I would have loved this very much... Use a java applet or make it in excel or something if that's too much. Sadly, I'm not even going to try it (i.e. print it) even though I'm very interested in this kind of thing.
I heard on a podcast (probably NPR), that they kept to the 'hour long' time frame since some places can't get Netflix, but that the future (of this and other shows) will be episodes of whatever length it takes. Whether that is 20 minutes or 2 hours, Netflix gives shows the freedom to no longer need to 'pad' an episode to meet a specific schedule. That is the change I am most looking forward to.
I didn't read the entire post, but did read all the comment threads around it (considered submitting it 4 days ago, but... whatever)... None of the people that disagree with her have anything to say to counter her point, which is, essentially, 'let me practice my artistry as I see fit'.
I can't find a substantive argument against her.. they all seem to be along the lines of "you've made it, you should do better". ugh... let an artist do her own thing... don't criticize. Learn, and grow from this experiment.
You and your brother should take calls from people trying to diagnose problems they are having with their vehicles. Also, include a weekly puzzler to keep things interesting.
Got the $50 vinyl package for my girlfriend like 5 hours before it finished. Got a nice topless pic of her in the bargain. Win-Win. Glad to be a part of this.
Wow... I'm crazy against SOPA, but holding information hostage for a political motive is short-sighted, at best. As was mentioned (infrequently) in the discussion on Wikipedia, this sort of movement could easily dissolve into a Wikipedia blackout for the 99%, gay rights, or immigration, etc... While all (or none) of those may be good causes, access to information should never be held back for any reason.
More information is always better, especially for a public cause like Wikipedia. Contributors may overwhelmingly agree to stop SOPA, but Wikipedia itself must stay neutral.
I tend to agree with this guy... he makes it very clear what his business is.... i.e. taking orders from 'marks' and then buying crap from others and having it delivered to those same people. He is still providing a service, and when I visited his site he makes no warranty claim etc...
I'm not sure what the problem is... I absolutely agree that it is not sustainable, but is he any more of a dick than a traditional middleman? A person that buys from a company and acts as a middleman but doesn't provide a guarantee on services....
At some point in the future, the public needs to get smart about what they purchase online... and until then... I almost think this guy is a hero because he is working within the boundaries (screwing some customers), and teaching people what online shopping should be... it isn't a paradise... it's shopping.
I agree with many of the comments. This sounds like a fine example where companies can step up to accommodate. Post signs that indicate the price after tax (like movie theater concessions in my area have, which usually round to the quarter), then the company figures taxes on money received at the end of the day. There's probably some stupid legal loophole that prevents that, but I would go out of my way to shop at a place that advertises the price I will actually pay. If the penny, nickel, quarter, etc... get's lost in the shuffle, that would be grand. I'd love to see a 'dollar store' where change doesn't exist.
I think it matters what you are producing, and how you intend to make money off of your production. If you are producing a physical product, and it is unique and without equal, you are in a tight spot. It's hard for everyday people to see a new product and not try to improve upon it.
I had a thought several years ago about an auto-swing door for waitresses. The problem is that waitresses always back out of doors with a tray full of goods. Many times they have a window at head height to determine obstacles before they push the door. These 'head height' windows ignore stupid children with irresponsible parents. My girlfriend is in this field and has had many waitresses spill food (or burn themselves) to prevent hurting a kid.
My idea is for a door that would use pressure plates on both sides to determine who is in the path. With weight on only one side, it would transmit power to a balanced door to allow a small amount of power to 'swing' the door outwards. Pressure on the other plate would stop the door.
This seemed like a good idea, but the idea of 'patenting' this idea is absurd. I would prefer to give this to the world, with time stamps to back up the fact that I gave it, then be able to use this as a reference on a resume.
You may have a marketable product... but it will likely not be recognized as your own once the process is through...
ok, I'm probably missing something.... Wikileaks is not a military power that acquired this information during a raid. It's also not a political entity (though it certainly uses information to support certain political views). It's simply a place for people to pass on information.
Somebody 'voluntarily' gave them this information. The argument seems now to be a) what should they do with it and b) what are the ramifications of a).
I personally think the pro-confidential people don't have a leg to stand on. If Wikileaks has it, it could just as easily have been sent to others. There is no reason to assume that they are the only ones to receive these documents. so for a) they chose to release the information publicly. The complaint is that for b) it has endangered lives. I'm not sure about that. Since there is no reason to assume this information is private, the next step should be public. I think it would be much worse for those that could be affected by the dissemination of this information to be unaware that it was leaked.
I guess my bottom line (rambling as it is) is that if I were one of the people who felt threatened because this information was leaked, I would much prefer to know that others know than to mistakenly think I am safe.
So, I'll likely get shot down for this, but I don't understand the difference either way. As a supporter of both a transparent government and the free flow of information to make everyone better off in the end, I wonder why we create the line of 'good vs. bad' leaks. I'm going to put aside sensitive government info. for a second to try to make my point.
Justin Beiber was recently voted to go to North Korea based on an online poll. The poll was rigged (or at least was gamed by a determined set of people). Similar things have happened with Time's person of the year for 2009 (moot, and marblecake), The governments attempt to vote for the name of space equipment (Steven Colbert won that one), and even a specific racy picture of Demi Moore, which rose to the top of Google search thanks to Tosh.0. We need all these things to secure the future of 'voting' through the internet. They demonstrate the flaws, and teach us at the same time.
When I found out that 'terrorists' were able to get video feed from our drones... (I don't have a link... look it up)... I was upset... not at the terrorists, but at the government that kept it so secret, it couldn't be tested in a real market... I was VERY upset at the government to know that this problem couldn't be solved for several years.
This gets back to the original point... government secrecy only harms the government, which is unable to test their secrecy in real terms. Whistleblowing is another way of demonstrating that either a) you shouldn't be doing something, or b) that you are terrible at hiding it. Both of those things are better discovered earlier than later.
The terrible part about this whole thing is that anyone who settles through ignorance, fear, or otherwise will now be on a list of 'people who have settled an infringement claim'. This list could easily then be sold to other copyright holders, matched to IP addresses, and now we have a list of 'suckers'.
People might argue that the first offense would convince them to not download illegally again, but that's the problem. This opens the door to other claims with less of a burden of proof. There is now precedent to charge these folks for anything unintentionally downloaded (or watched). I could see them being sued for watching an SNL clip on Youtube (which they didn't necessarily watch or share, but perhaps stumbled upon), with precedent given to the fact that they 'regularly' download (receive) illegal content.... seems like a problem...
Wow, this was a fantastic read.... this was an incredible interview that I hope you follow up on. I am going to immediately look up this guy as he is one badass interviewee (I sure hope that's a word). I've often thought that we would enter a terrible period where old-age people would divide against new-age people in some legacy battle where nobody could win. I now see that technology is too fast to allow such a simplistic problem. The divide has already happened and we are just accelerating faster... Though certainly new-age, he seems to understand most of my arguments to a greater degree than I do. If this is the future of business, I support it.
Opportunity is knocking
(untitled comment)
(untitled comment)
Other thoughts
This is upsetting
I can't find a substantive argument against her.. they all seem to be along the lines of "you've made it, you should do better". ugh... let an artist do her own thing... don't criticize. Learn, and grow from this experiment.
Seriously?
A Golden Opportunity
Boobs. That is all.
-Chris
Thanks for the support
no, no, no
More information is always better, especially for a public cause like Wikipedia. Contributors may overwhelmingly agree to stop SOPA, but Wikipedia itself must stay neutral.
Take a stand elsewhere.
Noooooooooo...
Cute kid with lollipop: "What now mother fucker?"
Me: "Noooooooooo..."
Anyone with me?
I'm not sure what the problem is... I absolutely agree that it is not sustainable, but is he any more of a dick than a traditional middleman? A person that buys from a company and acts as a middleman but doesn't provide a guarantee on services....
At some point in the future, the public needs to get smart about what they purchase online... and until then... I almost think this guy is a hero because he is working within the boundaries (screwing some customers), and teaching people what online shopping should be... it isn't a paradise... it's shopping.
(untitled comment)
Ideas
2. Access to a persistent chat room for each article. Debates are difficult with all the lag.
3. Colored comments - maybe distracting, but it's desirable and also advertising for the perk at the same time.
4. A feature to allow responses to your comment to be e-mailed to you so you don't have to check the page constantly.
5. Lottery - everyone loves a lottery. All small donations enter into a pool for a chance at a larger tier.
Re: I don't get it.
I had a thought several years ago about an auto-swing door for waitresses. The problem is that waitresses always back out of doors with a tray full of goods. Many times they have a window at head height to determine obstacles before they push the door. These 'head height' windows ignore stupid children with irresponsible parents. My girlfriend is in this field and has had many waitresses spill food (or burn themselves) to prevent hurting a kid.
My idea is for a door that would use pressure plates on both sides to determine who is in the path. With weight on only one side, it would transmit power to a balanced door to allow a small amount of power to 'swing' the door outwards. Pressure on the other plate would stop the door.
This seemed like a good idea, but the idea of 'patenting' this idea is absurd. I would prefer to give this to the world, with time stamps to back up the fact that I gave it, then be able to use this as a reference on a resume.
You may have a marketable product... but it will likely not be recognized as your own once the process is through...
Seriously?
Somebody 'voluntarily' gave them this information. The argument seems now to be a) what should they do with it and b) what are the ramifications of a).
I personally think the pro-confidential people don't have a leg to stand on. If Wikileaks has it, it could just as easily have been sent to others. There is no reason to assume that they are the only ones to receive these documents. so for a) they chose to release the information publicly. The complaint is that for b) it has endangered lives. I'm not sure about that. Since there is no reason to assume this information is private, the next step should be public. I think it would be much worse for those that could be affected by the dissemination of this information to be unaware that it was leaked.
I guess my bottom line (rambling as it is) is that if I were one of the people who felt threatened because this information was leaked, I would much prefer to know that others know than to mistakenly think I am safe.
Does that make sense?
What's the difference?
Justin Beiber was recently voted to go to North Korea based on an online poll. The poll was rigged (or at least was gamed by a determined set of people). Similar things have happened with Time's person of the year for 2009 (moot, and marblecake), The governments attempt to vote for the name of space equipment (Steven Colbert won that one), and even a specific racy picture of Demi Moore, which rose to the top of Google search thanks to Tosh.0. We need all these things to secure the future of 'voting' through the internet. They demonstrate the flaws, and teach us at the same time.
When I found out that 'terrorists' were able to get video feed from our drones... (I don't have a link... look it up)... I was upset... not at the terrorists, but at the government that kept it so secret, it couldn't be tested in a real market... I was VERY upset at the government to know that this problem couldn't be solved for several years.
This gets back to the original point... government secrecy only harms the government, which is unable to test their secrecy in real terms. Whistleblowing is another way of demonstrating that either a) you shouldn't be doing something, or b) that you are terrible at hiding it. Both of those things are better discovered earlier than later.
The worst is yet to come...
People might argue that the first offense would convince them to not download illegally again, but that's the problem. This opens the door to other claims with less of a burden of proof. There is now precedent to charge these folks for anything unintentionally downloaded (or watched). I could see them being sued for watching an SNL clip on Youtube (which they didn't necessarily watch or share, but perhaps stumbled upon), with precedent given to the fact that they 'regularly' download (receive) illegal content.... seems like a problem...
Wowzers
Good reference...
More comments from Chris Mikaitis >>
Chris Mikaitis’s Submitted Stories.
Submit a story now.
Tools & Services
TwitterFacebook
RSS
Podcast
Research & Reports
Company
About UsAdvertising Policies
Privacy
Contact
Help & FeedbackMedia Kit
Sponsor/Advertise
Submit a Story
More
Copia InstituteInsider Shop
Support Techdirt