"All aspects of car culture are there in car ownership: listening to music, tooling around for fun, and more amorous activities as well."
What about license and registration renewals, car inspections, insurance payments, getting ripped off by mechanics, spiraling fuel costs, and getting into accidents?
"Yes it can be a bad thing, because every dollar spent on this worthless scheme is a dollar that could be spent on cancer research or better weapons for our troops or safer highways or backscatter X-Ray (which can detect plastic knives and may be able to detect certain metal-free bombs), etc.
"
That does not make it inherently a bad thing. It just makes it, in your opinion, less good than other possible ways to use our resources.
This does not have to be expensive to do.
And I'll repeat that using a plane as a missile, or blowing it up, might not be the only reason for terrorists to take over a plane. They could still put the pilots in a hostage situation -- "Divert to $LOCATION or we'll start killing passengers."
You put too much faith in the passengers being willing to risk their lives, and every other passenger's life, when the fit hits the shan. If the passengers can be convinced that they won't be killed, they may not fight back as strongly as you hope.
"But better information through technology has a downside; sometimes, efficiency benefits certain players to the detriment of society."
Hogwash. The problem is not that there is better information; the problem is that only those people that benefit from the information have used it to their advantage. Why can't we use the information to push for standard application of the law?
Let's examine his argument:
(1) Patent laws are adjudicated differently in different courts;
(2) These differences in how patent law is adjudicated lead to decisions that are more favorable to specific litigants depending on which court decides their case;
(3) Greater efficiency in information access means that litigants can benefit themselves by choosing which jurisdiction to file in;
(4) This 'selection' of courts is a net negative for society, because the people who benefit from this do so at the expense of society in general.
I'm going to add (3a), which refutes his argument:
(3a) The rest of the public can use their greater access to information to discover the root problem (1) and demand that it is fixed.
The author's mistake is thinking that there can be no other action based upon the more available information. Why not take action that would not only fix the problem he points out, but would also fix the underlying problem -- that the courts apply the law differently?
This guy probably thinks it's better to ignore security flaws, hoping no one exploits them, instead of making sure they get fixed.
"Given that when I pay for a CD, I'm paying for the music, not the plastic and mylar, can any RIAA person please explain to me why my position is any less valid than Tommi Kyyrä's?
" (emphasis mine)
You've stated why your position is less valid, according to some people. According to them, you are paying for the music in that format i.e., you are playing for the physical as well as intellectual property. Of course, by that logic, if you crack the DRM, good for you -- you paid for the DRM, you should be able to disable it if you can figure out how. Further use is subject to copyright law, including fair use exceptions, of course.
It's easy to disguise a paid advertisement as a blog -- government agencies have been doing this to promote government policy in the past few years.
"...how does advertising-accountability limit the freedom of expression in a blogger's content?"
By disallowing anonymous promotion of ideas. After all, shouldn't XYZ Industrial Co be allowed to pay people to say that rollbacks of environmental control laws will be harmless, and have the public believe that those people are only speaking on their own behalf?
Disclaimer: I believe that any political content not funded by the author should have the source of funding disclosed. Not sure about limits on blog-spending, but disclosure should be required.
Anyone who is interested in the right to free speech should read Perilous Times by Geoffrey R. Stone, which came out in trade paperback recently.
The book elaborates the history of freedom-of-speech restrictions in the US, as well as the people involved. While the focus is on restrictions made during wartime, there is good material there about non-wartime restrictions.
Unfortunately, the book does not delve into great depth regarding freedom of speech as applied to the internet. However, the book does give great insight into why and how our rights have been restricted over the past two plus centuries, and how freedom of speech is particularly relevant today.
Legal = Law. Regardless of whether it is civil or criminal, slander is still a form of speech that is restricted by the US federal government. Whether there is a statute specifically forbidding it (there is not) or if the courts enforce (via civil tort adjudication) it, the US government has decided that it can, under powers granted it by the Constitution, and laws passed since, restrict slander.
"The bad part of democracy is also just that: inventing a problem to solve, or blowing a minor one out of proportion, is a damn good way to get elected.
"
Excactly. The larger negative, in this context, is that the problems that really need solving are sometimes ignored for manufactured crises.
Especially when the real problems are difficult ones to solve, or ones without a clear right/wrong answer.
I'm sure there was some academic analysis done when the game was created. But I don't see why they would release that information, given that it is essential to gameplay and could possibly either be abused by players, or could include material that their competition could use.
Once the base economy has been established, any material they add or remove can be playtested to make sure it doesn't throw things out of balance.
"Marketing droid just didn't get it. I'm interested in ACADEMIC modeling. "
They're not really concerned what you're interested in, since people interested in academic modeling of game economies represent a tiny, tiny fraction of WoW's market.
I'm sure they'd rather devote resources to analyzing and improving the things that the other 99% of players wished were improved upon.
Functional economics still matter -- but the academic, not so important.
You're absolutely right, but I was trying (unsuccessfully) to make the point that that is how a lot of people who decide policy, but have no experience with purchasing games, view retailer response to ESRB ratings.
They do not see that self-policing is in the best interest of the retailers, and so they feel they need to pass laws instead.
"Google is without a doubt expanding their operations beyond the search engine market which makes the possibility of GoogleTV realistic."
Other than the fact that absolutley no one should be surprised by this...
Search engines are not Google's market. Search engines are Google's clients' market. Google sells advertising, and search engines are one of their delivery mechanisms. Previously on Slashdot, Google print ads have been discussed.
It's really just horizontal expansion. Online advertising, print advertising, and now television (and you can bet they'll be delivering ads) -- what about radio?
This was speculated by many when Google Radio was being discussed on Slashdot. (Search seems to be broken or I would have posted a link to the article & comments).
I'm just waiting for telepathy.google.com. Or tstv.google.com -- although I heard you can get there from Google image search.
"A simple phrase like "You do know that this game is rated M for extreme violence and sexual content?" worked just about every time."
Did I just hear you discourage someone from spending money in my store?
You're fired.
Seriously though, this is the kind of example that people outside the gaming community need to hear -- that individuals at retail establishments are making an effort to prevent kids from buying age-inappropriate content.
"Betting markets were recently shown to be more accurate than opinion polls in predicting election results.""
Of course, since the bettors took vote manipulation into account.
When polled voters "lie", by not telling the pollster how (or even if) their vote was really recorded, of course the poll won't return accurate results.
"Also do not underestimate the power of the masses. If your sample=population size this is no longer forecasting (i.e. extrapolation) but the writing on the wall! (as long as people do as they say they are going to do).
"
If sample size = population size, all you have is certainty about what people believe (assuming they answer honestly). What people believe != what is going to happen. The idea here is that as time approaches the time of the event, people can guess more accurately about the event.
(1) Create a predictive survey with quantitative questions
(2) Graph the responses, and calculate entropy using information theory (or, just calculate variance)
(3) Measure the change in variance/entropy over time
(4) Conclude that as a product gets closer to release date, people have more consistent ideas of the price.
The difference between this and traditional quantitative market prediction surveys? Google gets its sample from "Teh Internets".
"They should have come up with something with fewer syllables like "iPod shuffle"? The "DJ" part is from the family branding just like "iPod".
"
Few people are going to call their personal music player their "DJ". "DJ" is a term, commonly used, that already has a meaning that applies to music.
If that is Dell's intent, then they're going to have a problem -- their brand recognition will suffer due to competition with the traditional meaning of DJ.
"Could the UI be any worse than the shuffle's? At least it has a screen."
Sorry for not specifying, I meant the UI for uploading songs.
Sorry I didn't spell out my concerns better. One of the reasons the iPod came to dominate the market is the UI -- simple to use, especially for the less computer-savvy consumer.
If you want to complete with the iPod, an easy-to-use interface is very important.
If you want to develop your brand, you need to reinforce your branding every time someone uses your product. iTunes does this for the iPod -- how will Dell do this?
Slashdot Mirror
Not just market cap, as others have said, but also: Anti-monopoly laws.
MS would get slapped with a breakup so quick they wouldn't know what hit them.
"All aspects of car culture are there in car ownership: listening to music, tooling around for fun, and more amorous activities as well."
What about license and registration renewals, car inspections, insurance payments, getting ripped off by mechanics, spiraling fuel costs, and getting into accidents?
"Yes it can be a bad thing, because every dollar spent on this worthless scheme is a dollar that could be spent on cancer research or better weapons for our troops or safer highways or backscatter X-Ray (which can detect plastic knives and may be able to detect certain metal-free bombs), etc. "
That does not make it inherently a bad thing. It just makes it, in your opinion, less good than other possible ways to use our resources.
This does not have to be expensive to do.
And I'll repeat that using a plane as a missile, or blowing it up, might not be the only reason for terrorists to take over a plane. They could still put the pilots in a hostage situation -- "Divert to $LOCATION or we'll start killing passengers."
You put too much faith in the passengers being willing to risk their lives, and every other passenger's life, when the fit hits the shan. If the passengers can be convinced that they won't be killed, they may not fight back as strongly as you hope.
"But better information through technology has a downside; sometimes, efficiency benefits certain players to the detriment of society."
Hogwash. The problem is not that there is better information; the problem is that only those people that benefit from the information have used it to their advantage. Why can't we use the information to push for standard application of the law?
Let's examine his argument:
(1) Patent laws are adjudicated differently in different courts;
(2) These differences in how patent law is adjudicated lead to decisions that are more favorable to specific litigants depending on which court decides their case;
(3) Greater efficiency in information access means that litigants can benefit themselves by choosing which jurisdiction to file in;
(4) This 'selection' of courts is a net negative for society, because the people who benefit from this do so at the expense of society in general.
I'm going to add (3a), which refutes his argument:
(3a) The rest of the public can use their greater access to information to discover the root problem (1) and demand that it is fixed.
The author's mistake is thinking that there can be no other action based upon the more available information. Why not take action that would not only fix the problem he points out, but would also fix the underlying problem -- that the courts apply the law differently?
This guy probably thinks it's better to ignore security flaws, hoping no one exploits them, instead of making sure they get fixed.
"Given that when I pay for a CD, I'm paying for the music, not the plastic and mylar, can any RIAA person please explain to me why my position is any less valid than Tommi Kyyrä's? " (emphasis mine)
You've stated why your position is less valid, according to some people. According to them, you are paying for the music in that format i.e., you are playing for the physical as well as intellectual property. Of course, by that logic, if you crack the DRM, good for you -- you paid for the DRM, you should be able to disable it if you can figure out how. Further use is subject to copyright law, including fair use exceptions, of course.
It's easy to disguise a paid advertisement as a blog -- government agencies have been doing this to promote government policy in the past few years.
"...how does advertising-accountability limit the freedom of expression in a blogger's content?"
By disallowing anonymous promotion of ideas. After all, shouldn't XYZ Industrial Co be allowed to pay people to say that rollbacks of environmental control laws will be harmless, and have the public believe that those people are only speaking on their own behalf?
Disclaimer: I believe that any political content not funded by the author should have the source of funding disclosed. Not sure about limits on blog-spending, but disclosure should be required.
Anyone who is interested in the right to free speech should read Perilous Times by Geoffrey R. Stone, which came out in trade paperback recently.
The book elaborates the history of freedom-of-speech restrictions in the US, as well as the people involved. While the focus is on restrictions made during wartime, there is good material there about non-wartime restrictions.
Unfortunately, the book does not delve into great depth regarding freedom of speech as applied to the internet. However, the book does give great insight into why and how our rights have been restricted over the past two plus centuries, and how freedom of speech is particularly relevant today.
Slander may be a civil tort, but it is still a legal infraction. Here's some info by Steven Pressman:
0 8.htm
http://usinfo.state.gov/products/pubs/press/press
Legal = Law. Regardless of whether it is civil or criminal, slander is still a form of speech that is restricted by the US federal government. Whether there is a statute specifically forbidding it (there is not) or if the courts enforce (via civil tort adjudication) it, the US government has decided that it can, under powers granted it by the Constitution, and laws passed since, restrict slander.
"The bad part of democracy is also just that: inventing a problem to solve, or blowing a minor one out of proportion, is a damn good way to get elected. "
Excactly. The larger negative, in this context, is that the problems that really need solving are sometimes ignored for manufactured crises.
Especially when the real problems are difficult ones to solve, or ones without a clear right/wrong answer.
I'm sure there was some academic analysis done when the game was created. But I don't see why they would release that information, given that it is essential to gameplay and could possibly either be abused by players, or could include material that their competition could use.
Once the base economy has been established, any material they add or remove can be playtested to make sure it doesn't throw things out of balance.
"Marketing droid just didn't get it. I'm interested in ACADEMIC modeling. "
They're not really concerned what you're interested in, since people interested in academic modeling of game economies represent a tiny, tiny fraction of WoW's market.
I'm sure they'd rather devote resources to analyzing and improving the things that the other 99% of players wished were improved upon.
Functional economics still matter -- but the academic, not so important.
You're absolutely right, but I was trying (unsuccessfully) to make the point that that is how a lot of people who decide policy, but have no experience with purchasing games, view retailer response to ESRB ratings.
They do not see that self-policing is in the best interest of the retailers, and so they feel they need to pass laws instead.
The used game "deals" offered by EB Games & other retailers are ridiculous. Sure, game publishers need to make money, so they'll keep making games...
2 26220&tid=187&tid=17
But it's time for Peergamez. Maybe they can use the same 'currency' as peerflix?
http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/09/20/2
"Google is without a doubt expanding their operations beyond the search engine market which makes the possibility of GoogleTV realistic."
Other than the fact that absolutley no one should be surprised by this...
Search engines are not Google's market. Search engines are Google's clients' market. Google sells advertising, and search engines are one of their delivery mechanisms. Previously on Slashdot, Google print ads have been discussed.
It's really just horizontal expansion. Online advertising, print advertising, and now television (and you can bet they'll be delivering ads) -- what about radio?
"I bow to your superior intallect" (emphasis mine)
:)
Apparently, truer words have never been spoken.
This was speculated by many when Google Radio was being discussed on Slashdot. (Search seems to be broken or I would have posted a link to the article & comments).
I'm just waiting for telepathy.google.com. Or tstv.google.com -- although I heard you can get there from Google image search.
"A simple phrase like "You do know that this game is rated M for extreme violence and sexual content?" worked just about every time."
Did I just hear you discourage someone from spending money in my store?
You're fired.
Seriously though, this is the kind of example that people outside the gaming community need to hear -- that individuals at retail establishments are making an effort to prevent kids from buying age-inappropriate content.
"Betting markets were recently shown to be more accurate than opinion polls in predicting election results.""
/tinfoil hat securely on
Of course, since the bettors took vote manipulation into account.
When polled voters "lie", by not telling the pollster how (or even if) their vote was really recorded, of course the poll won't return accurate results.
"The Trouble with Tribbles"
I started out to write the cliche, but then realized that what Google did has been done a million times before.
I was still only barely able to resist...
"Also do not underestimate the power of the masses. If your sample=population size this is no longer forecasting (i.e. extrapolation) but the writing on the wall! (as long as people do as they say they are going to do). "
If sample size = population size, all you have is certainty about what people believe (assuming they answer honestly). What people believe != what is going to happen. The idea here is that as time approaches the time of the event, people can guess more accurately about the event.
"Last Peacekeeper Deactivated"
I know that Bolton isn't too fond of the UN, but who would have thought he'd be so quickly effective at shutting down so many major UN operations?
(1) Create a predictive survey with quantitative questions
(2) Graph the responses, and calculate entropy using information theory (or, just calculate variance)
(3) Measure the change in variance/entropy over time
(4) Conclude that as a product gets closer to release date, people have more consistent ideas of the price.
The difference between this and traditional quantitative market prediction surveys? Google gets its sample from "Teh Internets".
Nothing to see here, please move along.
"They should have come up with something with fewer syllables like "iPod shuffle"? The "DJ" part is from the family branding just like "iPod". "
Few people are going to call their personal music player their "DJ". "DJ" is a term, commonly used, that already has a meaning that applies to music.
If that is Dell's intent, then they're going to have a problem -- their brand recognition will suffer due to competition with the traditional meaning of DJ.
"Could the UI be any worse than the shuffle's? At least it has a screen."
Sorry for not specifying, I meant the UI for uploading songs.
Sorry I didn't spell out my concerns better. One of the reasons the iPod came to dominate the market is the UI -- simple to use, especially for the less computer-savvy consumer.
If you want to complete with the iPod, an easy-to-use interface is very important.
If you want to develop your brand, you need to reinforce your branding every time someone uses your product. iTunes does this for the iPod -- how will Dell do this?