"ii) Undisclosed political contributions (above a very low level) are absolutely inexcusable. Accountability, accountability, accountability. The electorate has the right to know who is financing a candidate. It's a vital piece of information in the democratic process."
I agree with you in principal. Unfortunately, we don't live in a perfect system where such information cannot be abused. What about valid expression that is inhibited by fear of repercussions? This was one of the core ideas that was addressed by Learned Hand and O.W. Holmes in the last century.
The Red Scare and McCarthyism are specters that we'd like to forget, but the capacity for a similar era still exists. Anonymity is one of the ways that less popular (but perhaps just as valid) postions, and candidates, can be supported.
If you are going to support unlimited campaign contributions, because they are en expression of free speech, then you should also support anonymous contributions, since they are also necessary for true free speech.
It's technology that already had a name and doesn't need a new one.
What's retarded is that people spend inordinate amounts of time biatching about the name of a technology. I'm sorry you had to learn to use a new word. If the new name gains most of the mindshare, doesn't that mean the new name is better?
How about "Javascript", since that's all it is?
What is wrong with calling it AJAX instead of Javascript?
Nothing. If anything, 'Javascript' has problems, because the word 'script' -- as in script kiddies -- has negative connotations. Add on 'Java' and either your talking about Indonesia, which makes people think of outsourcing (or will, in the next decade), or you're talking about coffee -- and do we really need people associating a useful tech with video game pron mods?
You can call it whatever you like (you can call it Fungrifoo, if you like, in your notes to yourself) -- but whatever name dominates mindshare is the one I'll use when communicating with others about it.
"But I am absolutely against recent "liberal" attempts to stifle Free Speech by restricting campaign contributions. I think it is paramount to a repeal of the First Amendment to say that you cannot use your money in the way that you see fit."
The problem with this is that television advertising, which is a primary means of election campaigning, is not infinite in supply.
If you look back 200 years, anyone with a access to a printing press (which were readily available, quite within the reach of almost all candidates) could have published campaign advertising, and distributed it.
Television advertising is different -- it is very expensive, and has limited supply. It's not like any candidate can just broadcast information to your home TV set (because of FCC regulations, BTW), so huge campaign contributions can severely tilt the balance to one candidate -- they can dominate the legal airwaves.
Allowing unlimited political contributions stifles the free speech of those that do not have unlimited cash.
Or are you in favor of a kleptocracy, where government exists to enrich the people who already have the cash? Because that is the direct consequence of unlimited contributions.
"Ajax is the first genuinely new thing I can think of this century."
Wow, that's a hell of a thinking block... I've managed to have several new ideas since 1999.:)
"Quick, better to live or die, once and for all, than die by inches, slowly crushed to death--helpless against the hulls in the bloody press--by far inferior men!"
The coil is on the device, whether clipped on with an adaptor to current charging system, or built internally into the device. It allows the device to use the mag field on the pad to generate a current to charge the batteries.
The mag pad is the charger, which is what the co. hopes hotels etc will purchase.
The coils are necessary for every device, and would best be implemented as internal additions.
So, total revenue in space > government spending in space. What about commercial spending?
Also, most of that revenue is from satellites. Manned missions don't produce much revenue.
How much more room is there for profit growth from satellites? Probably a lot, but is a space elevator more cost-effective than rocket launches for satellites? Depends on how many satellites are launched. The problem is diminishing returns for launching too many satellites... and it's the number of items launched that make an elevator potentially cost-effective.
You really think so? You think that the root server operators will make that kind of stand when the US Government can force them out of business?
It's nice to have this idealized notion of people telling the US Govt to shove it... but in reality, things work differently.
Autonomous? The internet? I think not. And less and less so every year. There's gold in them thar hills, and the US Govt is preparing to stake a claim or two. There are plenty of indirect ways that the US Govt uses to lean on people and companies to do what's on someone's (who happens to be high up in Govt) agenda.
And of course some posters on Slashdot ignore the fact that the US Dept of Commerce exercises veto power over ICANN decisions. This has been reported on/. several times, but is conveniently forgotten whenever the current topic comes up.
"If the Chinese go to the moon, I don't think it will be just a publicity stunt-I expect they'll develop a real economic presence there. Stuff like a Lunar space elevator could be a highly profitable enterprise"
Please, explain the profitability. Where are they going to get the revenue that pays off the capital expenditure? A space elevator could perhaps be more cost-effective than an surface-launch based space program, but it's not even close to profitable.
If you believe that other governments (such as the US) would base their space program on leasing time on a Chinese space elevator, think again... there is no way that the US would give China the direct power to handicap our space program.
Joint ventures? Quite possible, but still not likely to be profitable for China. No space venture is directly profitable -- the profits derived are in national pride and perhaps technological development.
I can easily see China having a physical presence up there -- more satellites, etc. Or perhaps even (gasp!) a military presence. But an economic presence? There is no economy up there, nor is there likely to be, until there are profitable enterprises in space. Even the farfetched ideas circulating now are still dependent upon an earth-based economy. We've a long way to go, baby, and 15 years is a blink of an eye.
"Then again, they did get you bored enough to play that game 100 times."
The train is what got me bored. If I hadn't been testing my power level hypothesis, I probably would have been smushing my nose against the window or something just as bad.
Although, that's a neat concept for a 'game' -- release a broken/incomplete/open-ended game, with the tools to fix it or change it in myriad ways -- see what people come up with. Allow people to play eachother's games on a subscription network on a console.
Mods are very popular on PC games -- why not console games, when the mods are part of the game itself?
"I wouldn't doubt they do this on purpose. There is probably some historical, mathematical or even emotional reasoning to limiting the distribution on launch."
You're mostly right, this is a strategy that has worked wonders for many, many companies in the past. Usually this happens when there is no direct competition for the product -- whether because of innovation, branding, or product timing. Whether it's Cabbage Patch Dolls, Collectible Card Games, or gaming consoles, artificially induced scarcity works well for the bottom line when there is no competition.
Where you are a bit off is that lowered supply does not increase demand. Instead, it increases the price at which the units can sell -- those that REALLY want it will pay the early adopter premium. Later, when more inventory is rolled out, the prices drop to a level where most of the market is comfortable buying the product.
"The two I've bought in the past year came with 3 games each. All six of them suck. I mean, they _really_ suck."
Ditto. Admittedly, I bought a very cheap phone with my 2-year contract. It came pre-installed with a version of blackjack... that doesn't even follow conventional blackjack rules. Getting blackjack pays 2-1, not 3-2. No splits. Doubling down not only doubles your bet, it also increases the payoff to 2-1... so doubles your bet again, but only if you win the hand. If you have two Aces, only the first can be counted as 1 or 11... the second Ace is always 11.
Payoffs are totally dependent on battery life. Full charge? Practically can't lose. One bar left? Can't win. I don't know how they tied that in, but I purposely studied this by ascribing rules to my play and following them scrupulously for 50 games (not hands) at high charge and 50 hands at low charge. BTW, I take an hour train ride each way to work... so time-killing has become a specialty for me.
The point is, if you want me to play a game, at least bother to create a decent game.
" I think that the "messages" column, combined with the folders column (Inbox,...) eats too much width."
I'm pretty sure that will be customizable. If UI is not, then Kahuna has big problems.
"Oh, and the cancel button is too close to "attach" drop-down in the compose mode. Especially in the compose mode : now you've written a long message and want to attach some file... oops !"
Cancel will require positive confirmation, just like it does in other email apps.
"Also I hope (naively ?) that those big banners on the top and left are only in the beta version."
Very naively. MS wants this thing to pay for itself... either they sell the space, or they use it to hock other MS products.
"About the name (mail^beta) : Does that mean that MS trademarked the "mail" word ? Are they voluntarily mimicking Google (sorry, "innovating":) ) by the use of that "beta" ?:)"
Can't trademark "mail." It's called a working title, and doesn't necessarily have anything to do with published title. The beta designation was in use far before Google released beta versions of their products to the public. It simply means that it works, but it's not finished yet... Besides, there is nothing wrong with MS hopping on a trend, at least it is showing that management is thinking on their feet a little bit.
"And why SHOULDN'T AV/anti-spyware be part of the operating system? I mean, really. Those seem like OS functions to me. Anything security-related should be built-in."
And of course, MS would release updates to protect from and/or remove known exploits within hours/days.
A single-source supply of AV/AS software is simply not enough. If MS bundles AV/AS with Windows, then Symantec etc will be driven out of business, or at least shrunken so much that their update teams can't handle new threats in a timely manner... leaving us with single-source for AV/AS.
" Microsoft SHOULD include antivirus in the OS, they should have years ago.
Yes, it will make Norton, McAfee and the like totally irrelevant"
It would hardly make them irrelevant, since there is no way that a single source for AV/AS software would block all malware. The problem is that it would make them unprofitable, and therefore non-existant, even though the need for them would still be there.
Do you work for a Congressperson, handling incoming correspondence from constituents... if so, you probably have better info than me. But AFAIK, from working on campaigns over the past decade, phone calls are still weighed much more than emails.
Congress is composed of both the Senate and the House of Representatives.
Both a Senator and a Representative can be called a Congressman, but Senators prefer to be addressed as "Senator so-and-so" while many Representatives prefer to be called "Congressman so-and-so," -- this leaves open the possibility that that they could be a member of the upper house, which helps with impressing people.
They'd really have realease zillions of the sterile males.
What's the curve on repopulation for mosquitoes? How many eggs will be laid by successfully fertilized females, and how many of those will survive to reproduce?
Nice business model, BTW, the company that does this cannot ever stop, since complete repopulation would happen within a few years, I'm guessing.
I guess I'd have to add a blacklight to the bug zapper, though, to maximize my viewing pleasure.
"For most magazines and newspapers, ads are a much bigger source of revenue than subscriptions fees."
Depends on the revenue structure of the magazine. Magazines that have a captive subscriber base (like niche magazines) get more of their revenue frmo subscriptions. Magazines that are more general-interest, or that have more competitors covering their subject matter, tend to have more of their revenue come from advertising.
Ad rates are dependent upon circulation (number of readers) and the demographics of the readers.
Slashdot Mirror
"ii) Undisclosed political contributions (above a very low level) are absolutely inexcusable. Accountability, accountability, accountability. The electorate has the right to know who is financing a candidate. It's a vital piece of information in the democratic process."
I agree with you in principal. Unfortunately, we don't live in a perfect system where such information cannot be abused. What about valid expression that is inhibited by fear of repercussions? This was one of the core ideas that was addressed by Learned Hand and O.W. Holmes in the last century.
The Red Scare and McCarthyism are specters that we'd like to forget, but the capacity for a similar era still exists. Anonymity is one of the ways that less popular (but perhaps just as valid) postions, and candidates, can be supported.
If you are going to support unlimited campaign contributions, because they are en expression of free speech, then you should also support anonymous contributions, since they are also necessary for true free speech.
It's technology that already had a name and doesn't need a new one.
What's retarded is that people spend inordinate amounts of time biatching about the name of a technology. I'm sorry you had to learn to use a new word. If the new name gains most of the mindshare, doesn't that mean the new name is better?
How about "Javascript", since that's all it is?
What is wrong with calling it AJAX instead of Javascript?
Nothing. If anything, 'Javascript' has problems, because the word 'script' -- as in script kiddies -- has negative connotations. Add on 'Java' and either your talking about Indonesia, which makes people think of outsourcing (or will, in the next decade), or you're talking about coffee -- and do we really need people associating a useful tech with video game pron mods?
You can call it whatever you like (you can call it Fungrifoo, if you like, in your notes to yourself) -- but whatever name dominates mindshare is the one I'll use when communicating with others about it.
"But I am absolutely against recent "liberal" attempts to stifle Free Speech by restricting campaign contributions. I think it is paramount to a repeal of the First Amendment to say that you cannot use your money in the way that you see fit."
The problem with this is that television advertising, which is a primary means of election campaigning, is not infinite in supply.
If you look back 200 years, anyone with a access to a printing press (which were readily available, quite within the reach of almost all candidates) could have published campaign advertising, and distributed it.
Television advertising is different -- it is very expensive, and has limited supply. It's not like any candidate can just broadcast information to your home TV set (because of FCC regulations, BTW), so huge campaign contributions can severely tilt the balance to one candidate -- they can dominate the legal airwaves.
Allowing unlimited political contributions stifles the free speech of those that do not have unlimited cash.
Or are you in favor of a kleptocracy, where government exists to enrich the people who already have the cash? Because that is the direct consequence of unlimited contributions.
"Ajax is the first genuinely new thing I can think of this century."
:)
Wow, that's a hell of a thinking block... I've managed to have several new ideas since 1999.
"Quick, better to live or die, once and for all, than die by inches, slowly crushed to death--helpless against the hulls in the bloody press--by far inferior men!"
Telamonian Ajax, The Iliad, Homer
The coil is on the device, whether clipped on with an adaptor to current charging system, or built internally into the device. It allows the device to use the mag field on the pad to generate a current to charge the batteries.
The mag pad is the charger, which is what the co. hopes hotels etc will purchase.
The coils are necessary for every device, and would best be implemented as internal additions.
So, total revenue in space > government spending in space. What about commercial spending?
Also, most of that revenue is from satellites. Manned missions don't produce much revenue.
How much more room is there for profit growth from satellites? Probably a lot, but is a space elevator more cost-effective than rocket launches for satellites? Depends on how many satellites are launched. The problem is diminishing returns for launching too many satellites... and it's the number of items launched that make an elevator potentially cost-effective.
Yep. Whether or not the actions to date by the DoC can be considered 'abuse' though, that's questionable.
You really think so? You think that the root server operators will make that kind of stand when the US Government can force them out of business?
It's nice to have this idealized notion of people telling the US Govt to shove it... but in reality, things work differently.
Autonomous? The internet? I think not. And less and less so every year. There's gold in them thar hills, and the US Govt is preparing to stake a claim or two. There are plenty of indirect ways that the US Govt uses to lean on people and companies to do what's on someone's (who happens to be high up in Govt) agenda.
And of course some posters on Slashdot ignore the fact that the US Dept of Commerce exercises veto power over ICANN decisions. This has been reported on /. several times, but is conveniently forgotten whenever the current topic comes up.
Hasn't been abused... we think... yet.
"does anyone else think that encrypted/steganographic snail mail will stage a comeback with all this surveillance being done on email ?"
ETHGS NKLWE QJCCT EPVNJ WINDA
KVWNQ PIUHV UIAFM EWANV IUTRO
IUHSQ OIUWQ
"If the Chinese go to the moon, I don't think it will be just a publicity stunt-I expect they'll develop a real economic presence there. Stuff like a Lunar space elevator could be a highly profitable enterprise"
Please, explain the profitability. Where are they going to get the revenue that pays off the capital expenditure? A space elevator could perhaps be more cost-effective than an surface-launch based space program, but it's not even close to profitable.
If you believe that other governments (such as the US) would base their space program on leasing time on a Chinese space elevator, think again... there is no way that the US would give China the direct power to handicap our space program.
Joint ventures? Quite possible, but still not likely to be profitable for China. No space venture is directly profitable -- the profits derived are in national pride and perhaps technological development.
I can easily see China having a physical presence up there -- more satellites, etc. Or perhaps even (gasp!) a military presence. But an economic presence? There is no economy up there, nor is there likely to be, until there are profitable enterprises in space. Even the farfetched ideas circulating now are still dependent upon an earth-based economy. We've a long way to go, baby, and 15 years is a blink of an eye.
"Then again, they did get you bored enough to play that game 100 times."
The train is what got me bored. If I hadn't been testing my power level hypothesis, I probably would have been smushing my nose against the window or something just as bad.
Although, that's a neat concept for a 'game' -- release a broken/incomplete/open-ended game, with the tools to fix it or change it in myriad ways -- see what people come up with. Allow people to play eachother's games on a subscription network on a console.
Mods are very popular on PC games -- why not console games, when the mods are part of the game itself?
Check wikipedia for some microeconomics info. A lot of what is really affecting your increased demand is not low supply; it is marketing.
"I wouldn't doubt they do this on purpose. There is probably some historical, mathematical or even emotional reasoning to limiting the distribution on launch."
You're mostly right, this is a strategy that has worked wonders for many, many companies in the past. Usually this happens when there is no direct competition for the product -- whether because of innovation, branding, or product timing. Whether it's Cabbage Patch Dolls, Collectible Card Games, or gaming consoles, artificially induced scarcity works well for the bottom line when there is no competition.
Where you are a bit off is that lowered supply does not increase demand. Instead, it increases the price at which the units can sell -- those that REALLY want it will pay the early adopter premium. Later, when more inventory is rolled out, the prices drop to a level where most of the market is comfortable buying the product.
"The two I've bought in the past year came with 3 games each. All six of them suck. I mean, they _really_ suck."
Ditto. Admittedly, I bought a very cheap phone with my 2-year contract. It came pre-installed with a version of blackjack... that doesn't even follow conventional blackjack rules. Getting blackjack pays 2-1, not 3-2. No splits. Doubling down not only doubles your bet, it also increases the payoff to 2-1... so doubles your bet again, but only if you win the hand. If you have two Aces, only the first can be counted as 1 or 11... the second Ace is always 11.
Payoffs are totally dependent on battery life. Full charge? Practically can't lose. One bar left? Can't win. I don't know how they tied that in, but I purposely studied this by ascribing rules to my play and following them scrupulously for 50 games (not hands) at high charge and 50 hands at low charge. BTW, I take an hour train ride each way to work... so time-killing has become a specialty for me.
The point is, if you want me to play a game, at least bother to create a decent game.
My sample might be skewed, I work in NYC where practically everyone takes mass transit to work... no car charger.
" I think that the "messages" column, combined with the folders column (Inbox,...) eats too much width."
:) ) by the use of that "beta" ? :)"
I'm pretty sure that will be customizable. If UI is not, then Kahuna has big problems.
"Oh, and the cancel button is too close to "attach" drop-down in the compose mode. Especially in the compose mode : now you've written a long message and want to attach some file... oops !"
Cancel will require positive confirmation, just like it does in other email apps.
"Also I hope (naively ?) that those big banners on the top and left are only in the beta version."
Very naively. MS wants this thing to pay for itself... either they sell the space, or they use it to hock other MS products.
"About the name (mail^beta) : Does that mean that MS trademarked the "mail" word ? Are they voluntarily mimicking Google (sorry, "innovating"
Can't trademark "mail." It's called a working title, and doesn't necessarily have anything to do with published title. The beta designation was in use far before Google released beta versions of their products to the public. It simply means that it works, but it's not finished yet... Besides, there is nothing wrong with MS hopping on a trend, at least it is showing that management is thinking on their feet a little bit.
" What I'd like to see is, how that thing works with Firefox and Opera."
Yes, I'd like to be able to see things that don't exist, too.
Kahuna only works with IE browsers.
The Big Kahuna is a wipeout.
" I see this as a validation of biodiversity and competition"
Biodiversity? So, MS really is the Borg, or does Kahuna have organic components?
Technodiversity. Product diversity. Definitely (hopefully) not biodiversity.
"And why SHOULDN'T AV/anti-spyware be part of the operating system? I mean, really. Those seem like OS functions to me. Anything security-related should be built-in."
And of course, MS would release updates to protect from and/or remove known exploits within hours/days.
A single-source supply of AV/AS software is simply not enough. If MS bundles AV/AS with Windows, then Symantec etc will be driven out of business, or at least shrunken so much that their update teams can't handle new threats in a timely manner... leaving us with single-source for AV/AS.
" Microsoft SHOULD include antivirus in the OS, they should have years ago.
Yes, it will make Norton, McAfee and the like totally irrelevant"
It would hardly make them irrelevant, since there is no way that a single source for AV/AS software would block all malware. The problem is that it would make them unprofitable, and therefore non-existant, even though the need for them would still be there.
Do you work for a Congressperson, handling incoming correspondence from constituents... if so, you probably have better info than me. But AFAIK, from working on campaigns over the past decade, phone calls are still weighed much more than emails.
A Senator is a congressman.
Congress is composed of both the Senate and the House of Representatives.
Both a Senator and a Representative can be called a Congressman, but Senators prefer to be addressed as "Senator so-and-so" while many Representatives prefer to be called "Congressman so-and-so," -- this leaves open the possibility that that they could be a member of the upper house, which helps with impressing people.
They'd really have realease zillions of the sterile males.
What's the curve on repopulation for mosquitoes? How many eggs will be laid by successfully fertilized females, and how many of those will survive to reproduce?
Nice business model, BTW, the company that does this cannot ever stop, since complete repopulation would happen within a few years, I'm guessing.
I guess I'd have to add a blacklight to the bug zapper, though, to maximize my viewing pleasure.
"For most magazines and newspapers, ads are a much bigger source of revenue than subscriptions fees."
Depends on the revenue structure of the magazine. Magazines that have a captive subscriber base (like niche magazines) get more of their revenue frmo subscriptions. Magazines that are more general-interest, or that have more competitors covering their subject matter, tend to have more of their revenue come from advertising.
Ad rates are dependent upon circulation (number of readers) and the demographics of the readers.