretty much every generation of school children since the invention of the pencil.
The economic side has been tackled as well, and it turns out that it is not easier than the technological side. More importantly: It involves politics, and politics move slowly on all problems of the commons (i.e. low impact on many people).
The decline of the USA is in no small part due to them having outsourced so much manufacturing elsewhere. It creates dependencies of various kinds and is more of a brain-drain than the financial idiots realise. Seriously, these are the "finance gurus" who have brought us the economic crisis - do we really listen to them for wisdom?
Design and innovation does not require much manpower. It provides jobs for thousands, but not for millions. Manufacturing feeds many more families, and supports many more people with technical know-how. Every company that has outsourced essential parts of its production chain has learnt painful lessons. Not necessarily so painful that it was all a bad idea - outsourcing can be profitable and the right approach. But like all the business "wisdoms" of the past 50 years, its advantages have been over-hyped and its shortcomings understated.
And, most importantly, business economics and macro economics are not the same thing and don't follow the same rules, and what is good in one context is not necessarily good in the other.
I couldn't care less about percentage values, because I can't buy food for percentages. If the sum total that ends up in my pocket is more this way, then it is a good deal for me. If it is less, then it is a bad deal for me. It really is that simple. Talk about cuts and percentages is just moral outrage.
I am in the process of publishing my first book (as an e-book, incidentally). I could self-publish through Amazon with ease. But I wouldn't mind someone taking care of all that busywork for me, and doing some marketing, and for his efforts take a cut.
It depends on what exactly the publisher is doing for you that matters.
I would have never bought so many books as an adult if I hadn't read so many in the library as a kid (when buying a book was a major purchase).
Lending doesn't damage sales, because most people who lend books wouldn't buy them. Either they can't afford it, or they only need the book for a single reference, a paper or presentation or whatever.
But, it seems, just like the movie and the music industry before them, the publishers don't understand that you can't have the cake of technological progress, and eat it, too. There comes some bad with all the good. Or rather: Some good for others.
Slashdot Mirror
nobody wins.
Everyone who would have done business with this guy and now won't wins.
It actually works for celebrities, where I believe the term was coined.
For celebrities, bad stuff makes them more human and reduces the distance between them and their fans, especially when it is so horrible the fans can say "I would never do that" - now you are actually superior to your idol, at least in one aspect. There is such a thing as "too perfect", and it has sunk many more careers than bad news about drinking or drug habbits have.
Other guy just lost his livelihood to a stupid and unprofessional emotional outburst.
If he were a truck driver, or a factory worker, I would agree that he shouldn't suffer this penalty.
But he isn't. He is in the business of public relations. He just lost his job because he couldn't do it.
focusing on "how can we get marketshare" shows a complete and utter misunderstanding of the entire market and asking the wrong question. The first question should be "how can we make a great phone with a great experience". Not "why aren't people buying this"?
Bingo.
And that is why Apple could break the rules and get away with it. They knew the original iPhone would sell to a select audience. They were not concerned with market share. And yet they had Nokia running scared the moment it hit the shelves.
i) being Microsoft. Both developers and the general public generally assume that you don't get it right until the 3rd version, so they avoid the first two like the plague.
People are used to their PCs crashing and freezing and generally being troublesome. But they don't (yet) accept the same behaviour from their phones.
Do you want to teach games or programming?
If you want to teach games, the first one should not be a computer game. Make it a board game, a card game or something else that you can create with paper and pens.
Anything beyond that adds complexities that distract from the game design itself. There is very little design-wise in a computer game that you can't have in a board game.
And yes, I am a (hobby/indy) game designer. I've made some board games, a card game, a play-by-mail game, two pen&paper roleplaying games and a bunch of computer games. Largely in that order.
Apple is an exception
The real question is: Why isn't Microsoft?
"My better competitor is an exception" is a cop-out. Find out what makes them the exception, why they could break the rules and not only get away with it, but be successful doing so. Just saying "they're an exception" is on the same order as "these are not the droids you are looking for" - if you're not a Jedi, it just makes you look stupid. Because you didn't explain anything, and least of all the failure you're trying to cover up.
Really? Journalism is going downhill with the standards hitting all-time lows, I fear.
No, schooling will not be replaced by Kindles. There is a lot more to education than making the kids read stuff, or reading it to them. There's a reason we have a whole field of science dedicated to teaching - educational science.
No, let me repeat:
Non-programmers will not write programs. No matter what programming language.
It really is that simple.
Arguably if it hadn't been for our presence in West Germany throughout the Cold War, life would have sucked for a very large number of Europeans. There was very little gratitude for that at the time, which never made much sense to me.
As a german, I can explain it to you. It is a matter of disappointment.
Immediately after WW2, the USA was a land of dreams for most germans, much like it had before for some, just more so (just look at emmigration numbers). American soldiers were generally liked, seemed affluent to an impoverished people in a bombed-out country, and the re-education regarding the whole Nazi thing worked well in framing you as the good guys despite having bombed us like you had no other hobbies.
But the US overstayed its welcome and turned into an occupation power. Many west germans had relatives on the other side of the wall, so we never accepted the "all communists are evil monsters" mindset that the McCarthy era brought to America. For us, they were humans just like ourselves, and your military presence didn't feel much like protection. Against whom? Our own relatives?
In addition, after WW2 you were very successful in turning the german people into a peaceful nation. So much that we didn't support your Cold War very much, and when you brought nuclear missiles into our country against our wishes, it became clear that you were not here to help us, but to defend your own interests.
And that's when anti-americanism started here. When we realised your friendship wasn't real, it was practical.
Just pointing out that it's hypocritical to make fun of another country's establishment of self-defense rights, when the lessons of history tell us all too clearly what happens when the state is given a monopoly on the use of force.
Quite to the contrary. The Weimar Republic - the Germany that put Hitler in control - had gun laws much closer to the 2nd than the much stricter gun controls of Germany nowadays.
All-quantors are always wrong.
But he is right in pointing out that interests beyond good & evil were involved, on all sides.
In a way, though, it is. There are actually fewer actions that need to be taken from the economic side than from the technological side; indeed economic actions can have very measurable and lasting effects in a short amount of time while technological actions are generally worthless.
Do you say that as an economist or as a technician? Because I would take a bet that the other side would say the same thing, only in reverse.
You may have misread me on that matter. Economic solutions are not inherently political, even though politics is inherently tied to economics. However, the companies who are on the financial take in the matter can be influenced without the necessity of legislative action.
If it were that simple, someone would have done it by now, don't you think? If it is just that nobody has done it, then why don't you?
Spammers don't have a lobby. There is no special interest working for them, it's simply that the problem is so distributed that few people really care about it all that much.
Of course games are more fun - they're designed to be fun.
Watch more children. They are intensely curious, and something new and interesting will take their interest off any game in a second.
At some point, one has to crack down and work. And the work ethic is also something that needs to be taught along with reading, writing, math and technology.
There is no ethic in work, and if you believe there is, you have been brainwashed.
And there is no work in basic skills. Most kids actually want to learn to read by the time they enter school.
Our education is seriously fucked up because it is built on the mental model of a factory - generating a continuous stream of output of identical units. It's no surprise the units disagree on the idea and rebel against it in their own little ways.
I can do basic math, thank you.
If I can get more sales using a publisher - through marketing, more reach, whatever reason - and sales times my cut is more this way then the other, then it is a good deal for me. If self-publishing makes my sales times my cut larger, than that is the better deal.
Really, it isn't so hard. What works for Konrath may or may not work for others. It's a good read, and something to keep in mind, but you still have to decide for yourself which way is best for you.
The only one who feels that you have to save anyone from anyone else is you.
Because the rest of the world has understood decades ago that when you leave, the "saved" are generally a lot worse off than they were before.
The only time you ever saved anyone without bringing total ruin was WW2, and the laurels from that are getting old as the people who actually remember are dying off.
Whatever you say or think, lots of people outside the US feel that way, you better take these words to heart even if they hurt your ego.
They're being sued for trademark infringement, not piracy as the bad /. summary alleges.
And for TM case, they might actually have a good point.
...BASIC sucks.
And it doesn't do what you allege it does. There is no such thing as a "programming language for the general public" anymore than there are nuclear power station DIY kits.
The 2nd has actual implications and matters.
This isn't "virtual arms" we are talking about, it is virtual fashion accessoirs. Virtual arms would be something that can do virtual damage. The "virtual" equivalent of the 2nd would be the right to own DDoS tools or something.
Just because it is a virtual something that looks like a firearm doesn't make it the virtual equivalent of one. If you can't shoot someone with it, even virtually, it is not a firearm. It's something that looks like one. But the 2nd doesn't give you the right to own things that look like firearms, it gives you the right to own things that are firearms. Very important difference.
I hate it when people haven't read Korzybski.
There's a lesson from NLP: There's no failure, only feedback.
If the pupils use the iPads for gaming during class, that is a very strong feedback that the games are more interesting than school.
Maybe that is the root cause, not the technology? If they don't have iPads, they'll go back to playing games on paper, like pretty much every generation of school children since the invention of the pencil.
The economic side has been tackled as well, and it turns out that it is not easier than the technological side. More importantly: It involves politics, and politics move slowly on all problems of the commons (i.e. low impact on many people).
The decline of the USA is in no small part due to them having outsourced so much manufacturing elsewhere. It creates dependencies of various kinds and is more of a brain-drain than the financial idiots realise. Seriously, these are the "finance gurus" who have brought us the economic crisis - do we really listen to them for wisdom?
Design and innovation does not require much manpower. It provides jobs for thousands, but not for millions. Manufacturing feeds many more families, and supports many more people with technical know-how. Every company that has outsourced essential parts of its production chain has learnt painful lessons. Not necessarily so painful that it was all a bad idea - outsourcing can be profitable and the right approach. But like all the business "wisdoms" of the past 50 years, its advantages have been over-hyped and its shortcomings understated.
And, most importantly, business economics and macro economics are not the same thing and don't follow the same rules, and what is good in one context is not necessarily good in the other.
I couldn't care less about percentage values, because I can't buy food for percentages. If the sum total that ends up in my pocket is more this way, then it is a good deal for me. If it is less, then it is a bad deal for me. It really is that simple. Talk about cuts and percentages is just moral outrage.
Not entirely.
I am in the process of publishing my first book (as an e-book, incidentally). I could self-publish through Amazon with ease. But I wouldn't mind someone taking care of all that busywork for me, and doing some marketing, and for his efforts take a cut.
It depends on what exactly the publisher is doing for you that matters.
I would have never bought so many books as an adult if I hadn't read so many in the library as a kid (when buying a book was a major purchase).
Lending doesn't damage sales, because most people who lend books wouldn't buy them. Either they can't afford it, or they only need the book for a single reference, a paper or presentation or whatever.
But, it seems, just like the movie and the music industry before them, the publishers don't understand that you can't have the cake of technological progress, and eat it, too. There comes some bad with all the good. Or rather: Some good for others.