If your "rock star" developers are over-engineering the problem, writing bad code or whatever, then they weren't "rock star" developers, but a bunch of ill experienced or underqualified amateurs that's kind of the fucking point.
The article will be better labelled as "If your rock star developers aren't, then they'll produce just as shit a product as developers who don't even pretend to be capable of doing the given task".
"How precisely do they integrate non-Microsoft programs with Microsoft management tools?
Easily, Microsoft provides a plethora of tools and APIs to do exactly this.
"That's just laziness really. Someone doesn't want to have to do it because they can't do it all from one place. I mean I understand it, but that isn't really a proper excuse is it?"
Possibly not, but sadly people are lazy. Though you might argue it's not simply laziness but about cost and efficiency. I used to work on a network of over 5,000 systems, wanting to do it all from one place was less about laziness and more about spending only a few minutes of your time configuring something on every single system rather than the best part of a year. It is these big networks that make an impact on browser uptake too - it doesn't matter if 20 small companies with 10 PCs switch to Firefox, it's when the 5,000, and 10,000 computer networks switch that matters, and you need centralised management to do that.
"You can't expect other companies make their programs integrate with Microsoft's management tools."
Why? It's the de-facto standard for the vast majority of business networks across the globe. Not supporting that is just silly.
"Maybe some companies do, I dunno."
Most do, anti-virus vendors are an obvious example, they pretty much all have an enterprise offering that integrates directly into existing tools.
"I don't even know what would be involved in that (fees, huge pain in the ass to integrate, require Microsoft's permission, etc etc)."
None of this, all the required tools are available freely and no permission needed. Microsoft's active directory is designed to be extensible from the outset in this manner.
This is somewhat true, but you've only got half the picture.
The other half the picture is that if we continue to consume species to the point of extinction then we reduce biodiversity, if we reduce biodiversity continuously then eventually we become the ones at risk, and like other species, as you say, we are not outside nature.
By making the concious decision to not whipe out, and to possibly even reintroduce species, then we maintain healthy biodiversity, and hence protect ourselves in the long run.
Some people think that this would never be a real problem, but the collapse of fish stocks is already a major threat to some food supplies across the globe.
Neither view is wrong, both are valid, the difference is by maintaining or even increasing biodiversity, we protect ourselves from nature choosing us as the future victims of natural selection due to a collapse in biodiversity.
Well British courts laughed Apple out of court and told them to publicly state on their website that Samsung did not infringe their rectangles with rounded corners patent, so that's a start.
We've had mixed success with other things, the founder of OiNK, a file sharing site got away with it completely free in court suggesting that such linking sites are legit, though recently another site's owner got convicted so it's not entirely consistent yet.
Yes, East London made absolutely no sense whatsoever for this.
The Cambridge-Oxford corridor was the most obvious place, because there's already long been a foundation there. With improved transport links to those city centres something akin to South/West Yorkshire's transport links where there are many small train stations within easy driving/cycling distance of villages where houses are much cheaper due to the fact they aren't in a big city.
You've got all the benefits of East London and then some, not only that, it's open to talent from a much larger section of the country - people can easily get there from pretty much anywhere in England due to good fast train links and good motorway links, whereas East London is horribly inaccessible to anyone other than Londoners.
It really was one of the most braindead moves to date, why have a silicon valley clone in somewhere so inaccessible to much of the country's talent when you can have it somewhere much more accessible, and right next to the very most important thing that would feed it (Cambridge University) and similarly near many existing tech firms including companies such as ARM.
No because funnily enough I don't bookmark and log every Slashdot conversation ever that may have some relevance in the future.
You're more than welcome to check through past discussions about Firefox over the last few years and see for yourself.
I suppose it's possible someone said they were a Firefox dev when answering but weren't, though that seems a little odd and unlikely.
Certainly I recall in one of the Firefox release threads dating back to perhaps the Firefox 4 release IIRC there was a big discussion about it where some dev, or claimed dev stated exactly this though.
It sucks if you got a faulty one, but the vast majority seem to be fine - certainly all those delivered more recently seem to be past the problem. I guess it was a manufacturing fault in the earliest batch(es).
No one loses money on budget models, because by the time something has become a budget model the cost of production has decreased so much there's a healthy margin on the product.
It's the same with phones, tablets, and consoles. The PS3 and 360 both made hefty losses on release, but now make healthy profits per unit sold.
If you're still making a loss on your old model by the time it is actually old then you're doing something very very wrong.
To be fair, most companies keep selling the old one until the new product is actually available though. Some even continue to sell the old model afterwards as a budget model.
Quite possibly, but the point is LG is likely still buying parts for those screens from Samsung, or at least licensing patents for those screens from Samsung anyway, that's the issue for Apple - somewhere down the supply chain they'll bump into Samsung one way or another.
Problem is, Samsung still owns important patents on those modern displays, so if LG makes them for Apple instead, Samsung can just makes sure it increases licensing costs on those patents.
The issue is that even if you find a manufacturer to manufacture alternatives to Samsung that in all likelihood:
- Samsung still produces the core components you need to manufacture the technology
and/or:
- Samsung has patents on the technology you are producing
When you're producing a device that makes use of so many different wireless technologies, modern displays, audio, battery powered, cameras and so on and so forth, it's almost a certainty that you can't write Samsung out of the equation completely.
If it's their browser, and they can fix it, then it's very much their problem. It's their application hogging all the memory at the end of the day, even if the plugins are the things triggering that. People understand, but the buck has to stop with Mozilla on issues like this because it's their product and they created the plugin interface and allowed it to cause these problems.
As for your last comment, the answer is simple, people have arrogantly been told time and time again that it's not Mozilla's problem, and end-users dont want to hear that, it's Mozilla's product so it IS Mozilla's problem. People don't want to deal with arrogant devs who ignore the usersbase over things like defaulting do not track to off, stupid ideas like version number inflation, silent updating and so forth. If people hate Mozilla it's because Mozilla has become arrogant, and doesn't listen to the userbase.
This is also almost certainly why Firefox has lost a massive amount of marketshare to Chrome.
The point is with something like IE you would be able to do it with your existing management tools (i.e. group policies).
If it's more complicated then it's not that an IT admin can't do it, but why should they do it when the tools that come bundled with the OS do it better?
If the FOSS community wants to beat Microsoft, it needs to do better than Microsoft, not worse. I've seen many shops stick to using the likes of IE for exactly this reason.
I have Firefox installed on my home and work PCs, last time they auto-updated despite them having always had exactly the same configuration options set, the UI changed different on both.
They're identical versions according to Help -> About, they're running on the same OS, which has the same UI settings set, and as I say, they even have the same settings set themselves.
Yet on my work PC, the back button is a big round circle, and the next button is invisible until it's active, though greys out once it's appeared and is irrelevant. On my home PC the back buttons are identically sized, square, and always visible.
If Mozilla can't even keep the UI consistent between different systems with identical configuration when they update them silently then I don't have much confidence in their auto-update process.
You're right, silent-update is an awful change. More so if you're trying to deal with web site development and the version changes on you part way through and causes a rendering change such that you mistake the sudden change as an obscure bug in your code.
Posting on Slashdot certainly wont. People have been complaining about memory leaks in Firefox for years and some of the devs have repeatedly come here and told us there aren't any.
Right, so why the fuck did they just fix one in this update?
Hopefully they're more helpful on the project mailing list/bug tracker like you suggest, but you're spot on about reporting it here being no use, as although they will see it, they'll just pretend it isn't a problem and that Firefox is flawless.
"Look it is simple. You want to believe and trust that your government officials would never ever expand the reach of a program like this without telling you."
But that's exactly it, they can do precisely this because people like you push the incorrect idea that they do this already, so there's no political risk in them actually doing so if people think they do it already even though they don't. You're the reason they can get away with it because you spread FUD suggesting they already do, so when they do people falsely assume nothing has changed and they get away with it.
" The technology to do so is there now. You chose to ignore that. And just because the UK wasted X on inferior technology does not mean they won't turn right around and spend Y on the new technology they should have bought in the first place."
Unless it's politically untenable because people know how the current system actually works, and so when the government decides to push it further, people say no, that's a step too far. That can't happen whilst people like you vocally push the idea that they can and do already do this because people think nothing is changing. If they're aware the government wants to change the status quo they can voice their opinion over it, give the opposition parties a chance to attack them on it, and reduce the chance of it being passable. This is exactly what happened with the UK's ID card scheme thankfully - the people were aware it was a bit step towards big brother and stopped it. It's less likely to happen with the replacement for the IMP because due to people like you, people think it happens already anyway so don't care.
"Stop believing what they tell you because they will *not* ever tell you that bad parts."
Right, but that's nothing to do with my point here. We know for a fact what the likes of Gatsos and Truvelos are capable of, and it's not what you're claiming.
Great, so you named a handful of roads that use average speed cameras amongst all the rest that don't. Sure it sounds like Nottingham council and/or it's constabulary use them a bit more, but this is rare, the only other place I've seen a handful is near Cambridgeshire, pretty much the rest of the UK still just uses Gatsos.
I didn't say you claimed they take video, but my point was that they don't take video which is in contrast to what the conspiracy theorists claim - that they constantly film us, if you weren't disputing that then what exactly in my post were you disputing as that was the crux of my point - that speed cameras only actually catch people who have already broken the law, and are not a constant monitoring device for people who have done nothing wrong which is often what the nutjobs claim. Because of them the government can say "Well, we might as well invest in live filming capacity, it'll cost us no political capital because all the nutjobs are claiming we do that already and the general public now believe that". My point is that by recognising what the current take is really capable of, and sticking to rational arguments such as "Well, if it sticks to just catching people who actually break the law fine, but if you want to spend money replacing them so you can record everyone's movements innocent or not, then that really is a step too far" then the political capital needed to implement them becomes a lot harder for politicians to justify.
"PS: You think your beloved UK police and gov't officials don't have what the French do?"
No, we bought about 4,000 standalone Gatsos at an average of £30k a piece, so can't afford to replace them with a networked network of cameras. Note also that even the French cameras in the link you posted still only take and send back stills of people who actually break the speed limit, rather than a stream of life video, again perfectly proving my people that sensationalist nutjobs like yourself only act to give governments something to point out and shout "Well they don't know what they're on about anyway" because, er, you don't.
"You really, really are f*ng naive."
I'm naive because you quoted something that proves my point? Where in that paragraph does it talk about constantly watching? about recording live video of everyone including those not breaking the law? What exactly do you believe you proved me wrong on? as there's nothing in that sentence that contradicts anything I said about cameras
Honestly, if you can't even interpret the very paragraphs you link and paste and compare them against what I said then how do you expect anyone to think you're capable of a rational argument? why would you expect anyone to listen to you, much less people who don't want to listen to you like oppressive government officials. Why not stick to the facts so that you're argument is worth listening to- I fully agree with your first sentence, and to a large extent your second sentence, but this is exactly it- you then ruin it by failing to follow through with a coherent argument after that and that's the problem - people will use that to shoot down your whole argument where it suits, including the more factual bits. Stick to pursuing an argument that follows logically, and they can't do that, paste something that backs up what the other guy was saying in contradiction to what you believe you're proving, and they can.
"Wait, where do you live? Across Nottinghamshire, Leicestershire, Derbyshire, Staffordshire, Cheshire, Greater Manchester and Lincolnshire where I do most of my driving the cameras are all electronic.
The average speed ones in the West Midlands and Derbyshire work exactly by filming everyone."
The only speed cameras that have the capacity to record live video are the average speed cameras, yet they do not have the bandwidth to feed it back so merely do ANPR and track this data. These cameras are also not commonplace, and only exist on a small number of major roads across the country and often in places of roadworks in large motorways (such as when there was heavy roadworks near Nottingham on the M1).
Nearly all other speed cameras are still film Gatsos or Truvelos, there are some digital Gatsos but they still have no capacity to record video, so you know nothing about the topic if you believe they are all electronic, and all record video in the areas you state, they are not, it's that simple. See here for example where it points out that 90% of cameras in the UK are Gatsos which lays waste to your argument that most are cameras that record video rather than single images.
"Ah, the irony."
There's irony here for sure, in that you prove my point by spouting sensationalist nonsense that does not hold up in light of the facts whilst believing you're somehow proving me wrong. You've done quite the opposite.
"How naive are you? You actually believe that hokum? "Yeah we only store the ones who have already broken the law" or "We only film the ones who actually are speeding." Yeah.. ok."
I'm not naive, and fortunately, I'm also not a conspiracy theorist. Standard yellow speed cameras aren't even technically capable of filming everyone, they have no video capability and still use limited capacity film (which is why you see the police changing it now and again).
This really illustrates how far out of proportion kooks like you have blown the argument, if you don't even understand the technical capabilities of the devices you're suggesting can do more than they actually can then how can you be respected in a discussion on them?
It's nutjobs like yourself that are the reason governments do sometimes get away with pushing things too far, as they can point to the blatant errors in your arguments and say "Look, this guy complaining doesn't even understand the basics of what he's on about" as a tool to discredit the argument of the rest of us.
You don't do anyone any favours, you just act as a convenient idiot that the government can use to defame those with a more rational and informed opposition to their plans when they try and step out of line. There are sensationalists on both sides - those screaming terrorist at everything that moves then suggesting we need some new tool to infringe people's rights to deal with those imagined terrorists, then on the other side there are people like you, crying that we're being watched by things that don't even have the technical capacity to watch us. The real, reasoned and objective arguments against new intrusions of privacy and rights get lost in the bullshit of both sides and the government just makes the decision themselves ignoring the opposition for this reason. Something that is much harder to do if the opposition is rational, reasoned, and has the facts on their side.
So thank you for being part of the problem. Thank you very fucking much.
The number of people viewing online has been static for the best part of a decade now and basically stems from the same pool of people who would used to have borrow a VHS from a friend, any adjustments for that have long been known. As a result contracts have long been based on that such that any financial calculation as to whether a show is viable based on ad revenue will be done purely on forecasted live viewing figures for this very reason.
Unlike people who sell software, music, and DVDs as a product, the TV industry has long been smart enough to only count on live figures when negotiating such contracts because they know anything else is just wishful thinking. Just as the TV industry can't count on classing any post-broadcast viewers as ad targets.
Yeah this is the primary reason Samsung wont do that, they make enough profit from it to continue.
What they could consider doing though is upping the prices to claw back that $1billion that way, and they can even target it. As many point out Apple can go elsewhere, but not on all components - even where other manufacturers can develop other components Samsung often holds patents.
Screen technology is one area where Samsung could really screw Apple by upping the cost to them, as they're easily the market leaders in this field, both large and small, hence why IIRC even Sony now uses Samsung panels in their TVs. As they invented things like AMOLED they will hold enough patents on current/next gen screen tech to deny Apple access to the best displays, or at least up the cost to them by increasing licensing costs of such tech.
Apple puts together a good product, but Samsung invents the new technology that Apple needs to build those products, so Apple needs to be very careful. If the rumoured Apple TV turns out to be true for example then Apple is either beholden to Samsung for panels, or they put up with inferior quality panels.
There's no doubt Apple is playing a dangerous game, and Samsung is well positioned to claw back any cost Apple has made to them. If the lawsuits all continue to go Apple's way they could push Samsung out of the cellphone market, but they've not got a chance in hell of avoiding Samsung in the components market altogether - they hold too many patents and are the sole producer of too many of those components for that to be possible.
Slashdot Mirror
Exactly.
If your "rock star" developers are over-engineering the problem, writing bad code or whatever, then they weren't "rock star" developers, but a bunch of ill experienced or underqualified amateurs that's kind of the fucking point.
The article will be better labelled as "If your rock star developers aren't, then they'll produce just as shit a product as developers who don't even pretend to be capable of doing the given task".
"How precisely do they integrate non-Microsoft programs with Microsoft management tools?
Easily, Microsoft provides a plethora of tools and APIs to do exactly this.
"That's just laziness really. Someone doesn't want to have to do it because they can't do it all from one place. I mean I understand it, but that isn't really a proper excuse is it?"
Possibly not, but sadly people are lazy. Though you might argue it's not simply laziness but about cost and efficiency. I used to work on a network of over 5,000 systems, wanting to do it all from one place was less about laziness and more about spending only a few minutes of your time configuring something on every single system rather than the best part of a year. It is these big networks that make an impact on browser uptake too - it doesn't matter if 20 small companies with 10 PCs switch to Firefox, it's when the 5,000, and 10,000 computer networks switch that matters, and you need centralised management to do that.
"You can't expect other companies make their programs integrate with Microsoft's management tools."
Why? It's the de-facto standard for the vast majority of business networks across the globe. Not supporting that is just silly.
"Maybe some companies do, I dunno."
Most do, anti-virus vendors are an obvious example, they pretty much all have an enterprise offering that integrates directly into existing tools.
"I don't even know what would be involved in that (fees, huge pain in the ass to integrate, require Microsoft's permission, etc etc)."
None of this, all the required tools are available freely and no permission needed. Microsoft's active directory is designed to be extensible from the outset in this manner.
This is somewhat true, but you've only got half the picture.
The other half the picture is that if we continue to consume species to the point of extinction then we reduce biodiversity, if we reduce biodiversity continuously then eventually we become the ones at risk, and like other species, as you say, we are not outside nature.
By making the concious decision to not whipe out, and to possibly even reintroduce species, then we maintain healthy biodiversity, and hence protect ourselves in the long run.
Some people think that this would never be a real problem, but the collapse of fish stocks is already a major threat to some food supplies across the globe.
Neither view is wrong, both are valid, the difference is by maintaining or even increasing biodiversity, we protect ourselves from nature choosing us as the future victims of natural selection due to a collapse in biodiversity.
Well British courts laughed Apple out of court and told them to publicly state on their website that Samsung did not infringe their rectangles with rounded corners patent, so that's a start.
We've had mixed success with other things, the founder of OiNK, a file sharing site got away with it completely free in court suggesting that such linking sites are legit, though recently another site's owner got convicted so it's not entirely consistent yet.
Yes, East London made absolutely no sense whatsoever for this.
The Cambridge-Oxford corridor was the most obvious place, because there's already long been a foundation there. With improved transport links to those city centres something akin to South/West Yorkshire's transport links where there are many small train stations within easy driving/cycling distance of villages where houses are much cheaper due to the fact they aren't in a big city.
You've got all the benefits of East London and then some, not only that, it's open to talent from a much larger section of the country - people can easily get there from pretty much anywhere in England due to good fast train links and good motorway links, whereas East London is horribly inaccessible to anyone other than Londoners.
It really was one of the most braindead moves to date, why have a silicon valley clone in somewhere so inaccessible to much of the country's talent when you can have it somewhere much more accessible, and right next to the very most important thing that would feed it (Cambridge University) and similarly near many existing tech firms including companies such as ARM.
No because funnily enough I don't bookmark and log every Slashdot conversation ever that may have some relevance in the future.
You're more than welcome to check through past discussions about Firefox over the last few years and see for yourself.
I suppose it's possible someone said they were a Firefox dev when answering but weren't, though that seems a little odd and unlikely.
Certainly I recall in one of the Firefox release threads dating back to perhaps the Firefox 4 release IIRC there was a big discussion about it where some dev, or claimed dev stated exactly this though.
It sucks if you got a faulty one, but the vast majority seem to be fine - certainly all those delivered more recently seem to be past the problem. I guess it was a manufacturing fault in the earliest batch(es).
Only if they're installed from the Play store, and only explicitly so if they're malicious.
Why not just get a Google Nexus 7? It seems to tick all those boxes and is, IMO, a nicer device to boot.
No one loses money on budget models, because by the time something has become a budget model the cost of production has decreased so much there's a healthy margin on the product.
It's the same with phones, tablets, and consoles. The PS3 and 360 both made hefty losses on release, but now make healthy profits per unit sold.
If you're still making a loss on your old model by the time it is actually old then you're doing something very very wrong.
To be fair, most companies keep selling the old one until the new product is actually available though. Some even continue to sell the old model afterwards as a budget model.
Quite possibly, but the point is LG is likely still buying parts for those screens from Samsung, or at least licensing patents for those screens from Samsung anyway, that's the issue for Apple - somewhere down the supply chain they'll bump into Samsung one way or another.
Maybe Barrack's level 60 wizard got killed by Ahmadinejad's level 60 warrior or whatever the fuck you get in these games nowadays?
Problem is, Samsung still owns important patents on those modern displays, so if LG makes them for Apple instead, Samsung can just makes sure it increases licensing costs on those patents.
The issue is that even if you find a manufacturer to manufacture alternatives to Samsung that in all likelihood:
- Samsung still produces the core components you need to manufacture the technology
and/or:
- Samsung has patents on the technology you are producing
When you're producing a device that makes use of so many different wireless technologies, modern displays, audio, battery powered, cameras and so on and so forth, it's almost a certainty that you can't write Samsung out of the equation completely.
If it's their browser, and they can fix it, then it's very much their problem. It's their application hogging all the memory at the end of the day, even if the plugins are the things triggering that. People understand, but the buck has to stop with Mozilla on issues like this because it's their product and they created the plugin interface and allowed it to cause these problems.
As for your last comment, the answer is simple, people have arrogantly been told time and time again that it's not Mozilla's problem, and end-users dont want to hear that, it's Mozilla's product so it IS Mozilla's problem. People don't want to deal with arrogant devs who ignore the usersbase over things like defaulting do not track to off, stupid ideas like version number inflation, silent updating and so forth. If people hate Mozilla it's because Mozilla has become arrogant, and doesn't listen to the userbase.
This is also almost certainly why Firefox has lost a massive amount of marketshare to Chrome.
The point is with something like IE you would be able to do it with your existing management tools (i.e. group policies).
If it's more complicated then it's not that an IT admin can't do it, but why should they do it when the tools that come bundled with the OS do it better?
If the FOSS community wants to beat Microsoft, it needs to do better than Microsoft, not worse. I've seen many shops stick to using the likes of IE for exactly this reason.
I have Firefox installed on my home and work PCs, last time they auto-updated despite them having always had exactly the same configuration options set, the UI changed different on both.
They're identical versions according to Help -> About, they're running on the same OS, which has the same UI settings set, and as I say, they even have the same settings set themselves.
Yet on my work PC, the back button is a big round circle, and the next button is invisible until it's active, though greys out once it's appeared and is irrelevant. On my home PC the back buttons are identically sized, square, and always visible.
If Mozilla can't even keep the UI consistent between different systems with identical configuration when they update them silently then I don't have much confidence in their auto-update process.
You're right, silent-update is an awful change. More so if you're trying to deal with web site development and the version changes on you part way through and causes a rendering change such that you mistake the sudden change as an obscure bug in your code.
Posting on Slashdot certainly wont. People have been complaining about memory leaks in Firefox for years and some of the devs have repeatedly come here and told us there aren't any.
Right, so why the fuck did they just fix one in this update?
Hopefully they're more helpful on the project mailing list/bug tracker like you suggest, but you're spot on about reporting it here being no use, as although they will see it, they'll just pretend it isn't a problem and that Firefox is flawless.
"Look it is simple. You want to believe and trust that your government officials would never ever expand the reach of a program like this without telling you."
But that's exactly it, they can do precisely this because people like you push the incorrect idea that they do this already, so there's no political risk in them actually doing so if people think they do it already even though they don't. You're the reason they can get away with it because you spread FUD suggesting they already do, so when they do people falsely assume nothing has changed and they get away with it.
" The technology to do so is there now. You chose to ignore that. And just because the UK wasted X on inferior technology does not mean they won't turn right around and spend Y on the new technology they should have bought in the first place."
Unless it's politically untenable because people know how the current system actually works, and so when the government decides to push it further, people say no, that's a step too far. That can't happen whilst people like you vocally push the idea that they can and do already do this because people think nothing is changing. If they're aware the government wants to change the status quo they can voice their opinion over it, give the opposition parties a chance to attack them on it, and reduce the chance of it being passable. This is exactly what happened with the UK's ID card scheme thankfully - the people were aware it was a bit step towards big brother and stopped it. It's less likely to happen with the replacement for the IMP because due to people like you, people think it happens already anyway so don't care.
"Stop believing what they tell you because they will *not* ever tell you that bad parts."
Right, but that's nothing to do with my point here. We know for a fact what the likes of Gatsos and Truvelos are capable of, and it's not what you're claiming.
Great, so you named a handful of roads that use average speed cameras amongst all the rest that don't. Sure it sounds like Nottingham council and/or it's constabulary use them a bit more, but this is rare, the only other place I've seen a handful is near Cambridgeshire, pretty much the rest of the UK still just uses Gatsos.
I didn't say you claimed they take video, but my point was that they don't take video which is in contrast to what the conspiracy theorists claim - that they constantly film us, if you weren't disputing that then what exactly in my post were you disputing as that was the crux of my point - that speed cameras only actually catch people who have already broken the law, and are not a constant monitoring device for people who have done nothing wrong which is often what the nutjobs claim. Because of them the government can say "Well, we might as well invest in live filming capacity, it'll cost us no political capital because all the nutjobs are claiming we do that already and the general public now believe that". My point is that by recognising what the current take is really capable of, and sticking to rational arguments such as "Well, if it sticks to just catching people who actually break the law fine, but if you want to spend money replacing them so you can record everyone's movements innocent or not, then that really is a step too far" then the political capital needed to implement them becomes a lot harder for politicians to justify.
"PS: You think your beloved UK police and gov't officials don't have what the French do?"
No, we bought about 4,000 standalone Gatsos at an average of £30k a piece, so can't afford to replace them with a networked network of cameras. Note also that even the French cameras in the link you posted still only take and send back stills of people who actually break the speed limit, rather than a stream of life video, again perfectly proving my people that sensationalist nutjobs like yourself only act to give governments something to point out and shout "Well they don't know what they're on about anyway" because, er, you don't.
"You really, really are f*ng naive."
I'm naive because you quoted something that proves my point? Where in that paragraph does it talk about constantly watching? about recording live video of everyone including those not breaking the law? What exactly do you believe you proved me wrong on? as there's nothing in that sentence that contradicts anything I said about cameras
Honestly, if you can't even interpret the very paragraphs you link and paste and compare them against what I said then how do you expect anyone to think you're capable of a rational argument? why would you expect anyone to listen to you, much less people who don't want to listen to you like oppressive government officials. Why not stick to the facts so that you're argument is worth listening to- I fully agree with your first sentence, and to a large extent your second sentence, but this is exactly it- you then ruin it by failing to follow through with a coherent argument after that and that's the problem - people will use that to shoot down your whole argument where it suits, including the more factual bits. Stick to pursuing an argument that follows logically, and they can't do that, paste something that backs up what the other guy was saying in contradiction to what you believe you're proving, and they can.
"Wait, where do you live? Across Nottinghamshire, Leicestershire, Derbyshire, Staffordshire, Cheshire, Greater Manchester and Lincolnshire where I do most of my driving the cameras are all electronic.
The average speed ones in the West Midlands and Derbyshire work exactly by filming everyone."
The only speed cameras that have the capacity to record live video are the average speed cameras, yet they do not have the bandwidth to feed it back so merely do ANPR and track this data. These cameras are also not commonplace, and only exist on a small number of major roads across the country and often in places of roadworks in large motorways (such as when there was heavy roadworks near Nottingham on the M1).
Nearly all other speed cameras are still film Gatsos or Truvelos, there are some digital Gatsos but they still have no capacity to record video, so you know nothing about the topic if you believe they are all electronic, and all record video in the areas you state, they are not, it's that simple. See here for example where it points out that 90% of cameras in the UK are Gatsos which lays waste to your argument that most are cameras that record video rather than single images.
"Ah, the irony."
There's irony here for sure, in that you prove my point by spouting sensationalist nonsense that does not hold up in light of the facts whilst believing you're somehow proving me wrong. You've done quite the opposite.
"How naive are you? You actually believe that hokum? "Yeah we only store the ones who have already broken the law" or "We only film the ones who actually are speeding." Yeah.. ok."
I'm not naive, and fortunately, I'm also not a conspiracy theorist. Standard yellow speed cameras aren't even technically capable of filming everyone, they have no video capability and still use limited capacity film (which is why you see the police changing it now and again).
This really illustrates how far out of proportion kooks like you have blown the argument, if you don't even understand the technical capabilities of the devices you're suggesting can do more than they actually can then how can you be respected in a discussion on them?
It's nutjobs like yourself that are the reason governments do sometimes get away with pushing things too far, as they can point to the blatant errors in your arguments and say "Look, this guy complaining doesn't even understand the basics of what he's on about" as a tool to discredit the argument of the rest of us.
You don't do anyone any favours, you just act as a convenient idiot that the government can use to defame those with a more rational and informed opposition to their plans when they try and step out of line. There are sensationalists on both sides - those screaming terrorist at everything that moves then suggesting we need some new tool to infringe people's rights to deal with those imagined terrorists, then on the other side there are people like you, crying that we're being watched by things that don't even have the technical capacity to watch us. The real, reasoned and objective arguments against new intrusions of privacy and rights get lost in the bullshit of both sides and the government just makes the decision themselves ignoring the opposition for this reason. Something that is much harder to do if the opposition is rational, reasoned, and has the facts on their side.
So thank you for being part of the problem. Thank you very fucking much.
The number of people viewing online has been static for the best part of a decade now and basically stems from the same pool of people who would used to have borrow a VHS from a friend, any adjustments for that have long been known. As a result contracts have long been based on that such that any financial calculation as to whether a show is viable based on ad revenue will be done purely on forecasted live viewing figures for this very reason.
Unlike people who sell software, music, and DVDs as a product, the TV industry has long been smart enough to only count on live figures when negotiating such contracts because they know anything else is just wishful thinking. Just as the TV industry can't count on classing any post-broadcast viewers as ad targets.
Yeah this is the primary reason Samsung wont do that, they make enough profit from it to continue.
What they could consider doing though is upping the prices to claw back that $1billion that way, and they can even target it. As many point out Apple can go elsewhere, but not on all components - even where other manufacturers can develop other components Samsung often holds patents.
Screen technology is one area where Samsung could really screw Apple by upping the cost to them, as they're easily the market leaders in this field, both large and small, hence why IIRC even Sony now uses Samsung panels in their TVs. As they invented things like AMOLED they will hold enough patents on current/next gen screen tech to deny Apple access to the best displays, or at least up the cost to them by increasing licensing costs of such tech.
Apple puts together a good product, but Samsung invents the new technology that Apple needs to build those products, so Apple needs to be very careful. If the rumoured Apple TV turns out to be true for example then Apple is either beholden to Samsung for panels, or they put up with inferior quality panels.
There's no doubt Apple is playing a dangerous game, and Samsung is well positioned to claw back any cost Apple has made to them. If the lawsuits all continue to go Apple's way they could push Samsung out of the cellphone market, but they've not got a chance in hell of avoiding Samsung in the components market altogether - they hold too many patents and are the sole producer of too many of those components for that to be possible.