But ultimately that's why this kind of thing gets regulated as much as it does. In a free market scenario a few plane crashes would occur and companies would either change or go out of business. That's great - but the dead people are still dead.
The idea of regulation here is to ensure that the deaths don't happen in the first place.
As a recovering free marketeer myself, I know the concept that the most significant value of a human life is not monetary... is a tough one to grasp.
Until you're willing to make that leap of understanding, you'll continue to have no idea what I'm talking about.
Notice the summary is not credited to a reader submission? Notice how all the Mars stories link to wired? News for Nerds. Stuff that Wired paid for.
Actually - you'll notice how the link still has feedburner crud embedded in it. I'd say someone came across it via their google reader account, pasted the link into a slashdot summary.
Still doesn't excuse this particular submission getting promoted instead of one that properly linked to NASA.
Or you could, I dunno, release the whole fucking game all at once.
They don't need to. It's right in the summary:
Melo said that 53 percent of all sales for the first Dragon Age: Origins DLC pack — which was released on the same day as the full game — were made on release day."
That means that people are willing to pay for it as extra DLC on release day - it would be a poor business choice to include that content when so many people are willing to pay for it.
I always use Google, because for almost any product search it returns two things, and it does it faster and more accurately than Amazon search:
- adverts, usually Amazon on top - pretty much the only time I *want* to see an ad. - search results, with Amazon near the top. If the ad isn't exactly what I want, amazon search results are almost accurate.
I'll happily click the ads in this case, because it's relevant to what I actually want. Doesn't cost me anything, and gets me where I want to go faster.
Right! So developers shouldn't build client apps that mimic or reproduce the mainstream Twitter experience - and instead they should differentiate by building apps that adhere strictly to the UI requirements. These requirements provide explicit detail as to how to create a client that mimics and reproduces the mainstream Twitter experience.
There may be something you are missing here. The "don't mimic or reproduce the Twitter client experience" applies to all apps. The UI requirements that seem to mimic and reproduce the Twitter client experience only apply to apps that display tweets. There would seem to be plenty of possibilities for Twitter API-based apps that don't "display tweets to users", but instead perform analytical functions, etc.
Yes, exactly true. But no possibilities for the apps the people who are generating content (that is, the people who post the tweets that make the service interesting to other people) want to use. As they made clear with their stunning infographic, focus is moving away from the users.
I'm not sure, logically, how increasing focus on analytics and business use cases while discouraging consumers from using the product will get them there, but at least they've a plan to monetize -- which is better than running indefinitely as a startup.
Nearly eighteen months ago, we gave developers guidance that they should not build client apps that mimic or reproduce the mainstream Twitter consumer client experience." And to reiterate what I wrote in my last post, that guidance continues to apply today.
Ok, so developers need to do something to differentiate. Got it.
We will require all applications that display Tweets to adhere to these. Among them: linking @usernames to the appropriate Twitter profile, displaying appropriate Tweet actions (e.g. Retweet, reply and favorite) and scaling display of Tweets appropriately based on the device. If your application displays Tweets to users, and it doesn't adhere to our Display Requirements, we reserve the right to revoke your application key.
Right! So developers shouldn't build client apps that mimic or reproduce the mainstream Twitter experience - and instead they should differentiate by building apps that adhere strictly to the UI requirements. These requirements provide explicit detail as to how to create a client that mimics and reproduces the mainstream Twitter experience.
Especially electronic voting that requires you to come back and vote again every day for a month if you want to see your preferred project succeed. Ridiculous.
After re-reading I see that the money will be going to the Tesla Science Center at Wardenclyffe regardless - which seems a worthy cause in any case. Worst case, they get extra funds. Best case, the property gets bought. Looks like I'm in after all.
In other words: "I'm a cheap bastard and I don't want to contribute". You must be a load of fun at pizza parties. You're the type of guy who eats 10 slices and then complains that it was soggy and doesn't want to pay.
Interesting that you know so much about me. From your post I can tell that at the same party, you would pay three times the price of the pizza and suggest to the deliveryman that he should remember to bring it to the party if he had the time.
My assessment is roughly as accurate as yours, and based on as little information. Except I managed it in a way that made my point without being nearly so insulting to a random stranger on the Internet.
.... what happens if they get the money, get the matching contribution from NY, and the other party simply raises their bid and gets the property? At that point the funds are committed and there's no way to get them back to the contributors who contributed via indiegogo.
Too, indiegogo charges a fee, don't they? That further complicates it (and also means the 850k goal is not enough).
It wasn't funny after the first person did it for Windows XP (2000 SP), nor was it funny for Windows 7 (Vista SP). Chances are good that it's not funny now.
And yes, anything having to do with rape is controversial, and there's no shortage of people trying to downplay it
Of course there are people trying to downplay it. There are also people trying to overplay it.
My intention was not to downplay it, but only to call attention to the fact that there is very, very little unbiased research into this. Part of the problem is as you say: people who have been victimized are not always willing to discuss it. Another part of the problem is that people who have made lapses in judgement are willing to place the blame elsewhere when given opportunity to do so. (I do not know how much of a factor this is; similarly I do not know how much of a factor under-reporting is.) A third part of the problem is that any of the research I've seen (either in support of or in argument against rape stats) is gathered in such a way that makes the results unreliable -- because it was clear that a certain response was desired from the start. Again, this cuts both ways.
But want to know the little bit of selection bias that makes it hard for you guys to understand how common rape is? Because the women you know in your life aren't just going to come up to you and tell you that they've been victims of rape or attempted rape. Maybe if you got really close to one and the timing is right. But your casual acquaintances aren't just going to say it to you.
While it's clear this is a deeply personal issue for you, I have to say: anecdotes are not unbiased data. You and I both know that for every example you have, someone else has counterexamples.
I am not trying to say there is no problem; I am not trying to downplay the problem that does exist. I am saying that there's a lot of misinformation on both sides of this, and that it's extremely difficult to get a clear, fact-based picture.
hink of all the women you know. One in four will be raped at least once in her lifetime
That stat is not 1/4 of all women, it's 1/4 of women who attend college will survive a rape or attempted rape. In addition, it only takes a quick google search to see that this 1 in 4 number isn't without considerable controversy of its own.
So what somebody says, why don’t you tell me which patents you have, Nathan, so I can avoid them, you’re supposed to be avoiding all of them! You’re saying, Nathan, I’d like to be honest with you but cheat everybody else. What’s up with that?
That's an interesting twist.
Of course it's my responsibility as a developer to avoid all of them. Specifically, all 8 million+ of them. What I can do, then, is start researching my idea now... and many lifetimes from now when my descendents have evaluated every patent that may be relevant, they can bring my product to market. Oh, wait - the number of patents will have grown by then...
Considering how smart he is, I find it difficult to believe that he made such an absurd statement -- and even more preposterous that he thinks it's a reasonable, realistic expectation.
Slashdot Mirror
If someone makes a product and nobody uses it, does its failure make a sound?
When we start using our desktop screens like we do with our tablets and phones, with our fingers.
I would actually love to have a desk with an inset monitor, like so:
----/----
Which would keep it in easy touch reach, allowing me to touch when it made sense, and use the keyboard (and *maybe* mouse) when not.
On the other hand, I still wouldn't want it to be using the interface formerly known as Metro.
Business model based on advertising != business that advertises.
The latter is spreading product awareness while the former makes money solely by providing its audience's time and attention to the latter.
But ultimately that's why this kind of thing gets regulated as much as it does. In a free market scenario a few plane crashes would occur and companies would either change or go out of business. That's great - but the dead people are still dead.
The idea of regulation here is to ensure that the deaths don't happen in the first place.
As a recovering free marketeer myself, I know the concept that the most significant value of a human life is not monetary... is a tough one to grasp.
Until you're willing to make that leap of understanding, you'll continue to have no idea what I'm talking about.
Notice the summary is not credited to a reader submission? Notice how all the Mars stories link to wired? News for Nerds. Stuff that Wired paid for.
Actually - you'll notice how the link still has feedburner crud embedded in it. I'd say someone came across it via their google reader account, pasted the link into a slashdot summary.
Still doesn't excuse this particular submission getting promoted instead of one that properly linked to NASA.
If you're going to complain, complain about the four links in the summary, with no indication as to which one is actually TFA.
So...you dream up new software in bed?
Sounds like a cushy job...
I challenge you to find a top-tier developer who doesn't occasionally and literally dream up solutions to a problem he's immersed in.
Or you could, I dunno, release the whole fucking game all at once.
They don't need to. It's right in the summary:
Melo said that 53 percent of all sales for the first Dragon Age: Origins DLC pack — which was released on the same day as the full game — were made on release day."
That means that people are willing to pay for it as extra DLC on release day - it would be a poor business choice to include that content when so many people are willing to pay for it.
Yes and no.
I always use Google, because for almost any product search it returns two things, and it does it faster and more accurately than Amazon search:
- adverts, usually Amazon on top - pretty much the only time I *want* to see an ad.
- search results, with Amazon near the top. If the ad isn't exactly what I want, amazon search results are almost accurate.
I'll happily click the ads in this case, because it's relevant to what I actually want. Doesn't cost me anything, and gets me where I want to go faster.
Wishful thinking. Or did you miss the double- and triple-digit millions of dollars worth of new AAA games they're selling?
Customers, unfortunately, don't care. Those who actually take the time to talk about it here and elsewhere are the vocal minority.
FUCK!!
Its not about Hindus or Muslims or Christians!
Its about people who just can't contain their rage when they get insulted!
THATS what is DUMB!
THAT is what is FUCKED UP!
Please tell me that was intentional.
There may be something you are missing here. The "don't mimic or reproduce the Twitter client experience" applies to all apps. The UI requirements that seem to mimic and reproduce the Twitter client experience only apply to apps that display tweets. There would seem to be plenty of possibilities for Twitter API-based apps that don't "display tweets to users", but instead perform analytical functions, etc.
Yes, exactly true. But no possibilities for the apps the people who are generating content (that is, the people who post the tweets that make the service interesting to other people) want to use. As they made clear with their stunning infographic, focus is moving away from the users.
I'm not sure, logically, how increasing focus on analytics and business use cases while discouraging consumers from using the product will get them there, but at least they've a plan to monetize -- which is better than running indefinitely as a startup.
Alright, so this is the part that baffles me:
Nearly eighteen months ago, we gave developers guidance that they should not build client apps that mimic or reproduce the mainstream Twitter consumer client experience." And to reiterate what I wrote in my last post, that guidance continues to apply today.
Ok, so developers need to do something to differentiate. Got it.
We will require all applications that display Tweets to adhere to these. Among them: linking @usernames to the appropriate Twitter profile, displaying appropriate Tweet actions (e.g. Retweet, reply and favorite) and scaling display of Tweets appropriately based on the device. If your application displays Tweets to users, and it doesn't adhere to our Display Requirements, we reserve the right to revoke your application key.
Right! So developers shouldn't build client apps that mimic or reproduce the mainstream Twitter experience - and instead they should differentiate by building apps that adhere strictly to the UI requirements. These requirements provide explicit detail as to how to create a client that mimics and reproduces the mainstream Twitter experience.
Wait, how's that again?
Also, electronic voting? Seems fitting...
Especially electronic voting that requires you to come back and vote again every day for a month if you want to see your preferred project succeed. Ridiculous.
After re-reading I see that the money will be going to the Tesla Science Center at Wardenclyffe regardless - which seems a worthy cause in any case. Worst case, they get extra funds. Best case, the property gets bought. Looks like I'm in after all.
In other words: "I'm a cheap bastard and I don't want to contribute". You must be a load of fun at pizza parties. You're the type of guy who eats 10 slices and then complains that it was soggy and doesn't want to pay.
Interesting that you know so much about me. From your post I can tell that at the same party, you would pay three times the price of the pizza and suggest to the deliveryman that he should remember to bring it to the party if he had the time.
My assessment is roughly as accurate as yours, and based on as little information. Except I managed it in a way that made my point without being nearly so insulting to a random stranger on the Internet.
.... what happens if they get the money, get the matching contribution from NY, and the other party simply raises their bid and gets the property? At that point the funds are committed and there's no way to get them back to the contributors who contributed via indiegogo.
Too, indiegogo charges a fee, don't they? That further complicates it (and also means the 850k goal is not enough).
It's not meant to be funny, it's meant to show the similarity between this and previous operating systems. No one claimed that Vista was XP SP4
But - new operating systems are built atop old versions. Ubuntu 11 was like 10 was like 9 was like... what purpose in pointing out the obvious?
So I assumed he was going for "+1 Funny" rather than "-1 Redundant" when I made my reply. Unfortunately, he only succeeded at the latter.
Oh no. Are we going to start this crap again?
It wasn't funny after the first person did it for Windows XP (2000 SP), nor was it funny for Windows 7 (Vista SP). Chances are good that it's not funny now.
Hmm, I drink just a touch over 4for liters of water every day...
You should be aware and careful.
I smell a sales pitch coming on. I've seen many of these stories cropping up in the last few days.
Either the collective awareness of the Internet has suddenly focused itself on this problem... or well-paid PR companies are doing their job.
Probably in the same place as the article. You should go look there.
And yes, anything having to do with rape is controversial, and there's no shortage of people trying to downplay it
Of course there are people trying to downplay it. There are also people trying to overplay it.
My intention was not to downplay it, but only to call attention to the fact that there is very, very little unbiased research into this. Part of the problem is as you say: people who have been victimized are not always willing to discuss it. Another part of the problem is that people who have made lapses in judgement are willing to place the blame elsewhere when given opportunity to do so. (I do not know how much of a factor this is; similarly I do not know how much of a factor under-reporting is.) A third part of the problem is that any of the research I've seen (either in support of or in argument against rape stats) is gathered in such a way that makes the results unreliable -- because it was clear that a certain response was desired from the start. Again, this cuts both ways.
But want to know the little bit of selection bias that makes it hard for you guys to understand how common rape is? Because the women you know in your life aren't just going to come up to you and tell you that they've been victims of rape or attempted rape. Maybe if you got really close to one and the timing is right. But your casual acquaintances aren't just going to say it to you.
While it's clear this is a deeply personal issue for you, I have to say: anecdotes are not unbiased data. You and I both know that for every example you have, someone else has counterexamples.
I am not trying to say there is no problem; I am not trying to downplay the problem that does exist. I am saying that there's a lot of misinformation on both sides of this, and that it's extremely difficult to get a clear, fact-based picture.
hink of all the women you know. One in four will be raped at least once in her lifetime
That stat is not 1/4 of all women, it's 1/4 of women who attend college will survive a rape or attempted rape. In addition, it only takes a quick google search to see that this 1 in 4 number isn't without considerable controversy of its own.
From the article:
So what somebody says, why don’t you tell me which patents you have, Nathan, so I can avoid them, you’re supposed to be avoiding all of them! You’re saying, Nathan, I’d like to be honest with you but cheat everybody else. What’s up with that?
That's an interesting twist.
Of course it's my responsibility as a developer to avoid all of them. Specifically, all 8 million+ of them. What I can do, then, is start researching my idea now... and many lifetimes from now when my descendents have evaluated every patent that may be relevant, they can bring my product to market. Oh, wait - the number of patents will have grown by then...
Considering how smart he is, I find it difficult to believe that he made such an absurd statement -- and even more preposterous that he thinks it's a reasonable, realistic expectation.