This is a huge problem, and I think it's a good idea to legislate this (depending on the precise text of the bill) due to the positive externalities involved. I wrote a blog post making this argument:
Agreed, and this group as much as any should understand that just because the product is made of bits and can be distributed virtually free, it should not be free of cost.
Just like any good software company, the NYTimes should be thinking about their price strategy in a more complex way than cost plus. And I'm sure they are.
It's not about distribution. Much like ordering a book from Amazon, buying software, or going to see a movie, distribution is typically not the most relevant cost.
I think the NYTimes is one of the best bargains out there, and lucky for those who don't pay the benefits spillover to other journalism, especially the blog/twitter world.
That is not correct. You are looking for the intersection of marginal utility of the dollars earned through work, and the marginal cost (in utility) of giving up leisure (while hungry and cold, perhaps). You are arguing that the marginal utility of those dollars earned through work are lower than the utility of that final hour of leisure.
But both of those utility functions have sharp curves, and those first dollars generate huge utility (food, shelter, etc.), while the negative utility is very modest when you've already used 167 of 168 hours that week on leisure.
Mr. Stucchio isn't the first one to present this type of argument which is explicit in that people are choosing to be poor. That probably doesn't feel right to most of us, and that's because it's ridiculous. Jamming a complex social problem into a simple economic model may be fun and even valuable at times, but only if you don't buy your own BS wholesale.
I'm admittedly struggling to understand how he's drawing this conclusion, as I think he's equating utility with expenditures? If so, this is completely wrong. Your first few thousands of dollars are used for things like food, shelter, and basic healthcare, and they generate massive utility. It isn't constant.
But I also take issue with the first assumption, that each hour of leisure time provides constant utility. Is that true? Does a poor person get more marginal value from that last hour of "leisure time" on the streets? What about poor people who go to bed hungry, are they doing that because they're rationally basking in all these extra hours of leisure time?
There are many reasons people are poor, but people choosing to be poor as an economically rational decision sounds crazy, and that's because it is. Just measure the happiness of the non-working poor vs. people making 30k, and I think you can put this one to rest.
I do not see the flaw. The statement in quotes, while a simplification, is correct if a private company is making the decision. If a government is making the decision (typical with roads, not with broadband), there are a ton of other factors, although in an ideal world they would also try to do a similar NPV calculation. In any case, the government doesn't own broadband.
Not only is the slide from 2008, but it also says it requires "close access methods" and "remote installation will be pursued for a future release." In other words, they need physical access to your device. If we think that the NSA can't compromise a device after gaining physical access, well then I think we should be scared about the competence of the NSA.
I don't have the patience to watch Appelbaum's hour long talk, but unless he has something far more impressive than these documents then he's just another activist who will willfully mislead in order to advance his cause.
I have no idea how accurate the 60 Minutes story was, but this article is woefully unconvincing. Calling your rebuttal "the definitive facts" is childish.
My favorite line is: "There are as many red flags surrounding the BIOS Plot as there are in all of China." Who writes this?
This article paints SV with too broad a brush, but this is a big problem. There is a tendency here to oversimplify really complex problems. That's a good thing when you need to take a leap of faith and start a company to tackle those problems, but a bad thing when you lack empathy for less fortunate people around you.
Guess what, most of these people have struggles that we can't begin to understand. A lot are dealing with mental health issues that are more debilitating than anything you or I will ever have to deal with. I live on Market St., and I'm as guilty as anyone of becoming numb to the homeless living there. But let's not delude ourselves into thinking that anyone can grab a Rails tutorial and become a six-figure engineer within a few years just because we've seen it done.
It's disappointing to read all this negativity around the drone delivery story. Who knows if this will happen as soon as they claim, but it is a cool idea with a lot of genuinely interesting implications.
The fact that Amazon is trying to generate good PR is a tangental story in my opinion, and I wonder if investing in a drone delivery program just to show it off would be the most cost effective way to get good press.
I am also very unimpressed with the challenges that Mr. Ball identified. He probably had fun fashioning himself as some kind of technology muckraker, but please go after uninspired technology instead of taking easy shots at interesting and bold ideas.
I realize your comment is snark, but the lesson I take is to build your app in Rails, then if you become multi-billion dollar IPO-level success, rewrite...
You may have some specific conditions for what you consider innovation, but Facebook is a service that dramatically changes how a significant percentage of humans spend their free time, and the implications are huge. Connecting with people, sharing information, etc. The fact that the business model is backed by advertising isn't relevant. By your definition I wonder if TV, film, or even the printing press is innovative.
American Idol was also innovative, and whatever group created the spectacle of the Superbowl and the NFL were also likely innovators. Just because it isn't hardcore technology doesn't mean it isn't innovative.
If I were running a company, I'd buy everyone a license of 1Password and make its use mandatory. Sure there are still plenty of attack vectors, but it's just too easy, and 1Password is such a cheap way to mitigate risk (not to mention you're doing your employees a huge favor by reducing their vulnerability outside of work).
I'll second this one, I spent five years at a major consulting company working in large banks and insurance companies, and there was NOTHING agile about development.
I'm not sure what a "male space" is, but it isn't software engineering. It is not a gender specific role, both men and women can do it, men and women excel at it, and men and women should be encouraged to do it. When we think of programming as a "male space" or a "male activity" we are not moving the profession forward.
Now what is a "male space"? The military? No, women are on the front lines. Finance? No, a woman is about to become the first Chairman of the Fed. Politics? No, we have 20 female US Senators and a viable Presidential candidate. Professional sports? No, women have their own leagues, and several men's teams have female execs. Software Engineering???
I'll be interested when someone breaks Touch ID in a real life theft. This is not a simple process, it's not clear that a determined thief is even likely to find a good enough print in a real life case, and you can't mess around because after 5 failed attempts it will prompt for a password.
Touch ID will likely cover the vast majority of security use cases for iPhone owners.
http://andrewro.in/post/75915934983/forcing-antitheft-techno...