Rather than remake something, or have some ignorant Hollywood producer create some new but clichéd and/or stupid story, why not go look to the great science fiction writers and put them on the screen (suitably updated)?
Because it's fucking difficult to adapt books to the screen. Science Fiction novelists aren't screenwriters. So, to make a successful adaptation, you'd need writers with talent. It's much easier to produce formulaic drivel. And formulaic drivel tends to be more popular than well-crafted Science Fiction.
Oh dear, you just might be incorrect [nytimes.com] in your assessment of what companies have agreed to in the past.
Ummm, what does that have to do with the market for electronic books? And when did I say anything about the flat screen TV market, or other past events?
I know that, but why wouldn't I, if I have the opportunity to?
you can even pretend you 'haven't received it yet' if you need to stall for time, which is why it's so useful in deadline-oriented businesses.
That doesn't make any sense. If I was in a deadline-oriented business (which I am) then why would I want to stall for time, or lie about not receiving something? That just shows dishonesty. Do you really expect people to believe your "I didn't receive it" lies?
I guess if you work for a business founded on lies and deception, that could be an advantage, but that's not the kind of company I want to work for.
If email has replaced phonecalls. then your company are wasting a lot of time with staff typing rather than speaking - even the fastest touch-typist would struggle to key as many WPM as speaking quickly.
Complete bullshit. The time wasted by interrupting someone is much more inefficient than typing. And email encourages people to be more careful and considerate in their communications, so you don't waste time with back-and-forth phone calls or voicemail.
e-ink is to book readers what monster cables are to cables, if monster cables were the only cables you could buy anywhere with no lower priced competition.
But Monster Cables don't have any advantages over cheaper cables. Electronic Ink displays do have advantages over other types of display.
This is price fixing.
I don't think you know what "price fixing" means.
Once someone starts selling a fairly priced LCD alternative, it's all over for the e-ink people as their overpriced gadgets will only be bought by hardcore textophiles.
So, how can it be "price fixing" if somebody could just make an LCD-based alternative and take over the market? Price fixing implies collusion among industry players not to allow such competition. But in reality, there are lots of different companies competing for this market with different technology. There's not an agreement among them to fix prices.
I also know that a paperback book sized LCD device could be mass manufactured and sold for $19.99
Well, why don't you produce such a device, take over the market, and become wealthy for life, then?
I think it's a bit more philosophical than that. What if Apple has decided it's violating, but hasn't announced that yet? What about apps that do violate one of Apple's clauses, but Apple hasn't noticed yet? That's happened several times. The infringement status clearly isn't based on whether it been allowed in the store or not.
The fact that it's available on the app store means that it hasn't violated "we may reject your application for any reason whatsoever" clause of Apple's policy.
No, it doesn't. Apple could pull it from the store at any time. That clause is always hanging over the head of an application.
New York City does have a fascinating history of pneumatic transport projects. A particularly elaborate example is when New Yorkers were supplied with fresh burritos via pneumatic delivery.
Basically, there's nothing in the app description or screenshots to suggest that the application, which uses only publicly available knowledge, violates any of the terms of Apple's app policy.
What about the "we may reject your application for any reason whatsoever" clause of Apple's policy?
Don't assume that changing technology will automatically force changes in fundamental human behaviors
I don't see where I made that assumption, I certainly didn't say anything like that in my posts.
What those entering the job market are going to find out is that their employers make the rules when it comes to communication, and those aren't going to be anything like the behavior the article refers to.
I don't know any young people entering the workforce who do expect the kind of interaction the article is referring to - I suspect that the article is full of shit. Just because a person uses a particular form of communication for their social lives, doesn't mean they will do the same at work. Most people have a pretty easy time understanding that there are different expectation of conduct in the workplace.
So yes, our communications systems are faster and more efficient than ever before, but this in no way changes the fact that some people's time is more valuable than others. Children have virtually unlimited time to socialize, text each other and run up their cellular bills. Those are trying to survive in the real world usually do not.
I think age and the "generation" thing is a red herring. My parents are retired, as are their friends, and they spend way more time socializing electronically than either myself, or my 20-something sister does, as we are busy working. It doesn't matter how old you are - if technology enables something that you enjoy, and you have the ability to take advantage of, you'll use it.
OK, I can see that. I was just curious, because there's no way I could let emails "age." The only effective way I can deal with my inbox is by dealing with mail immediately. It would be professional suicide to defer email, as it is used routinely as a replacement for phone calls.
Yes, but when that behavior holds over into adulthood you have a problem (or rather, people are going to have a big problem with you.)
That may well be, but we don't know if that is going to be the case, because most of these people haven't reached adulthood yet. I think you're just making assumptions based on teenage/early 20s behavior.
I don't even answer email immediately, because I have no intention of serving as a brain trust for people who will not think.
I don't know what your job is, but exactly what kind of emails are you getting that leads you to this attitude? Don't you get any other kind of email at work? The bulk of the work email that I get is about setting up meetings, asking for feedback on projects, information about new policies and procedures. I can't think of the last time I got an email as a "substitute for thinking," whatever that means.
This article is full of shit. By the time smartphones become our primary computing platform, we'll be using at least Super Duper Smartphones, if not Super Mega Hyper Fragilistic Smartphones.
I don't know how old you are, but if we'd try to do something like text message during class, the cell phone would have been confiscated and we'd have gotten in a lot of trouble
I'm in my mid thirties. In the situation you describe, it depended on the teacher and the school. We didn't have mobile phones - but we tended to be quite mischievous, pulling pranks and whatnot. Sometimes we got in a lot of trouble, sometimes not. Sometimes we just broke the teacher's brain.
Playing Pac-Man well requires intense concentration, memory [nrchapman.com], and plain old fashioned stamina. If you don't find that intellectually stimulating, you have failed to understand the game.
If you think that's what "intellectually stimulating" means, then you have failed to understand the meaning of common phrases. And just because it requires concentration and stamina, doesn't stop it from being simplistic - many simplistic tasks require these things, such as working on an assembly line.
Anyway, modern games require just as much concentration and stamina, yet tend to be much more complex.
simplistic video games or instantly downloaded media,
Yeah, because today's video games are so simplistic and lacking in complexity compared to yesterday's intellectually stimulating classics such as Pong, Space In vaders and Pac Man.
Firstly, I think the designation of birth decades is completely bogus. Somebody who was born in 1980 is likely to have had a very different technology experience to someone born after 1985, but they are all lumped together. Someone born in 1980 would be 18 by the time the internet started to see mass adoption and computers started to become cheap, while someone born in 1985 would only be 13, and have their formative high-school years ahead of them.
And talking about the tech habits of people born in the 00s? They aren't old enough to have any entrenched tech habits yet! It will be the next decade that shapes them, not the past one.
I mean, I'd suppose that Sterling Ball, as a free software advocate and victim of BSA's antics, will appreciate that news of abusive audits are forcing people to finally take a serious look at free software.
You're assuming he revels in schadenfreude, and enjoys seeing other people suffer. Why would you assume that? It's like assuming a rape victim enjoys hearing of other people getting raped.
Perhaps I'm not cynical enough, but I would have assumed that as a "victim of the BSA's antics" he would not enjoy seeing others victimized.
Slashdot Mirror
Rather than remake something, or have some ignorant Hollywood producer create some new but clichéd and/or stupid story, why not go look to the great science fiction writers and put them on the screen (suitably updated)?
Because it's fucking difficult to adapt books to the screen. Science Fiction novelists aren't screenwriters. So, to make a successful adaptation, you'd need writers with talent. It's much easier to produce formulaic drivel. And formulaic drivel tends to be more popular than well-crafted Science Fiction.
Oh dear, you just might be incorrect [nytimes.com] in your assessment of what companies have agreed to in the past.
Ummm, what does that have to do with the market for electronic books? And when did I say anything about the flat screen TV market, or other past events?
You don't HAVE to answer immediately
I know that, but why wouldn't I, if I have the opportunity to?
you can even pretend you 'haven't received it yet' if you need to stall for time, which is why it's so useful in deadline-oriented businesses.
That doesn't make any sense. If I was in a deadline-oriented business (which I am) then why would I want to stall for time, or lie about not receiving something? That just shows dishonesty. Do you really expect people to believe your "I didn't receive it" lies?
I guess if you work for a business founded on lies and deception, that could be an advantage, but that's not the kind of company I want to work for.
If email has replaced phonecalls. then your company are wasting a lot of time with staff typing rather than speaking - even the fastest touch-typist would struggle to key as many WPM as speaking quickly.
Complete bullshit. The time wasted by interrupting someone is much more inefficient than typing. And email encourages people to be more careful and considerate in their communications, so you don't waste time with back-and-forth phone calls or voicemail.
e-ink is to book readers what monster cables are to cables, if monster cables were the only cables you could buy anywhere with no lower priced competition.
But Monster Cables don't have any advantages over cheaper cables. Electronic Ink displays do have advantages over other types of display.
This is price fixing.
I don't think you know what "price fixing" means.
Once someone starts selling a fairly priced LCD alternative, it's all over for the e-ink people as their overpriced gadgets will only be bought by hardcore textophiles.
So, how can it be "price fixing" if somebody could just make an LCD-based alternative and take over the market? Price fixing implies collusion among industry players not to allow such competition. But in reality, there are lots of different companies competing for this market with different technology. There's not an agreement among them to fix prices.
I also know that a paperback book sized LCD device could be mass manufactured and sold for $19.99
Well, why don't you produce such a device, take over the market, and become wealthy for life, then?
Thing is, I can't recall last time I read a book that needed 'colour'
You must not have been exposed to very many books in your lifetime, then.
I think it's a bit more philosophical than that. What if Apple has decided it's violating, but hasn't announced that yet? What about apps that do violate one of Apple's clauses, but Apple hasn't noticed yet? That's happened several times. The infringement status clearly isn't based on whether it been allowed in the store or not.
The fact that it's available on the app store means that it hasn't violated "we may reject your application for any reason whatsoever" clause of Apple's policy.
No, it doesn't. Apple could pull it from the store at any time. That clause is always hanging over the head of an application.
New York City does have a fascinating history of pneumatic transport projects. A particularly elaborate example is when New Yorkers were supplied with fresh burritos via pneumatic delivery.
Basically, there's nothing in the app description or screenshots to suggest that the application, which uses only publicly available knowledge, violates any of the terms of Apple's app policy.
What about the "we may reject your application for any reason whatsoever" clause of Apple's policy?
Don't assume that changing technology will automatically force changes in fundamental human behaviors
I don't see where I made that assumption, I certainly didn't say anything like that in my posts.
What those entering the job market are going to find out is that their employers make the rules when it comes to communication, and those aren't going to be anything like the behavior the article refers to.
I don't know any young people entering the workforce who do expect the kind of interaction the article is referring to - I suspect that the article is full of shit. Just because a person uses a particular form of communication for their social lives, doesn't mean they will do the same at work. Most people have a pretty easy time understanding that there are different expectation of conduct in the workplace.
So yes, our communications systems are faster and more efficient than ever before, but this in no way changes the fact that some people's time is more valuable than others. Children have virtually unlimited time to socialize, text each other and run up their cellular bills. Those are trying to survive in the real world usually do not.
I think age and the "generation" thing is a red herring. My parents are retired, as are their friends, and they spend way more time socializing electronically than either myself, or my 20-something sister does, as we are busy working. It doesn't matter how old you are - if technology enables something that you enjoy, and you have the ability to take advantage of, you'll use it.
OK, I can see that. I was just curious, because there's no way I could let emails "age." The only effective way I can deal with my inbox is by dealing with mail immediately. It would be professional suicide to defer email, as it is used routinely as a replacement for phone calls.
Yes, but when that behavior holds over into adulthood you have a problem (or rather, people are going to have a big problem with you.)
That may well be, but we don't know if that is going to be the case, because most of these people haven't reached adulthood yet. I think you're just making assumptions based on teenage/early 20s behavior.
I don't even answer email immediately, because I have no intention of serving as a brain trust for people who will not think.
I don't know what your job is, but exactly what kind of emails are you getting that leads you to this attitude? Don't you get any other kind of email at work? The bulk of the work email that I get is about setting up meetings, asking for feedback on projects, information about new policies and procedures. I can't think of the last time I got an email as a "substitute for thinking," whatever that means.
This article is full of shit. By the time smartphones become our primary computing platform, we'll be using at least Super Duper Smartphones, if not Super Mega Hyper Fragilistic Smartphones.
I don't know how old you are, but if we'd try to do something like text message during class, the cell phone would have been confiscated and we'd have gotten in a lot of trouble
I'm in my mid thirties. In the situation you describe, it depended on the teacher and the school. We didn't have mobile phones - but we tended to be quite mischievous, pulling pranks and whatnot. Sometimes we got in a lot of trouble, sometimes not. Sometimes we just broke the teacher's brain.
Playing Pac-Man well requires intense concentration, memory [nrchapman.com], and plain old fashioned stamina. If you don't find that intellectually stimulating, you have failed to understand the game.
If you think that's what "intellectually stimulating" means, then you have failed to understand the meaning of common phrases. And just because it requires concentration and stamina, doesn't stop it from being simplistic - many simplistic tasks require these things, such as working on an assembly line.
Anyway, modern games require just as much concentration and stamina, yet tend to be much more complex.
Many of these people born in the 1990s feel that the entire world should instantly respond to them and they get extremely impatient when it doesn't.
Sounds like how teenagers have always been.
simplistic video games or instantly downloaded media,
Yeah, because today's video games are so simplistic and lacking in complexity compared to yesterday's intellectually stimulating classics such as Pong, Space In vaders and Pac Man.
Firstly, I think the designation of birth decades is completely bogus. Somebody who was born in 1980 is likely to have had a very different technology experience to someone born after 1985, but they are all lumped together. Someone born in 1980 would be 18 by the time the internet started to see mass adoption and computers started to become cheap, while someone born in 1985 would only be 13, and have their formative high-school years ahead of them.
And talking about the tech habits of people born in the 00s? They aren't old enough to have any entrenched tech habits yet! It will be the next decade that shapes them, not the past one.
I'm surprised by Debbie Does Dallas being relatively unpopular in Dallas, but quite popular in Houston. Go figure.
But thank you for spreading the stereotype
Heh. You said "spreading," heh heh heh huh huh ha.
I think she was one of the new X-men.
Ahh, the ex-men, the Brooklyn-based support group for post-op transsexuals.
I think you have a bit mixed up. It's more like a rape victim hearing that their assailant got raped while in prison.
Except that it's nothing like that. Where in this story is the BSA getting "raped while in prison"? The story is about the BSA raping more victims.
Even if your version were correct, why would a rape victim want to see rape being perpetuated, even if it was against their own assailant?
They're obligated not to smoke. Why not ban second hand peanut oder?
Because there's no evidence that peanut odor is harmful to anybody else?
I mean, I'd suppose that Sterling Ball, as a free software advocate and victim of BSA's antics, will appreciate that news of abusive audits are forcing people to finally take a serious look at free software.
You're assuming he revels in schadenfreude, and enjoys seeing other people suffer. Why would you assume that? It's like assuming a rape victim enjoys hearing of other people getting raped.
Perhaps I'm not cynical enough, but I would have assumed that as a "victim of the BSA's antics" he would not enjoy seeing others victimized.