Netflix's suggestion algorithm doesn't attempt to draw conclusions based on the entire population of its database, though - it uses affinity grouping to try and model your tastes, based on how similar your responses are to hundreds of other peoples' responses to the same movies.
It's the difference between "70% of our customers liked this movie, therefore we assume you'll like it to," and "90% of the customers who watched movie X and rated it 5 stars also gave high ratings to movie Y. You gave 5 stars to movie X, so we think there's a good chance you'll like movie Y." (Or, conversely, "you really liked movie Y, so there's a good chance you'll also like movie X.")
Now, consider that your database covers millions of people and thousands of movies: you can probably start to predict with a surprisingly high degree of accuracy how an individual will respond to a new movie once you've got a decent sample of their ratings for the movies they have seen.
Yes, because in an emergency, I really want to see the DoD spin up a multi-million dollar "Uncle Sam wants you to use less bandwidth!" awareness campaign that will take months to design and implement. I'm sure the people of Japan won't have any problem with hearing, "Sorry, we can't support a mission to go rescue your family right now, because Bob just really needs to watch that funny Charlie Sheen cooking video again."
That's a much better solution than the 30 minute solution of blocking the sites, displaying a 404 or 403 page indicating that the site is blocked for bandwidth purposes, and implying that administrative action may result if repeated attempts are made to access the content.
This is an entirely appropriate response in an emergency management situation, where real lives are at stake.
What sucks military operations bandwidth? Would UAV like use be at the top of the list? Why would the ability to many unmanned tools be of such interest over Japan at this time?
I think you'll find that the bandwidth usage is primarily tied to the fact that they're essentially having to provide command and control networks to every unit in the area (there's likely little-to-no civilian capacity in the areas they're operating in, so they could well be providing the Japanese government & civilian relief workers with network bandwidth as well), and seeing as they're thousands of miles away, and engaged in pretty intense rescue, recovery and rebuilding efforts, the ability to communicate status and queries back to the chain of command in the US is probably deemed more important than PFC Smith's need to watch that funny video on Youtube of the monkey scratching his butt and sniffing his finger.
And yes, UAVs probably are in use, for several purposes: -- Recon of damaged areas, looking for signs of survivors who need to be evacuated by helicopter; -- Testing for radiation in the air above & around damaged nuclear plants; -- Surveying the extent and severity of the damage more closely than can be done by satellite imagery;
There are only so many helicopters available, so I'm sure that at least a few drones are in the air providing information and data to help the Japanese government and the military personnel decide where their efforts are most needed and best spent first. All of it takes bandwidth, and I think it's a bit premature to speculate that there's some sort of nefarious plot.
Facebook is an untrusted channel used to catalog information for present and future adversaries. its use in any form is unwise. If you think you're never going to want to keep something from someone for a legitimate reason, think again.
May I introduce you to the concept of paranoid schizophrenia? There's operational security, and then there's stark-raving-mad paranoia, friend. Pray tell, what nefarious purpose can be furthered by someone knowing of my fondness for the music of Johnny Cash and Bruce Springsteen, and the fact that I enjoyed the Shawshank Redemption?
"Dear Sir, I represent the late Mr. Johnny Cash's estate. He has entrusted me with 10 million dollars to be smuggled out of Zaire, and I have decided to reach out to someone who is clearly a fan of his music, and thus likely to help me avoid the government agents trying to illegally seize this money. I know that you are sympathetic to the plight of someone who is mistreated by the government, for you liked the Shawshank Redemption, and are therefore an easy mark - I mean willing silent partner - in this endeavor to help the late Mr. Johnny Cash avoid the loss of his moneys to an illegal seizure by the government. Please to send me your bank information and personal credit history so I may begin the transfer to you, my silent partner. For helping with this transfer, you may keep 10% of the moneys!"
Or you can easily share information that you have no interest in keeping private, and simply not post information that needs to remain private.
Do I care if Facebook knows where I live, and that I like a particular band? Nope, in fact seeing a ticketmaster ad telling me that "That band you love has a concert in your area this week!" is actually something I don't mind seeing at all.
Do I care if Facebook knows my credit card details, my medical history, and that one time I got so drunk I ended up doing something I regretted later? Yeah, I do. And that's why I don't post those things on Facebook.
Yeah, diaspora's really a resounding success, just look at their github: a handful of contributors actually working on the code (one of the more active ones recently appears to be someone who isn't even a member of the original "Diaspora" team), a steady downward trend on the pageviews graph, and no notable news since November's alpha testing started, other than a blog post at the end of January saying "We're still like, working on stuff, and we're still super-relevant, just look at these blogs that called us cool!"
With success like that, it's just a matter of weeks before Facebook is obsolete.
I see. So you have no alternative to suggest, just a hand-waving assertion that somebody who needs features offered by MS Office is better off not dicking around with Office, because they'll figure out how to get what they need done in some other fashion, if you take away their tools?
I see. You're an expert on the software needs of the entire population of computer users, that you can categorically state that nobody *ever* has a need for those features?
For many *individuals*, LibreOffice or Google Docs may be an adequate solution. For many larger organizations, they are not adequate because those organizations have people who really *do* need the advanced features that Office offers. So in that case, we have some people who use LibreOffice. Others who use Google Docs. And a small number of people who DO need the functionality of the MS suite. And this is your "better" solution?
Congratulations, you've just saddled your company with 3 different software packages that all require training, troubleshooting, and administration of upgrades; potentially exposed your sensitive corporate data to the tender mercies of Google and the "cloud"; introduced ridiculous incompatibilities in something as fundamental as word processing and spreadsheets; and caused your users tons of frustration, wasted time, and annoyance.
MS Office is a frustrating and infuriating product for my users. I have to teach them how to use it and advise them of its limitations daily. MS Office is not "the best thing" out there.
What software, in your opinion, is "better" than MS Office that's available today? It may not be the "best of all possible software packages," but it certainly seems to be the "best office package available on the market today."
I've used OO.o and LibreOffice, and while they do an adequate job for most word processing needs I have, I certainly wouldn't call them any "better" than Office. And then there's also the question of advanced features that Office has - they may only be used by 1% of the company, but when you're making a choice for an "enterprise-wide" package, you choose the one that fits all (or "the most") of your needs - support & rollout costs far exceed the licensing costs, and OO.o/LibreOffice will require ongoing support just as much as MS Office - trying to buy MS Office for the "advanced" users while rolling out OO.o for the basic users also means that:
1) You don't get as good a bulk deal on enterprise licensing; 2) You have to pay to support TWO software packages;
If your company has a need (even in a small proportion of users) for the advanced features of Office, you'll probably end up paying just as much to rollout Office to your whole company as you would trying to rollout and support a blend of MS and OO.o tools.
What's funny is, it appears you're the one who didn't read the article, which specifically states that the judge *threw out* the four statements that were opinion or comments posted by others:
District Judge Denise Reilly threw out four of the five statements, saying they were either opinion or the comments of others on the blog. With respect to the remaining statement, the jury agreed with Clark's claim that Hoff had committed "tortious interference" by meddling with Moore's employment. Clark pointed out to the jury that Hoff, in a later blog post, took partial credit for Moore's firing.
Funny, the phone I have today can do about a million more things than my first cell phone (a Nokia, ca. 1993) ever could; it's also about a million times more capable than my Treo, ca. 2004. I've yet to find something I feel I need to do with it that doesn't have an app already available to accomplish.
So explain to me again: what power and control am I sacrificing? Seems to me like I've got far more power and control over the use of my phone than I've ever had before. Until my purchase of an iPhone, my control over my phone amounted to "I can place calls and remove the battery if I want." From where I'm sitting, I have more control and utility out of my phone today than I've ever had in the past. Looks like I win.
You know, not to put too fine a point on it or anything, but you're really overdoing the drama a bit - it's a fucking phone, man. Do you also consider the need to decide between purchasing a car with a regular gas engine versus one with a diesel engine to constitute some sort of heinous abridgment of your freedoms?
I'm fairly certain the Greatest Generation wasn't storming the beaches of Normandy thinking, "Someday, my grandson is going to be able to install whatever software he likes - including ass'n'titty apps, by gum! - on his smart phone."
Or at least, I seem to have missed that episode of Band of Brothers. Maybe it was one of the ones between when they stormed the beaches in France and when they liberated the prisoners at Dachau?
No, real geeks value their time enough to know that reinventing the wheel is usually an immensely stupid idea. App stores are for those who value their time more than they value the $1.99 they'll spend on an app that's available now, and addresses their needs.
Yes, because we know the government requires a shitload of money to infringe rights.
Of course it doesn't. However, giving the federal government MORE power and MORE money and MORE programs to administer / buy votes with means that you have made the "prize" of being one of the elites who runs the government attractive to people who are after both money and power.
If you reduce the size, scope, and the reach of government, then for the people who lust after money and power, the juice simply isn't worth the squeeze - meaning that they will be less likely to pursue being elected to the government as a route to that power and money.
As soon as you start arguing that the federal government needs to get bigger, needs to do more stuff, needs more funding and more power, you're creating a dangerous precedent that unscrupulous people who want "more funding and more power" will not hesitate to seize on.
And they might well be taking the time to study some new job skills and the like in order to break out of the poverty they're in.
In fact, less than 5% of the general population suffers from mental illness; estimates suggest that 20-40% of the homeless population suffers from some form of mental illness. Libraries are not mental health clinics. Librarians are not trained & certified psychologists and psychiatrists. And finally, many of the homeless people suffering from mental illness are not just "dealing with a mild depression" - we're talking schizophrenia, paranoia, psychosis - profound mental illness.
I'm all for keeping libraries open to the public. I'm also all for getting mentally ill people the treatment they need, rather than turning other public spaces into cattle pens because we'd much rather let the mentally ill languish, untreated, mostly out of sight, until their presence becomes an inconvenience for us.
Suggesting that "letting the homeless people stay at the library" as some sort of residential center is as callous and inhumane as suggesting that turning them back out onto the streets would be the better solution.
Okay, honest question - I don't know much about Ham radio. But the article says they're selling rights to a particular spectrum - but is this the only part of the spectrum available for amateur operators?
I swear I'm not trolling, or trying to minimize the impact. I understand it might require changing broadcast gear, etc., but this wouldn't seem to be an existential threat to ham operators, merely a hassle because you have to move to new frequencies. Or is there something intrinsically better about the specific frequencies in question (420-440 MhZ) which makes them particularly well-suited to amateur radio broadcasts, to the point that hams couldn't operate elsewhere?
Certainly, some people need (and others want or prefer) the openness of an Android or similar device. I actually am looking forward to seeing solid competition from the Android tablets, because it'll mean that Apple & the Android tablets will both have to step up their game, and give us better products at better prices.
What a lot of people miss in the love it / hate it department is that Apple follows what appears to be an uncommon design philosophy in the tech world. When you need to ship by a given deadline, you have two choices: implement 100 features, with the knowledge that there'll probably be some significant bugs that'll need to be addressed after release, or implement 30 features, and focus on making those 30 features as polished and complete as you can, and add small, polished, batches of new features in updates & new versions of the device. It's pretty evident that Apple tries to follow the latter model, and has added new features slowly over time: native apps, 3G, tethering, new bluetooth profiles, multitasking, cut & paste, etc. Many of the Android devices are instead "everything but the kitchen sink" affairs where you've got lots of freedom, but there are significant issues - early reviews of the Xoom support this, if nothing else.
The problem is, the people who demand/want/need "ultimate freedom" on their devices represent a very small segment of the market - the hackers and tinkerers who enjoy poking around the guts of a machine. For the much larger "average people" market, they're looking for something that works well, and isn't going to give them numerous headaches with its eccentric behaviors. Any device that plans to polish features "as they go" is in for a difficult time in the mass market, in the face of Apple's emphasis on fit & finish. What many here decry as "unnecessary limitations" are, in essence, a competitive edge for Apple: they limit the features intentionally so they can focus on getting the core experience right, then add more features to that over time. This doesn't necessarily satisfy the urge to tinker on many Slashdotters' parts, but it does produce a device that the mass market will appreciate.
Samsung ridiculously overpriced their pre 3.0 tablets, just because they could get away with it.
That's right, I think that business strategy is from Sun Tzu's Art of War: "When your control software is less than optimal for your device, and your competitors are selling the devices cheaper, you should charge a significant premium over their prices, because it will help you to beat neither their price, nor their features."
Strangely, you seem to be missing the point and failing at reading comprehension. The entire relevant thought communicated in GP's post was:
earn a salary like the guys living in $650k houses while living in a house that cost $100k.
Let's parse that into 2 separate clauses for you, I'll type slowly so you can keep up:
earn a salary like the guys living in $650k houseswhile living in a house that cost $100k.
As in: "I earned a salary like the guys living in $650k houses, and at the same time, I lived in a house that cost $100k!"
Could the grammar be cleaner? Sure. Is his meaning still clear? Yes. Have you added anything relevant to the discussion with your inane pedantry? Unfortunately, no.
It doesn't sound like your friends have an issue, it sounds to me like they're enjoying it so much that they want to share the experience with their friends and family via Facebook.
From the sound of it, you're the one struggling to cope with the fact that people you know aren't focused on entertaining you first, last and always via their Facebook posts.
And how will you access your information ten years from now when your iPad dies and your book is in an iPad-only format?
Who says these books need to be in an iPad-only format? Amazon's format works on multiple devices, including - but not limited to - the iPad; They also work just fine with a desktop client. The iPad is simply the device in question, it doesn't require it to be an iPad-only DRM format.
There's also no reason for them to make the textbook "subscription" network dependent. If you want updates, you can purchase the updated revisions to your already-purchased book, if you don't, then you can continue reading your old version of the book whenever you like, on any compatible device. (This is exactly how the Kindle works today.)
It'd also be quite easy to adopt a mix-and-match program: Allow people to buy hard-copy only, ebook copy only, or a hard-copy that comes with a code for a free download of the ebook. Want a hard-copy only? Go buy the used book and have a ball; Want the e-book? Buy the "bundle" (hard copy + electronic copy) for a small premium over the hard-copy only, or buy an eBook-only version for a small discount off the cost of the hard-copy (saves printing & shipping costs).
For me, the easy portability & searchability for reference books would probably outweigh the "need a hard copy" fetish most of the time.
Slashdot Mirror
Netflix's suggestion algorithm doesn't attempt to draw conclusions based on the entire population of its database, though - it uses affinity grouping to try and model your tastes, based on how similar your responses are to hundreds of other peoples' responses to the same movies.
It's the difference between "70% of our customers liked this movie, therefore we assume you'll like it to," and "90% of the customers who watched movie X and rated it 5 stars also gave high ratings to movie Y. You gave 5 stars to movie X, so we think there's a good chance you'll like movie Y." (Or, conversely, "you really liked movie Y, so there's a good chance you'll also like movie X.")
Now, consider that your database covers millions of people and thousands of movies: you can probably start to predict with a surprisingly high degree of accuracy how an individual will respond to a new movie once you've got a decent sample of their ratings for the movies they have seen.
Yes, because in an emergency, I really want to see the DoD spin up a multi-million dollar "Uncle Sam wants you to use less bandwidth!" awareness campaign that will take months to design and implement. I'm sure the people of Japan won't have any problem with hearing, "Sorry, we can't support a mission to go rescue your family right now, because Bob just really needs to watch that funny Charlie Sheen cooking video again."
That's a much better solution than the 30 minute solution of blocking the sites, displaying a 404 or 403 page indicating that the site is blocked for bandwidth purposes, and implying that administrative action may result if repeated attempts are made to access the content.
This is an entirely appropriate response in an emergency management situation, where real lives are at stake.
I think you'll find that the bandwidth usage is primarily tied to the fact that they're essentially having to provide command and control networks to every unit in the area (there's likely little-to-no civilian capacity in the areas they're operating in, so they could well be providing the Japanese government & civilian relief workers with network bandwidth as well), and seeing as they're thousands of miles away, and engaged in pretty intense rescue, recovery and rebuilding efforts, the ability to communicate status and queries back to the chain of command in the US is probably deemed more important than PFC Smith's need to watch that funny video on Youtube of the monkey scratching his butt and sniffing his finger.
And yes, UAVs probably are in use, for several purposes:
-- Recon of damaged areas, looking for signs of survivors who need to be evacuated by helicopter;
-- Testing for radiation in the air above & around damaged nuclear plants;
-- Surveying the extent and severity of the damage more closely than can be done by satellite imagery;
There are only so many helicopters available, so I'm sure that at least a few drones are in the air providing information and data to help the Japanese government and the military personnel decide where their efforts are most needed and best spent first. All of it takes bandwidth, and I think it's a bit premature to speculate that there's some sort of nefarious plot.
May I introduce you to the concept of paranoid schizophrenia? There's operational security, and then there's stark-raving-mad paranoia, friend. Pray tell, what nefarious purpose can be furthered by someone knowing of my fondness for the music of Johnny Cash and Bruce Springsteen, and the fact that I enjoyed the Shawshank Redemption?
"Dear Sir, I represent the late Mr. Johnny Cash's estate. He has entrusted me with 10 million dollars to be smuggled out of Zaire, and I have decided to reach out to someone who is clearly a fan of his music, and thus likely to help me avoid the government agents trying to illegally seize this money. I know that you are sympathetic to the plight of someone who is mistreated by the government, for you liked the Shawshank Redemption, and are therefore an easy mark - I mean willing silent partner - in this endeavor to help the late Mr. Johnny Cash avoid the loss of his moneys to an illegal seizure by the government. Please to send me your bank information and personal credit history so I may begin the transfer to you, my silent partner. For helping with this transfer, you may keep 10% of the moneys!"
I was born at night, but not last night.
Wow. Baseless assertions with absolutely no basis in fact! Thanks for sharing.
Or you can easily share information that you have no interest in keeping private, and simply not post information that needs to remain private.
Do I care if Facebook knows where I live, and that I like a particular band? Nope, in fact seeing a ticketmaster ad telling me that "That band you love has a concert in your area this week!" is actually something I don't mind seeing at all.
Do I care if Facebook knows my credit card details, my medical history, and that one time I got so drunk I ended up doing something I regretted later? Yeah, I do. And that's why I don't post those things on Facebook.
Yeah, diaspora's really a resounding success, just look at their github: a handful of contributors actually working on the code (one of the more active ones recently appears to be someone who isn't even a member of the original "Diaspora" team), a steady downward trend on the pageviews graph, and no notable news since November's alpha testing started, other than a blog post at the end of January saying "We're still like, working on stuff, and we're still super-relevant, just look at these blogs that called us cool!"
With success like that, it's just a matter of weeks before Facebook is obsolete.
I see. So you have no alternative to suggest, just a hand-waving assertion that somebody who needs features offered by MS Office is better off not dicking around with Office, because they'll figure out how to get what they need done in some other fashion, if you take away their tools?
What a compelling counter-argument.
I see. You're an expert on the software needs of the entire population of computer users, that you can categorically state that nobody *ever* has a need for those features?
For many *individuals*, LibreOffice or Google Docs may be an adequate solution. For many larger organizations, they are not adequate because those organizations have people who really *do* need the advanced features that Office offers. So in that case, we have some people who use LibreOffice. Others who use Google Docs. And a small number of people who DO need the functionality of the MS suite. And this is your "better" solution?
Congratulations, you've just saddled your company with 3 different software packages that all require training, troubleshooting, and administration of upgrades; potentially exposed your sensitive corporate data to the tender mercies of Google and the "cloud"; introduced ridiculous incompatibilities in something as fundamental as word processing and spreadsheets; and caused your users tons of frustration, wasted time, and annoyance.
You're fired.
What software, in your opinion, is "better" than MS Office that's available today? It may not be the "best of all possible software packages," but it certainly seems to be the "best office package available on the market today."
I've used OO.o and LibreOffice, and while they do an adequate job for most word processing needs I have, I certainly wouldn't call them any "better" than Office. And then there's also the question of advanced features that Office has - they may only be used by 1% of the company, but when you're making a choice for an "enterprise-wide" package, you choose the one that fits all (or "the most") of your needs - support & rollout costs far exceed the licensing costs, and OO.o/LibreOffice will require ongoing support just as much as MS Office - trying to buy MS Office for the "advanced" users while rolling out OO.o for the basic users also means that:
1) You don't get as good a bulk deal on enterprise licensing;
2) You have to pay to support TWO software packages;
If your company has a need (even in a small proportion of users) for the advanced features of Office, you'll probably end up paying just as much to rollout Office to your whole company as you would trying to rollout and support a blend of MS and OO.o tools.
What's funny is, it appears you're the one who didn't read the article, which specifically states that the judge *threw out* the four statements that were opinion or comments posted by others:
No, we need 7 pages to generate enough ad impressions to pay someone's salary.
We only need one sentence to tell us that they both have significant numbers of common features, and each has a few strengths that the other doesn't.
And would they beam the electricity through a distribution grid that is destroyed to houses which don't exist anymore?
Or did you think all they'd need to do would be to have an ensign run down to some magical hookup in downtown Tokyo with a big extension cord?
Funny, the phone I have today can do about a million more things than my first cell phone (a Nokia, ca. 1993) ever could; it's also about a million times more capable than my Treo, ca. 2004. I've yet to find something I feel I need to do with it that doesn't have an app already available to accomplish.
So explain to me again: what power and control am I sacrificing? Seems to me like I've got far more power and control over the use of my phone than I've ever had before. Until my purchase of an iPhone, my control over my phone amounted to "I can place calls and remove the battery if I want." From where I'm sitting, I have more control and utility out of my phone today than I've ever had in the past. Looks like I win.
You know, not to put too fine a point on it or anything, but you're really overdoing the drama a bit - it's a fucking phone, man. Do you also consider the need to decide between purchasing a car with a regular gas engine versus one with a diesel engine to constitute some sort of heinous abridgment of your freedoms?
I'm fairly certain the Greatest Generation wasn't storming the beaches of Normandy thinking, "Someday, my grandson is going to be able to install whatever software he likes - including ass'n'titty apps, by gum! - on his smart phone."
Or at least, I seem to have missed that episode of Band of Brothers. Maybe it was one of the ones between when they stormed the beaches in France and when they liberated the prisoners at Dachau?
No, real geeks value their time enough to know that reinventing the wheel is usually an immensely stupid idea. App stores are for those who value their time more than they value the $1.99 they'll spend on an app that's available now, and addresses their needs.
Of course it doesn't. However, giving the federal government MORE power and MORE money and MORE programs to administer / buy votes with means that you have made the "prize" of being one of the elites who runs the government attractive to people who are after both money and power.
If you reduce the size, scope, and the reach of government, then for the people who lust after money and power, the juice simply isn't worth the squeeze - meaning that they will be less likely to pursue being elected to the government as a route to that power and money.
As soon as you start arguing that the federal government needs to get bigger, needs to do more stuff, needs more funding and more power, you're creating a dangerous precedent that unscrupulous people who want "more funding and more power" will not hesitate to seize on.
In fact, less than 5% of the general population suffers from mental illness; estimates suggest that 20-40% of the homeless population suffers from some form of mental illness. Libraries are not mental health clinics. Librarians are not trained & certified psychologists and psychiatrists. And finally, many of the homeless people suffering from mental illness are not just "dealing with a mild depression" - we're talking schizophrenia, paranoia, psychosis - profound mental illness.
I'm all for keeping libraries open to the public. I'm also all for getting mentally ill people the treatment they need, rather than turning other public spaces into cattle pens because we'd much rather let the mentally ill languish, untreated, mostly out of sight, until their presence becomes an inconvenience for us.
Suggesting that "letting the homeless people stay at the library" as some sort of residential center is as callous and inhumane as suggesting that turning them back out onto the streets would be the better solution.
Okay, honest question - I don't know much about Ham radio. But the article says they're selling rights to a particular spectrum - but is this the only part of the spectrum available for amateur operators?
I swear I'm not trolling, or trying to minimize the impact. I understand it might require changing broadcast gear, etc., but this wouldn't seem to be an existential threat to ham operators, merely a hassle because you have to move to new frequencies. Or is there something intrinsically better about the specific frequencies in question (420-440 MhZ) which makes them particularly well-suited to amateur radio broadcasts, to the point that hams couldn't operate elsewhere?
Yeah, I bet Apple is totally rushing this out to avoid bad press from a conference that nobody in their target demographics has ever heard of.
Certainly, some people need (and others want or prefer) the openness of an Android or similar device. I actually am looking forward to seeing solid competition from the Android tablets, because it'll mean that Apple & the Android tablets will both have to step up their game, and give us better products at better prices.
What a lot of people miss in the love it / hate it department is that Apple follows what appears to be an uncommon design philosophy in the tech world. When you need to ship by a given deadline, you have two choices: implement 100 features, with the knowledge that there'll probably be some significant bugs that'll need to be addressed after release, or implement 30 features, and focus on making those 30 features as polished and complete as you can, and add small, polished, batches of new features in updates & new versions of the device. It's pretty evident that Apple tries to follow the latter model, and has added new features slowly over time: native apps, 3G, tethering, new bluetooth profiles, multitasking, cut & paste, etc. Many of the Android devices are instead "everything but the kitchen sink" affairs where you've got lots of freedom, but there are significant issues - early reviews of the Xoom support this, if nothing else.
The problem is, the people who demand/want/need "ultimate freedom" on their devices represent a very small segment of the market - the hackers and tinkerers who enjoy poking around the guts of a machine. For the much larger "average people" market, they're looking for something that works well, and isn't going to give them numerous headaches with its eccentric behaviors. Any device that plans to polish features "as they go" is in for a difficult time in the mass market, in the face of Apple's emphasis on fit & finish. What many here decry as "unnecessary limitations" are, in essence, a competitive edge for Apple: they limit the features intentionally so they can focus on getting the core experience right, then add more features to that over time. This doesn't necessarily satisfy the urge to tinker on many Slashdotters' parts, but it does produce a device that the mass market will appreciate.
That's right, I think that business strategy is from Sun Tzu's Art of War: "When your control software is less than optimal for your device, and your competitors are selling the devices cheaper, you should charge a significant premium over their prices, because it will help you to beat neither their price, nor their features."
Strangely, you seem to be missing the point and failing at reading comprehension. The entire relevant thought communicated in GP's post was:
Let's parse that into 2 separate clauses for you, I'll type slowly so you can keep up:
earn a salary like the guys living in $650k houses while living in a house that cost $100k.
As in: "I earned a salary like the guys living in $650k houses, and at the same time, I lived in a house that cost $100k!"
Could the grammar be cleaner? Sure. Is his meaning still clear? Yes. Have you added anything relevant to the discussion with your inane pedantry? Unfortunately, no.
It doesn't sound like your friends have an issue, it sounds to me like they're enjoying it so much that they want to share the experience with their friends and family via Facebook.
From the sound of it, you're the one struggling to cope with the fact that people you know aren't focused on entertaining you first, last and always via their Facebook posts.
Who says these books need to be in an iPad-only format? Amazon's format works on multiple devices, including - but not limited to - the iPad; They also work just fine with a desktop client. The iPad is simply the device in question, it doesn't require it to be an iPad-only DRM format.
There's also no reason for them to make the textbook "subscription" network dependent. If you want updates, you can purchase the updated revisions to your already-purchased book, if you don't, then you can continue reading your old version of the book whenever you like, on any compatible device. (This is exactly how the Kindle works today.)
It'd also be quite easy to adopt a mix-and-match program: Allow people to buy hard-copy only, ebook copy only, or a hard-copy that comes with a code for a free download of the ebook. Want a hard-copy only? Go buy the used book and have a ball; Want the e-book? Buy the "bundle" (hard copy + electronic copy) for a small premium over the hard-copy only, or buy an eBook-only version for a small discount off the cost of the hard-copy (saves printing & shipping costs).
For me, the easy portability & searchability for reference books would probably outweigh the "need a hard copy" fetish most of the time.