I wonder, does anybody know how other primates handle sleep? If it's ingrained as they say, one would think our ancestors would also display the same tendencies.
I'm not sure I totally agree with you. Google has always been about advertising and trying to serve up the most relevant ads. I don't view that as being evil, personally. Evil is selling my personal info to marketers and/or spamming me.
I'm making a big assumption here, but I'm just guessing that running a search engine is a HUGE task, requiring an obscene amount of resources. The agreement with Google has always been "I trade you a bit of my personal info for you providing this service" and I'm mostly OK with that because frankly, they provide a great service. Also, they tell me straight up how they'll be using it, instead of burying it in 50 pages of legalese or just lying about it outright. I appreciate that.
Anyway, the point is that until you start paying for access to a search engine service (do those even exist any more?) you might as well get used to it. Or, if you value your privacy that much, start using Tor or some other form of anonymizing service.
You say you don't want Google to spy on you without your express permission, but you are already giving them your express permission by using their service. That has always been the case.
Damn you, forcing me to undo mods with this post... but I can't help it.
Just how in the fucking hell do you expect Google to remember to not remember you if there isn't some place it can store that preference? And don't say cookies.
I tend to think of it rather like mice. (The furry kind.)
Yes, I could spend countless hours and money trying to stop the occasional mouse from getting into my home and maybe even be successful. Or I could just take the simple preventable measures like not leaving food around, and just spend an infinitely small fraction of my resources to exterminate them when they appear.
Besides that, it could easily be said that the animal still suffers, even with a perfectly executed shot. Yes, it's impossibly brief, so brief you could probably make an argument they don't even feel the pain before they die, but something tells me ethical vegans might not be the type to listen to scientific reasoning from "the guy who wants to kill bambi".
Forget it. NoScript, block everything, selectively enable stuff that I want to see. Once you get used to the idea that many sites will need a temporary permission or two its great and only a relatively small subset of ads get through.
That's fine if you only browse the web a couple minutes a day. Me, I prefer to spend more time consuming the content of the page I navigated to than tinkering with whitelists and blacklists to get the site to even function.
I could see this may be important if you spent a lot of time on warez / porn / other fishy sites, but I don't and see little reason to bother with the annoyance.
How so? Are you claiming Double Fine is a bully in the video game industry? I could presume you meant Steam, but since the whole point of this article is that DRM-free options will exist, I am back to being confused again.
GUIs and CLIs are both tools like any other, and some tools are better suited at some tasks than others. I don't think either will go away, nor should they.
Yeah it really takes alot of expertise to prescribe a vaccination....
True, expertise may not be required to prescribe a vaccination. Expertise really comes into play when you have to know when NOT to prescribe a vaccine due to various reasons.
Reading the rest of your post, it's unclear whether you suffer from an inability to read or an inability to think, but it's clear that you have failed to comprehend either my original post or my reply, so I'm not sure why I expect you to understand if I explain a third time.
Oh, is it ad hominem time already? Whatever.
I understand your post just fine: why license a film at a large cost so you can redistribute it, when Netflix can just buy a few hundred copies from Best Buy and then continually sell / buy them. My point is that it isn't that easy and the idea (as interesting as it is) has other problems.
What PITA? The point is, if this were allowed, then a service could be set up to do this. To its users, it would appear like a streaming / rental service, but instead of paying the studios a higher price for a streaming license it would just pay them the $10 per copy and stream it to as many people as wanted it (but only one at a time).
I don't understand what you mean here. Are you saying the service would buy a copy, and then stream it to only one person at a time? If so I think you're delusional. If you're saying that I, myself will pay the $10 and stream it, getting kickbacks from all the people who listen to it, you're still delusional. Both methods are a bit too close to "distribution" in my eyes, and in any case what you're describing is a brokerage service in both cases, which I discussed later in the paragraph you quoted. Or maybe I didn't understand your description.
Huh? Why for slightly less? We're talking about digital copies. There is no detectable difference between the original and the version that 4,000 people have watched already. You'd buy one copy, sell it, buy it back, sell it, buy it back. You wouldn't have to use real money, you could use tokens that you issue, so 'selling' and 'buying' just mean incrementing and decrementing a value in a database.
Oh, so you think this service will be free? Who will pay for the massive infrastructure & bandwidth costs? (Yes, bandwidth, this would never fly as P2P.) Or what about the lengthy courtroom trials the RIAA and MPAA would undoubtedly drag this service through? Also, and IANNYCL (I am not NYC Lawyer) but I would imagine that the distinct act of buying and selling the file would help insulate you from the aforementioned illegal distribution problem. Buying something for the same price as you later sell it for on a grand scale would probably not count as a "sale" in a Judge's eyes. Companies get in trouble with the SEC for doing that exact same thing. Same thing for the idea of exchanging "tokens" which mean absolutely nothing in an economic sense. At that point all you have is a P2P file-sharing service slightly dressed up. I doubt a judge would even have to get bribed to see that for what it is.
A film at iPlayer HD quality would take me 36 minutes to download on my current Internet connection, and 18 minutes at the speed of the connection that my ISP is upgrading me to (their new lowest-speed tier) this year. Even if you require the transfer of the data, then this just adds 18 minutes to the duration of the film for my period of ownership (I can start watching it before it's finished transferring it, but I can't start returning it until I no longer want to own it). So a typical film can be sold and returned every 2 hours. In the course of a year, a single copy can be sold and returned over 4,000 times (there is probably someone in one time zone that wants to watch it at any given time).
This is true, but you also have to consider the time / PITA it would take to do this. Considering the cost of most media (even as inflated as they are) it's not worth your time to do this. Granted, you could attempt to start some kind of brokerage service that would do all that for you behind the scenes, but then you have that cost added into the mix, as well as the pain of having all your media in a perpetual state of limbo.
So once you've bought all your media and resold it (for slightly less of course) each month, you're basically talking a monthly service charge. Probably easier just to subscribe to a service to begin with and be done with it. Granted you might have to deal with a slightly worse library to choose from, but on the flipside, you won't buy a song off somebody only to get Rick Rolled, either.
Speaking of, how would you deal with people creating their own content and selling it as another artist's? Basically, counterfeit goods? Doesn't seem like hashes and the like would be all that useful in this case, since you have to work with people's already existing media libraries... or is this more of a caveat emptor thing?
If their search engine is Bing - why not just use Bing?
The new CEO needs to figure out the answer to that question.
More than likely, his answer will be the same as his predecessor: "people don't go to Yahoo for search results: they go for the/experience/."
Or some equally inane marketing bullshit. Anyway, it's an interesting idea- I'll give them that. Google already has the market pretty well cornered on a search page that only does search, so Yahoo is trying to capture the "people who want a search page so cluttered with info you can barely locate the search bar" demographic. All joking aside, it is somewhat nice to get the news-at-a-glance that yahoo offers at those times I need to check my junkmail on mail.yahoo.
Mutations of various sorts have been happening since the dawn of time. We're just as likely to have "random genes" collect in other organisms before GM as we are now.
The only reason I distrust GM crops is because we as a culture care only about profit; all the various risks are looked at through that lens. So:
"I could improve these crops, but the risk is that I'll kill off these bugs that happen to be the cornerstone of the ecosystem causing untold damage" becomes "I could improve these crops, but the risk is that I'll get sued and go bankrupt."
Perhaps, but the same could be said for real models. If all they really cared about was the clothes, they wouldn't show the model's faces, either.
But they do, and for obvious reasons. They're not just trying to sell you $2 of fabric for $55- they're trying to sell you a self-image boost. And they must have found that a beautiful face is a big part of a beautiful body.
As far as I know, there aren't too many actual horror stories about GM animals messing up ecosystems.
However, there are hundreds of years worth of horror stories from introducing some species of animal or plant to help control another bothersome species. Plus many accidental, but no less problematic, introductions.
I'm not saying that GM as a species control is safe, but I am saying we've tried it that your way and it doesn't work well.
You make an interesting point, but you forget a major category: the weight & size of the hardware.
Yes, the n900 had a physical keyboard, FM radio chips, large ports like IR (although you fail to mention NFC, which I would call superior and in the same category). However, the n900 was a fucking tank. The nexus is a thin, slim piece of hardware. And when you're putting them in your pocket, that is important.
IMHO, combat only drags on too long because people are being munchkins instead of role playing. You shouldn't be asking yourself "which one of these 40 combat skills would kill the most goblins". Instead, you should be asking yourself "what would my berserk warrior with an INT of 8 do?"
Yes, this is a generalization, and isn't true in all cases. But it's true more times than not in my experience.
While I agree it is sometimes a good thing to make a decision (even if wrong), I'm not so sure that world economics is the place. I understand what you're saying, but at the same time, there are some obviously bad choices that could really hurt us.
Of course, the problem here is that the two sides think those "obvious bad choices" and what the other side wants are one and the same.
Slashdot Mirror
I wonder, does anybody know how other primates handle sleep? If it's ingrained as they say, one would think our ancestors would also display the same tendencies.
I'm not sure I totally agree with you. Google has always been about advertising and trying to serve up the most relevant ads. I don't view that as being evil, personally. Evil is selling my personal info to marketers and/or spamming me.
I'm making a big assumption here, but I'm just guessing that running a search engine is a HUGE task, requiring an obscene amount of resources. The agreement with Google has always been "I trade you a bit of my personal info for you providing this service" and I'm mostly OK with that because frankly, they provide a great service. Also, they tell me straight up how they'll be using it, instead of burying it in 50 pages of legalese or just lying about it outright. I appreciate that.
Anyway, the point is that until you start paying for access to a search engine service (do those even exist any more?) you might as well get used to it. Or, if you value your privacy that much, start using Tor or some other form of anonymizing service.
You say you don't want Google to spy on you without your express permission, but you are already giving them your express permission by using their service. That has always been the case.
Damn you, forcing me to undo mods with this post... but I can't help it.
Just how in the fucking hell do you expect Google to remember to not remember you if there isn't some place it can store that preference? And don't say cookies.
So, your claim is that software can never improve?
I tend to think of it rather like mice. (The furry kind.)
Yes, I could spend countless hours and money trying to stop the occasional mouse from getting into my home and maybe even be successful. Or I could just take the simple preventable measures like not leaving food around, and just spend an infinitely small fraction of my resources to exterminate them when they appear.
Besides that, it could easily be said that the animal still suffers, even with a perfectly executed shot. Yes, it's impossibly brief, so brief you could probably make an argument they don't even feel the pain before they die, but something tells me ethical vegans might not be the type to listen to scientific reasoning from "the guy who wants to kill bambi".
Forget it. NoScript, block everything, selectively enable stuff that I want to see. Once you get used to the idea that many sites will need a temporary permission or two its great and only a relatively small subset of ads get through.
That's fine if you only browse the web a couple minutes a day. Me, I prefer to spend more time consuming the content of the page I navigated to than tinkering with whitelists and blacklists to get the site to even function.
I could see this may be important if you spent a lot of time on warez / porn / other fishy sites, but I don't and see little reason to bother with the annoyance.
How so? Are you claiming Double Fine is a bully in the video game industry? I could presume you meant Steam, but since the whole point of this article is that DRM-free options will exist, I am back to being confused again.
Fair enough. I would place keyboard-centric as just another tool, however. It's good to have options.
GUIs and CLIs are both tools like any other, and some tools are better suited at some tasks than others. I don't think either will go away, nor should they.
Yeah it really takes alot of expertise to prescribe a vaccination....
True, expertise may not be required to prescribe a vaccination. Expertise really comes into play when you have to know when NOT to prescribe a vaccine due to various reasons.
Reading the rest of your post, it's unclear whether you suffer from an inability to read or an inability to think, but it's clear that you have failed to comprehend either my original post or my reply, so I'm not sure why I expect you to understand if I explain a third time.
Oh, is it ad hominem time already? Whatever.
I understand your post just fine: why license a film at a large cost so you can redistribute it, when Netflix can just buy a few hundred copies from Best Buy and then continually sell / buy them. My point is that it isn't that easy and the idea (as interesting as it is) has other problems.
What PITA? The point is, if this were allowed, then a service could be set up to do this. To its users, it would appear like a streaming / rental service, but instead of paying the studios a higher price for a streaming license it would just pay them the $10 per copy and stream it to as many people as wanted it (but only one at a time).
I don't understand what you mean here. Are you saying the service would buy a copy, and then stream it to only one person at a time? If so I think you're delusional. If you're saying that I, myself will pay the $10 and stream it, getting kickbacks from all the people who listen to it, you're still delusional. Both methods are a bit too close to "distribution" in my eyes, and in any case what you're describing is a brokerage service in both cases, which I discussed later in the paragraph you quoted. Or maybe I didn't understand your description.
Huh? Why for slightly less? We're talking about digital copies. There is no detectable difference between the original and the version that 4,000 people have watched already. You'd buy one copy, sell it, buy it back, sell it, buy it back. You wouldn't have to use real money, you could use tokens that you issue, so 'selling' and 'buying' just mean incrementing and decrementing a value in a database.
Oh, so you think this service will be free? Who will pay for the massive infrastructure & bandwidth costs? (Yes, bandwidth, this would never fly as P2P.) Or what about the lengthy courtroom trials the RIAA and MPAA would undoubtedly drag this service through? Also, and IANNYCL (I am not NYC Lawyer) but I would imagine that the distinct act of buying and selling the file would help insulate you from the aforementioned illegal distribution problem. Buying something for the same price as you later sell it for on a grand scale would probably not count as a "sale" in a Judge's eyes. Companies get in trouble with the SEC for doing that exact same thing. Same thing for the idea of exchanging "tokens" which mean absolutely nothing in an economic sense. At that point all you have is a P2P file-sharing service slightly dressed up. I doubt a judge would even have to get bribed to see that for what it is.
A film at iPlayer HD quality would take me 36 minutes to download on my current Internet connection, and 18 minutes at the speed of the connection that my ISP is upgrading me to (their new lowest-speed tier) this year. Even if you require the transfer of the data, then this just adds 18 minutes to the duration of the film for my period of ownership (I can start watching it before it's finished transferring it, but I can't start returning it until I no longer want to own it). So a typical film can be sold and returned every 2 hours. In the course of a year, a single copy can be sold and returned over 4,000 times (there is probably someone in one time zone that wants to watch it at any given time).
This is true, but you also have to consider the time / PITA it would take to do this. Considering the cost of most media (even as inflated as they are) it's not worth your time to do this. Granted, you could attempt to start some kind of brokerage service that would do all that for you behind the scenes, but then you have that cost added into the mix, as well as the pain of having all your media in a perpetual state of limbo.
So once you've bought all your media and resold it (for slightly less of course) each month, you're basically talking a monthly service charge. Probably easier just to subscribe to a service to begin with and be done with it. Granted you might have to deal with a slightly worse library to choose from, but on the flipside, you won't buy a song off somebody only to get Rick Rolled, either.
Speaking of, how would you deal with people creating their own content and selling it as another artist's? Basically, counterfeit goods? Doesn't seem like hashes and the like would be all that useful in this case, since you have to work with people's already existing media libraries... or is this more of a caveat emptor thing?
This smacks of "if you're not a terrorist you shouldn't mind not having privacy."
Sorry, but no.
This is exactly what I was talking about. You can tell when a marketer is running a company versus an engineer.
If their search engine is Bing - why not just use Bing?
The new CEO needs to figure out the answer to that question.
More than likely, his answer will be the same as his predecessor: "people don't go to Yahoo for search results: they go for the /experience/."
Or some equally inane marketing bullshit. Anyway, it's an interesting idea- I'll give them that. Google already has the market pretty well cornered on a search page that only does search, so Yahoo is trying to capture the "people who want a search page so cluttered with info you can barely locate the search bar" demographic. All joking aside, it is somewhat nice to get the news-at-a-glance that yahoo offers at those times I need to check my junkmail on mail.yahoo.
Mutations of various sorts have been happening since the dawn of time. We're just as likely to have "random genes" collect in other organisms before GM as we are now.
The only reason I distrust GM crops is because we as a culture care only about profit; all the various risks are looked at through that lens. So:
"I could improve these crops, but the risk is that I'll kill off these bugs that happen to be the cornerstone of the ecosystem causing untold damage"
becomes
"I could improve these crops, but the risk is that I'll get sued and go bankrupt."
Perhaps, but the same could be said for real models. If all they really cared about was the clothes, they wouldn't show the model's faces, either.
But they do, and for obvious reasons. They're not just trying to sell you $2 of fabric for $55- they're trying to sell you a self-image boost. And they must have found that a beautiful face is a big part of a beautiful body.
Oops, ignore that. I misread the parent's point.
As far as I know, there aren't too many actual horror stories about GM animals messing up ecosystems.
However, there are hundreds of years worth of horror stories from introducing some species of animal or plant to help control another bothersome species. Plus many accidental, but no less problematic, introductions.
I'm not saying that GM as a species control is safe, but I am saying we've tried it that your way and it doesn't work well.
You make an interesting point, but you forget a major category: the weight & size of the hardware.
Yes, the n900 had a physical keyboard, FM radio chips, large ports like IR (although you fail to mention NFC, which I would call superior and in the same category). However, the n900 was a fucking tank. The nexus is a thin, slim piece of hardware. And when you're putting them in your pocket, that is important.
IMHO, combat only drags on too long because people are being munchkins instead of role playing. You shouldn't be asking yourself "which one of these 40 combat skills would kill the most goblins". Instead, you should be asking yourself "what would my berserk warrior with an INT of 8 do?"
Yes, this is a generalization, and isn't true in all cases. But it's true more times than not in my experience.
While I agree it is sometimes a good thing to make a decision (even if wrong), I'm not so sure that world economics is the place. I understand what you're saying, but at the same time, there are some obviously bad choices that could really hurt us.
Of course, the problem here is that the two sides think those "obvious bad choices" and what the other side wants are one and the same.
If I got that with my tea, I might not mind paying $5.