So you're saying that people are going to be willing to buy devices that are heavier and kludgier than the iPad? The netbook market is already having enough problems finding its own niche. Sure it runs the same software, but with a very small screen and very anemic hardware. Now you're going to take away the keyboard, too?
If all iPads run the same OS, and a majority of people buy an iPad, then by default, the iPad OS will become the most common, which means that interoperability with other tablet owners won't be an issue. Windows has shown that all it takes to become a standard is to be on the majority of devices.
The iPad is aggravating to the average computer geek who wants to tinker under the hood and feel like they command their computer's every circuit, but those people are and forever will be in the majority. I don't levy the same expectations against my watch and my DVD player that I do against my computer. the iPad fits in the former category more than the latter, and will come as a great relief to the vast majority of people who want a cool device that actually works the way Hollywood has always portrayed computers on TV. I don't think Apple's going to have any problems moving them, especially to the untapped market of teenagers who want to finally have their own private place in cyberspace with the ease of take-it-anywhere portability.
I'm not a big fan of where the App Store model is going (Apple playing the morality police, among other things), so I sincerely hope something comes out that genuinely challenges it. Create an elegant tablet device that runs a slick interface based on Android or Windows Mobile 7 AND allows people to install whatever they want and Apple's going to either have to open up their software store to the lewder offerings out there or lose market share.
While the N900 is an impressive device, I really don't think Apple's eventual plan for the iPad is to shrink it down to a 3.5" screen. This is an iPhone competitor, not an iPad. It's definitely a geek's dream come true, but by the same token not exactly mainstream (the number of people who want a terminal, TV-out and the ability to play FreeCiv on the same device is fairly small).
Bittorrent users are still very much in the minority of broadband users, so this doesn't actually take a lot of cost/benefit analysis to figure out. Nobody would cancel their Internet if bittorrent disappeared tomorrow, but the big ISPs would see a major source of bandwidth pressure disappear overnight. Finding an excuse to kill it that also happens to make the entertainment industry happy is just icing on the cake.
It could be evidence of ISPs wanting to reduce unwanted BitTorrent traffic by taking a pro-active stance against piracy. BitTorrent eats up a lot of bandwidth and has been targeted for throttling for a while now. Why only throttle it if you can kill it outright?
Unless your metabolism is different, and factors such as lifestyle, health, diet, climate, and temperature are not taken into account. Oh, oh! and body weight. And age. And assuming that you don't have the genetic defect that renders all types of alcohol poisonous. Otherwise, absolutely guaranteed.
There's nothing to stop Microsoft from hiring an army of people to populate the more obscure search terms, rather than relying on an algorithm to do it for them. They are basically complaining that more people choose to use Google than them, and that that gives them the advantage. How is that Google's fault?
Just because a computer can be trained to synthesize music based on some basic rules of good composition and the examples set by others somehow reduces human accomplishment to meaningless? To put it another way: the smartest computer processor in the world is still arguably an idiot savant compared to your average human brain. It does what it does well because it is single-mindedly focused on the task at hand, and it can quite literally do absolutely nothing else but what it's told to do. Even if you tell it to do something else, it has to be ordered first. My hamster has more self-will! That being said, since only a very few humans can compose incredible music, I think it's safe to say that it's still the accomplishment of genius and nothing to disparage. We should all be so lucky to be so talented. In the end, I think the value placed on the talents of a human composer is that it's a naturally occurring phenomenon, and therefore something to be treasured. We can genetically engineer a plant to grow a perfect rose anytime, but it will never beat the value of the wild strain that actually comes up with a perfect rose on its own.
The back story was pretty well thought out, even to how the spacecraft worked (very in-depth, although never explained in the movie). The sad part is they also went into great detail as to how the aliens didn't use DNA to encode their genes, but then go on to base the entire story on clones that combine human DNA with alien DNA.
Not meant for hiding secrets, but definitely meant for preventing illegally made copies of a work. This is exactly what copyright is for, whether you like Microsoft or not.
Owning her name would be tantamount to owning her period. She's not a slave, and regardless of the terms of the contract she signed, I seriously doubt they're enforceable. Giving someone exclusive rights to use your image for publicity is also crap; that would put every photo of her out there in jeopardy. This is an example of draconian contract terms and aspiring to own everything under the sun up until the time someone actually challenges it (and with the necessary money and public visibility to make it worthwhile to a lawyer). I think Mrs. Vonn should go after them. It'd be a riot to see what happens if the IOC starts banning competitors if they refuse to sign away all of their publicity rights.
Americans have always been incredibly spoiled by their gas prices, which are still far below what pretty much every other country has to pay to fill up (as much as half the price). I say deal with it and count yourself lucky that it's not higher. Cheaper prices are just going to encourage more waste at this point; the casual driving era is becoming a relic of the past, and this isn't necessarily a bad thing (especially for the fattest nation on earth).
I experienced the same issues due to moving around a lot. Also, let's face it: "popular" kids are not all warm and fuzzy people victimized by those with lesser social skills than their own. This research seems to pin all the trouble on the kids who are getting bullied and letting the bullies off. Sure, you're going to get social outsiders and they need help. This isn't the end-all and be-all, however. What about cliches? What about the jocks versus the nerds? Etc.
Pecking orders and tribal behavior are parts of natural group dynamics. The only reason we have structured societies nowadays is because the threat of punishment keeps the more radical elements in line. Sure, it'd be nice to have everyone having a well-adjusted, happy existence, but that requires a lot more than trying to couch-analyze your child with this psychobabble tripe, e.g. "Ask the child to identify their mistake. (Often children only know that someone got upset, but don't understand their own role in the outcome.)" Because teaching my kid to emulate my condescending attitude is going to make them TONS of friends in the future.
"Apple" is not a closed off product; their phone and tablet are. Their laptop and desktop lines are completely open and welcome tinkering, multiple OSes, and anything else you can think of. I don't see why we hold Apple to such a high standard of accountability (robbing our children of their futures, for example) that we exclude everyone else from. Anybody try to hack a Zune lately? Anybody care?
Agreeing with other people's opinions is not the same as failing to have free thought. By that logic, the parent and grandparent would be the founding members of a two-person cult.
I agree. Also, I think the post itself starts with a fallacious argument: why would artists care about Apple's closed culture? They're not open source programmers, they're artists. Many artists themselves are secretive perfectionists, so actually, I think they're more likely to relate to Steve than be turned off by him. Artists are also notoriously opposed to feeling like they're just a cog in a mindless machine, AKA the Windows, beige-box culture.
Linux might have something of a wild, anachronistic appeal, but again, unless you're an artist who equivocates configuring and tweaking packages and drivers to be some masochistic sort of performance art, you're not going to bother with it unless you can turn it on and start creating. To my knowledge, there are no artist-specific Linux distros yet available, and with the exception of a few user-friendlier ones, they are by and large still more programmer or office-work oriented than creative.
There are so many people living in that country now it would never happen because they don't share a common cultural or social status. Also, the great majority of Chinese either don't feel *too* persecuted, or don't feel like they can do anything about it.
Re:Cheating
on
PS3 Hacked?
·
· Score: 5, Informative
Sony is perfectly fine with you running software sold for the PS3; that's how they make their money. Hacking it so that you can give that software away isn't in their best interest, so they build in DRM. The Windows comparison doesn't hold water in this case.
It keeps their developers happy and maintains a semblance of sanity on their system. It's ugly, but seeing that its main purpose is to be a gaming system, it does the job. They don't stop you from remotely streaming or locally playing any kind of media; you're free to knock yourself out. Heck, they even support DivX.
Given a choice, Sony would rather restrict their infinitesimally small Linux base because, quite frankly, nobody really cares. People who are bloody-minded enough to use them as a processing farm are more curiosities than mainstream, and I'm sure that serious efforts, such as by universities and the like, get one-on-one support from Sony if they want it.
Linux users on the PS3: zero profit. PS3 gamers on the PS3: the whole reason the system was made. I think that the line of reasoning is pretty straightforward here.
Actually, privacy still exists for those who can't afford computers and so therefore have no opportunity to use Facebook. I have always treated posting stuff on the internet like throwing things on my front lawn, i.e. if I don't want random people to wander by and gawk at it, or worse yet, wander off with my stuff, then I shouldn't be putting it out in the open.
I do think Zuckerberg is full of himself and not really in touch with "people", though; he certainly doesn't lack for privacy.
I agree. The original poster expresses bad-manager sentiment; if I train my employees, they might get so good that they'll leave for greener pastures. If the work is good and the work environment friendly, people are more likely to stick around. If you make them feel like their own boss is their worst enemy, then don't be too surprised if your employees start leaving in droves. Train the people you hire; nobody said life had any guarantees, and the best-case scenario is that your own employees learn more and perform better.
You're confusing rendering method with result. It's 3D when it gives the illusion of depth. What you're describing is "in the round", while the TV version is more like "bas relief". Both still fall under the category of 3D. The technique for delivering the 3D might be stereoscopy, but that doesn't invalidate the result.
Due to the frigid temperatures on Titan, scientists are not very optimistic about finding life there; without the heat input of the sun to speed up chemical reactions, it would take an incredible amount of time, if ever, for even the simplest structures to develop.
Unfortunately, customers are not nice people. If you're doing open source for your personal satisfaction or as a way to increase your experience as a developer, then you'll most likely be happy. If you're bothered by a user base that expects things free, good, and delivered yesterday, then you should probably think about revising your business model.
There will always be something to replace VLC, or even LAME. It may not always be free, and you may not always be completely satisfied with it, but whoever develops the code, no matter how noble or altruistic their effort may be, will most likely go unappreciated by 90% of the community. That's the price you pay for wanting to make such software, be it LAME, Linux, or whatever, the de facto standard. You just have to learn how to tune out the noise.
That being said, if VLC doesn't lack for users, it falls on the developers to step up or walk away. If it can't attract developers, then perhaps there simply isn't a mainstream need for VLC's specific feature set; perhaps it has outlived its usefulness, or its most useful features aren't really that useful after all. If it falls by the wayside, another free or commercial solution will crop up to replace it, with varying degrees of quality. Old code bases will most likely be recycled or built upon. A few people may remember the original programmers and express their appreciation for all their hard work in the past, but more likely they'll complain that their predecessors were hacks who wouldn't know elegant code from a hole in the ground. That's the reality of software development on any platform.
That's great math, but even as a heavy user living in Japan myself, I couldn't feasibly use that amount of data in a month. Frankly, there are very few servers I can connect to that can hold up their end of the transfer.
Slashdot Mirror
Economies of scale. It beats the heck out of sending by ship and it's cheaper than air flight.It's going to mean a lot for China's trade.
It's not like China doesn't have enough manpower to provide security.
So you're saying that people are going to be willing to buy devices that are heavier and kludgier than the iPad? The netbook market is already having enough problems finding its own niche. Sure it runs the same software, but with a very small screen and very anemic hardware. Now you're going to take away the keyboard, too?
If all iPads run the same OS, and a majority of people buy an iPad, then by default, the iPad OS will become the most common, which means that interoperability with other tablet owners won't be an issue. Windows has shown that all it takes to become a standard is to be on the majority of devices.
The iPad is aggravating to the average computer geek who wants to tinker under the hood and feel like they command their computer's every circuit, but those people are and forever will be in the majority. I don't levy the same expectations against my watch and my DVD player that I do against my computer. the iPad fits in the former category more than the latter, and will come as a great relief to the vast majority of people who want a cool device that actually works the way Hollywood has always portrayed computers on TV. I don't think Apple's going to have any problems moving them, especially to the untapped market of teenagers who want to finally have their own private place in cyberspace with the ease of take-it-anywhere portability.
I'm not a big fan of where the App Store model is going (Apple playing the morality police, among other things), so I sincerely hope something comes out that genuinely challenges it. Create an elegant tablet device that runs a slick interface based on Android or Windows Mobile 7 AND allows people to install whatever they want and Apple's going to either have to open up their software store to the lewder offerings out there or lose market share.
While the N900 is an impressive device, I really don't think Apple's eventual plan for the iPad is to shrink it down to a 3.5" screen. This is an iPhone competitor, not an iPad. It's definitely a geek's dream come true, but by the same token not exactly mainstream (the number of people who want a terminal, TV-out and the ability to play FreeCiv on the same device is fairly small).
Bittorrent users are still very much in the minority of broadband users, so this doesn't actually take a lot of cost/benefit analysis to figure out. Nobody would cancel their Internet if bittorrent disappeared tomorrow, but the big ISPs would see a major source of bandwidth pressure disappear overnight. Finding an excuse to kill it that also happens to make the entertainment industry happy is just icing on the cake.
It could be evidence of ISPs wanting to reduce unwanted BitTorrent traffic by taking a pro-active stance against piracy. BitTorrent eats up a lot of bandwidth and has been targeted for throttling for a while now. Why only throttle it if you can kill it outright?
Unless your metabolism is different, and factors such as lifestyle, health, diet, climate, and temperature are not taken into account. Oh, oh! and body weight. And age. And assuming that you don't have the genetic defect that renders all types of alcohol poisonous. Otherwise, absolutely guaranteed.
There's nothing to stop Microsoft from hiring an army of people to populate the more obscure search terms, rather than relying on an algorithm to do it for them. They are basically complaining that more people choose to use Google than them, and that that gives them the advantage. How is that Google's fault?
Just because a computer can be trained to synthesize music based on some basic rules of good composition and the examples set by others somehow reduces human accomplishment to meaningless? To put it another way: the smartest computer processor in the world is still arguably an idiot savant compared to your average human brain. It does what it does well because it is single-mindedly focused on the task at hand, and it can quite literally do absolutely nothing else but what it's told to do. Even if you tell it to do something else, it has to be ordered first. My hamster has more self-will! That being said, since only a very few humans can compose incredible music, I think it's safe to say that it's still the accomplishment of genius and nothing to disparage. We should all be so lucky to be so talented. In the end, I think the value placed on the talents of a human composer is that it's a naturally occurring phenomenon, and therefore something to be treasured. We can genetically engineer a plant to grow a perfect rose anytime, but it will never beat the value of the wild strain that actually comes up with a perfect rose on its own.
The back story was pretty well thought out, even to how the spacecraft worked (very in-depth, although never explained in the movie). The sad part is they also went into great detail as to how the aliens didn't use DNA to encode their genes, but then go on to base the entire story on clones that combine human DNA with alien DNA.
Not meant for hiding secrets, but definitely meant for preventing illegally made copies of a work. This is exactly what copyright is for, whether you like Microsoft or not.
Owning her name would be tantamount to owning her period. She's not a slave, and regardless of the terms of the contract she signed, I seriously doubt they're enforceable. Giving someone exclusive rights to use your image for publicity is also crap; that would put every photo of her out there in jeopardy. This is an example of draconian contract terms and aspiring to own everything under the sun up until the time someone actually challenges it (and with the necessary money and public visibility to make it worthwhile to a lawyer). I think Mrs. Vonn should go after them. It'd be a riot to see what happens if the IOC starts banning competitors if they refuse to sign away all of their publicity rights.
Americans have always been incredibly spoiled by their gas prices, which are still far below what pretty much every other country has to pay to fill up (as much as half the price). I say deal with it and count yourself lucky that it's not higher. Cheaper prices are just going to encourage more waste at this point; the casual driving era is becoming a relic of the past, and this isn't necessarily a bad thing (especially for the fattest nation on earth).
I experienced the same issues due to moving around a lot. Also, let's face it: "popular" kids are not all warm and fuzzy people victimized by those with lesser social skills than their own. This research seems to pin all the trouble on the kids who are getting bullied and letting the bullies off. Sure, you're going to get social outsiders and they need help. This isn't the end-all and be-all, however. What about cliches? What about the jocks versus the nerds? Etc.
Pecking orders and tribal behavior are parts of natural group dynamics. The only reason we have structured societies nowadays is because the threat of punishment keeps the more radical elements in line. Sure, it'd be nice to have everyone having a well-adjusted, happy existence, but that requires a lot more than trying to couch-analyze your child with this psychobabble tripe, e.g. "Ask the child to identify their mistake. (Often children only know that someone got upset, but don't understand their own role in the outcome.)" Because teaching my kid to emulate my condescending attitude is going to make them TONS of friends in the future.
"Apple" is not a closed off product; their phone and tablet are. Their laptop and desktop lines are completely open and welcome tinkering, multiple OSes, and anything else you can think of. I don't see why we hold Apple to such a high standard of accountability (robbing our children of their futures, for example) that we exclude everyone else from. Anybody try to hack a Zune lately? Anybody care?
Agreeing with other people's opinions is not the same as failing to have free thought. By that logic, the parent and grandparent would be the founding members of a two-person cult.
I agree. Also, I think the post itself starts with a fallacious argument: why would artists care about Apple's closed culture? They're not open source programmers, they're artists. Many artists themselves are secretive perfectionists, so actually, I think they're more likely to relate to Steve than be turned off by him. Artists are also notoriously opposed to feeling like they're just a cog in a mindless machine, AKA the Windows, beige-box culture.
Linux might have something of a wild, anachronistic appeal, but again, unless you're an artist who equivocates configuring and tweaking packages and drivers to be some masochistic sort of performance art, you're not going to bother with it unless you can turn it on and start creating. To my knowledge, there are no artist-specific Linux distros yet available, and with the exception of a few user-friendlier ones, they are by and large still more programmer or office-work oriented than creative.
There are so many people living in that country now it would never happen because they don't share a common cultural or social status. Also, the great majority of Chinese either don't feel *too* persecuted, or don't feel like they can do anything about it.
Sony is perfectly fine with you running software sold for the PS3; that's how they make their money. Hacking it so that you can give that software away isn't in their best interest, so they build in DRM. The Windows comparison doesn't hold water in this case.
It keeps their developers happy and maintains a semblance of sanity on their system. It's ugly, but seeing that its main purpose is to be a gaming system, it does the job. They don't stop you from remotely streaming or locally playing any kind of media; you're free to knock yourself out. Heck, they even support DivX.
Given a choice, Sony would rather restrict their infinitesimally small Linux base because, quite frankly, nobody really cares. People who are bloody-minded enough to use them as a processing farm are more curiosities than mainstream, and I'm sure that serious efforts, such as by universities and the like, get one-on-one support from Sony if they want it.
Linux users on the PS3: zero profit. PS3 gamers on the PS3: the whole reason the system was made. I think that the line of reasoning is pretty straightforward here.
Actually, privacy still exists for those who can't afford computers and so therefore have no opportunity to use Facebook. I have always treated posting stuff on the internet like throwing things on my front lawn, i.e. if I don't want random people to wander by and gawk at it, or worse yet, wander off with my stuff, then I shouldn't be putting it out in the open.
I do think Zuckerberg is full of himself and not really in touch with "people", though; he certainly doesn't lack for privacy.
I agree. The original poster expresses bad-manager sentiment; if I train my employees, they might get so good that they'll leave for greener pastures. If the work is good and the work environment friendly, people are more likely to stick around. If you make them feel like their own boss is their worst enemy, then don't be too surprised if your employees start leaving in droves. Train the people you hire; nobody said life had any guarantees, and the best-case scenario is that your own employees learn more and perform better.
You're confusing rendering method with result. It's 3D when it gives the illusion of depth. What you're describing is "in the round", while the TV version is more like "bas relief". Both still fall under the category of 3D. The technique for delivering the 3D might be stereoscopy, but that doesn't invalidate the result.
Due to the frigid temperatures on Titan, scientists are not very optimistic about finding life there; without the heat input of the sun to speed up chemical reactions, it would take an incredible amount of time, if ever, for even the simplest structures to develop.
Unfortunately, customers are not nice people. If you're doing open source for your personal satisfaction or as a way to increase your experience as a developer, then you'll most likely be happy. If you're bothered by a user base that expects things free, good, and delivered yesterday, then you should probably think about revising your business model.
There will always be something to replace VLC, or even LAME. It may not always be free, and you may not always be completely satisfied with it, but whoever develops the code, no matter how noble or altruistic their effort may be, will most likely go unappreciated by 90% of the community. That's the price you pay for wanting to make such software, be it LAME, Linux, or whatever, the de facto standard. You just have to learn how to tune out the noise.
That being said, if VLC doesn't lack for users, it falls on the developers to step up or walk away. If it can't attract developers, then perhaps there simply isn't a mainstream need for VLC's specific feature set; perhaps it has outlived its usefulness, or its most useful features aren't really that useful after all. If it falls by the wayside, another free or commercial solution will crop up to replace it, with varying degrees of quality. Old code bases will most likely be recycled or built upon. A few people may remember the original programmers and express their appreciation for all their hard work in the past, but more likely they'll complain that their predecessors were hacks who wouldn't know elegant code from a hole in the ground. That's the reality of software development on any platform.
That's great math, but even as a heavy user living in Japan myself, I couldn't feasibly use that amount of data in a month. Frankly, there are very few servers I can connect to that can hold up their end of the transfer.