The terrorists are smart and we're dog meat because our security services are stupid.
Which terrorists are smart? The one who caught is underpants on fire? Or maybe the one who's car turned into essentially a smoke bomb in Times Square?
The reality is, most terrorists aren't very smart. Thankfully.
Because it costs a certain amount of money to write, edit, proof, print, and distribute a book.... Stop being cheap.
I'm not complaining about the cost of purchasing the story. I am complaining about the cost of the ebook. If I have a choice of going to B&N and buying a paperback for 10% of cover price, OR I can buy an ebook for the cover price of a paperback or MORE. Presumably purchasing the paperback helps defray the cost... and yet it is less than the ebook. Why should I get the ebook?
One argument is ebooks cut into hardcover prices. Then charge more for the ebook, then when you release the paperback, lower the cost of the ebook. Otherwise I'll get the paperback.
The TSA weaved and bobbed around answering the question of how many casualties it was prepared to accept in an incident like this --- and that in the end was fatal.
Probably just as many as they've had over the past few years. Ignoring the fact that if you wanted to get a sharp device on a place, you can easily do so. Look at how many people accidentally left a large knife in their carryon... And look at all the dead stewardesses we have because of it...
Or look at all the bus driver killings we've had over the years.
Why?
Not only does that have just as many holes as today's current TSA Sieve has, but why? What are you trying to prevent?
Should we also screen people who enter malls, school, theatres, post offices, stadiums, personal cars, boats, trains, and perhaps screens as you cross streets?
If two people independently invent something, then I think it should be non-patentable by definition.
Why? 2 people out of 6 billion come up with the same idea, so it must not be novel? Of course not, that is just stupid. The idea isn't that you should be the only person in the world ever to figure out to solve a problem. Just that not very many other people can or have.
So when my company goes bankrupt (from trying to make the product) i can't then sell my patent? There is no failsafe, and you've just removed one reason to come up with the invention.
No it isn't. But it does help propel the invention out into the world. Many people invented something because of necessity. But then they sold it because they wanted to make money on it. Other people attacked problems, because they knew if they solved them they can make money off of it
You seem to fail to understand that there is no difference between designing a car and designing a software product
Of course there is a difference. Not only several magnitude orders of complexity, but the fact is, it is kind of hard to have a working car with 2 tired, one door, half a hood and 1 cylinder. Yet you can have working software that only does half the features it is supposed to do.
A car has what, 10,000 moving parts, a piece of complex software can have millions.
Agile processes deliver useful working software at frequent intervals -
I love that definition... If you failed you weren't doing Agile..
Just because you've produced something working at frequent intervals, doesn't mean the user won't see it as "disorganized and never-ending"
Proprietary data formats aren't exactly the problem either. Sure your ASCII text file is readable, and probably always will be. But that doesn't mean 100 years from now you'll be able to understand the format of the ASCII data stored there, or that programs still exist to read it... And that is the issue.
Of course it might be easier to hack an XML file, you still need something to understand the format. Whether it is proprietary, or a standard.
If you are working for a customer, you still need a roadmap, some sort of over design. Your customer needs to know where you are going. You can't just say "we'll give you an iterative version with a new feature or two in two weeks" and say that every two weeks. Because then you'll do exactly what you described, leave the customers and programmers confused. You don't need to design every last thing out, but you still need a roadmap.
I'm not saying I know how to do Agile wrong, but every team I've been on that did "agile" did it wrong, and pretty much every story I heard I can recognize areas that did it wrong. The first team I was on that did "agile" had 30 minutes daily conference room meetings! They are stand up/water cooler meetings for a reason. To keep them short.
Consumers will never get anything here except screwed.
Except for what the consumers are already getting. First of all "BIG" data is only worthwhile in BIG chunks. Your 'chunk' of data isn't big enough, just a drop of water in the pail. It isn't really worth money.
But it is worth goods and services. Because that is what they have been offering you for your data. A lot of people claim you are the product not the consumer for Facebook. And yet Facebook is offering you a service, for you be their product. It might not be a service you like or care for, but many people do find a use for it. And they get it for "free," well paying for it with their data.
The underlying technology, however, is the essence of the game. It's what tells us how mario moves compared to sonic or y metroid cant crawl.
Well not really. Looking at just mario and sonic. What is really different between the two? Ignore the maps, and levels. The biggest difference is that sonic can speed up in certain scenarios. Other than a few other minor difference (super mario can swim, shoot fireballs, and fly in some games) you could achieve both games using the same engine. Yes, you might have to tweak some of the parameters. But it isn't the engine that sets the two apart, it is the game play and the artwork. Setting, graphics, and writing is definitely gameplay. The fact that mario can fly or swim isn't based on the engine. The fact that sonic can go fast, or explodes into rings when he dies, isn't based on the engine (well the engine has to support his speed)
Just look at the games that come from the same engine, and notice how different the game play is.
Its more about "built in audience" than lack of new ideas. When things like the Iron Man franchise makes a billion dollars, do you wonder why Hollywood tries to remake a success from the past? Or when audiences are screaming for sequels?
Fascinating comment at the end of one of the stories linked to here. The writer claims that Amazon's model is unsustainable and equivalent to the Standard Oil play of selling at a loss to drive competitors out of business. In his opinion, Apple should be commended for raising prices by a few dollars per book?
Selling at a loss is not sustainable. Although I think Amazon was doing it more to drive up the sales for ebooks and create a market, than to drive anyone out of the nonexistent market.
When I first looked into ebooks, the books were too expensive. A little while later, they prices started to drop to something I felt was reasonable, that was slightly less then a mass market paperback. Then not long after I bought a Kindle Apple came along, and all of the prices jumped to the same or more as a mass market. Considering I can usually get a mass market for 10% off the suggested retail price. I did not feel like paying a 10% (or more) premium for an ebook. So I stopped buying them from the big 6 publishers.
Of course the publishers are screaming that it costs money to make an ebook. I'm not looking for a free ebook. But if I have a choice between $7.25 for a mass market, or 7.99 for an ebook (or more) I'll just pick up the mass market.
In other words Apple tried to do what they did with music , open up a market and allow everyone to make money and be of benefit to the users.
I'm not sure what you mean by "open up a market." If you mean by making me boycott the big 6 and spending my money on independents, then yes I guess they did. But it seems to me that there was a healthy ebook market before Apple got involved... In fact that was WHY Apple got involved and did what they did.
But the GP claimed "a competing business and provide better prices." Except that no one could provide better prices. And of course the publishers liked the deal. (hence the reason they were also part of the collusion lawsuit, until ALL of them decided to settle) It isn't the publishers complaining, it is essentially the consumers.
Yeah, you are right... Anyone can press a button. But not everyone knows to keep their thumb away from the lens. To point the lens toward what you want to capture. When and when not to use a flash, or a myriad other things. But really, they don't really know what to capture.
Social media is a tool no different than any other tool.
I would argue that social media is a tool that is obviously different than any other tool. You know, the "pen is mightier than the sword." As a tool, social media is much more powerful than say a screwdriver. And that is why people in control don't like it. The difference is, there is only so much damage one person with a screwdriver can do... But one person with a twitter account can help bring down a government
Slashdot Mirror
The terrorists are smart and we're dog meat because our security services are stupid.
Which terrorists are smart? The one who caught is underpants on fire? Or maybe the one who's car turned into essentially a smoke bomb in Times Square?
The reality is, most terrorists aren't very smart. Thankfully.
That is a Miranda right. It does not protect you in a court of law where you can be held in contempt if you refuse to answer a question.
Of course it does, that is the whole point of the 5th amendment (it isn't a "miranda" right, it is a Constitutional right)
Because it costs a certain amount of money to write, edit, proof, print, and distribute a book. ... Stop being cheap.
I'm not complaining about the cost of purchasing the story. I am complaining about the cost of the ebook. If I have a choice of going to B&N and buying a paperback for 10% of cover price, OR I can buy an ebook for the cover price of a paperback or MORE. Presumably purchasing the paperback helps defray the cost... and yet it is less than the ebook. Why should I get the ebook?
One argument is ebooks cut into hardcover prices. Then charge more for the ebook, then when you release the paperback, lower the cost of the ebook. Otherwise I'll get the paperback.
The TSA weaved and bobbed around answering the question of how many casualties it was prepared to accept in an incident like this --- and that in the end was fatal.
Probably just as many as they've had over the past few years. Ignoring the fact that if you wanted to get a sharp device on a place, you can easily do so. Look at how many people accidentally left a large knife in their carryon... And look at all the dead stewardesses we have because of it...
Or look at all the bus driver killings we've had over the years.
Why?
Not only does that have just as many holes as today's current TSA Sieve has, but why? What are you trying to prevent?
Should we also screen people who enter malls, school, theatres, post offices, stadiums, personal cars, boats, trains, and perhaps screens as you cross streets?
Step 1. Apply brick swiftly to car side window.
That doesn't always work either.
If two people independently invent something, then I think it should be non-patentable by definition.
Why? 2 people out of 6 billion come up with the same idea, so it must not be novel? Of course not, that is just stupid. The idea isn't that you should be the only person in the world ever to figure out to solve a problem. Just that not very many other people can or have.
So when my company goes bankrupt (from trying to make the product) i can't then sell my patent? There is no failsafe, and you've just removed one reason to come up with the invention.
Avarice is not the mother of invention.
No it isn't. But it does help propel the invention out into the world. Many people invented something because of necessity. But then they sold it because they wanted to make money on it. Other people attacked problems, because they knew if they solved them they can make money off of it
Security through obscurity is no security at all.
Of course it is. EVERYTHING is security through obscurity. It depends on how obscure it is.
You seem to fail to understand that there is no difference between designing a car and designing a software product
Of course there is a difference. Not only several magnitude orders of complexity, but the fact is, it is kind of hard to have a working car with 2 tired, one door, half a hood and 1 cylinder. Yet you can have working software that only does half the features it is supposed to do.
A car has what, 10,000 moving parts, a piece of complex software can have millions.
Agile processes deliver useful working software at frequent intervals -
I love that definition... If you failed you weren't doing Agile..
Just because you've produced something working at frequent intervals, doesn't mean the user won't see it as "disorganized and never-ending"
Proprietary data formats aren't exactly the problem either. Sure your ASCII text file is readable, and probably always will be. But that doesn't mean 100 years from now you'll be able to understand the format of the ASCII data stored there, or that programs still exist to read it... And that is the issue.
Of course it might be easier to hack an XML file, you still need something to understand the format. Whether it is proprietary, or a standard.
If you are working for a customer, you still need a roadmap, some sort of over design. Your customer needs to know where you are going. You can't just say "we'll give you an iterative version with a new feature or two in two weeks" and say that every two weeks. Because then you'll do exactly what you described, leave the customers and programmers confused. You don't need to design every last thing out, but you still need a roadmap.
I'm not saying I know how to do Agile wrong, but every team I've been on that did "agile" did it wrong, and pretty much every story I heard I can recognize areas that did it wrong. The first team I was on that did "agile" had 30 minutes daily conference room meetings! They are stand up/water cooler meetings for a reason. To keep them short.
Consumers will never get anything here except screwed.
Except for what the consumers are already getting. First of all "BIG" data is only worthwhile in BIG chunks. Your 'chunk' of data isn't big enough, just a drop of water in the pail. It isn't really worth money.
But it is worth goods and services. Because that is what they have been offering you for your data. A lot of people claim you are the product not the consumer for Facebook. And yet Facebook is offering you a service, for you be their product. It might not be a service you like or care for, but many people do find a use for it. And they get it for "free," well paying for it with their data.
The underlying technology, however, is the essence of the game. It's what tells us how mario moves compared to sonic or y metroid cant crawl.
Well not really. Looking at just mario and sonic. What is really different between the two? Ignore the maps, and levels. The biggest difference is that sonic can speed up in certain scenarios. Other than a few other minor difference (super mario can swim, shoot fireballs, and fly in some games) you could achieve both games using the same engine. Yes, you might have to tweak some of the parameters. But it isn't the engine that sets the two apart, it is the game play and the artwork. Setting, graphics, and writing is definitely gameplay. The fact that mario can fly or swim isn't based on the engine. The fact that sonic can go fast, or explodes into rings when he dies, isn't based on the engine (well the engine has to support his speed)
Just look at the games that come from the same engine, and notice how different the game play is.
How long before school boards decide to start swabbing all children "for their own safety"?
They would probably do iris scans first...
Its more about "built in audience" than lack of new ideas. When things like the Iron Man franchise makes a billion dollars, do you wonder why Hollywood tries to remake a success from the past? Or when audiences are screaming for sequels?
Who is the victim? The consumers.
Fascinating comment at the end of one of the stories linked to here. The writer claims that Amazon's model is unsustainable and equivalent to the Standard Oil play of selling at a loss to drive competitors out of business. In his opinion, Apple should be commended for raising prices by a few dollars per book?
Selling at a loss is not sustainable. Although I think Amazon was doing it more to drive up the sales for ebooks and create a market, than to drive anyone out of the nonexistent market.
When I first looked into ebooks, the books were too expensive. A little while later, they prices started to drop to something I felt was reasonable, that was slightly less then a mass market paperback. Then not long after I bought a Kindle Apple came along, and all of the prices jumped to the same or more as a mass market. Considering I can usually get a mass market for 10% off the suggested retail price. I did not feel like paying a 10% (or more) premium for an ebook. So I stopped buying them from the big 6 publishers.
Of course the publishers are screaming that it costs money to make an ebook. I'm not looking for a free ebook. But if I have a choice between $7.25 for a mass market, or 7.99 for an ebook (or more) I'll just pick up the mass market.
In other words Apple tried to do what they did with music , open up a market and allow everyone to make money and be of benefit to the users.
I'm not sure what you mean by "open up a market." If you mean by making me boycott the big 6 and spending my money on independents, then yes I guess they did. But it seems to me that there was a healthy ebook market before Apple got involved... In fact that was WHY Apple got involved and did what they did.
But the GP claimed "a competing business and provide better prices." Except that no one could provide better prices. And of course the publishers liked the deal. (hence the reason they were also part of the collusion lawsuit, until ALL of them decided to settle) It isn't the publishers complaining, it is essentially the consumers.
Yeah, you are right... Anyone can press a button. But not everyone knows to keep their thumb away from the lens. To point the lens toward what you want to capture. When and when not to use a flash, or a myriad other things. But really, they don't really know what to capture.
Social media is a tool no different than any other tool.
I would argue that social media is a tool that is obviously different than any other tool. You know, the "pen is mightier than the sword." As a tool, social media is much more powerful than say a screwdriver. And that is why people in control don't like it. The difference is, there is only so much damage one person with a screwdriver can do... But one person with a twitter account can help bring down a government