When you drop a coin into one of those gravity well funnel things, you can with certainty predict the outcome. You can also predict the track your coin will take, where the coin will be at any given time from now, and approximately how long it will take for the coin to finally stop spinning and fall onto the pile below. That is human nature, and consequently, the nature of politics. Given sufficient information, it's easy to predict how people will act, and the ultimate result of their actions.
The hard part is figuring out how to get the coin to circle indefinitely. A bad move, and the coin drops straight down. Otherwise, it comes flying back out. And there's a point of no return, where you can no longer fit your fingers into the funnel to affect the coin without stopping it outright.
Which is why it's important to maintain a relationship with a known honest vendor. It's not just to support that vendor per se, but also to minimize the risk involved in consulting a different vendor for future projects.
It's not surprising that people get away with these things. Management is usually not competent when it comes to discerning the BS from the truth at such a low level. They're typically too removed from the technologies involved, and too concerned with other things such as budgets and service agreements. And many people don't realize that a software demonstration is not necessarily indicative of the cabilities of the core product, but of the potential of the core product. Ensuring that the potential featured becomes a capability is a part of the contract negotiation process.
That's why it's important to have actual senior developers, or low-level managers, involved in the process. People who work with software will be able to tell what the software can conceivably do, and what it cannot do, especially within a given timeframe.
Not that I'm saying MSU is in the wrong here. But the lack of general expertise in the area makes them susceptible to such fraudulant practices. It's like walking around with your purse hanging in the back and the zipper open, with the wallet on top.
Oh, and additionally, I just noticed that he's selling it through Paypal. There's the other $100,000 right there.
Instead of Paypal, he should open up a Yahoo or Amazon storefront or some such that's not going to charge him an arm and a leg just to store his money. He'll have to pay the 3% or 5% credit card fees, but it's better than the 20% Paypal's charging.
It's only established acts who have the opportunity to take that sort of risk.
You say this, and somebody above mentioned this earlier as well, but reality is, someone just getting started is not going to spend $170,000 on producing a show (or for that matter, $32,000 to distribute it, but that's neither here nor there).
They'll go to comedy clubs, do their routine there, and then go home. It's the same with bands, singers, musicians, etc. Currently, someone "discovers" them and puts them on the fast-track to stardom. However, it's possible to set up a web site and measure popualrity by the number of hits there. It's possible to start small, with a few songs or a small CD they may have to sink $2,000 into producing, and sell it on their own site.
It's like any other business. Start small, gain popularity, and work up. It's slow, but so is hanging out at dive bars and comedy clubs waiting to be discovered.
Unfortunately, most of these people are not only not interested in the business side of things, but also inept at it. Which makes them perfect target for the middlemen to come in and milk them for all their worth. Of course, once they're A-list famous, they get to dictate the terms of the production back to the middlemen, which is partly why they get milked as much as they do in the beginning.
But in this day and age of information, if the artists take control of their career and treat the monetization of their output as a business, the middlemen would be unnecessary.
The police wouldn't be casually messing with the Occupy protesters if they were all armed to the teeth, and ready to start firing at a moment's notice. Unfortunately, most of the Occupy people are rational individuals.
For bullies, it's not about the rules. It's about what they can get away with.
No, it's just waste due to an overabundance of resources. It happens all the time, whenever and wherever the amount of resources effectively becomes unlimited.
Back in the day, people hand-optimized assembly to squeeze as much program as they could into the memory they were given. Now, people run it through a compiler with some optimization switches and call it a day.
While there's nothing wrong with the latter, the skill required to do the former is both lost, and made irrelevant because the resources "saved" is not worth the time investment needed to do the optimizations. By the same way of thinking, an overabundance of any resource produces the same result.
Just imagine: in 2013 having a windows phone that: a) Can be used as a phone (of course!) b) Can be used as a tablet (windows 8 with the Metro UI) c) Can be used as a computer (windows 8 with the Classic UI)
That'll be either one very big phone, or one very cramped computer.
I want a keyboard on my computer. I don't want one on my tablet. I want to be able to watch movies on a larger screen and I want to carry my phone at my waist clipped to my belt. I don't want a tablet, much less a portable computer with a large screen clipped to my belt.
They are 3 different things that server 3 different needs. It's ridiculous to even imagine that you could combine them into one device given the consumer technology right now. Maybe in 20 years, when it's commonplace to sport a holographic projector on a phone, or screens can be unfolded and folded at a whim, then perhaps the tablet and phone can be combined into one (satisfying the needs that a personal computer satisfies would require significant advances in input technology).
A jack of all trades does nothing well at all. That seems to describe the Windows (Mobile and Desktop) strategy right now.
Just start talking about the evils of Sony IRL. Geeks have a major say in what product people buy and don't buy. People won't always listen, but they do if you offer a compelling enough argument.
The conversation should go something like this:
Layman: Which gaming console should I buy?
Geek: They all satisfy a different need, and are for different types of people, but I'd stay away from Sony. They have a reputation of removing functionality in their updates. When the PS4 comes out, I wouldn't be too surprised if they removed the ability for PS3 to play certain games entirely to encourage people to buy the PS4.
Layman: They wouldn't do that. People would stop buying their stuff. And they'd get sued.
Geek: They removed the ability for the PS3 to run Linux through an update. And they got sued for it, but the judge said it was perfectly legal for them to do it. And that's why I don't buy anything made by Sony.
There's overconfident as in brave, and overconfident as in ignorant and not interested in becoming informed.
Remember the study where they broke up people into four levels of intelligence: the very smart, the pretty smart, the not so smart, and the so dumb that they don't know they're dumb.
I suspect IE users fall into one of the two latter categories. And being dumb enough to not know their own lacking results in the latter type of overconfidence as well.
On the same lines, risk adverse people tend to research what they're using. They tend to find out as much about what's sitting on their screen by visiting a minimal amount of sites (google.com, about.com perhaps, etc.) before expanding their use of it.
Nokia makes some of the best phones, period. Their software strategy wasn't particularly amazing in that they couldn't decide on what they wanted to do, but they knew their hardware like nobody's business. I've always thought it's a shame that nobody could recognize that their phones were more durable and generally better built, and instead opted for the flash and snazz of easily-cracked, cheap devices they'd just end up replacing in a year or two.
Funny you mentioned PBS and NPR. If you really wanted to support them, it wouldn't be via ads (and any public station that has more than "brought to you by" advertisement probably isn't a public station worth supporting). You would donate, either during pledge drives when they remind you to donate, or set up some automatic thing where a set dollar amount gets charged to your card each month.
Slashdot Mirror
I believe it was Aristotle who said the unexamined life is not worth living.
That would be Socrates.
I think a corollary to Hanlon's razor applies here that integrates Occam's razor:
Never attribute to intelligence that which is adequately and more simply explained by stupidity.
When you drop a coin into one of those gravity well funnel things, you can with certainty predict the outcome. You can also predict the track your coin will take, where the coin will be at any given time from now, and approximately how long it will take for the coin to finally stop spinning and fall onto the pile below. That is human nature, and consequently, the nature of politics. Given sufficient information, it's easy to predict how people will act, and the ultimate result of their actions.
The hard part is figuring out how to get the coin to circle indefinitely. A bad move, and the coin drops straight down. Otherwise, it comes flying back out. And there's a point of no return, where you can no longer fit your fingers into the funnel to affect the coin without stopping it outright.
The problem is easy to see. The solution is not.
For dumping taxpayer money into the pockets of these military contractors. Duh!
The Bronx.
At least they're not relying on Faith.
At that point, it would be a question for the pilots in whom to put their faith.
Admittedly, it may be a more successful system than Hope.
Unless of course, you are a coding girl with the appropriate looks.
Or referring to one.
Which is why it's important to maintain a relationship with a known honest vendor. It's not just to support that vendor per se, but also to minimize the risk involved in consulting a different vendor for future projects.
It's not surprising that people get away with these things. Management is usually not competent when it comes to discerning the BS from the truth at such a low level. They're typically too removed from the technologies involved, and too concerned with other things such as budgets and service agreements. And many people don't realize that a software demonstration is not necessarily indicative of the cabilities of the core product, but of the potential of the core product. Ensuring that the potential featured becomes a capability is a part of the contract negotiation process.
That's why it's important to have actual senior developers, or low-level managers, involved in the process. People who work with software will be able to tell what the software can conceivably do, and what it cannot do, especially within a given timeframe.
Not that I'm saying MSU is in the wrong here. But the lack of general expertise in the area makes them susceptible to such fraudulant practices. It's like walking around with your purse hanging in the back and the zipper open, with the wallet on top.
Oh, and additionally, I just noticed that he's selling it through Paypal. There's the other $100,000 right there.
Instead of Paypal, he should open up a Yahoo or Amazon storefront or some such that's not going to charge him an arm and a leg just to store his money. He'll have to pay the 3% or 5% credit card fees, but it's better than the 20% Paypal's charging.
It's only established acts who have the opportunity to take that sort of risk.
You say this, and somebody above mentioned this earlier as well, but reality is, someone just getting started is not going to spend $170,000 on producing a show (or for that matter, $32,000 to distribute it, but that's neither here nor there).
They'll go to comedy clubs, do their routine there, and then go home. It's the same with bands, singers, musicians, etc. Currently, someone "discovers" them and puts them on the fast-track to stardom. However, it's possible to set up a web site and measure popualrity by the number of hits there. It's possible to start small, with a few songs or a small CD they may have to sink $2,000 into producing, and sell it on their own site.
It's like any other business. Start small, gain popularity, and work up. It's slow, but so is hanging out at dive bars and comedy clubs waiting to be discovered.
Unfortunately, most of these people are not only not interested in the business side of things, but also inept at it. Which makes them perfect target for the middlemen to come in and milk them for all their worth. Of course, once they're A-list famous, they get to dictate the terms of the production back to the middlemen, which is partly why they get milked as much as they do in the beginning.
But in this day and age of information, if the artists take control of their career and treat the monetization of their output as a business, the middlemen would be unnecessary.
That's because they all own and carry guns.
The police wouldn't be casually messing with the Occupy protesters if they were all armed to the teeth, and ready to start firing at a moment's notice. Unfortunately, most of the Occupy people are rational individuals.
For bullies, it's not about the rules. It's about what they can get away with.
I suppose it's just the future overtakin' us.
No, it's just waste due to an overabundance of resources. It happens all the time, whenever and wherever the amount of resources effectively becomes unlimited.
Back in the day, people hand-optimized assembly to squeeze as much program as they could into the memory they were given. Now, people run it through a compiler with some optimization switches and call it a day.
While there's nothing wrong with the latter, the skill required to do the former is both lost, and made irrelevant because the resources "saved" is not worth the time investment needed to do the optimizations. By the same way of thinking, an overabundance of any resource produces the same result.
Just imagine: in 2013 having a windows phone that:
a) Can be used as a phone (of course!)
b) Can be used as a tablet (windows 8 with the Metro UI)
c) Can be used as a computer (windows 8 with the Classic UI)
That'll be either one very big phone, or one very cramped computer.
I want a keyboard on my computer. I don't want one on my tablet. I want to be able to watch movies on a larger screen and I want to carry my phone at my waist clipped to my belt. I don't want a tablet, much less a portable computer with a large screen clipped to my belt.
They are 3 different things that server 3 different needs. It's ridiculous to even imagine that you could combine them into one device given the consumer technology right now. Maybe in 20 years, when it's commonplace to sport a holographic projector on a phone, or screens can be unfolded and folded at a whim, then perhaps the tablet and phone can be combined into one (satisfying the needs that a personal computer satisfies would require significant advances in input technology).
A jack of all trades does nothing well at all. That seems to describe the Windows (Mobile and Desktop) strategy right now.
You forgot the part where it goes: BEEBOO BEEBOO BEE
You mean Xbox High Density, or Xbox HD. To be followed by Xbox Extended Density, or XBox XD.
Just start talking about the evils of Sony IRL. Geeks have a major say in what product people buy and don't buy. People won't always listen, but they do if you offer a compelling enough argument.
The conversation should go something like this:
Layman: Which gaming console should I buy?
Geek: They all satisfy a different need, and are for different types of people, but I'd stay away from Sony. They have a reputation of removing functionality in their updates. When the PS4 comes out, I wouldn't be too surprised if they removed the ability for PS3 to play certain games entirely to encourage people to buy the PS4.
Layman: They wouldn't do that. People would stop buying their stuff. And they'd get sued.
Geek: They removed the ability for the PS3 to run Linux through an update. And they got sued for it, but the judge said it was perfectly legal for them to do it. And that's why I don't buy anything made by Sony.
And potentially also by deforestation due to overlogging when building large architectual works.
There's overconfident as in brave, and overconfident as in ignorant and not interested in becoming informed.
Remember the study where they broke up people into four levels of intelligence: the very smart, the pretty smart, the not so smart, and the so dumb that they don't know they're dumb.
I suspect IE users fall into one of the two latter categories. And being dumb enough to not know their own lacking results in the latter type of overconfidence as well.
On the same lines, risk adverse people tend to research what they're using. They tend to find out as much about what's sitting on their screen by visiting a minimal amount of sites (google.com, about.com perhaps, etc.) before expanding their use of it.
Multicasting via smoke signals, FTW! Take that, ICQ chat!
Nokia makes some of the best phones, period. Their software strategy wasn't particularly amazing in that they couldn't decide on what they wanted to do, but they knew their hardware like nobody's business. I've always thought it's a shame that nobody could recognize that their phones were more durable and generally better built, and instead opted for the flash and snazz of easily-cracked, cheap devices they'd just end up replacing in a year or two.
Funny you mentioned PBS and NPR. If you really wanted to support them, it wouldn't be via ads (and any public station that has more than "brought to you by" advertisement probably isn't a public station worth supporting). You would donate, either during pledge drives when they remind you to donate, or set up some automatic thing where a set dollar amount gets charged to your card each month.
That may be because everybody moved to the cities in search of a "better" life. If all of the sane people left the back country, who is left there?
That only works if the editors made the url an active link. Most people are too lazy to highlight and drag.
There are a lot of stupid people out there. Just look at how profitable spam is.
They own black too.