I agree with your post 100%. It is most fun, educational, and rewarding when you solve a useful problem, because you take more from an experience where you know the solution was definitely a productive or beneficial one that you can apply to similar problems in the future, thus taking your skills to "the next level".
I think it all boils down to feedback. When you write code to solve an actual problem, or to improve something, you KNOW you did something good, or even something wrong. In either case, you learned something, and you improved. When you write trivial code for yourself for fun, all you learn is that you CAN do something, but not if you SHOULD or SHOULD NOT do something.
Even if teenagers had credit cards, I think teenagers would still more likely opt to illegally download mp3s just because it's "illegal", therefore it's cool to do so.
So what stops NextGenTel from deciding to throttle bandwidth NKR (or any content provider) again, but the next time, only in a more subtle way? Like, throttling only during Internet rush hour, or routing that content provider's packets at a lower preference to other packets? How can you prove that NextTelGen is behind the lower performance, and not "Internet congestion at rush hour"?
When the article said that one of the two guys was a runaway, it really surprised me to find out that it was Jamie. Adam seems like the wild crazy person who would run away from home, while Jamie seems like the strict and careful and proper type of person who would never attempt such a thing.
Mod parent up. This is the first time I have seen the other images in this "series", and when seen together, they tell a different story. I'm interested in seeing what the text is for the other ads.
I'd love to see an official Dell announcement saying that defaulting to Firefox helped cut their support costs. If Firefox officially cuts support costs, other OEMs would probably follow suit.
Without net neutrality, what's to stop backbone providers from charging content providers (ex. Google) also for "guaranteed" bandwidth? They might have the "if Verizon could do it, we could too" attitude. Google could be charged multiple times for sending data to a customer because it traversed networks owned by different providers.
That would be like trying to send a letter from California to New York, and being charged an extra stamp for each state my letter goes through, just because my letter is in a plane flying through that state's airspace. In the end, my letter could cost me 10 EXTRA stamps. And that's assuming a direct flight to New York.
For the Internet to continue as is, net neutrality is a must.
I guess having an iPod would drown out the noise from the crying babies, the ringing cell phones, and the talking loudmouth.
More seriously (and less grumpily) though, it's definitely a neat way for fans who really enjoyed the movie the first time to get more out of it the second time. I give them credit for coming up with a new *positive* experience for watching movies, instead of advertisements and commercials, and etc etc.
Interesting chart. I wonder why Java experienced such a sharp drop at around Feb 2004. That also seems to be the same time that Pyton and Delphi took a increase.
It's better that the consumer be forewarned about what they can and can't do with the movie/music that they bought, than to buy it first, and then frustratingly run into it later.
But are there going to be different versions of the same CD? 1. Paul Oakenfold, with DRM copy protection 2. Paul Oakenfold, without DRM copy protection Are they going to be the same price? If so, then what incentive would a consumer have to buy the DRM version? Maybe what will happen is that ONLY the DRM version is sold. But then what do you do if (as the article mentions) you need to copy it to review it (which is allowed in the UK)? Buy the same CD twice? "Yeah right. I can't do my job because I can't make a copy of the CD. What do I do? Thank god for the PirateBay!"
But at least somone is thinking of the consumer so that he's not smacked in the face by DRM.
What's so cool about... 1. Rated R? Because it's what only adults can see. 2. Explicit Lyrics? Because it's how only adults can talk. 3. DRM? Because it's, um.. adults can, um...
And another thought, the RIAA says they made $3.7 million in 3 months... while P2P networks are out there with mp3s, movies... and probably music videos as well!
I know I've downloaded few music videos over the years, so I'm sure people share music videos out there in P2P.
Doesn't that shoot a hole in the claim that P2P file sharing is killing the RIAA when they're able to make $3.7 million in 3 months selling stuff that's available in P2P?
I don't think the music industry will ever be happy. I think they will always find some reason to complain, whether it was radio, audio cassette, file sharing, or now music video posting.
"Under the proposed law, Apple Computer Inc., Sony Corp., Dell Inc. and other companies could have to reveal trade secrets of their software so that their songs can play on competitors' devices."... reveal trade secrets or come up with an agreed upon standard so that any song can be played anywhere else, similar to how CDs can be played on and brand CD players. In the latter case, there'd be no trade secrets to reveal.
Hmm, how about the unprotected mp3 format? Nah, that's too simple.
I agree. I just ran into an editing restriction on my Hi-MD player. I listen to hour+ long dj mixes. Once in a while, I run across a track in the middle of a mix that I want to track mark and jump back to when I want to hear that track again. Unfortunately, the HiMD player told me that I can't edit tracks transferred from a PC. Argh. It was one of the neat features that kept me in support for MD.
Sorry, Sony. Your limiting of what I can do with my tracks on MD has just devalued the MD format for me.
...about as far as I can throw them. There was a time when I thought their software was easy to use and learn stuff with, right around the Win98, Office 97, Visual Studio 6 days. I found the interfaces simple, usable, and didn't get in my way. Of course, this was all when I first started learning about computers and how to write software, so all of this was a new experience for me.
But as new versions came out, the interfaces got clunky and bloated, with features I didn't need, and the software felt less reliable, got in my way more, and generally irritated me. Meanwhile, Microsoft was stretching out and developing new software for other areas of the software market. And it seems like the more products they try to make, the worse the general quality becomes.
And then of course, I learned about all of the anti-competitive practices they had used to get to their current market position. FUD tactics, OEM discounts for using their products, using their Windows monopoly to give an advantage to their other software. Bleh.
So why should I trust anything from Microsoft? They're not focused on getting solid reliable products out to the customer. They're only trying to shove their way into any market they can and push everyone else out. Should I trust a company with that kind of motives?
If Microsoft didn't have a monopoly in the OS market, these management problems probably would have crippled the company and product by now.
On the other hand, if they didn't have a monopoly, perhaps everyone would be focused on competing and improving their OS, and these problems would not come up.
Slashdot Mirror
Forget the 14-blade razor in the year 2100. We have a 15 blade one now.
I agree with your post 100%. It is most fun, educational, and rewarding when you solve a useful problem, because you take more from an experience where you know the solution was definitely a productive or beneficial one that you can apply to similar problems in the future, thus taking your skills to "the next level".
I think it all boils down to feedback. When you write code to solve an actual problem, or to improve something, you KNOW you did something good, or even something wrong. In either case, you learned something, and you improved. When you write trivial code for yourself for fun, all you learn is that you CAN do something, but not if you SHOULD or SHOULD NOT do something.
Even if teenagers had credit cards, I think teenagers would still more likely opt to illegally download mp3s just because it's "illegal", therefore it's cool to do so.
So what stops NextGenTel from deciding to throttle bandwidth NKR (or any content provider) again, but the next time, only in a more subtle way? Like, throttling only during Internet rush hour, or routing that content provider's packets at a lower preference to other packets? How can you prove that NextTelGen is behind the lower performance, and not "Internet congestion at rush hour"?
When the article said that one of the two guys was a runaway, it really surprised me to find out that it was Jamie. Adam seems like the wild crazy person who would run away from home, while Jamie seems like the strict and careful and proper type of person who would never attempt such a thing.
People wouldn't pay for free bread, but people would pay for an entire sandwich, or a full steak dinner that included free bread.
An inflight movie that is a loop of some bald guy on stage repeating one word:
"Developers, developers, developers, developers..."
"Or take IE 7. Please."
Oh, I know what Jobs has in mind: a sequel!
Person 1: Hi, I'm a Zune.
Person 2: And I'm an iPod...
Akuma killed them all.
Mod parent up. This is the first time I have seen the other images in this "series", and when seen together, they tell a different story. I'm interested in seeing what the text is for the other ads.
The Internet is blurring the country lines.
I'd love to see an official Dell announcement saying that defaulting to Firefox helped cut their support costs. If Firefox officially cuts support costs, other OEMs would probably follow suit.
Without net neutrality, what's to stop backbone providers from charging content providers (ex. Google) also for "guaranteed" bandwidth? They might have the "if Verizon could do it, we could too" attitude. Google could be charged multiple times for sending data to a customer because it traversed networks owned by different providers.
That would be like trying to send a letter from California to New York, and being charged an extra stamp for each state my letter goes through, just because my letter is in a plane flying through that state's airspace. In the end, my letter could cost me 10 EXTRA stamps. And that's assuming a direct flight to New York.
For the Internet to continue as is, net neutrality is a must.
I guess having an iPod would drown out the noise from the crying babies, the ringing cell phones, and the talking loudmouth.
More seriously (and less grumpily) though, it's definitely a neat way for fans who really enjoyed the movie the first time to get more out of it the second time. I give them credit for coming up with a new *positive* experience for watching movies, instead of advertisements and commercials, and etc etc.
Prepare for the next buzzword: Moviecasts!
Interesting chart. I wonder why Java experienced such a sharp drop at around Feb 2004. That also seems to be the same time that Pyton and Delphi took a increase.
...in the UK, anyway.
It's better that the consumer be forewarned about what they can and can't do with the movie/music that they bought, than to buy it first, and then frustratingly run into it later.
But are there going to be different versions of the same CD?
1. Paul Oakenfold, with DRM copy protection
2. Paul Oakenfold, without DRM copy protection
Are they going to be the same price? If so, then what incentive would a consumer have to buy the DRM version?
Maybe what will happen is that ONLY the DRM version is sold. But then what do you do if (as the article mentions) you need to copy it to review it (which is allowed in the UK)? Buy the same CD twice? "Yeah right. I can't do my job because I can't make a copy of the CD. What do I do? Thank god for the PirateBay!"
But at least somone is thinking of the consumer so that he's not smacked in the face by DRM.
I'm not entirely sure how they would do that.
What's so cool about...
1. Rated R? Because it's what only adults can see.
2. Explicit Lyrics? Because it's how only adults can talk.
3. DRM? Because it's, um.. adults can, um...
I'm sure they'll try, though.
And another thought, the RIAA says they made $3.7 million in 3 months... while P2P networks are out there with mp3s, movies... and probably music videos as well!
I know I've downloaded few music videos over the years, so I'm sure people share music videos out there in P2P.
Doesn't that shoot a hole in the claim that P2P file sharing is killing the RIAA when they're able to make $3.7 million in 3 months selling stuff that's available in P2P?
"...the music industry is not quite happy..."
I don't think the music industry will ever be happy. I think they will always find some reason to complain, whether it was radio, audio cassette, file sharing, or now music video posting.
"Under the proposed law, Apple Computer Inc., Sony Corp., Dell Inc. and other companies could have to reveal trade secrets of their software so that their songs can play on competitors' devices." ... reveal trade secrets or come up with an agreed upon standard so that any song can be played anywhere else, similar to how CDs can be played on and brand CD players. In the latter case, there'd be no trade secrets to reveal.
Hmm, how about the unprotected mp3 format? Nah, that's too simple.
I agree. I just ran into an editing restriction on my Hi-MD player. I listen to hour+ long dj mixes. Once in a while, I run across a track in the middle of a mix that I want to track mark and jump back to when I want to hear that track again. Unfortunately, the HiMD player told me that I can't edit tracks transferred from a PC. Argh. It was one of the neat features that kept me in support for MD.
Sorry, Sony. Your limiting of what I can do with my tracks on MD has just devalued the MD format for me.
Haha! Thanks, I'll keep that in mind. :)
...about as far as I can throw them. There was a time when I thought their software was easy to use and learn stuff with, right around the Win98, Office 97, Visual Studio 6 days. I found the interfaces simple, usable, and didn't get in my way. Of course, this was all when I first started learning about computers and how to write software, so all of this was a new experience for me.
But as new versions came out, the interfaces got clunky and bloated, with features I didn't need, and the software felt less reliable, got in my way more, and generally irritated me. Meanwhile, Microsoft was stretching out and developing new software for other areas of the software market. And it seems like the more products they try to make, the worse the general quality becomes.
And then of course, I learned about all of the anti-competitive practices they had used to get to their current market position. FUD tactics, OEM discounts for using their products, using their Windows monopoly to give an advantage to their other software. Bleh.
So why should I trust anything from Microsoft? They're not focused on getting solid reliable products out to the customer. They're only trying to shove their way into any market they can and push everyone else out. Should I trust a company with that kind of motives?
If Microsoft didn't have a monopoly in the OS market, these management problems probably would have crippled the company and product by now.
On the other hand, if they didn't have a monopoly, perhaps everyone would be focused on competing and improving their OS, and these problems would not come up.