My 3 year old monkey(who obviously can't read/write) uses the computer all the time and I'm amazed at what she gets up to (ok she's not posting on slashdot, but give her time).
She can switch on, start up the web browser, (her home page is the BBC kids page CBeebies) and she just looks around, finds the games to play, works out what to do and plays them. When she gets bored she goes back and chooses something else - painting a picture, watching a video etc. She only ever asks for help when she gets stuck in a dead end (like when she needs to download an add-on).
I imagine the Monkey v4.5 is considerably more advanced.
What else would you expect from a company which pays a pittance to its employees (only they aren't of course, otherwise it would no doubt break a few labout laws).
From a quick look round the net being a guide for Cha Cha appears to be a job which requires skill, pays you only when questions are asked (so you can be sitting about idle and unpaid), and even then only pays at a rate below just about any western minimum wage.
If these guides were sitting at home waiting for deliveries of buttons to sew for a few pence a time there would be a documentary being made about how evil their bosses are.
How dumb (or desperate) are people to be cha cha guides?
Much of the internet relies on people gifting their services (e.g. the advice available on this site and forums throughout the net) for a variety of reasons (they like to help, they know they'll get advice/help in return later). Cha Cha is taking that positive environment and trying to extract a profit from other people's goodwill. Many of the guides probably enjoy giving advice and would be doing something similar on other sites so a few beans in payment seems like a good deal.
But do we really want to go down this road? Some people are always looking to extract money from the work of others - do the right thing and ignore Cha Cha!
I used quotes around force because you had referred to force in the original post - I agree that no-one is physically forced but Microsofts position is so dominant that consumers don't have a true choice. The US supreme court ruled that Microsoft has a monopoly which breache US antitrust legislation - you don't need 100% of the market, just enough to have control and that is what Microsoft have.
As far as my comments about right wing economists go, well Adam Smith, perhaps the daddy of them all, made it clear in the Wealth of Nations that Monopolies were not good for consumers. Here in the UK, Margaret Thatcher based her economic policies on the work of the Nobel Prize winning economist Milton Friedman who said "I am certain you know that I am in favor of competition. So any type of monopoly, I would not be in favor of". If one party (or a group of parties colluding) has control of the market it cannot be free. Unless you can tell me otherwise? (A nobel prize would no doubt be winging its way to you if you could).
I am suprised at how many people think a free market economy requires no regulation. Even the most right wing economist knows that once a monopoly has developed the market is no longer free.
Microsoft may never have forced people to use windows at gun-point but their position in the market is now so dominant that most consumers are 'forced' to use it.
Forget the detail. Dont worry about whether Linux is ready or if OSX can be licensed.
There are two main points being made:
- It is difficult for any competitor to match the product microsoft delivers. (drivers/compatibility/available software etc).
- Consumers find it difficult to switch from Windows to another os. (fear/compatibility/learning curve etc)
Quite simply this is because Microsoft has a monopoly. Private monopolies, whose only master is the bottom-line, prevent markets working properly, hinder innovation and cost consumers money. A free market economy like the US shouldn't allow Microsoft to continue in its monopoly position and has legislation which should be able to open up the market.
Open up the source/break up the company/force it to compete on a true playing field.
Any of the arguments about how difficult unbundling is are pointless, because legislators should be able to force Microsoft to open up so that others can compete.
Am I missing something? or have I been sucked in by ther hype?
When I read the spec and the pre-reviews of the XO it's 'groundbreaking' this, 'world record' that, 'unbelievable' the other.
When I read this discussion it's money, cash and dollars.
Are we really more interested in the money than the technology? The Asus EEE sounds to me like a small, cheap laptop - great what they've done for the price but with the OX I actually want to read about how that keyboard works or why that screen could potentially use as little as 0.1Watts of power. I dont even understand half of it, but it sure beats a discussion about exchange rates.
There are some very interesting and valid points on this thread but I think all the arguing over technical legal points or trying to pinpoint one party for blame is missing the point.
This is really an example of how technology has progressed quicker than public understanding. If you read the story, and the comments from the photographer and subject, plus the comments above it's clear than none of the parties involved, including Virgin, fully understood their rights or the implications of their actions.
If the girl in the photo is happy to accept the additional publicity the case has brought, then it will at least have a positive effect by bringing the issues out into the open.
Advertisers need to think twice before using photos from 'public' sources.
Flikr and similar sites, plus Creative Commons, need to think about how the various sharing options are presented and whether the implications are obvious.
Photographers need to be more careful about where they place their images.
Everyone needs to be a little more aware when they are having their photo taken and shared.
It's a little sad that maybe some of the innocence is lost from taking a simple snapshot but in this case the Genie is well and truly out of the bottle.
I recently signed up in the UK to a 12 month contract with a new free Nokia 6300, 400 mins 400 texts (including mobile to mobile), with 100% (yes you read it right) cashback.
Ok, the phone isn't great (but then i just sold it for £130 and kept my sony walkman phone that i got free last year) - but the comparable deal with the iphone is just laughably expensive. The iPhone looks like a great product but I can't see it being long before the other phone manufacturers bring out products that are of similar quality for a fraction of the price.
The mobile market is one area where there is pretty much cut-throat competition in the UK and if you know where to look you can get some scarily impressive deals.
I've been wondering for a while about all these anti/pro apple debates and am curious to know why people love apple.
I can understand how people can like a product and how it's easy to prefer one product over another, but Apple appear to me to act in the same manner of most self-serving corporations. Corporations by their very nature tend not to act in the interests of the consumer (and in many cases legally have to act first for their shareholders) so I've always found them difficult to love. Some companies make a real effort to be 'nice' but they are rare (and exceptionally rare amongst large corporations) so why do so many people care?
Slashdot Mirror
My 3 year old monkey(who obviously can't read/write) uses the computer all the time and I'm amazed at what she gets up to (ok she's not posting on slashdot, but give her time). She can switch on, start up the web browser, (her home page is the BBC kids page CBeebies) and she just looks around, finds the games to play, works out what to do and plays them. When she gets bored she goes back and chooses something else - painting a picture, watching a video etc. She only ever asks for help when she gets stuck in a dead end (like when she needs to download an add-on). I imagine the Monkey v4.5 is considerably more advanced.
What else would you expect from a company which pays a pittance to its employees (only they aren't of course, otherwise it would no doubt break a few labout laws). From a quick look round the net being a guide for Cha Cha appears to be a job which requires skill, pays you only when questions are asked (so you can be sitting about idle and unpaid), and even then only pays at a rate below just about any western minimum wage. If these guides were sitting at home waiting for deliveries of buttons to sew for a few pence a time there would be a documentary being made about how evil their bosses are. How dumb (or desperate) are people to be cha cha guides? Much of the internet relies on people gifting their services (e.g. the advice available on this site and forums throughout the net) for a variety of reasons (they like to help, they know they'll get advice/help in return later). Cha Cha is taking that positive environment and trying to extract a profit from other people's goodwill. Many of the guides probably enjoy giving advice and would be doing something similar on other sites so a few beans in payment seems like a good deal. But do we really want to go down this road? Some people are always looking to extract money from the work of others - do the right thing and ignore Cha Cha!
I used quotes around force because you had referred to force in the original post - I agree that no-one is physically forced but Microsofts position is so dominant that consumers don't have a true choice. The US supreme court ruled that Microsoft has a monopoly which breache US antitrust legislation - you don't need 100% of the market, just enough to have control and that is what Microsoft have. As far as my comments about right wing economists go, well Adam Smith, perhaps the daddy of them all, made it clear in the Wealth of Nations that Monopolies were not good for consumers. Here in the UK, Margaret Thatcher based her economic policies on the work of the Nobel Prize winning economist Milton Friedman who said "I am certain you know that I am in favor of competition. So any type of monopoly, I would not be in favor of". If one party (or a group of parties colluding) has control of the market it cannot be free. Unless you can tell me otherwise? (A nobel prize would no doubt be winging its way to you if you could).
I am suprised at how many people think a free market economy requires no regulation. Even the most right wing economist knows that once a monopoly has developed the market is no longer free. Microsoft may never have forced people to use windows at gun-point but their position in the market is now so dominant that most consumers are 'forced' to use it.
Forget the detail. Dont worry about whether Linux is ready or if OSX can be licensed. There are two main points being made: - It is difficult for any competitor to match the product microsoft delivers. (drivers/compatibility/available software etc). - Consumers find it difficult to switch from Windows to another os. (fear/compatibility/learning curve etc) Quite simply this is because Microsoft has a monopoly. Private monopolies, whose only master is the bottom-line, prevent markets working properly, hinder innovation and cost consumers money. A free market economy like the US shouldn't allow Microsoft to continue in its monopoly position and has legislation which should be able to open up the market. Open up the source/break up the company/force it to compete on a true playing field. Any of the arguments about how difficult unbundling is are pointless, because legislators should be able to force Microsoft to open up so that others can compete.
Am I missing something? or have I been sucked in by ther hype? When I read the spec and the pre-reviews of the XO it's 'groundbreaking' this, 'world record' that, 'unbelievable' the other. When I read this discussion it's money, cash and dollars. Are we really more interested in the money than the technology? The Asus EEE sounds to me like a small, cheap laptop - great what they've done for the price but with the OX I actually want to read about how that keyboard works or why that screen could potentially use as little as 0.1Watts of power. I dont even understand half of it, but it sure beats a discussion about exchange rates.
- Advertisers need to think twice before using photos from 'public' sources.
- Flikr and similar sites, plus Creative Commons, need to think about how the various sharing options are presented and whether the implications are obvious.
- Photographers need to be more careful about where they place their images.
- Everyone needs to be a little more aware when they are having their photo taken and shared.
It's a little sad that maybe some of the innocence is lost from taking a simple snapshot but in this case the Genie is well and truly out of the bottle.I recently signed up in the UK to a 12 month contract with a new free Nokia 6300, 400 mins 400 texts (including mobile to mobile), with 100% (yes you read it right) cashback. Ok, the phone isn't great (but then i just sold it for £130 and kept my sony walkman phone that i got free last year) - but the comparable deal with the iphone is just laughably expensive. The iPhone looks like a great product but I can't see it being long before the other phone manufacturers bring out products that are of similar quality for a fraction of the price. The mobile market is one area where there is pretty much cut-throat competition in the UK and if you know where to look you can get some scarily impressive deals.
If I have to pay to share songs throughout my house then I have a foolproof plan...
:(
I'm going to turn up the volume in the lounge till I can hear the music in the bathroom.
Hang on...what if someone introduces a volume tax? Imagine the payments for turning the dial to 11!
I've been wondering for a while about all these anti/pro apple debates and am curious to know why people love apple.
I can understand how people can like a product and how it's easy to prefer one product over another, but Apple appear to me to act in the same manner of most self-serving corporations. Corporations by their very nature tend not to act in the interests of the consumer (and in many cases legally have to act first for their shareholders) so I've always found them difficult to love. Some companies make a real effort to be 'nice' but they are rare (and exceptionally rare amongst large corporations) so why do so many people care?