Because ads == prostitution and not everyone is a whore, even though you can earn tons of money in that line of business. Imagine! The author of that article is probably forfeiting thousands of dollars by not selling himself as a callboy during the evenings!
I run an online game. I would feel dirty and my game soiled if I were to put ads on it. The only "advertisement" I ever had was a) a banner for the T-Shirts made specifically for the very same game and b) a Get Firefox banner because I want people to use Firefox (Firefox users are causing me much less trouble than IE users, for some reason).
From the Wall Street to the WSJ to the board room, the culture of short term thinking to screw the customer is pervasive. It's all about rape and pillage for the shareholders, kill the company (after offloading the stock to E-Trade suckers) and then invest somewhere else.
And that concept is so old, it even got a name. A high-profile german politician called these people "swarms of locusts", after those african locusts that decend in huge swarms upon a patch of land and eat literally everything until nothing but a desert remains - which they then leave for the next (still) greener pasture.
Might also work as a countermeasure against the increasing permanent surveilance we're coming under.
If there were a device that disables CCTV, and it's cheap enough to buy and light enough to carry, I know I would have one with me and switched on all the time. I'm sick and tired of being treated like a (potential) criminal "for my own protection".
You should address your good wishes to Melinda. Gates did very little beneficial before he met her, and ever since they married, he's started spending more and more on philantropy. To me that's exactly the sign of a man under the soft but efficient control of his wife slowly turning him around to what she wants.
Well, they do beat OpenBSD - Vista has zero remote root exploits in the default install so far. Don't let anyone tell you that that's because it hasn't been released yet, ok?
One (a scientist, especially) should not have a "belief" in anything, but should instead insist upon questioning, and have a rational, logical experimental base foundation for their work.
The "should" in your reply betrays you. The above sentence is in itself part of a belief system. Putting rational explanation above belief and religious "insight" or whatever you want to call it is a preference decision you can explain from within the system itself, but not from without. You are therefore no better than the religious fundamentalist, who can just as easily explain his preference for valuing belief over scientific proof from within his system.
See where this is going?:)
I have no doubt that, for a true and honest scientist, that if you were able to construct a better method for scientific research
Yes, but that is not the point. The point is that all this talk about research method, rational analysis, questioning, etc. is only "true" from within a specific system of belief - namely that of rational thought.
The advocatus diaboli can always pull out the rug from under your argument by doubting the foundation of your argument.
I must reiterate that no honest scientist should "believe" in this (or any other) method.
And again, that is just a part of the whole model. The point is that religious people (well, the smart ones) reject the entire concept of rational thought, and - quite correctly - claim that there is nothing outside the system of rational thought that makes it any better than their own.
This is a very difficult argument to counter, because you have to step to a meta-level, and one that everyone agrees on.
What we need to do is find a way to remove the (almost certainly genetic) inclination towards religion from our species before it wipes us out.
A year ago, I would've agreed. Since then, my studies of the human mind have reached the point where I do agree that we have an inclination towards religion (but I would disagree that it is genetic), but I do not think that religion per se is the problem.
It very much more likely is specific kinds of religion. Montheistic religions, for example, have a built-in aggressive logic by their claim to be the one and only path towards salvation, and almost all of them (definitely all the major ones) have an outright hatred towards other religions. Or, as it was excellently phrased in one Black Adder episode: "God says: Love thy neighbour as ye love yerself. Unless he is muslim, in which case kill the fucking bastard."
Abolishing religion will not work. Most self-proclaimed atheists have only renamed their gods. For example, for many the strict belief in the scientific method has very much religious characteristics and they defend it with zeal. There's a reason that if you study theology, science is a part of the "other religions" curricullum.
I'm shocked that you actually used the words "less collateral damage" in relation to fucking nuclear bombs. We are not talking bullets or missiles here, which could - at least in theory - strike a small target and do limited damage.
You can not contain a nuclear explosion once you started it. There is no "collateral damage" because anything within the blast radius is very much going to be torched. The heat, radition and fallout are not "oops, accident" effects. Especially not in a nuke detonated at ground level.
For example, one possible use for US nuclear weapons is a strike against hardened targets in North Korea.
Only in the textbooks of some too-dumb-for-other-careers generals. Using a nuclear weapon against any target whatsoever will almost certainly isolate the US from the civilized world and has a serious risk of causing immediate retribution. Taking out a "hardened target" the "easy" way through a nuke loses much of its charm if the price is, say, the greater LA area, doesn't it?
Also remember that the only way the US can credibly deter others from using nuclear weapons is to convince those others that the US is willing and able to strike back.
Only in parts. MAD works against countries. It doesn't work against asymmetrical opponents. Who do you nuke if Osama turns New York into a parking lot? Ok, Bush will probably nuke someone, anyone, just to vent his anger, but more realistically speaking, you can't nuke a dispersed enemy any more than firebombing Vietnam took out the Vietcong.
Likewise, deterance is proven to not work against people who believe they have nothing to lose. Drive North Korea or Iran too much against a wall, and they'll nuke you not despite but because of your threat potential.
which is about how such issues played out in the 50's - 80's
Earth to US: We're in the 21st century by now. Things change.
For all we know about MS and their business tactics, this is unlikely to be an actual truce offer. More likely, they're trying to drive a wedge between the Open Source and the Free Software communities.
1. Get rid of them 2. Remove them 3. Disable them 4. Block them 5. ???
There are very few games where in-game ads are appropriate and don't distract from the game itself. Some sports games might qualify, but only if your goal is to simulate not only the game but the entire stadion atmosphere as well. The only genre I can really think of where ads are part of the game are Cyberpunk games where the theme practically requires every available surface to be covered in ads, so there could just as well be a couple real ones among them.
Aside from that: Free TV with ads? Fine. Pay-TV and no ads? Fine. Pay-TV with ads? I think that's been tried and found to be a horrible failure. I pray that in-game advertisement will go the same way.
Actually, parent is both funny and spot on. Most porn movies "plot" can be summed up in about 3 sentences - and so can the plot of many Hollywood action movies. Mostly it's one for those who want to look at fucking and the other for those who want to have explosions.
And despite 99,99% being total crap as far as acting, story, etc. is, there are a couple porn movies which really shine. I know I have one sitting on my drive where I've always planned to shorten (but not cut out entirely) the fucking scenes, because if they weren't overly long, it would actually make a pretty decent movie, including special effects, a nice story and passable acting.
Though for all I know, quality peaked in the 90s or so, when there was much more money in porn than today, and style actually sold and was in demand, in contrast to todays silly records and bukkake orgies.
Not much of this will stand up to a serious checking, I'm afraid.
A lot of this is just economics of scale. If you compare the US to, say, the UK, you are comparing 298 mio. people to 60 mio. people - a scale of 5:1. It isn't a surprise that the bigger domestic market, bigger pool of labor, bigger pool of inventors, banks, universities and everything else produces more start-ups, even on a scale higher than 5:1 (since some of these factors multiply).
Take the "better universities", for example. How many really top notch universities does the US have? It's always the same five or so names you hear. It's not like there were a hundred great universities, it's a small bunch. If you scale that down by 5:1, you'll realize that the UK (or any other 1st world country you want to compare to) can hold it's own.
There are also several factors that are overlooked and ignored. For example, many countries lack the venture capital culture of the US. Germany, for example, is much more conservative with funding. Getting thrown a few millions for a cool idea is not something you can count on over here. On the other hand, I'm sure that this caution results in a much lower rate of failed startups as well.
Finally, consider cultures. Not everyone shares the "american dream" of becoming the super-rich boss of a huge corporation. Quite a few other cultures have other dreams. They might be happy at having found their niche where they perform best, even if it's on a smaller scale. They might not wish the ruthlessness sometimes necessary and often demonstrated by US "robber barons" and corporations, but put more value on human values and moderation. Your "success" does not necessarily have to be my success, and we both might laugh over what someone else considers his personal big success.
So why are there so many startups in the US? Maybe because the US culture considers startup to be more interesting, valuable or important than other cultures do. And if you want to go round the circle, I'm sure everyone can write an article titled "why are there more (something) in (country Y) than elsewhere?".
Let's call it what it is: Cable companies are pissed that people can access porn (and other content where big money is to be made) at the same price as/. (and other content where little money is).
It's a big cash-in on the guy who invented a better mousetrap and is using our cheese!!! without paying us for the added value!!!.
Disclaimer: I work for a "triple-play" company (phone, dsl, video-on-demand). I very seriously believe in 5 years we'll be either selling DSL and nothing else, or we'll be out of business.
For many years now, it has been more convenient and hassle-free to run cracked versions of games, even if you did buy the original (I know I downloaded quite a few no-CD cracks for games I had bought in the store).
Looks like windos will be next in line for that attitude.
Oh yeah - last I checked, the whole multi-million dollar copyprotection software did exactly zilch for the level of illegal copying in the games world...
/. is a news/forum site, not something where non-native-english-speakers should have to bother with a spellchecker if their overal spelling is ok. I'm all for proper spelling, but there's some courtesy in ignoring spelling errors, you know?
Write me a lengthy reply in german (my native language) if you disagree. I'll be happy to pick it apart on spelling and grammar...
You might just be a polarity responder. I have a similar reaction to coffein: I don't drink coffee, because it doesn't wake me up, it makes me sleepy (and the taste sucks).
Two things are getting overlooked in the comments so far:
One, the comparison to pro athletes is flawed because in those cases the steroids are in addition to hard training. Same way, none of these drugs replace the problem that you can't know what you never read. So no, the dumb kid won't beat the smart kid. It'll just score a-little-not-quite-so-dumb.
Two, aside from what medicine tests (and currently denies) in side-effects, there's always one to be aware of: Habit. If you go into every test pumped up, you will lose your ability to pass a test without your little helpers. Which means that since most higher-up jobs nowadays are essentially continous crisis management, you'll never be without them until retirement.
I'll add a third: You probably miss out on the incredible drugs your body can produce on its own...
I'm working for a very wealthy private univesity and it's much better than the state one where I worked before.
Have you ever considered that "wealthy" might be the keyword there? Many of the problems of the public sector are the direct result of low funding. When you're starving for cash, it's not easy to be a good place to work. And, of course, a lot of your good people will leave for somewhere else.
I don't think private/public is the point. I've seen companies from the inside where literally fear of economic disaster (i.e. fear of not finding another job) is the main motivation factor for much of the workforce.
Slashdot Mirror
Because ads == prostitution and not everyone is a whore, even though you can earn tons of money in that line of business. Imagine! The author of that article is probably forfeiting thousands of dollars by not selling himself as a callboy during the evenings!
I run an online game. I would feel dirty and my game soiled if I were to put ads on it. The only "advertisement" I ever had was a) a banner for the T-Shirts made specifically for the very same game and b) a Get Firefox banner because I want people to use Firefox (Firefox users are causing me much less trouble than IE users, for some reason).
From the Wall Street to the WSJ to the board room, the culture of short term thinking to screw the customer is pervasive. It's all about rape and pillage for the shareholders, kill the company (after offloading the stock to E-Trade suckers) and then invest somewhere else.
And that concept is so old, it even got a name. A high-profile german politician called these people "swarms of locusts", after those african locusts that decend in huge swarms upon a patch of land and eat literally everything until nothing but a desert remains - which they then leave for the next (still) greener pasture.
Might also work as a countermeasure against the increasing permanent surveilance we're coming under.
If there were a device that disables CCTV, and it's cheap enough to buy and light enough to carry, I know I would have one with me and switched on all the time. I'm sick and tired of being treated like a (potential) criminal "for my own protection".
$250 billion per year to Internet pirates
I am also losing $350680348 fantastillion every year because my plan for world domination failed at step 1 (get out of bed before 11).
Could the US government please join me as well in the quest for recovering these losses?
You should address your good wishes to Melinda. Gates did very little beneficial before he met her, and ever since they married, he's started spending more and more on philantropy. To me that's exactly the sign of a man under the soft but efficient control of his wife slowly turning him around to what she wants.
For some reason the proverb "the rats are leaving the sinking ship" comes to my mind.
Well, they do beat OpenBSD - Vista has zero remote root exploits in the default install so far. Don't let anyone tell you that that's because it hasn't been released yet, ok?
One (a scientist, especially) should not have a "belief" in anything, but should instead insist upon questioning, and have a rational, logical experimental base foundation for their work.
:)
The "should" in your reply betrays you. The above sentence is in itself part of a belief system. Putting rational explanation above belief and religious "insight" or whatever you want to call it is a preference decision you can explain from within the system itself, but not from without. You are therefore no better than the religious fundamentalist, who can just as easily explain his preference for valuing belief over scientific proof from within his system.
See where this is going?
I have no doubt that, for a true and honest scientist, that if you were able to construct a better method for scientific research
Yes, but that is not the point. The point is that all this talk about research method, rational analysis, questioning, etc. is only "true" from within a specific system of belief - namely that of rational thought.
The advocatus diaboli can always pull out the rug from under your argument by doubting the foundation of your argument.
I must reiterate that no honest scientist should "believe" in this (or any other) method.
And again, that is just a part of the whole model. The point is that religious people (well, the smart ones) reject the entire concept of rational thought, and - quite correctly - claim that there is nothing outside the system of rational thought that makes it any better than their own.
This is a very difficult argument to counter, because you have to step to a meta-level, and one that everyone agrees on.
What we need to do is find a way to remove the (almost certainly genetic) inclination towards religion from our species before it wipes us out.
A year ago, I would've agreed. Since then, my studies of the human mind have reached the point where I do agree that we have an inclination towards religion (but I would disagree that it is genetic), but I do not think that religion per se is the problem.
It very much more likely is specific kinds of religion. Montheistic religions, for example, have a built-in aggressive logic by their claim to be the one and only path towards salvation, and almost all of them (definitely all the major ones) have an outright hatred towards other religions. Or, as it was excellently phrased in one Black Adder episode: "God says: Love thy neighbour as ye love yerself. Unless he is muslim, in which case kill the fucking bastard."
Abolishing religion will not work. Most self-proclaimed atheists have only renamed their gods. For example, for many the strict belief in the scientific method has very much religious characteristics and they defend it with zeal. There's a reason that if you study theology, science is a part of the "other religions" curricullum.
I'm shocked that you actually used the words "less collateral damage" in relation to fucking nuclear bombs. We are not talking bullets or missiles here, which could - at least in theory - strike a small target and do limited damage.
You can not contain a nuclear explosion once you started it. There is no "collateral damage" because anything within the blast radius is very much going to be torched. The heat, radition and fallout are not "oops, accident" effects. Especially not in a nuke detonated at ground level.
Assurances that you won't be invaded are just words on paper after all.
And we all know how good King Bush is with words...
For example, one possible use for US nuclear weapons is a strike against hardened targets in North Korea.
Only in the textbooks of some too-dumb-for-other-careers generals. Using a nuclear weapon against any target whatsoever will almost certainly isolate the US from the civilized world and has a serious risk of causing immediate retribution.
Taking out a "hardened target" the "easy" way through a nuke loses much of its charm if the price is, say, the greater LA area, doesn't it?
Also remember that the only way the US can credibly deter others from using nuclear weapons is to convince those others that the US is willing and able to strike back.
Only in parts. MAD works against countries. It doesn't work against asymmetrical opponents. Who do you nuke if Osama turns New York into a parking lot? Ok, Bush will probably nuke someone, anyone, just to vent his anger, but more realistically speaking, you can't nuke a dispersed enemy any more than firebombing Vietnam took out the Vietcong.
Likewise, deterance is proven to not work against people who believe they have nothing to lose. Drive North Korea or Iran too much against a wall, and they'll nuke you not despite but because of your threat potential.
which is about how such issues played out in the 50's - 80's
Earth to US: We're in the 21st century by now. Things change.
Mod parent up!
For all we know about MS and their business tactics, this is unlikely to be an actual truce offer. More likely, they're trying to drive a wedge between the Open Source and the Free Software communities.
Not until they offer an unconditional surrender! :))
Hm, five ways? Let's see...
1. Get rid of them
2. Remove them
3. Disable them
4. Block them
5. ???
There are very few games where in-game ads are appropriate and don't distract from the game itself. Some sports games might qualify, but only if your goal is to simulate not only the game but the entire stadion atmosphere as well. The only genre I can really think of where ads are part of the game are Cyberpunk games where the theme practically requires every available surface to be covered in ads, so there could just as well be a couple real ones among them.
Aside from that: Free TV with ads? Fine. Pay-TV and no ads? Fine. Pay-TV with ads? I think that's been tried and found to be a horrible failure. I pray that in-game advertisement will go the same way.
Actually, parent is both funny and spot on. Most porn movies "plot" can be summed up in about 3 sentences - and so can the plot of many Hollywood action movies. Mostly it's one for those who want to look at fucking and the other for those who want to have explosions.
And despite 99,99% being total crap as far as acting, story, etc. is, there are a couple porn movies which really shine. I know I have one sitting on my drive where I've always planned to shorten (but not cut out entirely) the fucking scenes, because if they weren't overly long, it would actually make a pretty decent movie, including special effects, a nice story and passable acting.
Though for all I know, quality peaked in the 90s or so, when there was much more money in porn than today, and style actually sold and was in demand, in contrast to todays silly records and bukkake orgies.
Not much of this will stand up to a serious checking, I'm afraid.
A lot of this is just economics of scale. If you compare the US to, say, the UK, you are comparing 298 mio. people to 60 mio. people - a scale of 5:1. It isn't a surprise that the bigger domestic market, bigger pool of labor, bigger pool of inventors, banks, universities and everything else produces more start-ups, even on a scale higher than 5:1 (since some of these factors multiply).
Take the "better universities", for example. How many really top notch universities does the US have? It's always the same five or so names you hear. It's not like there were a hundred great universities, it's a small bunch. If you scale that down by 5:1, you'll realize that the UK (or any other 1st world country you want to compare to) can hold it's own.
There are also several factors that are overlooked and ignored. For example, many countries lack the venture capital culture of the US. Germany, for example, is much more conservative with funding. Getting thrown a few millions for a cool idea is not something you can count on over here. On the other hand, I'm sure that this caution results in a much lower rate of failed startups as well.
Finally, consider cultures. Not everyone shares the "american dream" of becoming the super-rich boss of a huge corporation. Quite a few other cultures have other dreams. They might be happy at having found their niche where they perform best, even if it's on a smaller scale. They might not wish the ruthlessness sometimes necessary and often demonstrated by US "robber barons" and corporations, but put more value on human values and moderation. Your "success" does not necessarily have to be my success, and we both might laugh over what someone else considers his personal big success.
So why are there so many startups in the US? Maybe because the US culture considers startup to be more interesting, valuable or important than other cultures do. And if you want to go round the circle, I'm sure everyone can write an article titled "why are there more (something) in (country Y) than elsewhere?".
It certainly is. And while rare, I'd like to point out that there are well-funded parts of the public sector.
It's actually "Führer", with the h behind the umlaut-u.
:)
Now I'll be happy to let the spelling nazi theme rest.
Let's call it what it is: Cable companies are pissed that people can access porn (and other content where big money is to be made) at the same price as /. (and other content where little money is).
It's a big cash-in on the guy who invented a better mousetrap and is using our cheese!!! without paying us for the added value!!!.
Disclaimer: I work for a "triple-play" company (phone, dsl, video-on-demand). I very seriously believe in 5 years we'll be either selling DSL and nothing else, or we'll be out of business.
For many years now, it has been more convenient and hassle-free to run cracked versions of games, even if you did buy the original (I know I downloaded quite a few no-CD cracks for games I had bought in the store).
Looks like windos will be next in line for that attitude.
Oh yeah - last I checked, the whole multi-million dollar copyprotection software did exactly zilch for the level of illegal copying in the games world...
/. is a news/forum site, not something where non-native-english-speakers should have to bother with a spellchecker if their overal spelling is ok. I'm all for proper spelling, but there's some courtesy in ignoring spelling errors, you know?
Write me a lengthy reply in german (my native language) if you disagree. I'll be happy to pick it apart on spelling and grammar...
You might just be a polarity responder. I have a similar reaction to coffein: I don't drink coffee, because it doesn't wake me up, it makes me sleepy (and the taste sucks).
Two things are getting overlooked in the comments so far:
One, the comparison to pro athletes is flawed because in those cases the steroids are in addition to hard training. Same way, none of these drugs replace the problem that you can't know what you never read. So no, the dumb kid won't beat the smart kid. It'll just score a-little-not-quite-so-dumb.
Two, aside from what medicine tests (and currently denies) in side-effects, there's always one to be aware of: Habit. If you go into every test pumped up, you will lose your ability to pass a test without your little helpers. Which means that since most higher-up jobs nowadays are essentially continous crisis management, you'll never be without them until retirement.
I'll add a third: You probably miss out on the incredible drugs your body can produce on its own...
I'm working for a very wealthy private univesity and it's much better than the state one where I worked before.
Have you ever considered that "wealthy" might be the keyword there? Many of the problems of the public sector are the direct result of low funding. When you're starving for cash, it's not easy to be a good place to work. And, of course, a lot of your good people will leave for somewhere else.
I don't think private/public is the point. I've seen companies from the inside where literally fear of economic disaster (i.e. fear of not finding another job) is the main motivation factor for much of the workforce.