Another element is, can they AFFORD to take the risk. Risk is a luxury that goes away quickly with responsibilities. Usually in these success stories they have some other backup (spouse, family etc) to make sure their responsibilities are taken care of OR no responsibilities of note.
Running your own business also requires non-technical things like going out and getting customers, which in a larger organization is left to specialists so the tech people can do what they are best at. Not everyone enjoys the smoozing and networking needed to keep a steady stream of clients... so 'rewarding' is a very relative concept and depends on the idea that the person actually enjoys those non-technical aspects, which is far from universal.
Though imagine the outrage of US lawmakers if foreign governments were forcing trans national companies that set up shop in their boundaries started going after US citizens.
One of the recurring problems, or at minimal worries, about so much of the 'net being based in the US is it results in US laws and judicial system being applied to non-US citizens who often have no way to defend or represent themselves. It is a situation the US would generally not find acceptable if it were reversed, and there is not enough balance currently for the US to go 'hrm, if I do X, then country B will do X to my people again later, so I better be civil'.
True, and if it was challenged it would fail, but they are taking advantage of the DMCA's extra-legal methods. Since hosts that do not 'quickly' deal with such notices loose their safe harbor provision, they can utilize 3rd party's fear to do things that they could never do through a judge.
The thing is, it is not about money, at least not directly and not at an industry level.
It is about power, and some very powerful people feeling emasculated by not having complete and total control over the deals around media they control. Part of the problem is, this is an industry where if you are seen as weak you will be passed over or cliqued out, pissing contests are how you get your job, how you keep it, how you network, and how you make deals/clients. Stuff like this makes them feel strong, and people associated with pushing this through will get extra swagger to take into their meetings, negotiations, and parties so they get laid.
The problem is, the people in office are a product of how people think and vote. They only do exactly what will allow them to keep their jobs... if you kick everyone out and hold elections you will end up with the exact same types of people in office again, because voters have not changed.
Are we going to devote our tax dollars to litigation over a disupte over whether a person wrongfully put a spell on another player's avatar, thereby causing that other player damage?
Probably not. Police and prosecutors already ignore a lot of petty crime. Just look at the slashdot read example of email hacking. Unless you are someone important, they will probably just take a statement and then not bother looking into it. Same thing with small scale thefts. Even having your car stolen (happened to me a while back) they will take a statement but not actually invest andy resources into it unless, again, you are someone or are part of a group that gets better service.
So within this context, I would wager that they would not do anything with such a case unless there was significant money/publicity involved (such as a tournament) or the victim was someone famous and thus has some political pool.
I think it really comes down to the mechanics of the game. If someone gets your property via a valid game mechanic then it is now their property. If they get it through some other means then it is theft. In a way you could probably model games as a contract, as long as everyone is playing within the rules of the contract property changes owners according to the rules set forth and there is no case. Violate the contract inorder to obtain property and you have a problem.
well yes, they take a cut.. and in return give us things like roads, police,... you know, the type of stuff that when left in private hands ends up not covering most people? If you want a system where the government doesn't do anything and everyone keeps the wealth they accumulate with no handouts or public spending, I hear Somalia is nice.
Because the government has an interest in the overall economy and long term planning? Student loans came out of the discovery of the economic advantage of the GI Bill.. it increases the number of skilled people available to industry and helps get good people the skills to be useful rather then only the people with money. Emergent systems like pure capitalism only go so far, there are advantages to thought and planning when dealing with complex systems.
So it is less that they are 'responsible' and more 'it is part of their job and to the country's advantage'.
*nods* people tend to forget that the president is not supposed to have a hand in the creation of law. His job is to implement laws, not make them. But over time we have turned the office into a king of sorts, people look to the person to fill all 3 roles of government and be a single powerful leader. Ah, the old hiericle human brain.
Actually, the issue isn't cost of an ID, it is the difficulty in getting one. People who started day 1 with a paper trail to build off consider it trivial, but then again even loosing a couple basic documents and needing a reissue can land on in a beurocratic maze that can take months and sometimes requires a lawyer's help. It is a real catch-22 system and it tends to mostly just impact people at the bottom of the scale.
Having seen this in action at small scales,.. it really does not work very well. You end up with that 80% bulliying, resenting, or otherwise pressuring the remaining 20% into doing whatever they want anyway, which usually comes down to whatever their charismatic leader tells them they want. It becomes indistinguishable from dictatorships very quickly.
The problem with 'the problem' is there are multiple use-cases, some of which are mutually exclusive. The 'real name' policy is not an unmitigated bad thing, it has advantages and cases where it works better then allowing pseudonyms.
Personally, I am a little sad to see it go this way. The majority of the internet is pseudonym based... one thing that made Facebook such a force was it was at least one major place where that was not the dominant paradigm.... but like usual, the majority wanted to make sure that everyone played by their preferred rules and seemed to be offended that there were places with different rules. *shrug*
Steve Jobs and Apple are not the end all and be all of computer specs. Not every machine is built for consumers.
Even within that piece they are clearly talking about what people going down to their local best buy and grabbing a low end camera expect to plug into. Again, 'common consumer use case' != 'all use cases'
Even within Apple products, only the two low end MacBooks are lacking Firewire, along with other features like a DVD burner. The mid and upper end Macbooks still offer Firewire 3 years after that piece was written.
I imagine much of this will be decided by how difficult it is to program for. One of the things that ended up keeping USB back from some of the higher end uses (like external video cards) was how huge of a pain it was to program for... at my previous company I always heard grumbling from the USB programmers.... if Thunderbolt is layed out better for these types of devices then, even if it *gasp* costs a whole $1 per port then it might have a place.
Rumors of Firewire's death are a bit overstated.
Sure, USB devices are far more numerous, but there is a lot of firewire stuff out there esp once you get away from consumer grade 'cheap as possible' devices. Just like dirty cheap IDE never managed to kill off SCSI, I doubt USB is going to completely crush Firewire any time soon.
I think people tend to forget that 'most common use/case' != 'all use cases', and just because some standard captures the low end market does not mean it doesn't have a place outside that large but not universal domain.
It is possible that they did just that and simply ended up with a view that did not represent the whole (or at least the noisy) well. That is one of those pittfalls with trying to figure out what your customers want.. sometimes even with real data and the best of intentions, once the broader group is involved things can come out differently then the test market. Just look at New Coke.... they had a solid idea, they tested the product and found people liked it, marketing information pointed towards such a change being 'the future' and 'what people wanted'.. every indicator they had to work with said it would be a good idea.. but once it hit the market.. splat.
While I agree this is baffling and shows they are having issues understanding their customer base.. I will give them credit for both being willing to try something they think will improve service AND being willing to cancel the plan when their customers point out how bone headed it was. A lot of executives are not willing to do either of those, esp the latter. In the high stakes realm of the boardroom, careers can be made or broken based off doggedly not admitting you are wrong.
Which can actually be a 'good' tactic. I recall years ago there was a troll that had a patent on some web technology that many huge companies were using, but they only went after low margin adult sites that were willing to settle rather then go to court, which gave them both a war chest and precedent to take on the larger companies later.
It is also possible that Greece was not corrupt enough. Italy is a good place if you want to set up scams... their legal system is fairly two-tiered.. if you have the cash you don't really have to worry about laws and the laws do a good job of making sure weaker people can not negatively impact you.
Slashdot Mirror
Another element is, can they AFFORD to take the risk. Risk is a luxury that goes away quickly with responsibilities. Usually in these success stories they have some other backup (spouse, family etc) to make sure their responsibilities are taken care of OR no responsibilities of note.
Running your own business also requires non-technical things like going out and getting customers, which in a larger organization is left to specialists so the tech people can do what they are best at. Not everyone enjoys the smoozing and networking needed to keep a steady stream of clients... so 'rewarding' is a very relative concept and depends on the idea that the person actually enjoys those non-technical aspects, which is far from universal.
Which is exactly what the OP is asking about, taking pictures.
If they had kept Starz, they would have had a MUCH larger increase in price...
Though imagine the outrage of US lawmakers if foreign governments were forcing trans national companies that set up shop in their boundaries started going after US citizens.
One of the recurring problems, or at minimal worries, about so much of the 'net being based in the US is it results in US laws and judicial system being applied to non-US citizens who often have no way to defend or represent themselves. It is a situation the US would generally not find acceptable if it were reversed, and there is not enough balance currently for the US to go 'hrm, if I do X, then country B will do X to my people again later, so I better be civil'.
True, and if it was challenged it would fail, but they are taking advantage of the DMCA's extra-legal methods. Since hosts that do not 'quickly' deal with such notices loose their safe harbor provision, they can utilize 3rd party's fear to do things that they could never do through a judge.
The thing is, it is not about money, at least not directly and not at an industry level.
It is about power, and some very powerful people feeling emasculated by not having complete and total control over the deals around media they control. Part of the problem is, this is an industry where if you are seen as weak you will be passed over or cliqued out, pissing contests are how you get your job, how you keep it, how you network, and how you make deals/clients. Stuff like this makes them feel strong, and people associated with pushing this through will get extra swagger to take into their meetings, negotiations, and parties so they get laid.
The problem is, the people in office are a product of how people think and vote. They only do exactly what will allow them to keep their jobs... if you kick everyone out and hold elections you will end up with the exact same types of people in office again, because voters have not changed.
Hrm... according to my math, 3.2 per 2.5x10^8 is a better deal then 3x10^5.
Are we going to devote our tax dollars to litigation over a disupte over whether a person wrongfully put a spell on another player's avatar, thereby causing that other player damage?
Probably not. Police and prosecutors already ignore a lot of petty crime. Just look at the slashdot read example of email hacking. Unless you are someone important, they will probably just take a statement and then not bother looking into it. Same thing with small scale thefts. Even having your car stolen (happened to me a while back) they will take a statement but not actually invest andy resources into it unless, again, you are someone or are part of a group that gets better service.
So within this context, I would wager that they would not do anything with such a case unless there was significant money/publicity involved (such as a tournament) or the victim was someone famous and thus has some political pool.
I think it really comes down to the mechanics of the game. If someone gets your property via a valid game mechanic then it is now their property. If they get it through some other means then it is theft. In a way you could probably model games as a contract, as long as everyone is playing within the rules of the contract property changes owners according to the rules set forth and there is no case. Violate the contract inorder to obtain property and you have a problem.
well yes, they take a cut.. and in return give us things like roads, police,... you know, the type of stuff that when left in private hands ends up not covering most people? If you want a system where the government doesn't do anything and everyone keeps the wealth they accumulate with no handouts or public spending, I hear Somalia is nice.
Because the government has an interest in the overall economy and long term planning? Student loans came out of the discovery of the economic advantage of the GI Bill.. it increases the number of skilled people available to industry and helps get good people the skills to be useful rather then only the people with money. Emergent systems like pure capitalism only go so far, there are advantages to thought and planning when dealing with complex systems.
So it is less that they are 'responsible' and more 'it is part of their job and to the country's advantage'.
*nods* people tend to forget that the president is not supposed to have a hand in the creation of law. His job is to implement laws, not make them. But over time we have turned the office into a king of sorts, people look to the person to fill all 3 roles of government and be a single powerful leader. Ah, the old hiericle human brain.
Actually, the issue isn't cost of an ID, it is the difficulty in getting one. People who started day 1 with a paper trail to build off consider it trivial, but then again even loosing a couple basic documents and needing a reissue can land on in a beurocratic maze that can take months and sometimes requires a lawyer's help. It is a real catch-22 system and it tends to mostly just impact people at the bottom of the scale.
Having seen this in action at small scales,.. it really does not work very well. You end up with that 80% bulliying, resenting, or otherwise pressuring the remaining 20% into doing whatever they want anyway, which usually comes down to whatever their charismatic leader tells them they want. It becomes indistinguishable from dictatorships very quickly.
The problem with 'the problem' is there are multiple use-cases, some of which are mutually exclusive. The 'real name' policy is not an unmitigated bad thing, it has advantages and cases where it works better then allowing pseudonyms.
Personally, I am a little sad to see it go this way. The majority of the internet is pseudonym based... one thing that made Facebook such a force was it was at least one major place where that was not the dominant paradigm.... but like usual, the majority wanted to make sure that everyone played by their preferred rules and seemed to be offended that there were places with different rules. *shrug*
Steve Jobs and Apple are not the end all and be all of computer specs. Not every machine is built for consumers.
Even within that piece they are clearly talking about what people going down to their local best buy and grabbing a low end camera expect to plug into. Again, 'common consumer use case' != 'all use cases'
Even within Apple products, only the two low end MacBooks are lacking Firewire, along with other features like a DVD burner. The mid and upper end Macbooks still offer Firewire 3 years after that piece was written.
I imagine much of this will be decided by how difficult it is to program for. One of the things that ended up keeping USB back from some of the higher end uses (like external video cards) was how huge of a pain it was to program for... at my previous company I always heard grumbling from the USB programmers.... if Thunderbolt is layed out better for these types of devices then, even if it *gasp* costs a whole $1 per port then it might have a place.
Rumors of Firewire's death are a bit overstated. Sure, USB devices are far more numerous, but there is a lot of firewire stuff out there esp once you get away from consumer grade 'cheap as possible' devices. Just like dirty cheap IDE never managed to kill off SCSI, I doubt USB is going to completely crush Firewire any time soon. I think people tend to forget that 'most common use/case' != 'all use cases', and just because some standard captures the low end market does not mean it doesn't have a place outside that large but not universal domain.
It is possible that they did just that and simply ended up with a view that did not represent the whole (or at least the noisy) well. That is one of those pittfalls with trying to figure out what your customers want.. sometimes even with real data and the best of intentions, once the broader group is involved things can come out differently then the test market. Just look at New Coke.... they had a solid idea, they tested the product and found people liked it, marketing information pointed towards such a change being 'the future' and 'what people wanted'.. every indicator they had to work with said it would be a good idea.. but once it hit the market.. splat.
Actually, Buddhism has its own colourfull history of bloody conflicts around conversion and disagreements of doctrine.
While I agree this is baffling and shows they are having issues understanding their customer base.. I will give them credit for both being willing to try something they think will improve service AND being willing to cancel the plan when their customers point out how bone headed it was. A lot of executives are not willing to do either of those, esp the latter. In the high stakes realm of the boardroom, careers can be made or broken based off doggedly not admitting you are wrong.
Which can actually be a 'good' tactic. I recall years ago there was a troll that had a patent on some web technology that many huge companies were using, but they only went after low margin adult sites that were willing to settle rather then go to court, which gave them both a war chest and precedent to take on the larger companies later.
It is also possible that Greece was not corrupt enough. Italy is a good place if you want to set up scams... their legal system is fairly two-tiered.. if you have the cash you don't really have to worry about laws and the laws do a good job of making sure weaker people can not negatively impact you.