On the contrary, it isn't out yet, so condition 1 (it's not selling many copies on base) is most assuredly true. The RTFA zing is well deserved, though.
And--to return to the summary--it's not that I (or my kids) have been reading less, or even buying fewer books. But we have, over the past decade, stopped buying books from B&N and mall stores. Something about lower prices and "free" two-day shipping at the other place (yes, I have Prime).
That's right. Only smart people should be allowed to use smart phones. Or any other technology./sarc
You're complaining that users' competence is... at times inadequate. You may be right, but who's responsibility is it to compensate for that? By definition, such users can't, as they don't know any better.
It's times like this where curated app stores start to make sense.
I've had a small handful of pdfs (created w/ different methods, including OS X's print function, and another through PHP's pdf library) not display properly. Some worked well in Preview.app (but not in Reader on Windows; others were the other way around. Sometimes it was text that would show (or not), but typically it was a background image that didn't consistently render. The most recent incident was two+ years, a different job, and several OS versions ago (Tiger), so I can't say whether the issues persist.
Sounds a little like a troll, using an extreme example, then providing a poor solution.
No need to parameterize column names or table values--use a whitelist instead. The point with parameterized queries is to filter unknown input. Parameters are only one type of filter. Besides, if you've exposed your table|column names, you're not encapsulating properly.
As for an unknown number of parameters, that's trivial to handle. Loop on your (filtered) list of conditions, and add a " AND {$col_name} = ?" for each.
With regard to the db not supporting parameters (of any kind), you're right, but as it's not true of any major modern RDMS, your example comes out as FUD.
For the sake of the scenario,... you are sitting at a desk where you have both any tools required on your desktop,...
And this:
Some just stare at you dumbfounded without a clue if they don't have Google in front of them.
Not to be a jerk, but make up your mind. For many purposes, Google is an invaluable tool. The skill you want is the ability to think for one's self--and some may have enough knowledge to know which keywords to look for.
... And maybe I'm good enough to be picky, but I wouldn't want to work for anyone who yelled at me (even role-playing) in an interview.
If everyone adhered to those principles, there would be no need to enforce them. However, humanity as a whole is too self-interested to allow that to happen.
Says you. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled a long time ago that the federal government can regulate entire industries, even though portions of them are decidedly local. (Including quotas on grain grown on one's own land that were not trafficked in any way.)
Several comments here presume Apple has filed a police report. I haven't seen that stated in any of the news reports.
It's my understanding that the police don't need a complain to investigate this as a possible crime. The public nature of the event (and maybe a gentle phone call from some power broker) might be enough to capture their attention.
They did't need to conclude it was Apple's property. They only needed to conclude it a) wasn't theirs, and b) it didn't belong to the person who sold it to them. The fact it belonged to Apple is (in the eyes of the law) irrelevant.
How exactly can the device be considered stolen property?
My understanding of the adventure of the lost iPhone 4G/HD is thus: 1) Someone loses Apple property 2) Someone else finds it 3) Finder makes half-assed attempt to return it, knowing it's not his 3a) Finder never mentions to bartender that he found the phone, so the Owner's repeated calls are fruitless 4) Apple rebuffs finder and does not attempt to recover or claim the property (at this point how can it be considered stolen???) 4a) Finder still knows it's not his 5) Finder sells property to Gizmodo; both parties know the Finder is not the Owner, so the transaction is legally questionable 6) Gizmodo blabs about it, , after spending several days taking it apart and documenting it 7) Apple contacts Gizmodo and asks for their property back 8) Gizmodo, now having had it for long enough to completely dissect it, returns property to Apple
Fixed that for ya'.
The phone didn't have to belong to Apple for either Gizmodo or the Finder to know it wasn't theirs. It could have belonged to anyone, and per California Penal Code 485, there still might be enough room for a felony case. (IANAL)
Apple have closed it off for no apparent reason other than to spite Adobe.
That's rather short-sighted. It also deals a blow to Microsoft's.NET platform.
One reason that's been popping up with apologists (and it makes sense to me) is that Apple wants apps on its device to use native controls. Apple wants the user experience/look-and-feel to be consistent, and it's not possible when apps are built to be cross-compiled to multiple platforms. (For example, the Java applications I use still don't "feel" right when compared against native apps, both on Windows and OS X.) Cross-platform frameworks must work with the common denominator, and it makes the results less appealing. Gamers often experience similar issues with ported games.
It's an experience that Apple may wish to avoid.
Other possible reasos: It creates a higher bar for developers in an effort to encourage quality. As an example, compare the number of available PHP apps to the number of _quality_ PHP apps. A higher barrier to entry (Objective-C) will also help keep their already over-taxed app store from being flooded....
Anyway, that's several reasons (other than to spite Adobe) that Apple might have chosen this course. I'm sure there are others. I'd bet Adobe is only a fraction of the equation.
Your analysis assumes a) those prosecuted would have stopped on their own (you underestimate their lifetime earning potential), b) the amount reported reflects the actual amount stolen, c) the actions of these governments will have no deterrence effect, and d) this money wasn't used to fund other illegal activities. Even if you still believe the amount lost is lower than what was spent on enforcement, it's clear some judgements were made regarding the value of perceived justice|security|.*.
It's not the free copies of books/movies/whatever that are troubling (to me). It's the strong correlation between positive reviews and lucrative advertising contracts on some sites that I find deceptive. That's the part that should be disclosed.
But that sort of activity is difficult to regulate against without banning product ads on the sites that review those same products.
However for political and social commentary, what do I get from reading a web log written from the point of view of my own biases? Someone to tell me what I already believe so I can respond with how insightful the poster is?
What do you get? You get to be like the vast majority of people. We (often unconsciously) seek out those that are similar to us as a way of validating ourselves. If others are like us, we must be pretty good people. If (smart|rich|famous|powerful) people think the same way we do, we must then be more valuable. Feeding our self-image leads to some pretty potent biases.
And while you certainly deserve kudos for seeking out those with conflicting opinions in order to challenge your world views, it is still highly likely you're seeking out those like you. (You're on Slashdot, for goodness sakes.) Most of your friends are likely of similar age, marital status, education, and ethnicity. They have similar interests to you.
Trying to overcome these biases can be a good thing. Just don't think you've beaten them.
Amen. The summary says Americans don't want targeted ads--which is quite a different statement from the much clearer statement further down that we don't want targeted ads created from following our behavior across the internet.
I *do* want targeted ads. When I sign up for a store's loyalty program (like I did last week), I *don't* want five ad emails from the company in the next seven days pushing me clothes that have no relation to my purchasing habits (which is exactly what happened). It should be no surprise that I'm a fan of "permission marketing" as espoused by Seth Godin. If Netflix can do such a remarkable job of guessing my preferences with a handful of data points, these stores should too. And don't bother me otherwise.
The part of the survey scenario that's creepy is the single entity tracking my viewing habits across multiple sites.
>The "long tail" phenomenon as used in this context describes the belief that the revenue gained from the long tail exceeds that gained from the top selling items.
That's idiotic. The purpose of the long tail is to ensure the survivability of the business versus competition. The reason why the tail is "long" (and thin) is because it doesn't generate a lot of interest or revenue.
I didn't say I agreed with the claim. It's an idea that (as you point out) is not intended for to brick-and-mortars; the long tail is given as a reason why web business are superior to physical stores.
The term was coined and perpetuated by Chris Anderson, author of The Long Tail and, more recently, Free.
Increasingly, long-tail claims are being disproved by researchers.
It only describes the shape of the market... It's a market definition, not a competition definition.
Not wholly accurate. The "long tail" phenomenon as used in this context describes the belief that the revenue gained from the long tail exceeds that gained from the top selling items. The idea encourages production and sales of items that appeal to niche markets.
This idea has not yet been born out by the marketplace. While it's true that those who frequent Slashdot (and let's be honest, most here are probably close to being outliers in any normal distribution) may enjoy the less popular media the populates the long tail, most of the media sold in the U.S. is still sold by Walmart, which keeps primarily the most recent stuff in stock.
Just a couple of days ago I listened to a presentation by researchers from Emory who came to the same conclusion with music album sales. In order for the long tail to work, prices have to be low enough that sampling behavior is enabled--but there is still a significant herd mentality when purchasing music. (So it's not much of a stretch to extrapolate this to video, to align w/ the article.) A quick peek at the seasonal distribution of sales explains this: for album sales, the Christmas season sells significantly more than at the rest of the year, suggesting album sales are mostly gifts, where purchases are likely to be risk-averse. (So, no long tail effect there.) The same research has not been done at the _track_ level, where sampling is more likely, but it the very un-bundling of tracks from albums that is leading to revenue declines in the music industry.
Other research suggests that Netflix would be *more* likely to display the long tail effect than other media outlets. Its very nature is sampling (rentals at very low cost), so it's a good place to look for the long tail. Decision psychologists refer to the "want self" and the "should self", the competing faces of our internal dialogue. A service like Netflix is more likely to trigger the "should self" because gratification (watching a DVD) is delayed from the initial decision, leading to a higher likelihood of "art film"-style selections than is found at, say, a $1-night DVD vending machine. Thus, the findings of these researchers showing no long-tail effect from Netflix data are additionally convincing.
Slashdot Mirror
RTFA. It isn't out yet, so condition 1 is false.
On the contrary, it isn't out yet, so condition 1 (it's not selling many copies on base) is most assuredly true. The RTFA zing is well deserved, though.
Print is dead.
Long live print!
I concur.
And--to return to the summary--it's not that I (or my kids) have been reading less, or even buying fewer books. But we have, over the past decade, stopped buying books from B&N and mall stores. Something about lower prices and "free" two-day shipping at the other place (yes, I have Prime).
That's right. Only smart people should be allowed to use smart phones. Or any other technology. /sarc
You're complaining that users' competence is ... at times inadequate. You may be right, but who's responsibility is it to compensate for that? By definition, such users can't, as they don't know any better.
It's times like this where curated app stores start to make sense.
A judgment in Rambus's favor would be worth at least $397 million, according to the company's general counsel, ...
Sounds like just enough to pay the attorneys ...
I'm glad I'm not the only person thinking along these lines.
One solution? Raise the rates for third-class/bulk mail/junk mail (and if you want to be really aggressive, political flyers).
Lucky you.
I've had a small handful of pdfs (created w/ different methods, including OS X's print function, and another through PHP's pdf library) not display properly. Some worked well in Preview.app (but not in Reader on Windows; others were the other way around. Sometimes it was text that would show (or not), but typically it was a background image that didn't consistently render. The most recent incident was two+ years, a different job, and several OS versions ago (Tiger), so I can't say whether the issues persist.
Modded flaimbait? After MSFT's recent comments regarding iPhone4 being Apple's "Vista", I found the comment rather funny.
Sounds a little like a troll, using an extreme example, then providing a poor solution.
No need to parameterize column names or table values--use a whitelist instead. The point with parameterized queries is to filter unknown input. Parameters are only one type of filter. Besides, if you've exposed your table|column names, you're not encapsulating properly.
As for an unknown number of parameters, that's trivial to handle. Loop on your (filtered) list of conditions, and add a " AND {$col_name} = ?" for each.
With regard to the db not supporting parameters (of any kind), you're right, but as it's not true of any major modern RDMS, your example comes out as FUD.
You said this:
For the sake of the scenario, ... you are sitting at a desk where you have both any tools required on your desktop, ...
And this:
Some just stare at you dumbfounded without a clue if they don't have Google in front of them.
Not to be a jerk, but make up your mind. For many purposes, Google is an invaluable tool. The skill you want is the ability to think for one's self--and some may have enough knowledge to know which keywords to look for.
... And maybe I'm good enough to be picky, but I wouldn't want to work for anyone who yelled at me (even role-playing) in an interview.
You've encountered seven point scales (often called Likert scales: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Likert_scale ) in the past. [Please select the best answer]
- Strongly disagree
- Disagree
- Somewhat disagree
- Neither agree nor disagree
- Somewhat agree
- Agree
- Strongly agree
You kinda missed his point.
If everyone adhered to those principles, there would be no need to enforce them. However, humanity as a whole is too self-interested to allow that to happen.
Says you. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled a long time ago that the federal government can regulate entire industries, even though portions of them are decidedly local. (Including quotas on grain grown on one's own land that were not trafficked in any way.)
See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commerce_Clause
IANAL.
4. Apple files a police report.
Several comments here presume Apple has filed a police report. I haven't seen that stated in any of the news reports.
It's my understanding that the police don't need a complain to investigate this as a possible crime. The public nature of the event (and maybe a gentle phone call from some power broker) might be enough to capture their attention.
They did't need to conclude it was Apple's property. They only needed to conclude it a) wasn't theirs, and b) it didn't belong to the person who sold it to them. The fact it belonged to Apple is (in the eyes of the law) irrelevant.
How exactly can the device be considered stolen property?
My understanding of the adventure of the lost iPhone 4G/HD is thus:
1) Someone loses Apple property
2) Someone else finds it
3) Finder makes half-assed attempt to return it, knowing it's not his
3a) Finder never mentions to bartender that he found the phone, so the Owner's repeated calls are fruitless
4) Apple rebuffs finder and does not attempt to recover or claim the property (at this point how can it be considered stolen???)
4a) Finder still knows it's not his
5) Finder sells property to Gizmodo; both parties know the Finder is not the Owner, so the transaction is legally questionable
6) Gizmodo blabs about it, , after spending several days taking it apart and documenting it
7) Apple contacts Gizmodo and asks for their property back
8) Gizmodo, now having had it for long enough to completely dissect it, returns property to Apple
Fixed that for ya'.
The phone didn't have to belong to Apple for either Gizmodo or the Finder to know it wasn't theirs. It could have belonged to anyone, and per California Penal Code 485, there still might be enough room for a felony case. (IANAL)
Apple have closed it off for no apparent reason other than to spite Adobe.
That's rather short-sighted. It also deals a blow to Microsoft's .NET platform.
One reason that's been popping up with apologists (and it makes sense to me) is that Apple wants apps on its device to use native controls. Apple wants the user experience/look-and-feel to be consistent, and it's not possible when apps are built to be cross-compiled to multiple platforms. (For example, the Java applications I use still don't "feel" right when compared against native apps, both on Windows and OS X.) Cross-platform frameworks must work with the common denominator, and it makes the results less appealing. Gamers often experience similar issues with ported games.
It's an experience that Apple may wish to avoid.
Other possible reasos: It creates a higher bar for developers in an effort to encourage quality. As an example, compare the number of available PHP apps to the number of _quality_ PHP apps. A higher barrier to entry (Objective-C) will also help keep their already over-taxed app store from being flooded. ...
Anyway, that's several reasons (other than to spite Adobe) that Apple might have chosen this course. I'm sure there are others. I'd bet Adobe is only a fraction of the equation.
Your analysis assumes a) those prosecuted would have stopped on their own (you underestimate their lifetime earning potential), b) the amount reported reflects the actual amount stolen, c) the actions of these governments will have no deterrence effect, and d) this money wasn't used to fund other illegal activities. Even if you still believe the amount lost is lower than what was spent on enforcement, it's clear some judgements were made regarding the value of perceived justice|security|.*.
It's not the free copies of books/movies/whatever that are troubling (to me). It's the strong correlation between positive reviews and lucrative advertising contracts on some sites that I find deceptive. That's the part that should be disclosed.
But that sort of activity is difficult to regulate against without banning product ads on the sites that review those same products.
However for political and social commentary, what do I get from reading a web log written from the point of view of my own biases? Someone to tell me what I already believe so I can respond with how insightful the poster is?
What do you get? You get to be like the vast majority of people. We (often unconsciously) seek out those that are similar to us as a way of validating ourselves. If others are like us, we must be pretty good people. If (smart|rich|famous|powerful) people think the same way we do, we must then be more valuable. Feeding our self-image leads to some pretty potent biases.
And while you certainly deserve kudos for seeking out those with conflicting opinions in order to challenge your world views, it is still highly likely you're seeking out those like you. (You're on Slashdot, for goodness sakes.) Most of your friends are likely of similar age, marital status, education, and ethnicity. They have similar interests to you.
Trying to overcome these biases can be a good thing. Just don't think you've beaten them.
Amen. The summary says Americans don't want targeted ads--which is quite a different statement from the much clearer statement further down that we don't want targeted ads created from following our behavior across the internet.
I *do* want targeted ads. When I sign up for a store's loyalty program (like I did last week), I *don't* want five ad emails from the company in the next seven days pushing me clothes that have no relation to my purchasing habits (which is exactly what happened). It should be no surprise that I'm a fan of "permission marketing" as espoused by Seth Godin. If Netflix can do such a remarkable job of guessing my preferences with a handful of data points, these stores should too. And don't bother me otherwise.
The part of the survey scenario that's creepy is the single entity tracking my viewing habits across multiple sites.
Syfy has the single lamest rebranding since Spike?
I think you're forgetting The Shack
Apparently the Judge was in his dorm room stoned when they discussed the fifth amendment.
The fifth... And the fourth. And fourteenth. And ninth ...
>The "long tail" phenomenon as used in this context describes the belief that the revenue gained from the long tail exceeds that gained from the top selling items.
That's idiotic. The purpose of the long tail is to ensure the survivability of the business versus competition. The reason why the tail is "long" (and thin) is because it doesn't generate a lot of interest or revenue.
I didn't say I agreed with the claim. It's an idea that (as you point out) is not intended for to brick-and-mortars; the long tail is given as a reason why web business are superior to physical stores.
The term was coined and perpetuated by Chris Anderson, author of The Long Tail and, more recently, Free.
Increasingly, long-tail claims are being disproved by researchers.
It only describes the shape of the market ... It's a market definition, not a competition definition.
Not wholly accurate. The "long tail" phenomenon as used in this context describes the belief that the revenue gained from the long tail exceeds that gained from the top selling items. The idea encourages production and sales of items that appeal to niche markets.
This idea has not yet been born out by the marketplace. While it's true that those who frequent Slashdot (and let's be honest, most here are probably close to being outliers in any normal distribution) may enjoy the less popular media the populates the long tail, most of the media sold in the U.S. is still sold by Walmart, which keeps primarily the most recent stuff in stock.
Just a couple of days ago I listened to a presentation by researchers from Emory who came to the same conclusion with music album sales. In order for the long tail to work, prices have to be low enough that sampling behavior is enabled--but there is still a significant herd mentality when purchasing music. (So it's not much of a stretch to extrapolate this to video, to align w/ the article.) A quick peek at the seasonal distribution of sales explains this: for album sales, the Christmas season sells significantly more than at the rest of the year, suggesting album sales are mostly gifts, where purchases are likely to be risk-averse. (So, no long tail effect there.) The same research has not been done at the _track_ level, where sampling is more likely, but it the very un-bundling of tracks from albums that is leading to revenue declines in the music industry.
Other research suggests that Netflix would be *more* likely to display the long tail effect than other media outlets. Its very nature is sampling (rentals at very low cost), so it's a good place to look for the long tail. Decision psychologists refer to the "want self" and the "should self", the competing faces of our internal dialogue. A service like Netflix is more likely to trigger the "should self" because gratification (watching a DVD) is delayed from the initial decision, leading to a higher likelihood of "art film"-style selections than is found at, say, a $1-night DVD vending machine. Thus, the findings of these researchers showing no long-tail effect from Netflix data are additionally convincing.