If Vista makes companies more productive then they can create more jobs
I was going to take it a step further: shouldn't the more productive companies be able to cut jobs because they can produce the same output with fewer people? (Yeah, ok, I know this is a stretch for something like Vista, but it was someone else's fantasy to start...) That kind of job-cutting could fit in the Creative Destruction model of economics, which is a bit different from the parable of the broken window, I think.
Still, I'm sure M$ would not have paid for a study that produced the headline "Vista to Cost 50,000 Jobs in Yerp".
Or, maybe a BHV would discuss the implications of trying to solve the problem in a particular way, which might elicit lots of hidden assumptions. The BHV would enumerate as many assumptions and constraints as possible and show that he's good at defining problems before solving them.
In other words, I'd be more impressed with a response along the lines of "well, I could create a solution along the following lines in the time alotted, but that's not the best approach because such a solution would lack x, y, z, etc.", followed by the BHV actually demonstrating the best available solution in the time alotted.
This is only slightly different from parent's vision of the "right approach", but in a way that I somehow find important; maybe I'm on to something, or maybe I'm just different (like Forest Gump was different).
Political speech is vital free speech, and always legal.
Well, it's legal in this case, but it has nothing to do with our constitutional notion of free speech or the intellectual foundations of liberal democracy. Free speech does not establish an obligation for anyone to listen. IMNSHO, the proper intellectual and (arguably) constitutional framework here should be the right of privacy. All calls should be banned (for anyone registering). Different categories of registration would satisfy my objections, too, but might be too complicated and create even more loopholes.
I remember seeing a similar monologue on the physics of Santa. You start with basic facts like the number of children in the world, the proportion that are Christian, the average size/weight of each gift, etc. and deduce how big the sleigh would have to be... you fold in how fast the whole outfit would need to travel in order to deliver everything in one night... and you end up deducing that Santa would explode or something like that. IANAP, obviously, but it was pretty funny.
No mod points at the moment, but will promise 2 of my next five to the first post of the link.
I didn't mean to imply that YouTube was following all the excesses of the dot-com boom. I was just observing that no one seems to care whether they had a plan for revenue or if they just figured they could "grow their way to profitability". Last time I analyzed that proposition, you needed a revenue model, which seems almost too obvious to mention as an essential part of a business plan. Maybe YouTube has this all figured in its plans. But the discussion up to the point where I made my OP seemed very dot-commie (pun intended) to me.
OK, I agree that YouTube hasn't done everything that the dot-com idiots did.
But it sure sounds speculative to build "amazing brand awareness" without a plan for what to do with it.
Incidentally, I'm not saying that's what YouTube has done. I'm just saying that if they've done all this without a plan, then they're idiots. The OP seemed to imply that YouTube has built this amazingly huge venture only to ask, gee, how do we get revenue to pay for all this?
ultimately there's no business model to support this
Well, you suggest one in your very next sentence (cross-subsidy).
I would be verrrrry interested in acquiring YouTube to complement my actual moneymaking ventures
Complement is exactly the right word. Money-losing definitely complements money-making. Are you seriously suggesting that someone can "make it up on the volume"?
the ultimate point is that whether or not YouTube has a viable *business* model is not relevant
I can't think of anything more relevant to the discussion of whether or not YouTube has a viable business model... than whether or not YouTube has a viable business model.
OK, I get that it's bundling; and I get why that's "bad".
But, isn't burning a CD or DVD essentially I/O? (OK, maybe just O.) IANASA, but that sounds a lot like a basic OS function to me. Yeah, I know it's a direct competitor to existing "products". Existing products that exist because a basic OS function was... overlooked?
I'm trying not to be a smart-ass about this (but I was never very good at restraint). So, is it ok for MS to bundle basic OS functions with their OS?
sounds right to me, and hence, anything along Debian's new fork is also still GPLd, right? So why are so many people getting so worked up about a relatively amicable divorce?
Well, I admit that I haven't paid any attention to IQ scales for almost 20 years, but the original Stanford-Binet test had mean = 100 and standard deviation = 10. It's a fairly common "normalizing" scale, apart from IQ tests, because most of us find multiples of 10 easy on the brain. If it's 15 and not 10, then I'd definitely have to find a standard normal table to know the percentage left in the tail above 1.3 SDs above the mean.
So, for convenience alone, I hope it's still 10... my brain has atrophied quite a bit since I was an "expert" (and, yes, I was an "expert" but don't claim to be one anymore, which means I could be totally wrong on the whole 10 vs. 15 thingy).
OK, but you don't have to have a "don't sell to old people" policy to prevent a "push every possible upsale" policy. You would "protect" the elderly and others just as well with a policy of "sell what the customer needs". I know this sounds naive, but I'm just pointing out that solution to a bad policy is not necessarily the polar opposite of that policy.
The point is that you shoot about 80% of the people,
... speaking of IQ tests... results are normalized with a mean of 100 and a standard deviation of 10. Thus, scores of 120 are 2 standard deviations above the mean, leaving less* than 2.5% in the upper "tail", not 20 %... so you'd be shooting 97.5%... yeah, ok, so the last guy would be dead sooner... but still...
* this wasn't worth digging up a standard normal table; but the OP got all statistical on our asses, so let's at least remember some of the basics...
Yeah, I agree with the other responders who called bullshit on this.
If your claim were true, then the most obvious thing for any company to do with any new product would be to provide seed funding for a small company to sue it with a bogus patent claim, but settle it in order to remain bullet-proof against any future claims. Life is never that easy.
Well, I certainly agree with the upmods, but this hardly makes the explanation more casual.
Yes, the technology and the law are both somewhat complicated to the uninitiated, but the casual explanation is:
DRM is about restricting the ability to copy, transmit and execute digital media. Pro-DRM forces want the sellers of digital works to have as much power as possible to limit copying, transmission and execution by those who buy the works. Anti-DRM forces want the purchasers of digital works to have as much freedom as possible to copy, transmit and use the works in any time, place or manner of their choosing. The responsible anti-DRM forces recognize that such freedom should extend only to "fair use" as traditionally defined in copyright law.
Oh, and the pro-DRM forces and the anti-DRM forces really don't get along...
Wow, I had no idea how many light bulb geeks it takes to comment on a./ story. I'm impressed, and yet some how a bit scared.
I'm surprised that no one else has commented on the politics of this for Wal-Mart.
NOTE: I am not taking a position on Wal-Mart with this comment.
I'm merely observing that this is smart politics for a company that comes under such fire from the left. The CFL strategy is one the left would appear to love. I'm sure Wal-Mart haters will spin this in a way that somehow still makes Wal-Mart the Evil Empire, but even that will take attention away from unionization and the displacement of "mom and pop" stores. Again, I'm not taking a position on those things in this comment, just saying that I think Wal-Mart's strategy is politically clever.
I worked for [name deleted to protect the stupid] for 10 years, and $175MM is cheap compared to what we wasted on a few major IT projects that never went anywhere. It's not specific to Accenture, it's specific to bureaucracy, which is just as bad in large corporations as it is in the gubment.
It's hard to understand from TFA why Amzi still has a job, much less why he was promoted to CIO after being the special assistant to help straighten things out in the first place. Of course, I'm sure there are just as many non-IT people who should have been canned over this fiasco. (OK, I know that a CIO isn't necessarily an IT person.)
Slashdot Mirror
If Vista makes companies more productive then they can create more jobs
...) That kind of job-cutting could fit in the Creative Destruction model of economics, which is a bit different from the parable of the broken window, I think.
I was going to take it a step further: shouldn't the more productive companies be able to cut jobs because they can produce the same output with fewer people? (Yeah, ok, I know this is a stretch for something like Vista, but it was someone else's fantasy to start
Still, I'm sure M$ would not have paid for a study that produced the headline "Vista to Cost 50,000 Jobs in Yerp".
The / at the end of your link makes it broken, at least in my browser. I removed the / and found the article. Worth the effort; thanks!
Maybe.
Or, maybe a BHV would discuss the implications of trying to solve the problem in a particular way, which might elicit lots of hidden assumptions. The BHV would enumerate as many assumptions and constraints as possible and show that he's good at defining problems before solving them.
In other words, I'd be more impressed with a response along the lines of "well, I could create a solution along the following lines in the time alotted, but that's not the best approach because such a solution would lack x, y, z, etc.", followed by the BHV actually demonstrating the best available solution in the time alotted.
This is only slightly different from parent's vision of the "right approach", but in a way that I somehow find important; maybe I'm on to something, or maybe I'm just different (like Forest Gump was different).
Well, I had to put my /. dumbass hat on, since I realized I couldn't mod up your link comment, since I've already posted in this discussion.
However, I modded up your Re: Tracking is Good comment.
Karma is karma, right?
Can someone else mod up the parent "informative" or "funny"? (The link is funny, so either is appropriate.)
Political speech is vital free speech, and always legal.
Well, it's legal in this case, but it has nothing to do with our constitutional notion of free speech or the intellectual foundations of liberal democracy. Free speech does not establish an obligation for anyone to listen. IMNSHO, the proper intellectual and (arguably) constitutional framework here should be the right of privacy. All calls should be banned (for anyone registering). Different categories of registration would satisfy my objections, too, but might be too complicated and create even more loopholes.
I remember seeing a similar monologue on the physics of Santa. You start with basic facts like the number of children in the world, the proportion that are Christian, the average size/weight of each gift, etc. and deduce how big the sleigh would have to be ... you fold in how fast the whole outfit would need to travel in order to deliver everything in one night ... and you end up deducing that Santa would explode or something like that. IANAP, obviously, but it was pretty funny.
No mod points at the moment, but will promise 2 of my next five to the first post of the link.
I didn't mean to imply that YouTube was following all the excesses of the dot-com boom. I was just observing that no one seems to care whether they had a plan for revenue or if they just figured they could "grow their way to profitability". Last time I analyzed that proposition, you needed a revenue model, which seems almost too obvious to mention as an essential part of a business plan. Maybe YouTube has this all figured in its plans. But the discussion up to the point where I made my OP seemed very dot-commie (pun intended) to me.
OK, I agree that YouTube hasn't done everything that the dot-com idiots did.
But it sure sounds speculative to build "amazing brand awareness" without a plan for what to do with it.
Incidentally, I'm not saying that's what YouTube has done. I'm just saying that if they've done all this without a plan, then they're idiots. The OP seemed to imply that YouTube has built this amazingly huge venture only to ask, gee, how do we get revenue to pay for all this?
ultimately there's no business model to support this
... than whether or not YouTube has a viable business model.
...
Well, you suggest one in your very next sentence (cross-subsidy).
I would be verrrrry interested in acquiring YouTube to complement my actual moneymaking ventures
Complement is exactly the right word. Money-losing definitely complements money-making. Are you seriously suggesting that someone can "make it up on the volume"?
the ultimate point is that whether or not YouTube has a viable *business* model is not relevant
I can't think of anything more relevant to the discussion of whether or not YouTube has a viable business model
You proved my point
OK, I get that it's bundling; and I get why that's "bad".
... overlooked?
But, isn't burning a CD or DVD essentially I/O? (OK, maybe just O.) IANASA, but that sounds a lot like a basic OS function to me. Yeah, I know it's a direct competitor to existing "products". Existing products that exist because a basic OS function was
I'm trying not to be a smart-ass about this (but I was never very good at restraint). So, is it ok for MS to bundle basic OS functions with their OS?
Reminds me of the dot com boom.
You remember, right? Back in the days when you didn't need a business plan?
If YouTube hasn't already answered all these questions, then it truly learned nothing from the bust.
Seasoned Slashdot readers
...
vs.
snotty-nosed 11-year-old
So, why was this not modded redundant??
Aw, c'mon folks, let's laugh at ourselves once in a while
sounds right to me, and hence, anything along Debian's new fork is also still GPLd, right? So why are so many people getting so worked up about a relatively amicable divorce?
Well, I admit that I haven't paid any attention to IQ scales for almost 20 years, but the original Stanford-Binet test had mean = 100 and standard deviation = 10. It's a fairly common "normalizing" scale, apart from IQ tests, because most of us find multiples of 10 easy on the brain. If it's 15 and not 10, then I'd definitely have to find a standard normal table to know the percentage left in the tail above 1.3 SDs above the mean.
... my brain has atrophied quite a bit since I was an "expert" (and, yes, I was an "expert" but don't claim to be one anymore, which means I could be totally wrong on the whole 10 vs. 15 thingy).
So, for convenience alone, I hope it's still 10
OK, but you don't have to have a "don't sell to old people" policy to prevent a "push every possible upsale" policy. You would "protect" the elderly and others just as well with a policy of "sell what the customer needs". I know this sounds naive, but I'm just pointing out that solution to a bad policy is not necessarily the polar opposite of that policy.
I'm sure it's not legal to call age a disability, but each year I see fewer reasons why!
The point is that you shoot about 80% of the people,
... speaking of IQ tests ... results are normalized with a mean of 100 and a standard deviation of 10. Thus, scores of 120 are 2 standard deviations above the mean, leaving less* than 2.5% in the upper "tail", not 20 % ... so you'd be shooting 97.5% ... yeah, ok, so the last guy would be dead sooner ... but still ...
...
* this wasn't worth digging up a standard normal table; but the OP got all statistical on our asses, so let's at least remember some of the basics
Yeah, I agree with the other responders who called bullshit on this.
If your claim were true, then the most obvious thing for any company to do with any new product would be to provide seed funding for a small company to sue it with a bogus patent claim, but settle it in order to remain bullet-proof against any future claims. Life is never that easy.
it's supposed to be a door-opener to further discussion
I thought it was supposed to be an attempt to get laid.
Babelfish was the Newton of early web translators, right?
IANAL, but I'm pretty sure everything you say you want is considered fair use.
Well, I certainly agree with the upmods, but this hardly makes the explanation more casual.
...
Yes, the technology and the law are both somewhat complicated to the uninitiated, but the casual explanation is:
DRM is about restricting the ability to copy, transmit and execute digital media. Pro-DRM forces want the sellers of digital works to have as much power as possible to limit copying, transmission and execution by those who buy the works. Anti-DRM forces want the purchasers of digital works to have as much freedom as possible to copy, transmit and use the works in any time, place or manner of their choosing. The responsible anti-DRM forces recognize that such freedom should extend only to "fair use" as traditionally defined in copyright law.
Oh, and the pro-DRM forces and the anti-DRM forces really don't get along
Wow, I had no idea how many light bulb geeks it takes to comment on a ./ story. I'm impressed, and yet some how a bit scared.
I'm surprised that no one else has commented on the politics of this for Wal-Mart.
NOTE: I am not taking a position on Wal-Mart with this comment.
I'm merely observing that this is smart politics for a company that comes under such fire from the left. The CFL strategy is one the left would appear to love. I'm sure Wal-Mart haters will spin this in a way that somehow still makes Wal-Mart the Evil Empire, but even that will take attention away from unionization and the displacement of "mom and pop" stores. Again, I'm not taking a position on those things in this comment, just saying that I think Wal-Mart's strategy is politically clever.
I worked for [name deleted to protect the stupid] for 10 years, and $175MM is cheap compared to what we wasted on a few major IT projects that never went anywhere. It's not specific to Accenture, it's specific to bureaucracy, which is just as bad in large corporations as it is in the gubment.
It's hard to understand from TFA why Amzi still has a job, much less why he was promoted to CIO after being the special assistant to help straighten things out in the first place. Of course, I'm sure there are just as many non-IT people who should have been canned over this fiasco. (OK, I know that a CIO isn't necessarily an IT person.)
Amen! The background link in TFA was just as unhelpful, as well. Oh, and I loved the page layout that made me scroll right ...