Wow, talk about irony... This is the top story on CNN, the same day that they launch their new format that tries to show you *six* different stories at the same time. It's funny watching this story being reported by the anchorperson, while the other five sections of the screen flash and scroll around.
Then why release a decoy? If what you say is correct, then there was never even the remotest chance that the missle would go after the balloon. That seems pretty deceptive itself.
which is the hard part anyway
Seems like dealing with decoys is a pretty hard problem, too, no?
...it allows those people to send each other "humourous" clips of cats doing martial arts and Americans going "Wazzzup!" at each other, clogging networks and stopping people from working.
The phone allows just as much time-wasting, doesn't it? With the phone, Americans can actually go "Wazzzup!" at each other, though cats doing martial arts probably loses a lot in the translation.
Reps don't understand bits and bytes. If you don't send them dead trees, they don't think you vote.
I think they understand perfectly well. It takes significantly more effort to write a paper letter than an e-mail. If you were trying to figure out what issues your constituents really cared about, which would you pay more attention to?
Personally, I hope that when I get a barcode reader, or a DVD-ROM drive (or a car, or phone, or any other physical thing), that I'm allowed to rip it apart and tinker with it at my discretion. I think that's my right as a consumer.
As long as you recognize that you probably won't get it for free. This is another bite-the-hand-that-feeds-you case, like banner-ad-removers, TiVo, etc. It's destroying a business model which is useful for consumers. Aside from the "bullying", it's unfortunate that this model will soon die (along with the free stuff that comes with it - bar code readers, TV programs, web pages, etc).
The author thinks it's unlikely that an advanced civilization would not want to colonize the galaxy. "It would take only one technological civilization to embark, for whatever reason, on a program of galactic colonization... All its SETI searches would prove negative, and it might initiate a program of systematic interstellar exploration to find out why."
The problem is, you'd need to want to do this for 5 million years (at the conservative end of the estimates). If you're living on a perfectly good planet, would you want to endure a decades-long trip to another, uncivilized planet? One that took years to even communicate with, once you got there? Just because some scientists decided that we should go explore the galaxy? The chances of a civilization maintaining this same difficult goal for millions of years is implausible.
There is more music making more money in more forms -- generating $15 billion in profit in l999 -- than at any time in world history.
Of course, there are also more people in the world than at any time in world history...
Copyright laws also need to recognize that access to culture and music has become a tradition and right for tens of millions of people, mostly younger Americans who grew up using the Net, and who are now routinely branded "thieves" and "pirates" by corporate publicists...
If you don't like these terms, that's too bad. I don't think that "access to culture and music" is less of a euphemism. These people are taking the product of the labor of many people, without paying anything for it, while those people who produced it would like them to pay for it. And, that taking is currently against our laws. How is that not thievery?
Introducing greedy corporations into the argument is a complete red herring. No artist is compelled to sign on with a record company - but most choose to do so, because they believe that they can make more money (by exposing a great many more people to their music) than they can on their own. Of course the record company takes a large profit - that's their right, just as it's the right of the artist to try to sell music on their own, if they so choose. Those that choose not to sign with a record company are hurt even more by music copying, since they get more of the profit from a sale.
Many artists who are under contract feel exploited by recording companies, who take a disproportionate share of profits, and who make enormous margins on conventional music sales. Millions of music lovers feel that they are overcharged and offered too few choices and controls about the music they want to hear.
Why do *you* get to decide what is "disproportionate"? Why shouldn't record companies make a large profit from selling music for their artists? The artists asked them to. If music lovers are pissed off, why do they still buy CDs? Because record companies are useful to both artist and listener. Anyone who feels otherwise can do without them - as long as both the artist and the listener agree to the transaction.
And many people in the music industry, though still a distinct minority, believe that the sharing of music online can generate enormous interest and revenue for artists, musicians -- and for record companies.
Some people believe that, and some don't. Those that do are free to try to make money any way they want. Those that don't believe it should be allowed to make money too. Isn't it awfully convenient that people who steal music think that everyone would somehow make more money if they're allowed to download their music for free?
How can artists rights be protected on the Net? Maybe... Perhaps... Maybe... Maybe...
Well I'm glad you have this all figured out. Thanks.
(I am not associated in any way with the music industry.)
It is also dangerous to imply causation. Even if you prove that Napster users buy more music, you can't say that Napster causes people to buy more music. Just as likely is that those people attracted to Napster are music enthusiasts who buy lots of music.
Exactly! The question that remain unanswered is this: Do Napster users buy more or less music than they would if they didn't have Napster? It's wishful thinking to believe that it's more.
Regardless of the industry or the reason, finding fault with your best customer base is ALWAYS, from an economic standpoint, a bad thing to do.
That's a pithy sound bite, but not necessarily true. If Napster users buy much less music than they would have otherwise, then it would be in the industry's best economic interest to stop Napster at all costs.
...but take a look at some past issues of Schneier's Cryptogram (don't know the specific one, sorry) for some scathing commentary on the brokenness of PPTP.
The report said that Microsoft's PPTP implementation was broken, not the PPTP protocol itself. Also, Microsoft has since released an updated implementation, which is much less broken.
This is ridiculous, and totally unlike the way trademarks act in the real world. (If I have a trademark on the word "Foo" for my brand of widgets, I can't stop you from using that trademark for an entirely different kind of product, and I certainly can't stop you from using it in conversation, or as a nickname, etc.)
Domain names are a problem unlike any problem in the real world. If I say "Mercury" to you, you'll probably understand from context whether I'm talking about Mercury cars, Mercury Records, or Mercury Interactive (who makes software testing tools). But computers can't tell the difference. No matter how you slice it, the string "mercury" has to lead to a web site, whether that string is represented as "www.mercury.com" or "www.mercury" or just "mercury". Allowing any TLD will just start a new cybersquatting land-grab, where everyone tries to be "www.books" or "www.sex".
(BTW www.mercury.com leads to Mercury Technologies, some consulting company I've never heard of.)
(FYI for those in the States - a "busker" is a street performer.)
What you're talking about is shareware. Of course, you've overlooked the big problem with this model - there's little penalty to take without paying. I get the benefit of watching the street performer, whether I pay or not. In the real world, actual busking works because for many people, the guilt of not paying outweighs the loss of a small amount of money. For some software projects this works, but for most it doesn't. Only the projects with the broadest appeal can survive this way, because only a small percentage of people who use them will pay.
This is the same reason that even most libertarians agree that we need to have some taxes. There are certain services (e.g. police, fire department, national defense) that we all agree are necessary, and they must be paid for somehow. If it was left to a voluntary donation, then there's no incentive for any one person to donate. If *I* don't give money to the fire department, that won't cause them to "go out of business", but of course if *nobody* gives money, they won't exist.
The ONLY solution is to bag this silly-ass naming system and come up with something that allows people to type in a more unique, descriptive name that isn't duplicated umpteen times over with the most minor of variations...
You think people will have the patience to try to find the right "descriptive" name? "ford cars" nope "ford automobiles" nope "ford motor co" nope "ford motor corporation" ahh that's it.
I think you've almost hit the nail on the head - there *is* no good solution to this problem. Let's stick with the broken system we've got, rather than the broken one we haven't figured out yet.
If you can register any 3-letter combination as a TLD (minus a few restricted ones?), you have just made it financally prohibitive for anyone with even a huge bankroll to do any domain squatting.
That's assuming that any TLD is as good as any other.
Because it's entrenched in the minds of *billions* of people,.com will be the preferred domain for years. A few others like.web or.corp might become recognized, but that's probably it. All you do with new TLDs is make every company scramble for "mycompany.web" and "mycompany.corp", or whatever wins. (Or sue whoever got to them first.)
OTOH, Java was using the top of the line compilers and JVM (e.g. MS's JVM is well known to be much faster than even Sun's in Solaris...)
This test wasn't using MS's JVM, it was using Sun's and IBM's...
Slashdot provides its own counterexample
on
Too Old To Code?
·
· Score: 2
This story, posted on the same day even, provides a counterexample:
In 1996, some 80 more engineers were added, mostly mid-career engineers who had years of experience in the jobs they were to take on for Transmeta. Signing on so many experienced engineers so fast in Silicon Valley's tight job market turned out to be surprisingly easy. "My being old helped," Laird said. (He is 44.) "I've been around a long time; I know a lot of people."
I suspect that being older helps better engineers (more experience), but hurts others (perceived as not adaptive).
Slashdot Mirror
This FAQ says that the iMac was designed in-house by Apple.
Wow, talk about irony... This is the top story on CNN, the same day that they launch their new format that tries to show you *six* different stories at the same time. It's funny watching this story being reported by the anchorperson, while the other five sections of the screen flash and scroll around.
which is the hard part anyway
Seems like dealing with decoys is a pretty hard problem, too, no?
The phone allows just as much time-wasting, doesn't it? With the phone, Americans can actually go "Wazzzup!" at each other, though cats doing martial arts probably loses a lot in the translation.
I think they understand perfectly well. It takes significantly more effort to write a paper letter than an e-mail. If you were trying to figure out what issues your constituents really cared about, which would you pay more attention to?
Personally, I hope that when I get a barcode reader, or a DVD-ROM drive (or a car, or phone, or any other physical thing), that I'm allowed to rip it apart and tinker with it at my discretion. I think that's my right as a consumer. As long as you recognize that you probably won't get it for free. This is another bite-the-hand-that-feeds-you case, like banner-ad-removers, TiVo, etc. It's destroying a business model which is useful for consumers. Aside from the "bullying", it's unfortunate that this model will soon die (along with the free stuff that comes with it - bar code readers, TV programs, web pages, etc).
The problem is, you'd need to want to do this for 5 million years (at the conservative end of the estimates). If you're living on a perfectly good planet, would you want to endure a decades-long trip to another, uncivilized planet? One that took years to even communicate with, once you got there? Just because some scientists decided that we should go explore the galaxy? The chances of a civilization maintaining this same difficult goal for millions of years is implausible.
Of course, there are also more people in the world than at any time in world history...
Copyright laws also need to recognize that access to culture and music has become a tradition and right for tens of millions of people, mostly younger Americans who grew up using the Net, and who are now routinely branded "thieves" and "pirates" by corporate publicists...
If you don't like these terms, that's too bad. I don't think that "access to culture and music" is less of a euphemism. These people are taking the product of the labor of many people, without paying anything for it, while those people who produced it would like them to pay for it. And, that taking is currently against our laws. How is that not thievery?
Introducing greedy corporations into the argument is a complete red herring. No artist is compelled to sign on with a record company - but most choose to do so, because they believe that they can make more money (by exposing a great many more people to their music) than they can on their own. Of course the record company takes a large profit - that's their right, just as it's the right of the artist to try to sell music on their own, if they so choose. Those that choose not to sign with a record company are hurt even more by music copying, since they get more of the profit from a sale.
Many artists who are under contract feel exploited by recording companies, who take a disproportionate share of profits, and who make enormous margins on conventional music sales. Millions of music lovers feel that they are overcharged and offered too few choices and controls about the music they want to hear.
Why do *you* get to decide what is "disproportionate"? Why shouldn't record companies make a large profit from selling music for their artists? The artists asked them to. If music lovers are pissed off, why do they still buy CDs? Because record companies are useful to both artist and listener. Anyone who feels otherwise can do without them - as long as both the artist and the listener agree to the transaction.
And many people in the music industry, though still a distinct minority, believe that the sharing of music online can generate enormous interest and revenue for artists, musicians -- and for record companies.
Some people believe that, and some don't. Those that do are free to try to make money any way they want. Those that don't believe it should be allowed to make money too. Isn't it awfully convenient that people who steal music think that everyone would somehow make more money if they're allowed to download their music for free?
How can artists rights be protected on the Net? Maybe... Perhaps... Maybe... Maybe...
Well I'm glad you have this all figured out. Thanks.
(I am not associated in any way with the music industry.)
Hey, great job - thanks for framing the issue in a balanced, even-handed way...
Exactly! The question that remain unanswered is this: Do Napster users buy more or less music than they would if they didn't have Napster? It's wishful thinking to believe that it's more.
Regardless of the industry or the reason, finding fault with your best customer base is ALWAYS, from an economic standpoint, a bad thing to do.
That's a pithy sound bite, but not necessarily true. If Napster users buy much less music than they would have otherwise, then it would be in the industry's best economic interest to stop Napster at all costs.
The report is here.
The report said that Microsoft's PPTP implementation was broken, not the PPTP protocol itself. Also, Microsoft has since released an updated implementation, which is much less broken.
Domain names are a problem unlike any problem in the real world. If I say "Mercury" to you, you'll probably understand from context whether I'm talking about Mercury cars, Mercury Records, or Mercury Interactive (who makes software testing tools). But computers can't tell the difference. No matter how you slice it, the string "mercury" has to lead to a web site, whether that string is represented as "www.mercury.com" or "www.mercury" or just "mercury". Allowing any TLD will just start a new cybersquatting land-grab, where everyone tries to be "www.books" or "www.sex".
(BTW www.mercury.com leads to Mercury Technologies, some consulting company I've never heard of.)
What you're talking about is shareware. Of course, you've overlooked the big problem with this model - there's little penalty to take without paying. I get the benefit of watching the street performer, whether I pay or not. In the real world, actual busking works because for many people, the guilt of not paying outweighs the loss of a small amount of money. For some software projects this works, but for most it doesn't. Only the projects with the broadest appeal can survive this way, because only a small percentage of people who use them will pay.
This is the same reason that even most libertarians agree that we need to have some taxes. There are certain services (e.g. police, fire department, national defense) that we all agree are necessary, and they must be paid for somehow. If it was left to a voluntary donation, then there's no incentive for any one person to donate. If *I* don't give money to the fire department, that won't cause them to "go out of business", but of course if *nobody* gives money, they won't exist.
You think people will have the patience to try to find the right "descriptive" name? "ford cars" nope "ford automobiles" nope "ford motor co" nope "ford motor corporation" ahh that's it.
I think you've almost hit the nail on the head - there *is* no good solution to this problem. Let's stick with the broken system we've got, rather than the broken one we haven't figured out yet.
That's assuming that any TLD is as good as any other.
Because it's entrenched in the minds of *billions* of people, .com will be the preferred domain for years. A few others like .web or .corp might become recognized, but that's probably it. All you do with new TLDs is make every company scramble for "mycompany.web" and "mycompany.corp", or whatever wins. (Or sue whoever got to them first.)
Coming soon - in JDK 1.4 (Merlin) hopefully.
This test wasn't using MS's JVM, it was using Sun's and IBM's...