The instant you let accountants have a say in long-term research projects, you lose the ability to make a really big impact with your research. Long-term research is never about instant or near-term payoffs. Most of the time, it won't even lead to a viable commercial product for a decade or more--sometimes never. But the technologies developed can morph into some very important things in the future. Investors only have a right to say where the money gets spent if they have a controlling share, which, as I understand it, they do not (the founders retained controlling interest). If those who do not have a controlling stake in the company feel that the company is wasting money, they can vote by selling their share and investing elsewhere.
Please tell me what businesses still use and optimize for IE6. Seriously, Microsoft has explicitly begun forcing IE7/8 upgrades down the throats of XP users because IE6 is a massively outdated browser. You are not helping any company by agreeing to make an "IE6 only" site/app. You are hurting them, because your job is to evangelize to them the importance of upgrading. Letting them continue to use IE6 means you are letting them continue to be vulnerable to all kinds of security issues.
Frankly, any customer who refuses to update to at least IE7 is one who I would not do business with. I wouldn't want my name associated with the various security holes that could bring down that company's systems.
The stock-based "value" of a company is not based on earnings in a single year. Most companies trade at anywhere from a 10x-50x Price/Earnings ratio. Stock value is purely perception, not tangible money.
If you really want to "opt out", you need to obfuscate instead. It doesn't matter how careful you are, if someone really wants to track you or learn about you, they will. So make it hard on them by posting random things, changing your habits, making contradictory claims in public forums, and moving around a lot. That can't be any more effort than what it takes to hide, and at least that way you're able to still take advantage of the positive things offered by the Internet, credit/debit cards, bank accounts, electronic communication, etc. Oh, you weren't avoiding using those? Then you didn't actually try to "opt out".
IE6? No. Absolutely not. Any web site that requires IE6 and will not work on something newer is a site that nobody should ever visit, and probably is residing on a server somewhere that somebody left plugged in and didn't realize it.
True, but threatening to turn an entire state into a "no fly zone" is pretty amazingly stupid. There have been plenty of individuals who have attempted (and failed) to fight the TSA based on numerous Supreme Court rulings -- "...[t]he nature of our Federal Union and our constitutional concepts of personal liberty unite to require that all citizens be free to travel throughout the length and breadth of our land, uninhibited by statutes, rules, or regulations which unreasonably burden or restrict this movement."
If you want to make it impossible to fly into/out of a whole state, however, that sure seems like an unreasonable burden/restriction to me. While it's still possible to drive/walk, it significantly delays travel vs. flying, and places a significant damper on all types of commerce. Now, whether the Supreme Court would bitch-slap the TSA into oblivion or just invalidate the state law is debatable. However, if they chose to invalidate the state law, that just might be the tipping point that sends the average US citizen over the edge and to the point of fighting back.
Actually, I think people believe that "advocates who understand the laws" are an unnecessary product of a flawed, excessively complex system that makes it very, very difficult for the common person to understand. The very fact that you can be sued under a law that you do not understand and would need an advocate with a decade of schooling to explain to you is a fundamental problem.
Once upon a time, laws were written in broad terms that could be understood by the average citizen. While this left things open to interpretation, that was part of the point. Laws need to have flexibility when they are applied, precisely because all cases and scenarios they will cover cannot be envisioned when they are written. The Judicial branch of government exists not just ask a check against unconstitutional laws, but as a check against unjust laws. Just because something is illegal doesn't necessarily mean it is wrong.
The qualification here is having a bit of common sense. The system is broken. Let's not dilute that reality by keeping our thinking so inside the box that we can't see the fundamental failure of the patent system to promote innovation in the modern era.
Why was this modded funny? It's exactly what they actually will do. We can keep dumping money on larger conventional munitions while Iran spends a fraction of it just adding more concrete. Or, we can cancel these pointless programs and re-start development on the RNEP (Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator) at far less cost. Just send Iran a friendly reminder that no matter how much they reinforce their underground bunkers, we're capable of blasting them to smithereens.
Given that it's a fairly decent article about a somewhat (or very, for large companies) significant bug in a widely-used database, I think it still qualifies as "News for Nerds", doesn't it?
Empty gesture? No, it would have been saying "I do not give a fuck about stupid politics, and would prefer to stick to my guns about something that really matters for a change."
When you act out of concern for your re-election rather than what is best for the nation, you are acting as a traitor to your country.
I don't know, I'd bet Google would be willing to give Apple a run for their money on the Kodak patents, given the patent acquisition spree they've been on recently.
I couldn't agree more. In fact, I think it's extremely selfish and stupid that people aren't willing to give up the rights that the founders of this country fought and died to give us. It's extremely shortsighted for people to think their freedom is more important than the almighty, benevolent, caring, giving corporation. How dare they! Long live the corporation!
This is definitely true, so the "inconvenience factor" that most people will tolerate is a bit higher. Personally, I would want to be able to pull up the books on my PC as well as tablet/eReader, depending on what book it is (eg. technical manual vs. fiction).
"'To keep their overall revenue from taking a hit from lost sales to individuals, publishers need to reintroduce more inconvenience for the borrower or raise the price for the library purchaser."
Anyone who genuinely believes the above is going to reduce piracy/increase profits for the publisher is an idiot. The degree of inconvenience/expense a customer will endure in order to acquire a legal copy of a product is limited. In the digital age, you cannot shutdown piracy the way you could with purely physical products, and the book/music/movie/television industry needs to just stop trying. They are in competition with the pirates for market share, and not primarily in terms of cost. Of course there are some people who will always pirate a product because they are cheapskates, but there are far more people who would much rather have a legal means of obtaining a product that isn't laden with DRM, the inconvenience of going to a physically different location, or other restrictions.
The music industry was the first to get slapped with the wake-up call that DRM is anti-customer, and that digital distribution actually leads to bigger profits, despite low price points. The other entertainment industries would do well to take these lessons and run with them.
I would say this is just the start - the people who are usually in control of domain registration for web sites are the same sort who are going to vehemently oppose SOPA and it's ilk. The long term effects will likely be much more significant, as people change registrars when renewals come up, and fewer people register new domains with them.
GoDaddy's decision to not actually reverse their stance, and instead just put out a press release filled with lies has only compounded the problem.
CyanogenMod 9 will almost certainly make it to most of the Galaxy S/Tab devices that have CM7 support. The main problem is that there is not enough storage space to have ICS with Touchwiz--on a custom/AOSP ROM, that's a non-issue.
At no point did I say it wasn't a good strategy on Apple's part. All I said was that Apple didn't come up with some incredible innovation that Google is now copying.
Apple didn't create Siri - they bought the tech. Google has been doing this same basic thing, just with different syntax/polish since before Apple.
The only copying here is Apple copying Star Trek. Google chose this code name precisely because it was Star Trek and Sci Fi in general that inspired the bulk of modern technologies we use. If Apple decides to throw a fit and sues Google (or more likely, HTC/Samsung/Etc), Google will throw Star Trek as prior art.
I kind of hope that this is all some sort of ridiculous Trojan Horse plan. If not, whomever made the call to not have a reliable self-destruct sequence should be sacked.
The "one price fits all" model just doesn't work very well in the real world.
It doesn't work very well in the idiotic playground of RIAA/MPAA execs. While they may presently inhabit the real, physical world, the term "real world" implies something a bit more broad, and I don't believe the "one price fits all" model has been demolished for all markets.
I might be wrong on this, but I'm pretty sure there are some huge differences between naval nuclear plants, and civilian plants. The naval plants likely generate considerably less power and are smaller. Plus there is no succeptability to natural disasters in the same way as a land-based plant.
The red tape surrounding nuclear plants in the US makes it all but impossible to produce a new plant if you expect it to ever be profitable. If the Navy wants to build a nuclear reactor for a ship, they bring in engineers to get it sorted out. If civilians/government wants to build a nuclear reactor, they bring in engineers, politicians, activists, etc etc, and never get anywhere.
[quote]The problem is lack of effective regulations and oversight. [/quote]
I'm not sure I can agree with that. The problem appears to be that right now, most nuclear plants are of a very old design, and that there is so much red tape in replacing them that it endangers lives.
To use a dreaded Slashdot car analogy: Most people wouldn't feel comfortable having a car using 1960's safety technology as their daily driver. Why should people be more comfortable with something as complex as nuclear power generation using 1960's safety technology and design?
Although it can be argued that the walls protecting Fukushima were not high enough (where does that arms race against nature stop?), that ignores the fundamental design flaws that allowed all the backup systems to fail. These are design flaws that could really only have been corrected by rebuilding the entire plant.
Slashdot Mirror
The instant you let accountants have a say in long-term research projects, you lose the ability to make a really big impact with your research. Long-term research is never about instant or near-term payoffs. Most of the time, it won't even lead to a viable commercial product for a decade or more--sometimes never. But the technologies developed can morph into some very important things in the future. Investors only have a right to say where the money gets spent if they have a controlling share, which, as I understand it, they do not (the founders retained controlling interest). If those who do not have a controlling stake in the company feel that the company is wasting money, they can vote by selling their share and investing elsewhere.
Please tell me what businesses still use and optimize for IE6. Seriously, Microsoft has explicitly begun forcing IE7/8 upgrades down the throats of XP users because IE6 is a massively outdated browser. You are not helping any company by agreeing to make an "IE6 only" site/app. You are hurting them, because your job is to evangelize to them the importance of upgrading. Letting them continue to use IE6 means you are letting them continue to be vulnerable to all kinds of security issues.
Frankly, any customer who refuses to update to at least IE7 is one who I would not do business with. I wouldn't want my name associated with the various security holes that could bring down that company's systems.
The stock-based "value" of a company is not based on earnings in a single year. Most companies trade at anywhere from a 10x-50x Price/Earnings ratio. Stock value is purely perception, not tangible money.
If you really want to "opt out", you need to obfuscate instead. It doesn't matter how careful you are, if someone really wants to track you or learn about you, they will. So make it hard on them by posting random things, changing your habits, making contradictory claims in public forums, and moving around a lot. That can't be any more effort than what it takes to hide, and at least that way you're able to still take advantage of the positive things offered by the Internet, credit/debit cards, bank accounts, electronic communication, etc. Oh, you weren't avoiding using those? Then you didn't actually try to "opt out".
IE6? No. Absolutely not. Any web site that requires IE6 and will not work on something newer is a site that nobody should ever visit, and probably is residing on a server somewhere that somebody left plugged in and didn't realize it.
True, but threatening to turn an entire state into a "no fly zone" is pretty amazingly stupid. There have been plenty of individuals who have attempted (and failed) to fight the TSA based on numerous Supreme Court rulings -- "...[t]he nature of our Federal Union and our constitutional concepts of personal liberty unite to require that all citizens be free to travel throughout the length and breadth of our land, uninhibited by statutes, rules, or regulations which unreasonably burden or restrict this movement."
If you want to make it impossible to fly into/out of a whole state, however, that sure seems like an unreasonable burden/restriction to me. While it's still possible to drive/walk, it significantly delays travel vs. flying, and places a significant damper on all types of commerce. Now, whether the Supreme Court would bitch-slap the TSA into oblivion or just invalidate the state law is debatable. However, if they chose to invalidate the state law, that just might be the tipping point that sends the average US citizen over the edge and to the point of fighting back.
Actually, I think people believe that "advocates who understand the laws" are an unnecessary product of a flawed, excessively complex system that makes it very, very difficult for the common person to understand. The very fact that you can be sued under a law that you do not understand and would need an advocate with a decade of schooling to explain to you is a fundamental problem.
Once upon a time, laws were written in broad terms that could be understood by the average citizen. While this left things open to interpretation, that was part of the point. Laws need to have flexibility when they are applied, precisely because all cases and scenarios they will cover cannot be envisioned when they are written. The Judicial branch of government exists not just ask a check against unconstitutional laws, but as a check against unjust laws. Just because something is illegal doesn't necessarily mean it is wrong.
The qualification here is having a bit of common sense. The system is broken. Let's not dilute that reality by keeping our thinking so inside the box that we can't see the fundamental failure of the patent system to promote innovation in the modern era.
Why was this modded funny? It's exactly what they actually will do. We can keep dumping money on larger conventional munitions while Iran spends a fraction of it just adding more concrete. Or, we can cancel these pointless programs and re-start development on the RNEP (Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator) at far less cost. Just send Iran a friendly reminder that no matter how much they reinforce their underground bunkers, we're capable of blasting them to smithereens.
Given that it's a fairly decent article about a somewhat (or very, for large companies) significant bug in a widely-used database, I think it still qualifies as "News for Nerds", doesn't it?
Empty gesture? No, it would have been saying "I do not give a fuck about stupid politics, and would prefer to stick to my guns about something that really matters for a change."
When you act out of concern for your re-election rather than what is best for the nation, you are acting as a traitor to your country.
You mean like how modern tablets like the iPad aren't allowed to look like the tablets used in Star Trek?
Oh, wait...
I don't know, I'd bet Google would be willing to give Apple a run for their money on the Kodak patents, given the patent acquisition spree they've been on recently.
Which is irrelevant as I understand it, because you can't copyright a database (at least in the US).
I couldn't agree more. In fact, I think it's extremely selfish and stupid that people aren't willing to give up the rights that the founders of this country fought and died to give us. It's extremely shortsighted for people to think their freedom is more important than the almighty, benevolent, caring, giving corporation. How dare they! Long live the corporation!
Sigh...
This is definitely true, so the "inconvenience factor" that most people will tolerate is a bit higher. Personally, I would want to be able to pull up the books on my PC as well as tablet/eReader, depending on what book it is (eg. technical manual vs. fiction).
"'To keep their overall revenue from taking a hit from lost sales to individuals, publishers need to reintroduce more inconvenience for the borrower or raise the price for the library purchaser."
Anyone who genuinely believes the above is going to reduce piracy/increase profits for the publisher is an idiot. The degree of inconvenience/expense a customer will endure in order to acquire a legal copy of a product is limited. In the digital age, you cannot shutdown piracy the way you could with purely physical products, and the book/music/movie/television industry needs to just stop trying. They are in competition with the pirates for market share, and not primarily in terms of cost. Of course there are some people who will always pirate a product because they are cheapskates, but there are far more people who would much rather have a legal means of obtaining a product that isn't laden with DRM, the inconvenience of going to a physically different location, or other restrictions.
The music industry was the first to get slapped with the wake-up call that DRM is anti-customer, and that digital distribution actually leads to bigger profits, despite low price points. The other entertainment industries would do well to take these lessons and run with them.
I would say this is just the start - the people who are usually in control of domain registration for web sites are the same sort who are going to vehemently oppose SOPA and it's ilk. The long term effects will likely be much more significant, as people change registrars when renewals come up, and fewer people register new domains with them.
GoDaddy's decision to not actually reverse their stance, and instead just put out a press release filled with lies has only compounded the problem.
CyanogenMod 9 will almost certainly make it to most of the Galaxy S/Tab devices that have CM7 support. The main problem is that there is not enough storage space to have ICS with Touchwiz--on a custom/AOSP ROM, that's a non-issue.
At no point did I say it wasn't a good strategy on Apple's part. All I said was that Apple didn't come up with some incredible innovation that Google is now copying.
Apple didn't create Siri - they bought the tech. Google has been doing this same basic thing, just with different syntax/polish since before Apple.
The only copying here is Apple copying Star Trek. Google chose this code name precisely because it was Star Trek and Sci Fi in general that inspired the bulk of modern technologies we use. If Apple decides to throw a fit and sues Google (or more likely, HTC/Samsung/Etc), Google will throw Star Trek as prior art.
I kind of hope that this is all some sort of ridiculous Trojan Horse plan. If not, whomever made the call to not have a reliable self-destruct sequence should be sacked.
The "one price fits all" model just doesn't work very well in the real world.
It doesn't work very well in the idiotic playground of RIAA/MPAA execs. While they may presently inhabit the real, physical world, the term "real world" implies something a bit more broad, and I don't believe the "one price fits all" model has been demolished for all markets.
I might be wrong on this, but I'm pretty sure there are some huge differences between naval nuclear plants, and civilian plants. The naval plants likely generate considerably less power and are smaller. Plus there is no succeptability to natural disasters in the same way as a land-based plant.
The red tape surrounding nuclear plants in the US makes it all but impossible to produce a new plant if you expect it to ever be profitable. If the Navy wants to build a nuclear reactor for a ship, they bring in engineers to get it sorted out. If civilians/government wants to build a nuclear reactor, they bring in engineers, politicians, activists, etc etc, and never get anywhere.
Actually, you CAN plan for this. By, you know, not putting 75% of the entire world's manufacturing of hard drive motors into a single location.
[quote]The problem is lack of effective regulations and oversight. [/quote]
I'm not sure I can agree with that. The problem appears to be that right now, most nuclear plants are of a very old design, and that there is so much red tape in replacing them that it endangers lives.
To use a dreaded Slashdot car analogy: Most people wouldn't feel comfortable having a car using 1960's safety technology as their daily driver. Why should people be more comfortable with something as complex as nuclear power generation using 1960's safety technology and design?
Although it can be argued that the walls protecting Fukushima were not high enough (where does that arms race against nature stop?), that ignores the fundamental design flaws that allowed all the backup systems to fail. These are design flaws that could really only have been corrected by rebuilding the entire plant.