I like your point, and I'm sure that may be the case down the road, but right now it's still all (mostly) advertising money. They are actually swallowing $0.10 off of every transaction (CCs tend to charge.30 and 1.9%). From the NYT article (thanks ems2):
Banking industry executives say that credit card processors typically pay MasterCard and Visa a fee of 30 cents and 1.95 percent for every purchase, so Google will be subsidizing many transactions.... Mr. Schmidt said the company was willing to lose money on transaction fees because it felt the package would increase advertising spending.
Google is still going primarily for the adv. market.
lol out of all the ones i thought was funny, this was the best and didn't get modded appropriately. i bet there were 300 above that got +5 funny for porn stars (duhh), and such. thank you for displaying wit
Oh, and a good analogy: A company that invests 100% in R+D and comes out with a great product is rarely profitable or successful. A company that cuts costs and becomes efficient in an industry they have no vested interest in is rarely successful. A company that combines efficiency and order with a strong product will become very successful. See where I'm going with this?
The solution to this environmental problem is not social.
It clearly is social. If it weren't social, it wouldn't matter to us all that much -- since when have we cared about the physical being of the earth (where it doesn't affect us)? Frankly, technological change is a huge social movement. This means that the people in charge of R+D and the people going to college for degrees in the sciences have to be concerned with THIS problem. My point here is, instead of being a society geared towards war (which, realistically, we are right now... you can see the effects in our economics. See: 1940's), we may end up having to be an energy/efficiency-geared society. This type of strong obediance for a cause can only be done by actually having the greater population putting it on their priority list.
While gradual changes, such as people using 10% less here and there may not seem like the change we need, it is definitely a substantial part. Solutions are rarely and infrequently based on 1 particular aspect. Coupled with technological advances (which _will_ require massive social recognition of the problem) and basic conservation (let's try to be a little less of the "consume, consume, consume" variety, I swear we can do it), I think these problems are solvable. Only time will really tell.
Yeah, sorry. I haven't even been to Europe -- I should have stated that I'm not saying this on experience. All I know is what I've studied from France/Britain...so, thanks for the clarification.
Yet, there are plenty of economic tricks you can impose to change lifestyles. Make something not worthwhile for people anymore, and over time they will change their methods of living. I don't encourage, condone, or am proposing any of the following... just pointing out there are possibilities if we are thinking in the extreme:)
As gas prices rise, we will see people move closer to their jobs (ie, the city) from the suburbs. Suburban sprawl is obviously more likely if the act of commuting is not in the least bit taxing (See: United States). If we want people to stop driving so much, make it expensive as hell...and in turn, maybe start using Europe's incredible public transportation. We don't have that in the U.S. (realistically).
The biggest problem with environmental concerns (very similar to security concerns which any of us involved can relate) is obviously that a single person experiences very little payback for their contribution (and/or can see very little return instantaneously). To curb the public's tendencies, we may have instate some pretty intense restrictions.
How far do we need to go to really protect ourselves against Global Warming (yes, I said it), or environmental concerns?
symbolism, baby. ever think that people do some things not simply to win but to make a very large point that may take several years to really propogate?
The fact that you just named all those BRAND names off the top of your head just told me they did a great job. They're not trying to sell their product to you, they're trying to brand their name/product/etc.
I personally completely believe in the idea of patents. Giving innovators the right to benefit from the fruits of their labor is right, in my opinion, and CLEARLY gives them incentive to do so. Without laws like this, people WILL NOT just produce for "the good of mankind", at least not in our capitalist society. If someone can propose an idea that will allow for this, then by all means tell me how we can solve human self-interest!
Here's my idea. I personally have not thought of or head of any ramifications, so anyone who is much more knowledgeable than me in this area, please post your comments. If we were to require firms to show proof of investment or research into an idea, it would force them to innovate within their ideas, thus not allowing corporations to form simply on the basis of "Patent, lawsuit, patent, lawsuit". Of course, we could have clauses for reasonable investment/research (a man with google is not enough), etc. But, with more elboration, could something like this work? The biggest argument against this that I can think of is the practicality: How do we audit such cases? But, I would say that we necessarily don't need to - these can be done on a need-to-know basis. When a firm sues for patent infringement, they must prepare documents and proof as to their R+D. I'd like to hear all of your opinions.
I kind of agree. My biggest dillemma is that it's turning the abundance of information on the net into 'bitesize' portions, like TV has done. In effect, I feel like many news stories that don't involve Katrina, Alito, etc. (big stories) are left out and people become less informed. A lot of this information can be very important.
For those of us music enthusiasts: Do you still listen to new music? or have you decided that 'what I have is good enough forever'?
Personally, I can't get enough new music. Most of it is independent (which is great), but many of them end up signing with larger labels that I must purchase from. The music industry is not going to change their ways with a few abstaining "informed citizens" (what a novel idea). The problem is, the music industry needs to shave off the top few layers of the money pyramid. Then, we may have...gasp... REAL COMPETITION! We could possibly see such artists as "decent ones" and "true musicians" succeed, not from advertising, but by music enthusiasts themselves.
I don't believe the problem lies within the music industry itself. This is a needed social change. Big Business has become a privileged interest group, something that the founders of our (U.S.) country specifically legislated AGAINST. This is not collusion in a few oligopolies; this is collusion on a fundamental and governmental level.
How to solve the problem? Use the remnants of our Constitution and attempt for change.
Productivity tends to lead to a better "quality of life". While it obviously doesn't measure happiness, it surely can allow people to lead more successful, happier lives. In a country in which they are producing about 3% more GDP per year (U.S.), it allows people live a much more _prosperous_ life. One can make an argument that this is material and shallow even, but resources allow people to do what they wish to do in life -- whether or not they take advantage of it.
Just as an example, in a country like Bangladesh and other countries likewise, they produce about 0.5% more per year (maybe less). Also, the U.S. government (I'm sorry, I wish I were more educated on foreign governments...) measures it's unemployment and social security benefits on a basis of what kind of goods the normal person requires to live a GOOD life. Haha, though, I'll give you that they may be small and not actually reach its goal, but that's the idea. In other words, the idea of productivity measuring the quality of life is not a completely alien concept.
I'm not an expert at all either -- my previous comment was based on basic economics. To be completely honest, I morally/theoretically agree 100% with what you said. The only thing is, I don't see it being realistic. Granted, there are plenty of scientists and engineers out there who aren't in it for the money, and most likely they are the most brilliant (think: Newton, Einstein, etc.). But, patents won't stop them from disclosing the ideas anyway, they still have the right to release it.
The issue, in my opinion, comes when there are to be discoveries in a field involving a lot of research funding. Scientists don't mind spending much of their time just for the idea of solving the problem... but the companies that fund them aren't about to spend hundreds of millions to get nothing. The best example of this is the pharmaceutical industry. They're incredibly flawed, but I'm not so sure you'd see much development out of that industry without an incredible amount of cashflow. And Pfizer isn't about to do it for the good of man.
Furthermore, I don't think this is a problem with patents per se. It's more a question of how perverse we allow overly controlling corporations to be. It's a societal question, and while patent laws clearly need help, fixing that alone will definitely not fix the problem of research and discovery in this country. The fact alone that people don't see a point to NASA research is scary enough.
The reason patents were invented were for a simple reason: there's a positive externality associated with R+D. When a firm creates something, invents something, that firm cannot benefit completely from its investment and effort (reverse engineering, blantant stealing, whatever). That's why there are patents. It allows firms to profit off their inventions, so all that time doesn't go to waste. And yes - in a utopian society, we would all work towards the greater good and be productive for the fellow man...but I think there are forms of governments that failed because of that philosophy...
The computer has 'gelled'?
The car is done?
This seems like the same type of mentality that is keeping us in a technical dark age, so to speak. Since when has any invention ever been perfect? I'm sorry, but I don't see how computers as they are today are done in ANY way shape or form. Nor are cars. We still have many problems in both fields that need solving: for cars, we need new forms of energy, we need to decrease our dependency on oil. I don't even know where to begin, but the computer is a relatively new technology with a lot of things to discover about it that will take years and years of R+D... I personally don't understand how we can say "enough is enough", the computer is the way it needs to be.
But do you not agree that more users results in more funding? If something seems to be useful, productive, etc., firms tend to want to INVEST, making your favorite stable operating system even better.
As I see it, technology has two projections: Use & Development. We'd like to develop to make something more useful, and if it is useful, we see more of a reason to develop. You have to look at the longterm benefits here, which may be direct or indirect, but there's no reason why a product/system can't change and mold into something bigger and more extraordinary.
Slashdot Mirror
it's just a "promise", like "we promise to get vista out in X days", so it's very easy to find a loophole...."haha WE FOOLED YOU"
Try...
$ vi <enter>
Hate to be a consumer whore (and how), but what's the name of that iPod product?
Google is still going primarily for the adv. market.
lol out of all the ones i thought was funny, this was the best and didn't get modded appropriately. i bet there were 300 above that got +5 funny for porn stars (duhh), and such. thank you for displaying wit
very funny.
You wonder?
From the same people that brought you Make Your OWN OMG Ponies SIGNS!!! WITH GLITTER!!!?
Keith Richards and cockroaches my favorite quote (I forget who), "Keith will look over at the cockroach and say, 'You know, I smoked your uncle...'"
uno
Oh, and a good analogy: A company that invests 100% in R+D and comes out with a great product is rarely profitable or successful. A company that cuts costs and becomes efficient in an industry they have no vested interest in is rarely successful. A company that combines efficiency and order with a strong product will become very successful. See where I'm going with this?
The solution to this environmental problem is not social.
It clearly is social. If it weren't social, it wouldn't matter to us all that much -- since when have we cared about the physical being of the earth (where it doesn't affect us)? Frankly, technological change is a huge social movement. This means that the people in charge of R+D and the people going to college for degrees in the sciences have to be concerned with THIS problem. My point here is, instead of being a society geared towards war (which, realistically, we are right now... you can see the effects in our economics. See: 1940's), we may end up having to be an energy/efficiency-geared society. This type of strong obediance for a cause can only be done by actually having the greater population putting it on their priority list.
While gradual changes, such as people using 10% less here and there may not seem like the change we need, it is definitely a substantial part. Solutions are rarely and infrequently based on 1 particular aspect. Coupled with technological advances (which _will_ require massive social recognition of the problem) and basic conservation (let's try to be a little less of the "consume, consume, consume" variety, I swear we can do it), I think these problems are solvable. Only time will really tell.
Yeah, sorry. I haven't even been to Europe -- I should have stated that I'm not saying this on experience. All I know is what I've studied from France/Britain...so, thanks for the clarification.
Yet, there are plenty of economic tricks you can impose to change lifestyles. Make something not worthwhile for people anymore, and over time they will change their methods of living. I don't encourage, condone, or am proposing any of the following... just pointing out there are possibilities if we are thinking in the extreme :)
As gas prices rise, we will see people move closer to their jobs (ie, the city) from the suburbs. Suburban sprawl is obviously more likely if the act of commuting is not in the least bit taxing (See: United States). If we want people to stop driving so much, make it expensive as hell...and in turn, maybe start using Europe's incredible public transportation. We don't have that in the U.S. (realistically).
The biggest problem with environmental concerns (very similar to security concerns which any of us involved can relate) is obviously that a single person experiences very little payback for their contribution (and/or can see very little return instantaneously). To curb the public's tendencies, we may have instate some pretty intense restrictions.
How far do we need to go to really protect ourselves against Global Warming (yes, I said it), or environmental concerns?
Please AOL, do this. I can't wait to see your market share drop by 50% :) :)
symbolism, baby. ever think that people do some things not simply to win but to make a very large point that may take several years to really propogate?
The fact that you just named all those BRAND names off the top of your head just told me they did a great job. They're not trying to sell their product to you, they're trying to brand their name/product/etc.
I personally completely believe in the idea of patents. Giving innovators the right to benefit from the fruits of their labor is right, in my opinion, and CLEARLY gives them incentive to do so. Without laws like this, people WILL NOT just produce for "the good of mankind", at least not in our capitalist society. If someone can propose an idea that will allow for this, then by all means tell me how we can solve human self-interest!
Here's my idea. I personally have not thought of or head of any ramifications, so anyone who is much more knowledgeable than me in this area, please post your comments. If we were to require firms to show proof of investment or research into an idea, it would force them to innovate within their ideas, thus not allowing corporations to form simply on the basis of "Patent, lawsuit, patent, lawsuit". Of course, we could have clauses for reasonable investment/research (a man with google is not enough), etc. But, with more elboration, could something like this work? The biggest argument against this that I can think of is the practicality: How do we audit such cases? But, I would say that we necessarily don't need to - these can be done on a need-to-know basis. When a firm sues for patent infringement, they must prepare documents and proof as to their R+D. I'd like to hear all of your opinions.
I kind of agree. My biggest dillemma is that it's turning the abundance of information on the net into 'bitesize' portions, like TV has done. In effect, I feel like many news stories that don't involve Katrina, Alito, etc. (big stories) are left out and people become less informed. A lot of this information can be very important.
For those of us music enthusiasts: Do you still listen to new music? or have you decided that 'what I have is good enough forever'?
...gasp... REAL COMPETITION! We could possibly see such artists as "decent ones" and "true musicians" succeed, not from advertising, but by music enthusiasts themselves.
Personally, I can't get enough new music. Most of it is independent (which is great), but many of them end up signing with larger labels that I must purchase from. The music industry is not going to change their ways with a few abstaining "informed citizens" (what a novel idea). The problem is, the music industry needs to shave off the top few layers of the money pyramid. Then, we may have
I don't believe the problem lies within the music industry itself. This is a needed social change. Big Business has become a privileged interest group, something that the founders of our (U.S.) country specifically legislated AGAINST. This is not collusion in a few oligopolies; this is collusion on a fundamental and governmental level.
How to solve the problem? Use the remnants of our Constitution and attempt for change.
Productivity tends to lead to a better "quality of life". While it obviously doesn't measure happiness, it surely can allow people to lead more successful, happier lives. In a country in which they are producing about 3% more GDP per year (U.S.), it allows people live a much more _prosperous_ life. One can make an argument that this is material and shallow even, but resources allow people to do what they wish to do in life -- whether or not they take advantage of it.
Just as an example, in a country like Bangladesh and other countries likewise, they produce about 0.5% more per year (maybe less). Also, the U.S. government (I'm sorry, I wish I were more educated on foreign governments...) measures it's unemployment and social security benefits on a basis of what kind of goods the normal person requires to live a GOOD life. Haha, though, I'll give you that they may be small and not actually reach its goal, but that's the idea. In other words, the idea of productivity measuring the quality of life is not a completely alien concept.
I guess I don't see the difference. I think you'll run into the same problems. Patents are released after a certain period of time anyway.
I'm not an expert at all either -- my previous comment was based on basic economics. To be completely honest, I morally/theoretically agree 100% with what you said. The only thing is, I don't see it being realistic. Granted, there are plenty of scientists and engineers out there who aren't in it for the money, and most likely they are the most brilliant (think: Newton, Einstein, etc.). But, patents won't stop them from disclosing the ideas anyway, they still have the right to release it.
The issue, in my opinion, comes when there are to be discoveries in a field involving a lot of research funding. Scientists don't mind spending much of their time just for the idea of solving the problem... but the companies that fund them aren't about to spend hundreds of millions to get nothing. The best example of this is the pharmaceutical industry. They're incredibly flawed, but I'm not so sure you'd see much development out of that industry without an incredible amount of cashflow. And Pfizer isn't about to do it for the good of man.
Furthermore, I don't think this is a problem with patents per se. It's more a question of how perverse we allow overly controlling corporations to be. It's a societal question, and while patent laws clearly need help, fixing that alone will definitely not fix the problem of research and discovery in this country. The fact alone that people don't see a point to NASA research is scary enough.
The reason patents were invented were for a simple reason: there's a positive externality associated with R+D. When a firm creates something, invents something, that firm cannot benefit completely from its investment and effort (reverse engineering, blantant stealing, whatever). That's why there are patents. It allows firms to profit off their inventions, so all that time doesn't go to waste. And yes - in a utopian society, we would all work towards the greater good and be productive for the fellow man...but I think there are forms of governments that failed because of that philosophy...
The computer has 'gelled'? The car is done? This seems like the same type of mentality that is keeping us in a technical dark age, so to speak. Since when has any invention ever been perfect? I'm sorry, but I don't see how computers as they are today are done in ANY way shape or form. Nor are cars. We still have many problems in both fields that need solving: for cars, we need new forms of energy, we need to decrease our dependency on oil. I don't even know where to begin, but the computer is a relatively new technology with a lot of things to discover about it that will take years and years of R+D... I personally don't understand how we can say "enough is enough", the computer is the way it needs to be.
really? well, that's good, because i was afraid things like this: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/artic le/2005/11/16/AR2005111601047.html?nav=rss_email/c omponents would happen.
you're right, people would never let a freedom-bearing principle be taken away from us...the votes aren't what matters, we like it, and they can't take it! ...oops...
But do you not agree that more users results in more funding? If something seems to be useful, productive, etc., firms tend to want to INVEST, making your favorite stable operating system even better. As I see it, technology has two projections: Use & Development. We'd like to develop to make something more useful, and if it is useful, we see more of a reason to develop. You have to look at the longterm benefits here, which may be direct or indirect, but there's no reason why a product/system can't change and mold into something bigger and more extraordinary.