Honestly, people get WAY too worked up over privacy sometimes. A service that tracks info about what I like is a good thing - that means companies are more able to recommend things to me that I am actually going to like, rather then complete crap I neither want nor need.
It's good for companies because they can figure out if offing me something is or is not wasting my time (companies only want to sell what people want to buy.) And it's good for me because I can get introduced to me stuff I probably would like, but didn't know anything about. It's like google's adsense. You're much more likely to click because the ads are based on the content you're already reading- which you wouldn't be reading if you weren't already interested in it. It's a "Would you like to know more?" sort of thing.
To me, it comes down to time. Companies have endless time to figure out new ways of collecting info from me. Yet I don't have endless time to counteract their actions. Since the stuff is going to happen ANYWAY, there is no point in me getting all worked up over it. Write a letter to your congressmen/woman, and move on with your life.
It's not really the collecting of data that I think upsets people. People get upset with what companies might DO with that data. But really, what's the worst that can come out of that? (A) Identity theft? --Ok, that's probably the worst. More data = bigger chance. (B) More ads? --That happens anyway. (C) The Media puts your "bad deeds" on the 10 o'clock news? --Only would happen if you're famous, and by that point, you better be able to deal with people who don't like you or are trying to dig up dirt on you to make you look bad. (D) Company mis-mananges your info and a "bad person" gets it? Only bad if they try to do (A) with it.
Really, that's pretty much it. So why people get upset about companies collecting info on them, I have no idea. It has and continues to be something that's not worth worrying about.
Sorry, no. I started using google was because it didn't look like yahoo, which was a bunch of crap AND maybe search on the side. Google gave me what I came there to do, which was search.
And as strange as this may sound, I don't think a lot of people really care how accurate a search engine is, compared to all the other ones. That's a slashdotters view, but it's not the average person's view. The average person doesn't really know if the results are "accurate" or not- and typically they don't care. As long as they get good websites that have information around the topic they are looking for, then it's a good engine. For example, searchiing "washing cars" might turn up 100 sites that have info on how to wash a car. Is #1 really better then #100? Some engines might say yes, and some engines might say no. Who is "right?" Me, as long as I get something resembling washing a car, whatever site it may be, that's good enough for me.
So I guess you don't buy anything from any company?
Sorry to clue you in, but all companies advertize.
You brainwash other people when you tell them your opinion and they end up agreeing with it. You brainwash other people when you play a song for yourself, they hear it, and then they go off and sing it in their head for the rest of the day. You brainwash your kids when you tell them they have to go to school otherwise they won't be able to get a job. So just stop it. You can either be a cause or an effect in this world. If you think everyone is brainwashing you, then you're giving them all the power, because you're allowing it to happen. Start creating your own ideas instead of worrying about somebody elses.
I'm wondering if google isn't starting to cave in to business pressure. The demand on a company of that size to start doing unethical things is very great. I'm probably going a bit overboard, but I think if google starts introducing graphical ads people will start switching. Google is right on their "about us" pages- one of the major reasons I use them is because they are not like every other stupid company out there that bombards users with graphical, punch-the-monkey, blinking, in-your-face ad crap. There is no place on the web for stuff like that, especially when yahoo is just a click a way.
See the wikipedia entry for theory, but a key point is that theory makes a prediction for future events based on a large body of real world evidence for cause and effect. The key is -real world- evidence, NOT "proof". Anything can be a theory. I might have a theory that the sky is red. My perception of the sky being red comes from me, so my theory cannot entirely be disproven by anyone else. The reason is because what we focus on is what we see. We don't see what is really there, we see what we want to see. That is why language can and is used endlessly by people- If I want to write an article, I just pose an idea, and if it's even remotely plausable, I can create evidence to back up the idea, depending upon what I look for.
Scientists know this. They know that their own perception can cloud the results of their experiments. That is how the scientific theory evolved. Scientists realized that the only way to find something resembling "truth" (or at least something that is useful) is to create a theory, ANY theory, and then test it out in the real world to see what would happen. If the results came back not what they expected, then the theory was false. It does not matter who made the theory, how long the theory existed, or what evidence was in favor of the theory before. All that matters is that X did not lead to Y, therefore the process (theory) was incorrect.
People who are focused on faith often have trouble with this. That is because faith is entirely from a person's own perspective, not from the perspective of what's actually there. That may sound like a contradiction. Faith believes that something is there, and that's where it starts from- the ideas are created from that. Science also believes something is there, but then goes out and tests and refines their belief based upon what actually happens. That is not to say that science is right and faith wrong. Things which do not have a direct or at least fairly predictable cause-and-effect relationship, those things science typically has difficulty in explaining. That is because by definition, a theory is testable. In other words, things that are not testable cannot be explained by theory.
Intelligent Design was simply created to give a name and movement behind anti-darwinism fanatics. It is no more an "alternative" then saying "We don't like Darwinism."
If a parent sends a child to school, then the parent has to accept what the school teaches. Otherwise, the child should be home-schooled.
What school teaches is not necessarily right or wrong- it's just the prevailing view. "History" is the dominant viewpoint of whoever is the historian. Just the same as science is the accepted view of how nature and the universe works.
There's a lot of evidence that proves that sending a child to school isn't even useful for helping them become a success in the real world. School doesn't teach kids socializing/conversation skills, networking, selling, finances, leadership, or pretty much any other important skill that actual makes a difference to how they go about getting a job or doing anything other then following someone else's orders.
The money had to come from somewhere. Nasa can't afford to work on manned missions, fix the shuttle, AND keep going with science on the space station. What worries me is that the manned missions will suddenly lose funding as well- mainly because of the costs that ISS has incurred.
I pay for cable, which technically pays for all the shows that are broadcast during the month when I have access. And then if I miss a show, they want me to pay again to see it? Like people are actually going to pay twice to see a show, rather then buying a PVR or hacking up a free one themselves?
Honestly, I have no idea how the cable industry can explain how this business model will work now that PVRs are becoming popular.
It doesn't even make sense. People know they don't own the shows they watch, unlike they do with the music they download. If the cable industry wants to copy the music industry, then they would have to let people pay for shows al la carte, and give them access to that same episode as many times as they want. But then the industry wouldn't be able to charge for those huge DVD episode packs, nor if people recorded movies would people ever need to buy DVDs in general. That's not going to happen.
But then again, the point may be to simply capitalize on the millions of people out there who forget to do things. HUGE amounts of money are made from people who forget to cancel subscriptions, who return rented movies late, or who don't know anything about how simple it is to same money by using a free program on their computers. I guess if they really think this is going to work, then there must be a LOT of people who don't own PVRs and who forget to watch shows, that they would be willing to pay 99c to be able to see.
So basicly it will be cheaper/simpler/safer and for some....sexier.
Ob Austin Powers:-)
Radar Operator: Colonel, you better have a look at this radar. Colonel: What is it, son? Radar Operator: I don't know, sir, but it looks like a giant-- Jet Pilot: Dick! Dick, take a look out of starboard. Co-Pilot: Oh my God, it looks like a huge-- Bird-Watching Woman: Pecker! Bird-Watching Man: [raising binoculars] Where? Bird-Watching Woman: Over there. What sort of bird is that? Oh goodness, it's not a bird, it's-- Army Sergeant: Privates! We have reports of an Unidentified Flying Object. It has a long, smooth shaft, complete with-- Baseball Umpire: Two balls! [looking up from game] What is that? It looks just like an enormous-- Colonel: Johnson! Radar Operator: Yes, sir? Colonel: Get on the horn to British Intelligence and let them know about this.
The headline makes it seem like the CEV is a replacement for the shuttle, when it isn't. The shuttle was designed for LEO wherease the CEV is designed for exploration (moon, mars, etc.) Technically speaking, there is nothing in place to replace the Shuttle.
Now, based on the website information, it seems as if NASA is looking towards using the CEV (and the new heavy-lift version of the CEV) as possible platforms for getting supplies to ISS. If that's true, then I guess the CEV would go up and come down like apollo- except you're not going to the moon. But the website does not specify exactly how this sort of mission would happen- it's clear that the primary design for CEV is specifically for planetary exploration- not doing things in LEO.
The frustration with creating anything new is that annoying human tendancy to build it for themselves because they like it or think it's good, as opposed to ensuring that other people understand and can use it. There is that selfish human desire to make something "new and different", or "isn't this cool?" - without answering the enevitable "why?" Or drawl on endlessly writing about it in academic papers, instead of partnering with people that are already working on a real solution.
This is not to demeane the contributions of academics. Sometimes, the thing you want to make is new and undefined as yet, so it's difficult to describe to people familiar with other ways. That does not mean the idea is bad. Just that at some point, it needs to be resolved into something concreate, easy to describe, and usable. Otherwise, it sits on a shelf for 30 years and nobody hears about it. (Except for other academics, of course.)
The point I'd like to make is no matter how interesting and revolutionary a technology is, it does no good to anyone if people don't actually USE it.
At the time, the file/folder analogy in computers was a good technology. It was something people already understood and could easily pick up and work with. The whole reason people didn't use computers up to that point was because they didn't want to learn "cryptic" commands. Not that the command line was unusable in general- it was just unusable for most people. The selling point for the original macintosh was that it worked just like how you already worked, except non-destructively and with better ability to manipulate objects (then doing it by hand). It allowed you to do what you already do, but more powerfully. That point was the glue which allowed the personal computer to work in the minds of people.
But I think it's clear to almost everyone that the computer and the web have evolved to the point where they need a fundamental re-design if they are to progress any further. The realization of this has happened gradually over time, dispite the technology, as people have become more creative and discovered that they want more out of what is available. For this, I will point to how computing has moved towards wireless, handheld devices - devices which are not locked down in physical space and support the user during everyday life. For software, I will cite the fact that people have taken HTML and created amazingly complicated ways of manipulating it's structure so they they can put content where they want it to be and have it dynamically update. Wikis are a hyperlinking format which allows microcontent relationships to form. And finally blogs, the firefox extension Greasemonkey, and rss aggregators have all developed the means to pull content in from multiple websites into a single location.
And so my belief is that if we were to create a new form of the web that resembles this xanadu system, the time is now ripe to do so. People are much more accepting today of non-linear, dynamic documents and structures then they were when computers were first created. So the likelyhood for success of a new technology that takes those ideas and creates a more intuitive way of working with them I think is pretty high.
I think this is a great example of "the little guy" being able to fight back against being crushed by the large corporations.
I used to think the way you do. But then I realized that businesses simply aren't meant to be on a level playing field. The best business wins, and that's the way it's supposed to be. If it weren't that way, then businesses wouldn't have an incentive to fight against each other to improve their products.
The "little guy": (A) Doesn't typically need to worry about being bought out unless they've gotten too big. Top companies only want to purchase top companies. (B) Being bought out means that a larger group of people get to use their products/ideas because the resources of the new company are bigger, which is a good thing. (C) The bigger company can't screw too much with the smaller company once they've aquired it otherwise they will lose the assets they paid for (people are assets too). (D) Last I checked, there are thousands and thousands of small companies that are making money, so small companies are not in immediate danger of being "squeezed out".
The point I want to make is that what good does it do for the market if some small company has an unrealized business idea? So I have an idea about how to design a flying car, so what? Maybe if I had any sense and I thought the idea was good I would go to someone who can actually make the flying car and either partner or get hired by them, how about that?
I think it's a worse idea to allow a small company try to squeeze profits out of the larger company that actually went forward and did the work to create the product. Everyone hates SCO... why exactly do people hate them? Because they didn't CREATE anything- all they did was sit there with the patent and try to leech money off the people who actually did the work.
Here's your level playing field: the people that create the most, make the most money. Small companies should learn to compete, instead of making money off others just because they have some silly unrealized idea.
Actually, it's impossible to write a "fair" law period. Fair is the opinion of the person writing the law, not the person that has to abide by the law.
Interesting how when people are hit directly by something, they suddenly start to care. Congress doesn't care about updating patent law but as soon as individual Senators can't use their Blackberries they want to intercede. Never mind whether the case brought against RIM is valid or not.
Has there ever been a case where the government has bailed out an individual company because they rely on that company's technology?
Internet = Free Speech. If a nation doesn't want it's citizens practicing free speech, then they shouldn't allow internet access at all. (Unless of course they like being viewed as complete hypcrites.)
Exactly right.
It's odd how people will simply ignore facts to support their own beliefs. I would gather that most people at Slashdot don't like microsoft, and so they are going to say everything possible against the fact that Microsoft's office file formats are standards (if you check my earlier post, you would see that standard = popular, so standard doesn't necessarily mean it SHOULD be a standard, only that hords of people like using it).
It's clear from simple analysis that certain things are popular then others (i.e. you can look at marketshare or any other statistic.) However, WHY something is popular is not often understood, especially by people who have a different opinion then the mainstream.
For example, some replies to your post take the position that MS's file formats are not "excellent" and thus cannot be standards. However, look at facts. People either use things they like (by choice), from addition (because of habit), or because they fear something negative will happen if they stop (from fear). Thus, "excellence" is only ONE factor as to why someone chooses something vs something else, which leads to something becoming popular.
Smart people usually (but not always) come from a place of choice, i.e. they spend some time looking at all the various options and pick which is the most "excellent" based upon multiple different factors. Most people don't do this. Most people are unconscious, meaning they do it simply because everyone else does it and they are already in the habit of doing it. You might not like that this is true, but none the less, it is. Once you accept that fact, then you can move on to figuring out how Microsoft was able to create something that became so popular, so you can duplicate what they did and create your own popular thing. Then you've got a new standard, and everyone is happy.
Honestly, I would argue that it's a waste of time looking at "standards" to solve the world's problems. Most people worry more about the tools they use then spending their time actually doing anything with them.
There is only "what's popular". Office file formats aren't a standard, but people view them that way because they are the most popular file formats being used. Similarly, companies call their thing a standard in an attempt to get it popular enough so that everyone will use it, which equals more money.
Call something some way enough times, and you can convince people that it's so. Really, the whole idea of something being a "standard" is basically a fear tactic to say "if you don't use our stuff you won't get any customers, because everyone uses our stuff." Most people can be manipulated by that sort of thinking, which pushes home the idea of something being a standard.
If you accept that "standard" = "popular", then it becomes pretty clear that organizations that attempt to get people to use "standards" are completely going about it the wrong way. Look: certain things (file formats, products, etc.) are popular. They just are. Mindshare exists, and it's set up in a certain way, and you can't change it. At least not without wasting a whole lot of unnecessary effort trying.
The point is, if you waste all your time trying to fight what is, then you will get nowhere. This is what you do. You take what is (i.e. microsoft's popular file formats), and reverse-engineer them so that everyone can use it. You open up something that's ALREADY popular and call it a standard and work from there. That's the only way that actually makes some sense, and has the possiblity to work.
You simply AREN'T going to suddenly change everyone's mind as to what they like to use in your attempt to drive home a new standard. Sorry, but it's not going to happen. People use what they like to use, not "the best" or based upon who developed it, where it came from, how clean the code is, what monkey's it saves, etc. So in other words, the standard you create has to be something that's ALREADY popular, and NOT something some organization likes based upon it's technical merit over something else. Trying to make some new thing a standard without first making sure it is popular with people is not only stupid, it's damn near impossible.
Not using something that's already popular is the SOLE reason why "standards" hardly ever get off the ground. A standard is not a standard because some consortium weenies declare it to be, it's a standard when people actually use it (i.e. it's popular.)
If you want to start to understand how women think and how you can (reliably) attract them, without being a total jerk, do a search on the net for "Fast Seduction 101", and read the Player Guide. Especially the articles "Nice guys vs Jerks", "On Confidence", etc.
This technology is annoying because some researcher in some lab somewhere cooks up their perfect "metric" for what nice talk is, then it gets enforced on the rest of us, despite massive variation in speech patterns and types.
Or, you could understand that certain speech patterns, styles, tone, etc. are simply more appealing to most people. Go to pretty much any seminar that has anything to do with selling/NLP etc. and you'll find out that certain things you do with other people immediately have an impact on their receptiveness to trusting you, liking you, and ultimately buying from you. It's psychology. Not right or wrong, but just there if you want to use it.
People want to knock these studies as being rediculus, and sometimes they are. But I think that most of the reasons why people like to call stuff like this rediculus is they simply don't want to believe it's true. Gotta have "Free Will" and all that.
Me, I prefer to understand what is going on so at least I have some semblance of control when situations occur.
If you don't intend to follow the letter and spirit of the contract, you shouldn't sign it.
While I agree with you in principle, what you are saying implies that a person always has a choice. Yes, there's a choice here: (A) Sign the contract and get to work at microsoft, a top software company or (B) Don't sign the contract and be stuck flipping burgers.
While this is an extreme example, you get the point. Choice frequently doesn't happen in a vaccum. Microsoft, and many people who write contracts, are banking on the fact that most people (A) don't understand the language in the contract (B) get bored and skip over the important sections or (C) have to sign the contract if they want to go to the next step.
IMHO, a contract is only a contract when it can be properly negotiated. Most of these types of contracts are a take-it-or-leave-it proposition.
That means, the power of the contract is in the hands of the person who wrote it, not the person who signs it. Which further implies that the agreement is not a true agreement- it's a forced resolution.
I am a human being. Throughout my life, I interact with other people, I create things, and I learn. Who I learn from and what I do with the information I learn, including who I serve my skills to, is my own concern, and not nobody elses.
What is microsoft going to do, sue me for quitting their company? For using what I've learned for some purpose other then what Microsoft Almighty intends?
Microsoft doesn't own the ideas in my brain. I am under the agreement that while employed, my ideas will benifit Microsoft. But when I leave Microsoft, all bets are off.
I can understand companies being pissed at training someone and then them leaving and losing the investment. Or worse, someone deciding that they hated the company and goes out to start against it. But guess what, tough titties. You do what you gotta do, and no company can dictate it for you. Microsoft is NOT the law, as much as they think they are- if I leave Microsoft, I don't have to abide by them anymore, and nobody should be forced to sign a contract otherwise.
The simple fact is that Microsoft isn't looking in the mirror enough as to why a person would want to quit and compete against them. Because people don't really do that kind of thing unless they feel harmed by the company they are in. Microsoft might want to think about that a bit more if they are going to have any hope of keeping their talent around.
Another irrational extension of the DMCA. As was stated in the article, obeying robots.txt is a courtesy- it was never intended to be a copywrite-protection method.
Anything posted on the web should automatically be in the public domain. The physical act of viewing a web page requires me to download its contents to my computer. That means the website in question is volunteering content for me to download (or at least view). Maybe if I'm a content provider, I have a right to be angry if someone uses that content to impersonate me, or whatever. But otherwise I must understand that I've just put the content on my readers computer- I have no real control at that point over what the reader does with that content.
You know, it's funny. The web used to be mostly about free organizations offering up content. Then companies figured out that people like the web, and so they started jumping on. Unfortunately though, they don't seem to want to play the web as it was meant to be played. The web was not designed to support copywrite controls, and I can't understand why companies constantly expect that it does.
Slashdot Mirror
Honestly, people get WAY too worked up over privacy sometimes. A service that tracks info about what I like is a good thing - that means companies are more able to recommend things to me that I am actually going to like, rather then complete crap I neither want nor need.
It's good for companies because they can figure out if offing me something is or is not wasting my time (companies only want to sell what people want to buy.) And it's good for me because I can get introduced to me stuff I probably would like, but didn't know anything about. It's like google's adsense. You're much more likely to click because the ads are based on the content you're already reading- which you wouldn't be reading if you weren't already interested in it. It's a "Would you like to know more?" sort of thing.
To me, it comes down to time. Companies have endless time to figure out new ways of collecting info from me. Yet I don't have endless time to counteract their actions. Since the stuff is going to happen ANYWAY, there is no point in me getting all worked up over it. Write a letter to your congressmen/woman, and move on with your life.
It's not really the collecting of data that I think upsets people. People get upset with what companies might DO with that data. But really, what's the worst that can come out of that?
(A) Identity theft? --Ok, that's probably the worst. More data = bigger chance.
(B) More ads? --That happens anyway.
(C) The Media puts your "bad deeds" on the 10 o'clock news? --Only would happen if you're famous, and by that point, you better be able to deal with people who don't like you or are trying to dig up dirt on you to make you look bad.
(D) Company mis-mananges your info and a "bad person" gets it? Only bad if they try to do (A) with it.
Really, that's pretty much it. So why people get upset about companies collecting info on them, I have no idea. It has and continues to be something that's not worth worrying about.
Sorry, no. I started using google was because it didn't look like yahoo, which was a bunch of crap AND maybe search on the side. Google gave me what I came there to do, which was search.
And as strange as this may sound, I don't think a lot of people really care how accurate a search engine is, compared to all the other ones. That's a slashdotters view, but it's not the average person's view. The average person doesn't really know if the results are "accurate" or not- and typically they don't care. As long as they get good websites that have information around the topic they are looking for, then it's a good engine. For example, searchiing "washing cars" might turn up 100 sites that have info on how to wash a car. Is #1 really better then #100? Some engines might say yes, and some engines might say no. Who is "right?" Me, as long as I get something resembling washing a car, whatever site it may be, that's good enough for me.
Yup. I think one person not using Google really makes Google worry.
Whoever makes you upset controls you. You can spend the rest of your life getting upset, and the only one that is affected is you. Not them.
So I guess you don't buy anything from any company?
Sorry to clue you in, but all companies advertize.
You brainwash other people when you tell them your opinion and they end up agreeing with it. You brainwash other people when you play a song for yourself, they hear it, and then they go off and sing it in their head for the rest of the day. You brainwash your kids when you tell them they have to go to school otherwise they won't be able to get a job. So just stop it. You can either be a cause or an effect in this world. If you think everyone is brainwashing you, then you're giving them all the power, because you're allowing it to happen. Start creating your own ideas instead of worrying about somebody elses.
I'm wondering if google isn't starting to cave in to business pressure. The demand on a company of that size to start doing unethical things is very great. I'm probably going a bit overboard, but I think if google starts introducing graphical ads people will start switching. Google is right on their "about us" pages- one of the major reasons I use them is because they are not like every other stupid company out there that bombards users with graphical, punch-the-monkey, blinking, in-your-face ad crap. There is no place on the web for stuff like that, especially when yahoo is just a click a way.
See the wikipedia entry for theory, but a key point is that theory makes a prediction for future events based on a large body of real world evidence for cause and effect. The key is -real world- evidence, NOT "proof". Anything can be a theory. I might have a theory that the sky is red. My perception of the sky being red comes from me, so my theory cannot entirely be disproven by anyone else. The reason is because what we focus on is what we see. We don't see what is really there, we see what we want to see. That is why language can and is used endlessly by people- If I want to write an article, I just pose an idea, and if it's even remotely plausable, I can create evidence to back up the idea, depending upon what I look for.
Scientists know this. They know that their own perception can cloud the results of their experiments. That is how the scientific theory evolved. Scientists realized that the only way to find something resembling "truth" (or at least something that is useful) is to create a theory, ANY theory, and then test it out in the real world to see what would happen. If the results came back not what they expected, then the theory was false. It does not matter who made the theory, how long the theory existed, or what evidence was in favor of the theory before. All that matters is that X did not lead to Y, therefore the process (theory) was incorrect.
People who are focused on faith often have trouble with this. That is because faith is entirely from a person's own perspective, not from the perspective of what's actually there. That may sound like a contradiction. Faith believes that something is there, and that's where it starts from- the ideas are created from that. Science also believes something is there, but then goes out and tests and refines their belief based upon what actually happens. That is not to say that science is right and faith wrong. Things which do not have a direct or at least fairly predictable cause-and-effect relationship, those things science typically has difficulty in explaining. That is because by definition, a theory is testable. In other words, things that are not testable cannot be explained by theory.
Intelligent Design was simply created to give a name and movement behind anti-darwinism fanatics. It is no more an "alternative" then saying "We don't like Darwinism."
If a parent sends a child to school, then the parent has to accept what the school teaches. Otherwise, the child should be home-schooled.
What school teaches is not necessarily right or wrong- it's just the prevailing view. "History" is the dominant viewpoint of whoever is the historian. Just the same as science is the accepted view of how nature and the universe works.
There's a lot of evidence that proves that sending a child to school isn't even useful for helping them become a success in the real world. School doesn't teach kids socializing/conversation skills, networking, selling, finances, leadership, or pretty much any other important skill that actual makes a difference to how they go about getting a job or doing anything other then following someone else's orders.
The money had to come from somewhere. Nasa can't afford to work on manned missions, fix the shuttle, AND keep going with science on the space station. What worries me is that the manned missions will suddenly lose funding as well- mainly because of the costs that ISS has incurred.
I pay for cable, which technically pays for all the shows that are broadcast during the month when I have access. And then if I miss a show, they want me to pay again to see it? Like people are actually going to pay twice to see a show, rather then buying a PVR or hacking up a free one themselves?
Honestly, I have no idea how the cable industry can explain how this business model will work now that PVRs are becoming popular.
It doesn't even make sense. People know they don't own the shows they watch, unlike they do with the music they download. If the cable industry wants to copy the music industry, then they would have to let people pay for shows al la carte, and give them access to that same episode as many times as they want. But then the industry wouldn't be able to charge for those huge DVD episode packs, nor if people recorded movies would people ever need to buy DVDs in general. That's not going to happen.
But then again, the point may be to simply capitalize on the millions of people out there who forget to do things. HUGE amounts of money are made from people who forget to cancel subscriptions, who return rented movies late, or who don't know anything about how simple it is to same money by using a free program on their computers. I guess if they really think this is going to work, then there must be a LOT of people who don't own PVRs and who forget to watch shows, that they would be willing to pay 99c to be able to see.
Ob Austin Powers :-)
Radar Operator: Colonel, you better have a look at this radar.
Colonel: What is it, son?
Radar Operator: I don't know, sir, but it looks like a giant--
Jet Pilot: Dick! Dick, take a look out of starboard.
Co-Pilot: Oh my God, it looks like a huge--
Bird-Watching Woman: Pecker!
Bird-Watching Man: [raising binoculars] Where?
Bird-Watching Woman: Over there. What sort of bird is that? Oh goodness, it's not a bird, it's--
Army Sergeant: Privates! We have reports of an Unidentified Flying Object. It has a long, smooth shaft, complete with--
Baseball Umpire: Two balls! [looking up from game] What is that? It looks just like an enormous--
Colonel: Johnson!
Radar Operator: Yes, sir?
Colonel: Get on the horn to British Intelligence and let them know about this.
The headline makes it seem like the CEV is a replacement for the shuttle, when it isn't. The shuttle was designed for LEO wherease the CEV is designed for exploration (moon, mars, etc.) Technically speaking, there is nothing in place to replace the Shuttle.
Now, based on the website information, it seems as if NASA is looking towards using the CEV (and the new heavy-lift version of the CEV) as possible platforms for getting supplies to ISS. If that's true, then I guess the CEV would go up and come down like apollo- except you're not going to the moon. But the website does not specify exactly how this sort of mission would happen- it's clear that the primary design for CEV is specifically for planetary exploration- not doing things in LEO.
The frustration with creating anything new is that annoying human tendancy to build it for themselves because they like it or think it's good, as opposed to ensuring that other people understand and can use it. There is that selfish human desire to make something "new and different", or "isn't this cool?" - without answering the enevitable "why?" Or drawl on endlessly writing about it in academic papers, instead of partnering with people that are already working on a real solution.
This is not to demeane the contributions of academics. Sometimes, the thing you want to make is new and undefined as yet, so it's difficult to describe to people familiar with other ways. That does not mean the idea is bad. Just that at some point, it needs to be resolved into something concreate, easy to describe, and usable. Otherwise, it sits on a shelf for 30 years and nobody hears about it. (Except for other academics, of course.)
The point I'd like to make is no matter how interesting and revolutionary a technology is, it does no good to anyone if people don't actually USE it.
At the time, the file/folder analogy in computers was a good technology. It was something people already understood and could easily pick up and work with. The whole reason people didn't use computers up to that point was because they didn't want to learn "cryptic" commands. Not that the command line was unusable in general- it was just unusable for most people. The selling point for the original macintosh was that it worked just like how you already worked, except non-destructively and with better ability to manipulate objects (then doing it by hand). It allowed you to do what you already do, but more powerfully. That point was the glue which allowed the personal computer to work in the minds of people.
But I think it's clear to almost everyone that the computer and the web have evolved to the point where they need a fundamental re-design if they are to progress any further. The realization of this has happened gradually over time, dispite the technology, as people have become more creative and discovered that they want more out of what is available. For this, I will point to how computing has moved towards wireless, handheld devices - devices which are not locked down in physical space and support the user during everyday life. For software, I will cite the fact that people have taken HTML and created amazingly complicated ways of manipulating it's structure so they they can put content where they want it to be and have it dynamically update. Wikis are a hyperlinking format which allows microcontent relationships to form. And finally blogs, the firefox extension Greasemonkey, and rss aggregators have all developed the means to pull content in from multiple websites into a single location.
And so my belief is that if we were to create a new form of the web that resembles this xanadu system, the time is now ripe to do so. People are much more accepting today of non-linear, dynamic documents and structures then they were when computers were first created. So the likelyhood for success of a new technology that takes those ideas and creates a more intuitive way of working with them I think is pretty high.
I think this is a great example of "the little guy" being able to fight back against being crushed by the large corporations.
I used to think the way you do. But then I realized that businesses simply aren't meant to be on a level playing field. The best business wins, and that's the way it's supposed to be. If it weren't that way, then businesses wouldn't have an incentive to fight against each other to improve their products.
The "little guy":
(A) Doesn't typically need to worry about being bought out unless they've gotten too big. Top companies only want to purchase top companies.
(B) Being bought out means that a larger group of people get to use their products/ideas because the resources of the new company are bigger, which is a good thing.
(C) The bigger company can't screw too much with the smaller company once they've aquired it otherwise they will lose the assets they paid for (people are assets too).
(D) Last I checked, there are thousands and thousands of small companies that are making money, so small companies are not in immediate danger of being "squeezed out".
The point I want to make is that what good does it do for the market if some small company has an unrealized business idea? So I have an idea about how to design a flying car, so what? Maybe if I had any sense and I thought the idea was good I would go to someone who can actually make the flying car and either partner or get hired by them, how about that?
I think it's a worse idea to allow a small company try to squeeze profits out of the larger company that actually went forward and did the work to create the product. Everyone hates SCO... why exactly do people hate them? Because they didn't CREATE anything- all they did was sit there with the patent and try to leech money off the people who actually did the work.
Here's your level playing field: the people that create the most, make the most money. Small companies should learn to compete, instead of making money off others just because they have some silly unrealized idea.
Actually, it's impossible to write a "fair" law period. Fair is the opinion of the person writing the law, not the person that has to abide by the law.
Interesting how when people are hit directly by something, they suddenly start to care. Congress doesn't care about updating patent law but as soon as individual Senators can't use their Blackberries they want to intercede. Never mind whether the case brought against RIM is valid or not. Has there ever been a case where the government has bailed out an individual company because they rely on that company's technology?
Internet = Free Speech. If a nation doesn't want it's citizens practicing free speech, then they shouldn't allow internet access at all. (Unless of course they like being viewed as complete hypcrites.)
Exactly right. It's odd how people will simply ignore facts to support their own beliefs. I would gather that most people at Slashdot don't like microsoft, and so they are going to say everything possible against the fact that Microsoft's office file formats are standards (if you check my earlier post, you would see that standard = popular, so standard doesn't necessarily mean it SHOULD be a standard, only that hords of people like using it). It's clear from simple analysis that certain things are popular then others (i.e. you can look at marketshare or any other statistic.) However, WHY something is popular is not often understood, especially by people who have a different opinion then the mainstream. For example, some replies to your post take the position that MS's file formats are not "excellent" and thus cannot be standards. However, look at facts. People either use things they like (by choice), from addition (because of habit), or because they fear something negative will happen if they stop (from fear). Thus, "excellence" is only ONE factor as to why someone chooses something vs something else, which leads to something becoming popular. Smart people usually (but not always) come from a place of choice, i.e. they spend some time looking at all the various options and pick which is the most "excellent" based upon multiple different factors. Most people don't do this. Most people are unconscious, meaning they do it simply because everyone else does it and they are already in the habit of doing it. You might not like that this is true, but none the less, it is. Once you accept that fact, then you can move on to figuring out how Microsoft was able to create something that became so popular, so you can duplicate what they did and create your own popular thing. Then you've got a new standard, and everyone is happy. Honestly, I would argue that it's a waste of time looking at "standards" to solve the world's problems. Most people worry more about the tools they use then spending their time actually doing anything with them.
There is only "what's popular". Office file formats aren't a standard, but people view them that way because they are the most popular file formats being used. Similarly, companies call their thing a standard in an attempt to get it popular enough so that everyone will use it, which equals more money.
Call something some way enough times, and you can convince people that it's so. Really, the whole idea of something being a "standard" is basically a fear tactic to say "if you don't use our stuff you won't get any customers, because everyone uses our stuff." Most people can be manipulated by that sort of thinking, which pushes home the idea of something being a standard.
If you accept that "standard" = "popular", then it becomes pretty clear that organizations that attempt to get people to use "standards" are completely going about it the wrong way. Look: certain things (file formats, products, etc.) are popular. They just are. Mindshare exists, and it's set up in a certain way, and you can't change it. At least not without wasting a whole lot of unnecessary effort trying.
The point is, if you waste all your time trying to fight what is, then you will get nowhere. This is what you do. You take what is (i.e. microsoft's popular file formats), and reverse-engineer them so that everyone can use it. You open up something that's ALREADY popular and call it a standard and work from there. That's the only way that actually makes some sense, and has the possiblity to work.
You simply AREN'T going to suddenly change everyone's mind as to what they like to use in your attempt to drive home a new standard. Sorry, but it's not going to happen. People use what they like to use, not "the best" or based upon who developed it, where it came from, how clean the code is, what monkey's it saves, etc. So in other words, the standard you create has to be something that's ALREADY popular, and NOT something some organization likes based upon it's technical merit over something else. Trying to make some new thing a standard without first making sure it is popular with people is not only stupid, it's damn near impossible.
Not using something that's already popular is the SOLE reason why "standards" hardly ever get off the ground. A standard is not a standard because some consortium weenies declare it to be, it's a standard when people actually use it (i.e. it's popular.)
If you want to start to understand how women think and how you can (reliably) attract them, without being a total jerk, do a search on the net for "Fast Seduction 101", and read the Player Guide. Especially the articles "Nice guys vs Jerks", "On Confidence", etc.
Do it. It will open your eyes.
This technology is annoying because some researcher in some lab somewhere cooks up their perfect "metric" for what nice talk is, then it gets enforced on the rest of us, despite massive variation in speech patterns and types.
Or, you could understand that certain speech patterns, styles, tone, etc. are simply more appealing to most people. Go to pretty much any seminar that has anything to do with selling/NLP etc. and you'll find out that certain things you do with other people immediately have an impact on their receptiveness to trusting you, liking you, and ultimately buying from you. It's psychology. Not right or wrong, but just there if you want to use it.
People want to knock these studies as being rediculus, and sometimes they are. But I think that most of the reasons why people like to call stuff like this rediculus is they simply don't want to believe it's true. Gotta have "Free Will" and all that.
Me, I prefer to understand what is going on so at least I have some semblance of control when situations occur.
If you don't intend to follow the letter and spirit of the contract, you shouldn't sign it.
While I agree with you in principle, what you are saying implies that a person always has a choice. Yes, there's a choice here: (A) Sign the contract and get to work at microsoft, a top software company or (B) Don't sign the contract and be stuck flipping burgers.
While this is an extreme example, you get the point. Choice frequently doesn't happen in a vaccum. Microsoft, and many people who write contracts, are banking on the fact that most people (A) don't understand the language in the contract (B) get bored and skip over the important sections or (C) have to sign the contract if they want to go to the next step.
IMHO, a contract is only a contract when it can be properly negotiated. Most of these types of contracts are a take-it-or-leave-it proposition.
That means, the power of the contract is in the hands of the person who wrote it, not the person who signs it. Which further implies that the agreement is not a true agreement- it's a forced resolution.
The whole idea is ridiculus.
I am a human being. Throughout my life, I interact with other people, I create things, and I learn. Who I learn from and what I do with the information I learn, including who I serve my skills to, is my own concern, and not nobody elses.
What is microsoft going to do, sue me for quitting their company? For using what I've learned for some purpose other then what Microsoft Almighty intends?
Microsoft doesn't own the ideas in my brain. I am under the agreement that while employed, my ideas will benifit Microsoft. But when I leave Microsoft, all bets are off.
I can understand companies being pissed at training someone and then them leaving and losing the investment. Or worse, someone deciding that they hated the company and goes out to start against it. But guess what, tough titties. You do what you gotta do, and no company can dictate it for you. Microsoft is NOT the law, as much as they think they are- if I leave Microsoft, I don't have to abide by them anymore, and nobody should be forced to sign a contract otherwise.
The simple fact is that Microsoft isn't looking in the mirror enough as to why a person would want to quit and compete against them. Because people don't really do that kind of thing unless they feel harmed by the company they are in. Microsoft might want to think about that a bit more if they are going to have any hope of keeping their talent around.
Another irrational extension of the DMCA. As was stated in the article, obeying robots.txt is a courtesy- it was never intended to be a copywrite-protection method.
Anything posted on the web should automatically be in the public domain. The physical act of viewing a web page requires me to download its contents to my computer. That means the website in question is volunteering content for me to download (or at least view). Maybe if I'm a content provider, I have a right to be angry if someone uses that content to impersonate me, or whatever. But otherwise I must understand that I've just put the content on my readers computer- I have no real control at that point over what the reader does with that content.
You know, it's funny. The web used to be mostly about free organizations offering up content. Then companies figured out that people like the web, and so they started jumping on. Unfortunately though, they don't seem to want to play the web as it was meant to be played. The web was not designed to support copywrite controls, and I can't understand why companies constantly expect that it does.