I'm going to sound a little like an Apple Fanboi parrot right now, but the marketroid pestimist idiots are out writing articles again about things they don't know and poo pooing things with very limited amount of thought, so I must speak out.
Steve made a very simple but obvious point. It's a phone plus an iPod. A nano costs $200. He's also right that a lot of smart phones cost between $200 and $400. Just look on Palm.com right now for the 680, 700, and 750 and you'll see Steve's right. And from what I saw in the demo (mind you, yes I know it was a demo) it looked like it could do things that would make palm user's quiver and drool, and make the execs at Palm, Inc. crap their pants.
You can get better deals, but you have to work at it and get a little lucky. You could go with a 680 for $200 and a shuffle for $100 if you don't need the space, but then you aren't getting the memory on the phone. I was able to get an outstanding deal from Earthlink for a $100 Treo 650 about a year ago. However, to make it an mp3 player I had to buy an SD card. I bought a 4 GB for $50 recently. I also shelled out $20.00 for a decent MP3 program because the MP3 player program on the 650 sucked big time. Finally, I bought an audio jack adapter for $5 because phones use 2.5 mm jacks while stereo equipment like iPods use 3.5 mm. I got a good deal on the phone but you can't get that anywhere any more, and in order to make a useable MP3 player I had to shell out $75 more. That $75 any smartphone user would have to invest in current phones, and that doesn't include itunes sync capability.
You have every right to refuse to provide a phone number or identification at best buy. That's current consumer law and if Best Buy fails to sell you something because you refuse to provide that information, you can sue.
Identification should only be used in instances of legally regulated goods and services. For example, if I buy a TV with cash, what the hell is it Best Buy's business what your phone number is? None! You have a legal sale right there. Now, guns for example, those are another story. Those are regulated by most governments, including US and state governments. If the store is asking for ID there, then it's because the law says that you have to provide ID for background checks and the like.
The question is whether you have to provide ID for flights is questionable. The FAA wants to be ultra safe and condones these actions, but I doubt it makes anyone safe for domestic travel. Asking for ID for international travel is again part of government regulations, not policy.
If I have cash, that's all company should worry about as long as they aren't bound by law.
You can't hide bad questions behind an algorythm. The interview process has lots of laws around it now, and it's well established that there are only some questions you can ask. Here's a great example:
The questions range from the age when applicants first got excited about computers...
This question doesn't directly reveal your age, but a clever interviewer can glean much from it. "Oh, got excited in computers at 22, eh? Probably older than I thought. We don't want old employees we want young ones."
It is illegal to ask some questions in an interview. Age related questions are one of them. You are only allowed to ask questions that pertain to your performance of the job at hand. For example, I can ask someone "would you have a problem lifting heavy boxes?" but I can't ask how old you are and make a judgement because you are 40 that you can't lift heavy boxes. The above question you as a logical geek might think is iffy, but to a lawyer, it's shark bait and they'll be all over it, so don't ask it. If you ask a question that falls into this category, you open yourself up to a gender/age/racial discrimination lawsuit. These and many others are protected classes under the law.
And there's a great reason why an interview is a poor indicator of performance... because people lie!!! It's a sales process. They want your job, and you want the best candidate. Last two people I let go both gave great interviews, but when they actually worked, they sucked. They had all the right answers in the interview, but there is no escaping performance reviews.
0% firing rate is impossible, as is 100% retention. 96% retention is a stellar figure, even for silicon valley. I think they should be pretty happy that number.
This is just smart. Car companies do it too. They sell to people who want fuel economy. If a car company could make a powerful safe car that ran for 500 miles on 1 gallon of gas, they'd do it.
Walmart has no vested interest selling electricity or energy. Since CFLs are more expensive up front, they get a greater slice of profits. The more expensive the item, the larger profit margin. Warmart is still a company that's only interested in profits, and I'm not ready to slap the saintly tag on them, but this is purely capitalism at it's best. The invisible hand will see where the profits are and follow the money, and when it comes to light, the money is in saving energy.
...breaking down threats and dangers in to colors like magenta, cyan, mauve, ash, and indigo, rather than actually telling us what the threat is, is a great way to communicate to the populace the danger they should think they are in, and thus keep control over the small minded populace.
Ironic that I have to hit next fifty bazillion times to see the whole article, and each time I hit next an ad for Sony/Dell/Intel/Microsoft. I got the Sony add a lot too, but then again I see forty bazillion sony products on this list, none of which match the definition of innovative. Well, maybe the marketer's definition of innovative, but not in the real world.
This is bribery, pure and simple. Every industry does it in some form or another. If MS had sent them a copy of Vista with no hardware, that's understandable. Everyone sends out free samples to reviewers in the hopes that they will review it. However, the "free laptop" is a bribe.
You would say "oh yes as long as they disclose that they received a free laptop I'm okay with that." What if every reviewer got a laptop? And what would motivate a reviewer to disclose this information, when it would only hurt their credibility, and thus, their paycheck?
No, this is a problem. No company should have the opportunity to buy the press. We just got the blog revolution started and already the corporations are trying to subvert it with money. I would accept nothing less than evey blogger returning the laptop and declaring in their blog that they "do not except gifts from the companies that they review. It damages a blogger's credibility and creates a bias, and is therefore unethical."
I might point out that you yourself seem to fall into your "narrow minded" category, since you obviously think it matters as well. You clearly wish it didn't, but that's neither here nor there.
I don't get what you are saying. You think I think it matters, but then you say I think it doesn't. which do you think I think?:) I'll tell you what I think. It doesn't matter to me, and it should not matter, but to many closed minded people it does matter, so one is forced by society to be discrete. I wasn't trying to make a value judgement one way or another but as far as my values go, I'd like everyone to be accepting of all people, despite race, color, ethnicity, gender, or sexual orientation.
Since this is clearly not the case. You may not like the other choices, but they are there whether you like them or not.
My point was not that everyone should simply hide their personal info and go into the closet, though I see why you think that and I'm sorry for making it seem like that. Some people can manage social perception just fine. However, many cannot, simply because of the limitations it imposes on them. Being a gay fashion designer may be considered a plus by those in the fashion industry, but being an openly gay lawyer in a major law firm with many good old boys who's clients are also good old boys is not always conducive to either keeping your job or advancing in the ranks.
My point is that culture should be this way, but you can't change culture overnight, so those on the fringes must keep secrets from those who would make unfair judgements on their character in order to survive within the culture. Many do come out of the closet and have no problems, but not all can for myriads of reasons.
The privacy issue du jour in these past two decades has been homosexuality. You can't tell by looking at someone if they are gay. It shouldn't matter if they are or not, but many people (who I will declare as narrow minded pricks) do think it matters. Not only will these type of people judge homosexuals unfairly, another subset of these people may commit violence upon homosexuals.
Employers can judge you for any number of reasons. Employers are also looking for any reason to filter you out and judge you even before you can prove to them that you'd be a great employee. I don't like the fact that employers judge me because I have a socially and politically charged blog of my own, but I must come to terms with that by hiding it from them so they can't use that against me.
People make bad judgements for stupid reasons, and make stupid decisions based on those bad judgements. Those decisions affect people's lives. The fear of you or your family not being able to survive is a great motivating factor to not post intimate details of your life online for everyone to see. If you must, keep it anonymous.
Society isn't open because there are too many closed minds. There is then no other choice but to hide information that close minds should not see. The last thing I need is my son or my job taken away from me because of some idiot reading something I posted which has nothing to do with either my work ethic or my ability as a parent.
[CJ is mad at Josh for posting to the message board of a Josh Lyman fansite] C.J. Cregg: If you ever post anything on that website again, I will shove a motherboard so far up your ass... What? Josh Lyman: You DO know I outrank you, right? C.J. Cregg: SO FAR UP YOUR ASS...
The idea that robots may demand rights in the future is a good topic for a theoretical or philosophical debate. This type of thing is excellent for expanding one's mind about what may happen, and then to come up with solutions. It's good exercise for the brain.
Funding research about something that "may happen" usually revolves around risk analysis. An earthquake may happen, car accidents may happen, crimes may happen. That makes sense, so you should prepare for that.
Newsflash! We may have teleporters, warp drive, phasers, photon torpedos, and the heisenberg compensator some day too! We might have all of our pollution problems solved some day! There might be world peace some day! We might not stupid people some day!
What is the value of a study, that I can guarentee has no basis in fact, that says Robots may demand rights? We haven't nearly developed an AI remotely close to the power of the human mind. Entertainig such a question as part of a philosophical debate is a great idea, because then you are exercising that organ to be creative and think imaginatively, but why are they wasting time and money on a government study? I don't get what the government will get from that.
Perhaps the government should take time out every now and then to exercise their brains and have a go at such a philosophical debate. It will expand their minds and hone their skills. Having some commission do a study and present the government with the results is stupid, but then again so is government, so why am I surprised?
Please tell me the editors failed to do their job again. I can't read the article because it's/.ed so I'm hoping this summary is completely bogus.
The problem with technology is that quite often we either end up with one standard that becomes outdated after years of use, or way too many standards that are highly incompatible. There are times a happy medium is achieved, but not always. Many times a standards body is created to create oversight over an industry standard and help regulate change so that yesterday's connector is compatible with today's PC/laptop/camera/phone/etc.
My concern about any government doing this is that these are 2 governments out of 190+ in the world imposing a standard. What if the US, canada, UK, France, Germany , Russia, or anyone else impose another standard different from USB? And what happens when USB is 20 years old and needs to be replaced. All you people decrying the current state of things will turn right around and decry that the government isn't doing it's job. Well sometimes that's the point of the free market, to do something the government doesn't do well and should not be doing at all. A standard imposed by the entire industry, rather than a few countries, would be a lot better, and the standards body would regulate change throughout the industry.
As for USB, there are at least 3 USB connector ends I know of. The most familiar to everyone is, in my opinion, too large for most phones. USB made connectors and cables better but they didn't make it "one size fits all." Does the law distinguish between the three connectors? If not, we will still have some problems with not having one connector to rule them all.
It would be nice if the US government put pressure on the industry to come up with some universal connector scheme that provides power and data transmission. Cell phone companies want something as small as possible. If they base it on the USB standard, great. I just want one connector for my bluetooth, my handset, and be able to bum a charge from the guy next to me or buy any old connector for $5 if I forgot mine at home.
I just saw a Mythbusters this weekend where they challenged the "myth" that you save money by leaving the lights on rather than turning them off.
They busted that myth wide open. They found that the energy it takes to start up the lightbulb is infinitesimal for all but the fluorescent bulbs, and the fluorescent loses any savings after only 23 seconds (i.e. if you are out of the room for more than 23 seconds, you are wasting money). Basically, it took very little power to start up the bulb, despite what the myth proclaims.
They also did a stress test of an equivalent of 5 years of turning the lights on and off. Even with an incandescant light bulb, the light bulbs all lasted long enough that any savings on "not stressing out the bulb" the bulb itself was negated by the power used to keep the bulb lit.
In short, if you are leaving the room for any length of time and have anything but flurescent lights, you'll save money by turning it off as you leave the room. If you use fluorescent, it's okay to leave them on if you just want to grab a drink or go take a piss, but anything more than 23 seconds will waste money.
This, my friends is an ad hominem attack. It's a typical political ploy to attack the integrity of scientists without disputing the facts. Can you honestly say science hasn't been perverted? Can you honestly say that politician aren't currently using science to advance heir own political agendas? I mean c'mon! Both parties in the US do it! Science has been perverted since time immemorium, but as of late it's getting incredibly bad.
The scientists vested interest is looking objective, because the scientific method isn't about politics, it's about discovering scientific fact. If all you are going to do is attack an organization for being too liberal, then you are part of the problem. Dispute the science, not someone's political leanings.
Why is it so hard to understand that the rules for a monopoly are different? People are constantly trying to compare what MS does with other company's and they keep saying "well they can do it, why can't MS?"
What really bothers me is the slashdot editors continue to allow this shit to get posted. They are geeks, they damn well know better. Oh but they have to get ad hits:P
1) Monopolies have an overwhelming power on the market. They can set prices, muscle suppliers and customers, they can have a "do it or else" attitude, and generally are the bully on the block. Monopolies can do almost anything they want without repercusions, if the government did not step in.
2) Microsoft is a convicted monopoly. While the penalty phase dried up after Bush took office, and nothing is curtailing their behavior now, they were convicted and that has not been overturned. So that is not in question.
3) The next step is that you have to argue that Google is a monopoly or has too much influence. I Think at this stage that's still a tough argument to make, because Yahoo, ask.com, and MSN, despite crappy performances, are at least trying to catch up to Google. I will say Google has a huge mindshare, so anti-monopolists should keep an eye on them, but searches are still happening frequently on the other engines.
4) That's not to say that such a practice isn't sleazy. Frankly, I find this violates googles "do no evil" slogan. This is evil. If I as a small time developer were to introduce one of these types of products and I need to advertise, Google's ads will show up higher ranked and my product will get fewer viewers. In terms of large companies, this isn't as big a deal, because MS and yahoo can turn around and do the same thing with their engines. But when the big boys step on the small boys, I cry unfair.
However, that's a more complicated problem than being a monopoly.
Studies have been done that show that people are just as likely to be a technogeek or a technophone regardless of age. Maybe the baby boomers have grown up with more electronic technology than previous, but that doesn't mean that markets will really "open up."
There's also a stereotype that the older generation tends to be less computer savvy just because they didn't grow up with it. That's also not true, because I had 70 year old professors in college and relatives of my grandmother who are using computers like they were script kiddies and college software pirates. My Grandmother is a luddite, but that's part of her upbringing. She's been a luddite since she was 25, according to her husband.
It's true that if you grew up with computerized technology, you are more likely to understand something else you haven't seen before, but that's true with anything. There's a marketing myth that expands that which says that if you grew up with a specific technology, you are more likely to buy it. Rubbish. I know plenty of people who don't have cable and who don't own their own computer. These people are in their 20s and 30s!! They work with computers, because in business you almost always have to. But that doesn't mean people like it or have the desire to take it home.
My father is very intelligent and savvy, but has no desire to learn accounting software so he never uses a computer. My mother is much less savvy, having problems dealing with updates, error messages, and quirky technical problems, but finds things like shopping online very convenient and enjoys email. My father had much more computer exposure before my mother bought their current home computer, she's the one who's urging him to use it more. My parents both belong to that boomer generation.
My point is that age has nothing to do with it, and I suspect these companies that when target an age group just because they think they might be more technically savvy, they'll be in for a rude awakening as they fall flat on their face.
They'll also be competing for money of an age group (60+) which is historically known to be full of tightwads. Not because of personality, but because they are retired or near retirement and on a fixed income!! Unless the technology is a cheap robot which can do chores for the elderly and infirm, I don't see anyone making boku bucks selling "cool technogadgets" to seniors of any group.
I just hope hope hope that the people involved in this legal scam of SCOs didn't dump their stock today.
Many posters recently pointed out that they thought this was a stock pumping scam designed to get the stock up on the possibility of getting a large settlement from IBM. Now that the chances of that happening are slimmer and slimmer, what would you bet that before these announcements, important execs at SCO dumped their stock?
I hope not. They should burn like the Enron execs should have burned.
Scene opens. Zonk is sitting in the super secret Slashdot tower of geekdom, pissed that CmdrTaco made him work the Black Friday shift while CowboyNeal is shopping for new boots and matching chaps.
Zonk: okay okay, time to post some slashdot stories. What to do what to do...
Zonk hits a button and instantly hundreds of submissions appear on his 52 inch computer screen
Zonk: Computer, scan for submissions relating to Microsoft or Bill gates. Group by content.
The computer buzzes and whirs for two seconds and the display changes
Computer: Algorythmic analysis shows 13 distinct possible stories. List is as follows:
1) Melinda Gates has alien baby 2) Windows Vista kills small puppies 3) Steve Ballmer makes anti-semetic remarks at PC Expo 4) Bill Gates declares "All your iPod are belong to Zune!" in internal memo.....
Zonk: *abruptly cuts of the computer* Run believability algorythm 259. Display only titles a typical slashdot reader might believe as real.
Computer: Two titles remain. List is as follows.
1) Microsoft launches new Anti-linux propoganda 2) Microsoft assists in anti-phishing efforts
Zonk: Hmmmmm, run inflamatory index algorythm 86 on both titles.
Computer: Complete. Report is as follows:
Title group: Microsoft launches new Anti-linux propoganda Inflamatory index: 23 Stories show high incidence of anti-microsoft sentiment and pro-linux stories. There is a high degree of correlation in past stories, leading to ideas that it's been rehashed too often. This may lead to a high level of "I've seen this damn story before" posts by readers. However, due to the extreme number of this type of post, index is relatively low as topic is had reached the "JonKatz" threshold of repitition, and most readers will probably ignore it.
Would you like me to run an accuracy scan index on the articles to see if this article group may be true?
Zonk: nono I don't care about that, continue with report.
Computer: Continuing with report: Title group: Microsoft assists in anti-phishing efforts Inflamatory index: 67 Stories show low incidence of Anti-microsoft sentiment and no pro linux sentiment. Articles appear to case MS in a good light. All factors lead to low inflamatory index except for one. One or more articles express anti-RIAA/MPAA sentiment for no particular reason. Existance of extreme, unwarranted attempt to link article to RIAA/MPAA leads to incredibly high index.
Zonk: hot damn! Scan all submissions and run inflamatory index on each submission. List submission with highest chance of "WTF this is nothing like the RIAA/MPAA."
Computer: Article returned: "The Long Arm of Microsoft."
Zonk: Sweet! Computer post at 11:53 AM with no additions or changes. Open up T1 lines 4 and 7 to accomodate the extra connections and prepare the fire supression systems. That will phish a good number of comments and help us get our hits up for the day.
And that, ladies and gentleman, is how and why slashdot posts articles with stupidity like that RIAA comment
Apple not licensing is not a Marketing mistake
on
In Search of Stupidity
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
Market share is just one of many factors determining the success of a company, but it's not the only one. Apple has higher revenues than Dell right now, and is making sweet profits, which is an even bigger factor in success.
Licensing, I agree, would be a great boon for consumers, but there is no evidence than it would have been good for Apple. It was a conscious decision not to do it because licensing would undermine their hardware sales, which was of course later proven when they actually did license the OS!! Yes they lost market share, but they retained revenues they couldn't get any way else at the time. Therefore calling it a mistake is a typical fallacy that far too many techies and tech business types make because they fail to look at apple's real business model.
This book seems to be a skimming of information from moderated slashdot comments. This might be a good book for someone new to the idea, but there doesn't seem to be anything good here. Plenty of company bashing we've all done before, and nothing new to add. Nothing to see here... move along.
Slashdot Mirror
Mother pus bucket!!
There's rumors that there's a secret level named "Keymaster tapz dat Gatekeeper" that can only be accessed via a hack distributed on the web.
printing messages on the foam head of a Guinness is just inspired.
And also a waste of a very good beer. Vandalism should not be encouraged!
I'm going to sound a little like an Apple Fanboi parrot right now, but the marketroid pestimist idiots are out writing articles again about things they don't know and poo pooing things with very limited amount of thought, so I must speak out.
Steve made a very simple but obvious point. It's a phone plus an iPod. A nano costs $200. He's also right that a lot of smart phones cost between $200 and $400. Just look on Palm.com right now for the 680, 700, and 750 and you'll see Steve's right. And from what I saw in the demo (mind you, yes I know it was a demo) it looked like it could do things that would make palm user's quiver and drool, and make the execs at Palm, Inc. crap their pants.
You can get better deals, but you have to work at it and get a little lucky. You could go with a 680 for $200 and a shuffle for $100 if you don't need the space, but then you aren't getting the memory on the phone. I was able to get an outstanding deal from Earthlink for a $100 Treo 650 about a year ago. However, to make it an mp3 player I had to buy an SD card. I bought a 4 GB for $50 recently. I also shelled out $20.00 for a decent MP3 program because the MP3 player program on the 650 sucked big time. Finally, I bought an audio jack adapter for $5 because phones use 2.5 mm jacks while stereo equipment like iPods use 3.5 mm. I got a good deal on the phone but you can't get that anywhere any more, and in order to make a useable MP3 player I had to shell out $75 more. That $75 any smartphone user would have to invest in current phones, and that doesn't include itunes sync capability.
You have every right to refuse to provide a phone number or identification at best buy. That's current consumer law and if Best Buy fails to sell you something because you refuse to provide that information, you can sue.
Identification should only be used in instances of legally regulated goods and services. For example, if I buy a TV with cash, what the hell is it Best Buy's business what your phone number is? None! You have a legal sale right there. Now, guns for example, those are another story. Those are regulated by most governments, including US and state governments. If the store is asking for ID there, then it's because the law says that you have to provide ID for background checks and the like.
The question is whether you have to provide ID for flights is questionable. The FAA wants to be ultra safe and condones these actions, but I doubt it makes anyone safe for domestic travel. Asking for ID for international travel is again part of government regulations, not policy.
If I have cash, that's all company should worry about as long as they aren't bound by law.
You can't hide bad questions behind an algorythm. The interview process has lots of laws around it now, and it's well established that there are only some questions you can ask. Here's a great example:
The questions range from the age when applicants first got excited about computers...
This question doesn't directly reveal your age, but a clever interviewer can glean much from it. "Oh, got excited in computers at 22, eh? Probably older than I thought. We don't want old employees we want young ones."
It is illegal to ask some questions in an interview. Age related questions are one of them. You are only allowed to ask questions that pertain to your performance of the job at hand. For example, I can ask someone "would you have a problem lifting heavy boxes?" but I can't ask how old you are and make a judgement because you are 40 that you can't lift heavy boxes. The above question you as a logical geek might think is iffy, but to a lawyer, it's shark bait and they'll be all over it, so don't ask it. If you ask a question that falls into this category, you open yourself up to a gender/age/racial discrimination lawsuit. These and many others are protected classes under the law.
And there's a great reason why an interview is a poor indicator of performance... because people lie!!! It's a sales process. They want your job, and you want the best candidate. Last two people I let go both gave great interviews, but when they actually worked, they sucked. They had all the right answers in the interview, but there is no escaping performance reviews.
0% firing rate is impossible, as is 100% retention. 96% retention is a stellar figure, even for silicon valley. I think they should be pretty happy that number.
My truck was unsafe 365 days. I could have been in an accident on any one of those days!
This is just smart. Car companies do it too. They sell to people who want fuel economy. If a car company could make a powerful safe car that ran for 500 miles on 1 gallon of gas, they'd do it.
Walmart has no vested interest selling electricity or energy. Since CFLs are more expensive up front, they get a greater slice of profits. The more expensive the item, the larger profit margin. Warmart is still a company that's only interested in profits, and I'm not ready to slap the saintly tag on them, but this is purely capitalism at it's best. The invisible hand will see where the profits are and follow the money, and when it comes to light, the money is in saving energy.
...breaking down threats and dangers in to colors like magenta, cyan, mauve, ash, and indigo, rather than actually telling us what the threat is, is a great way to communicate to the populace the danger they should think they are in, and thus keep control over the small minded populace.
Ironic that I have to hit next fifty bazillion times to see the whole article, and each time I hit next an ad for Sony/Dell/Intel/Microsoft. I got the Sony add a lot too, but then again I see forty bazillion sony products on this list, none of which match the definition of innovative. Well, maybe the marketer's definition of innovative, but not in the real world.
This is bribery, pure and simple. Every industry does it in some form or another. If MS had sent them a copy of Vista with no hardware, that's understandable. Everyone sends out free samples to reviewers in the hopes that they will review it. However, the "free laptop" is a bribe.
You would say "oh yes as long as they disclose that they received a free laptop I'm okay with that." What if every reviewer got a laptop? And what would motivate a reviewer to disclose this information, when it would only hurt their credibility, and thus, their paycheck?
No, this is a problem. No company should have the opportunity to buy the press. We just got the blog revolution started and already the corporations are trying to subvert it with money. I would accept nothing less than evey blogger returning the laptop and declaring in their blog that they "do not except gifts from the companies that they review. It damages a blogger's credibility and creates a bias, and is therefore unethical."
I might point out that you yourself seem to fall into your "narrow minded" category, since you obviously think it matters as well. You clearly wish it didn't, but that's neither here nor there.
:) I'll tell you what I think. It doesn't matter to me, and it should not matter, but to many closed minded people it does matter, so one is forced by society to be discrete. I wasn't trying to make a value judgement one way or another but as far as my values go, I'd like everyone to be accepting of all people, despite race, color, ethnicity, gender, or sexual orientation.
I don't get what you are saying. You think I think it matters, but then you say I think it doesn't. which do you think I think?
Since this is clearly not the case. You may not like the other choices, but they are there whether you like them or not.
My point was not that everyone should simply hide their personal info and go into the closet, though I see why you think that and I'm sorry for making it seem like that. Some people can manage social perception just fine. However, many cannot, simply because of the limitations it imposes on them. Being a gay fashion designer may be considered a plus by those in the fashion industry, but being an openly gay lawyer in a major law firm with many good old boys who's clients are also good old boys is not always conducive to either keeping your job or advancing in the ranks.
My point is that culture should be this way, but you can't change culture overnight, so those on the fringes must keep secrets from those who would make unfair judgements on their character in order to survive within the culture. Many do come out of the closet and have no problems, but not all can for myriads of reasons.
The privacy issue du jour in these past two decades has been homosexuality. You can't tell by looking at someone if they are gay. It shouldn't matter if they are or not, but many people (who I will declare as narrow minded pricks) do think it matters. Not only will these type of people judge homosexuals unfairly, another subset of these people may commit violence upon homosexuals.
Employers can judge you for any number of reasons. Employers are also looking for any reason to filter you out and judge you even before you can prove to them that you'd be a great employee. I don't like the fact that employers judge me because I have a socially and politically charged blog of my own, but I must come to terms with that by hiding it from them so they can't use that against me.
People make bad judgements for stupid reasons, and make stupid decisions based on those bad judgements. Those decisions affect people's lives. The fear of you or your family not being able to survive is a great motivating factor to not post intimate details of your life online for everyone to see. If you must, keep it anonymous.
Society isn't open because there are too many closed minds. There is then no other choice but to hide information that close minds should not see. The last thing I need is my son or my job taken away from me because of some idiot reading something I posted which has nothing to do with either my work ethic or my ability as a parent.
This reminds me of a Hilarious West Wing scene:
[CJ is mad at Josh for posting to the message board of a Josh Lyman fansite]
C.J. Cregg: If you ever post anything on that website again, I will shove a motherboard so far up your ass... What?
Josh Lyman: You DO know I outrank you, right?
C.J. Cregg: SO FAR UP YOUR ASS...
I'm not holding my breath.
The idea that robots may demand rights in the future is a good topic for a theoretical or philosophical debate. This type of thing is excellent for expanding one's mind about what may happen, and then to come up with solutions. It's good exercise for the brain.
Funding research about something that "may happen" usually revolves around risk analysis. An earthquake may happen, car accidents may happen, crimes may happen. That makes sense, so you should prepare for that.
Newsflash! We may have teleporters, warp drive, phasers, photon torpedos, and the heisenberg compensator some day too! We might have all of our pollution problems solved some day! There might be world peace some day! We might not stupid people some day!
What is the value of a study, that I can guarentee has no basis in fact, that says Robots may demand rights? We haven't nearly developed an AI remotely close to the power of the human mind. Entertainig such a question as part of a philosophical debate is a great idea, because then you are exercising that organ to be creative and think imaginatively, but why are they wasting time and money on a government study? I don't get what the government will get from that.
Perhaps the government should take time out every now and then to exercise their brains and have a go at such a philosophical debate. It will expand their minds and hone their skills. Having some commission do a study and present the government with the results is stupid, but then again so is government, so why am I surprised?
Please tell me the editors failed to do their job again. I can't read the article because it's
The problem with technology is that quite often we either end up with one standard that becomes outdated after years of use, or way too many standards that are highly incompatible. There are times a happy medium is achieved, but not always. Many times a standards body is created to create oversight over an industry standard and help regulate change so that yesterday's connector is compatible with today's PC/laptop/camera/phone/etc.
My concern about any government doing this is that these are 2 governments out of 190+ in the world imposing a standard. What if the US, canada, UK, France, Germany , Russia, or anyone else impose another standard different from USB? And what happens when USB is 20 years old and needs to be replaced. All you people decrying the current state of things will turn right around and decry that the government isn't doing it's job. Well sometimes that's the point of the free market, to do something the government doesn't do well and should not be doing at all. A standard imposed by the entire industry, rather than a few countries, would be a lot better, and the standards body would regulate change throughout the industry.
As for USB, there are at least 3 USB connector ends I know of. The most familiar to everyone is, in my opinion, too large for most phones. USB made connectors and cables better but they didn't make it "one size fits all." Does the law distinguish between the three connectors? If not, we will still have some problems with not having one connector to rule them all.
It would be nice if the US government put pressure on the industry to come up with some universal connector scheme that provides power and data transmission. Cell phone companies want something as small as possible. If they base it on the USB standard, great. I just want one connector for my bluetooth, my handset, and be able to bum a charge from the guy next to me or buy any old connector for $5 if I forgot mine at home.
I just saw a Mythbusters this weekend where they challenged the "myth" that you save money by leaving the lights on rather than turning them off.
They busted that myth wide open. They found that the energy it takes to start up the lightbulb is infinitesimal for all but the fluorescent bulbs, and the fluorescent loses any savings after only 23 seconds (i.e. if you are out of the room for more than 23 seconds, you are wasting money). Basically, it took very little power to start up the bulb, despite what the myth proclaims.
They also did a stress test of an equivalent of 5 years of turning the lights on and off. Even with an incandescant light bulb, the light bulbs all lasted long enough that any savings on "not stressing out the bulb" the bulb itself was negated by the power used to keep the bulb lit.
In short, if you are leaving the room for any length of time and have anything but flurescent lights, you'll save money by turning it off as you leave the room. If you use fluorescent, it's okay to leave them on if you just want to grab a drink or go take a piss, but anything more than 23 seconds will waste money.
In Russia, the theory evolves you!
This, my friends is an ad hominem attack. It's a typical political ploy to attack the integrity of scientists without disputing the facts. Can you honestly say science hasn't been perverted? Can you honestly say that politician aren't currently using science to advance heir own political agendas? I mean c'mon! Both parties in the US do it! Science has been perverted since time immemorium, but as of late it's getting incredibly bad.
The scientists vested interest is looking objective, because the scientific method isn't about politics, it's about discovering scientific fact. If all you are going to do is attack an organization for being too liberal, then you are part of the problem. Dispute the science, not someone's political leanings.
Only 4 out of 5 people picked A.
Why is it so hard to understand that the rules for a monopoly are different? People are constantly trying to compare what MS does with other company's and they keep saying "well they can do it, why can't MS?"
:P
What really bothers me is the slashdot editors continue to allow this shit to get posted. They are geeks, they damn well know better. Oh but they have to get ad hits
1) Monopolies have an overwhelming power on the market. They can set prices, muscle suppliers and customers, they can have a "do it or else" attitude, and generally are the bully on the block. Monopolies can do almost anything they want without repercusions, if the government did not step in.
2) Microsoft is a convicted monopoly. While the penalty phase dried up after Bush took office, and nothing is curtailing their behavior now, they were convicted and that has not been overturned. So that is not in question.
3) The next step is that you have to argue that Google is a monopoly or has too much influence. I Think at this stage that's still a tough argument to make, because Yahoo, ask.com, and MSN, despite crappy performances, are at least trying to catch up to Google. I will say Google has a huge mindshare, so anti-monopolists should keep an eye on them, but searches are still happening frequently on the other engines.
4) That's not to say that such a practice isn't sleazy. Frankly, I find this violates googles "do no evil" slogan. This is evil. If I as a small time developer were to introduce one of these types of products and I need to advertise, Google's ads will show up higher ranked and my product will get fewer viewers. In terms of large companies, this isn't as big a deal, because MS and yahoo can turn around and do the same thing with their engines. But when the big boys step on the small boys, I cry unfair.
However, that's a more complicated problem than being a monopoly.
Studies have been done that show that people are just as likely to be a technogeek or a technophone regardless of age. Maybe the baby boomers have grown up with more electronic technology than previous, but that doesn't mean that markets will really "open up."
There's also a stereotype that the older generation tends to be less computer savvy just because they didn't grow up with it. That's also not true, because I had 70 year old professors in college and relatives of my grandmother who are using computers like they were script kiddies and college software pirates. My Grandmother is a luddite, but that's part of her upbringing. She's been a luddite since she was 25, according to her husband.
It's true that if you grew up with computerized technology, you are more likely to understand something else you haven't seen before, but that's true with anything. There's a marketing myth that expands that which says that if you grew up with a specific technology, you are more likely to buy it. Rubbish. I know plenty of people who don't have cable and who don't own their own computer. These people are in their 20s and 30s!! They work with computers, because in business you almost always have to. But that doesn't mean people like it or have the desire to take it home.
My father is very intelligent and savvy, but has no desire to learn accounting software so he never uses a computer. My mother is much less savvy, having problems dealing with updates, error messages, and quirky technical problems, but finds things like shopping online very convenient and enjoys email. My father had much more computer exposure before my mother bought their current home computer, she's the one who's urging him to use it more. My parents both belong to that boomer generation.
My point is that age has nothing to do with it, and I suspect these companies that when target an age group just because they think they might be more technically savvy, they'll be in for a rude awakening as they fall flat on their face.
They'll also be competing for money of an age group (60+) which is historically known to be full of tightwads. Not because of personality, but because they are retired or near retirement and on a fixed income!! Unless the technology is a cheap robot which can do chores for the elderly and infirm, I don't see anyone making boku bucks selling "cool technogadgets" to seniors of any group.
I just hope hope hope that the people involved in this legal scam of SCOs didn't dump their stock today.
Many posters recently pointed out that they thought this was a stock pumping scam designed to get the stock up on the possibility of getting a large settlement from IBM. Now that the chances of that happening are slimmer and slimmer, what would you bet that before these announcements, important execs at SCO dumped their stock?
I hope not. They should burn like the Enron execs should have burned.
Scene opens. Zonk is sitting in the super secret Slashdot tower of geekdom, pissed that CmdrTaco made him work the Black Friday shift while CowboyNeal is shopping for new boots and matching chaps.
....
Zonk: okay okay, time to post some slashdot stories. What to do what to do...
Zonk hits a button and instantly hundreds of submissions appear on his 52 inch computer screen
Zonk: Computer, scan for submissions relating to Microsoft or Bill gates. Group by content.
The computer buzzes and whirs for two seconds and the display changes
Computer: Algorythmic analysis shows 13 distinct possible stories. List is as follows:
1) Melinda Gates has alien baby
2) Windows Vista kills small puppies
3) Steve Ballmer makes anti-semetic remarks at PC Expo
4) Bill Gates declares "All your iPod are belong to Zune!" in internal memo.
Zonk: *abruptly cuts of the computer* Run believability algorythm 259. Display only titles a typical slashdot reader might believe as real.
Computer: Two titles remain. List is as follows.
1) Microsoft launches new Anti-linux propoganda
2) Microsoft assists in anti-phishing efforts
Zonk: Hmmmmm, run inflamatory index algorythm 86 on both titles.
Computer: Complete. Report is as follows:
Title group: Microsoft launches new Anti-linux propoganda
Inflamatory index: 23
Stories show high incidence of anti-microsoft sentiment and pro-linux stories. There is a high degree of correlation in past stories, leading to ideas that it's been rehashed too often. This may lead to a high level of "I've seen this damn story before" posts by readers. However, due to the extreme number of this type of post, index is relatively low as topic is had reached the "JonKatz" threshold of repitition, and most readers will probably ignore it.
Would you like me to run an accuracy scan index on the articles to see if this article group may be true?
Zonk: nono I don't care about that, continue with report.
Computer: Continuing with report:
Title group: Microsoft assists in anti-phishing efforts
Inflamatory index: 67
Stories show low incidence of Anti-microsoft sentiment and no pro linux sentiment. Articles appear to case MS in a good light. All factors lead to low inflamatory index except for one. One or more articles express anti-RIAA/MPAA sentiment for no particular reason. Existance of extreme, unwarranted attempt to link article to RIAA/MPAA leads to incredibly high index.
Zonk: hot damn! Scan all submissions and run inflamatory index on each submission. List submission with highest chance of "WTF this is nothing like the RIAA/MPAA."
Computer: Article returned: "The Long Arm of Microsoft."
Zonk: Sweet! Computer post at 11:53 AM with no additions or changes. Open up T1 lines 4 and 7 to accomodate the extra connections and prepare the fire supression systems. That will phish a good number of comments and help us get our hits up for the day.
And that, ladies and gentleman, is how and why slashdot posts articles with stupidity like that RIAA comment
Market share is just one of many factors determining the success of a company, but it's not the only one. Apple has higher revenues than Dell right now, and is making sweet profits, which is an even bigger factor in success.
Licensing, I agree, would be a great boon for consumers, but there is no evidence than it would have been good for Apple. It was a conscious decision not to do it because licensing would undermine their hardware sales, which was of course later proven when they actually did license the OS!! Yes they lost market share, but they retained revenues they couldn't get any way else at the time. Therefore calling it a mistake is a typical fallacy that far too many techies and tech business types make because they fail to look at apple's real business model.
This book seems to be a skimming of information from moderated slashdot comments. This might be a good book for someone new to the idea, but there doesn't seem to be anything good here. Plenty of company bashing we've all done before, and nothing new to add. Nothing to see here... move along.