There are something like 10,000 business books published in the english language each year. A significant percent are by or about people who have already had proven successes.
So I agree it's important to have a good reason why I should read this over the others.
I think both are just manifestations of intellectual curiosity - some people, when they talk to you, are asking themselves: "what is this guy trying to say?" So they listen. Those same people, when they see something unusual, for example, a new type of design, they ask themselves - why did these people do this? So they are constantly discovering, and it's that discovering of methods and ways that ultimately leads to them discovering the path that works.
The other people - the non-listeners - are not observing what's going on. They are looking inwards, so are unable to react to changes, and they are unable to see the path when they stumble across it.
Exactly. A person who is constantly reverse engineering business, peoples behavior and life in general.
Curiosity is a big thing. Before I wrote this reply I clicked your handle to see what you did and who you are. I guess that's fairly common on HN but there are people that I know in the local area who still haven't visited my website and have no idea what I do. They just aren't curious in the least.
I don't think this is a good idea. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia that many people depend on all over the world. Encyclopedias should not just switch off for political reasons. Books don't turn off. Digital information should not turn on and off either for any reason. A big red banner covering half the page can get the message across without actually making us unable to access the information stored in wikipedia.
>Encyclopedias should not just switch off for political reasons.
Characterizing this as a "political reason" does a huge disservice to what the events of the 18th are all about. This "political reason" has the potential to ruin the internet forever. The point of the blackout is to give people a taste of what could happen under SOPA/PIPA/etc. And get them to call their representatives, and get the word out.
Reddit and HN squawking about a law won't do much on its own. Getting the word out in a meaningful way, meaning impacting sites that the average (non-techie) joe would access, has the potential to be much, much more effective.
Something to the effect of "THIS COULD HAPPEN PERMANENTLY IF LAWS LIKE THIS PASS".
Between Cheezburger, WP, and some of the other sites out there, this is going to be a very, very interesting Wednesday.
If you want to help, take the complaining you're doing now and direct it at Congress (or your local equivalent if you're not in the USA). You can thank them for these shenanigans.
EDIT:
Keep in mind, even if you're not in the USA, this impacts you (and I don't just mean the blackout). So much of the internet's structure is located in the USA (IANA, ICANN, registrars, etc) that any bad legislation here has potentially global reach. SOPA/PIPA is a good example of such bad legislation.
There are a lot of political issues that could ruin the internet forever. The example I've been throwing out in this thread - nuclear weapons. Could destroy all of humanity. Does Wikipedia step in to get all countries to destroy nuclear weapons?
How bad does some political issue have to be for Wikipedia to get involved? And note that SOPA is far down on the list of "universally thought of as evil for all humanity" things that people would like to see changed.
No, if SOPA passes and Wikipedia is targeted, Wikipedia can move to another country. It's just the people in the USA who won't be able to access it (like people in other countries with national firewalls)
I agree. Taking a stand and putting up a banner, or a click-through page, etc is fine. But information services like Google and Wikipedia shouldn't actually be shut off in a way that makes the information inaccessible.
> But information services like Google and Wikipedia shouldn't actually be shut off in a way that makes the information inaccessible.
And that's exactly what SOPA would do. Permanently. Nobody is preventing you from accessing today's Wikipedia content on your own this Wednesday - go download a copy of their db right now if you're that scared and fearful of a day without it. The point is a strong demonstration of what the world would be like with SOPA/PIPA. It's necessary.
So shutting off information services is evil, and we're going to show it by committing the same evil? By that token we should teach everyone how bad genocide is by executing a random member of their family.
We should certainly get people's attention by doing something very overt like replacing every article with a big dark SOPA message, but there really should still be a way to click through to the information.
> We should certainly get people's attention by doing something very overt like replacing every article with a big dark SOPA message, but there really should still be a way to click through to the information.
That's fine for us mega-nerds, but what about everyone else?
There's a philosophical distinction between suicide and murder and martyrdom. Just like there is between being thrust into a furnace and setting yourself on fire.
I actually don't know what it's going to be like to work on Wednesday without Wikipedia. But I think it's in all our interests to find out and put a face on these bills.
I strongly think Google, Facebook, Wikipedia, and Amazon (not AWS) should all proceed with the nuclear option on the 18th, even though congress has temporarily shelved SOPA. The reality of the situation is that very few people outside of the tech community have any idea about SOPA and PIPA and how it jeopardizes the Internet.
This argument is pointless, because it's about only the U.S, which is a small proportion of phones used in the world. The rest of the world does not have the insane carrier monopolies and unusual pricing structures that are prevalent in the U.S. For the rest of the world, phones sell on the merits of their software and hardware - and that's what android should be measured on.
Exactly the same where I am. I have vanilla ICS on a Nexus S with a pre-pay that I can leave for a better deal at any time. This guy's article is totally off looked at from a global perspective. The billions rising out of poverty into the global middle class will never be able to afford an iPhone, Android is going to totally dominate in these markets. That's multiples of the US population. Apple has no hope at all in clawing that back.
Why won't they be able to afford an iPhone? Are you are implying that they can afford an Android phone because they will be $0 if you sign a contract? iPhones have this option nowadays as well.
What makes an Android phone easier to get a hold of compared to a iPhone? Both phones are $500+ if you get them standalone.
Actually one can get off-contract Android phones for as cheap as $99, or maybe even cheaper. They aren't top of the line devices, but they work. The only time an iPhone is that cheap is with a carrier subsidy.
I live in Australia too. Carriers are still able to have their way to some small extent.
I was regularly inquiring about android handsets for the last couple years. There were still carrier exclusives (for x number of months), and no one would sell me a high-endish, unlocked handset (e.g. Galaxy S).
The easiest way to get an unlocked Android handset is buy it online (be careful you get correct handset variant).
If manufacturers weren't capitulating to carrier demands silly things like this would not happen.
If you want an unlocked iPhone you go to an Apple store and just say so and it works on all carriers.
There's no such thing as an unlocked iphone. I get what you mean, carrier unlocked, but the implication you can get one that is unlocked in the same way as an android phone can be unlocked is not true. And you're right, even in Australia if you absolutely positively insist on dealing with the carriers at retail, they will try to screw you almost as hard as the people in the US get screwed.
You don't have to put up with it though, just buy online.
I came here just to say this. Why do people in the US continue to ignore the rest of the world? Only in the US does this carrier branded phone bullshit occur.
I live in Australia and I'm quite content with my unlocked Galaxy Nexus on my $40 Amaysim plan. Sure, it would be awesome to have paid $99 for my Galaxy Nexus and have the rest of the $700 I actually spent on it subsidised by Google, but that's the way it is at the moment. If anything you should hate your own stupid US carriers.
I'm not entirely clear on how it works in Australia, but in Greece you can either pay the full amount and get an unlocked phone, or get a carrier subsidy with contracts. The amount of the subsidy depends on the plan you choose, with higher-costing plans getting higher subsidies.
For example, a two-year, 50 EUR/month plan gets you a free iPhone 4S or the equivalent android phone, if I remember correctly.
Also, not a single phone, at any price range or contract status, is locked. Carriers don't care about locking the phones, you've got a contract with them and you're probably going to get a new phone at the end of it anyway.
In Ireland you can buy unlocked, or get a discounted locked phone with a contract. However, after your initial contract runs out the carrier legally must unlock the phone. In practice, getting them to unlock the phone is a bit like getting the direct debit on your gym membership cancelled, but you get the idea.
Here, you can get a phone unlocked (in most cases) for a higher fee, but the plan rates don't change. You can get an iphone for $800, unlocked, but it will still only work on AT&T in the US, and you still pay $50+/month. Or you can get one for $200 if you commit to $50/month for 2 years. No monthly price diff. :/
Ouch. Over here, if you don't want the phone subsidy (maybe you like your current phone), a certain amount is deducted from your monthly payments (so you still get the money back).
They write about what they know - they know about the mobile landscape of the United States. They likely don't know about the mobile landscape of the rest of the world and, if they were to comment on it, they would most likely get it wrong.
To be fair, MG does concede that Android as a product has gotten much better in recent years:
"""
So that, ladies and gentleman, is why I hate Android. It has nothing to do with the actual product (which continues to improve every year and is quite good now). It has to do with a promise that was broken and swept under the rug.
"""
Though I agree that his art.icle only really applies to the US.
I don't think that that's accurate. There's far more flexibility and choice in the UK carrier market than the US. It's pretty identical to the rest of Europe.
Windows Phone is failing because people are not putting it on handsets, and people are not putting it on handsets because Microsoft charges a licensing fee that needs to be pre-paid and that reduces already pretty thin margins.
This is the second post you've made ascribing views to me that I never expressed. Please go reread whatever posts you believe I wrote about a "superior race theory", I believe you'll discover that I didn't write them.
The words "superior race" don't appear anywhere. The most you've shown is that I've cited the same Sanandaji blog post a few times.
Your second and third links don't even mention race, though the second does conditionally postulate a superior gender (i.e., "if the post I'm replying to is correct, then women are inferior").
But I guess it's easier to call me racist than to actually dig up some hard numbers, right?
[1] I'm assuming that by "superior race theory" you mean something along the lines of "genetic variation in intelligence causes some races to outperform others in school".
Wow, really ugly maxklein. He cites studies that try to figure out how to improve American schools, with a focus on ethnic differences in academic achievement, in a discussion about ethnic and national differences in academic achievement, and you call him a race warrior?
He has been citing the same figures, always favoring the same group and against the same group for years now. I just went through 5 pages of his posts to find gems. Yes, he avoids be overt, but it's obvious.
Then the onus is on you to find and cite studies supporting whatever the hell your alternate hypothesis is or refuting his. Then have a polite debate about it.
HN is not the kind of place to resort to racebaiting and it's unacceptable and you know that.
I'm not going to waste my time and energy trying to refute someone who believes black people are not as clever as white people, and wraps it up in nice words. Go through his comments or any article on HN that mentions race. He tries to make the same point over and over again.
I'm not interested in any kind of debate about this. It just wastes my energy and brings me nothing. I will just point out that that's what he does when he chooses to do it. The onus is not on me to prove that black people are not dumb.
You still have yet to exhibit a post where I state the belief that "black people are not as clever as white people" or that "white people are not as clever as asians" [1]. (Note: I'm not asian. Am I racist against myself?)
You have, however, exhibited two posts where I explicitly state that I don't know the cause of the school performance gap and that cultural factors are one possible explanation. But I guess that those are part of my secret plan to appear non-racist, right?
Seriously dude, get a grip. There are far fewer secret racists out there than you think, and I'm basically the last person to be secretive about his views. If I thought blacks were, e.g., genetically less intelligent, I'd clearly state my hypothesis and link to data backing it up.
[1] Unless by "clever", you mean "do better in school". If that's what you mean, then I'm guilty as charged - just like PISA, TIMMS, the College Board, etc.
You are clearly someone who is obsessed with racial issues and in particular, issues that have some kind of data backing up what seems to be your theory that blacks are inferior to others. Sure, wrap it up in fancy round-about sentences and quotes from well known race-baiting sites, but do expect to be called out on it. Wrapping up racist statements in PC words doesn't make them any better.
I'm done with this argument, I don't think you deserve much more of my time.
As usual, you make another statement trying to pin the problems of your country on foreigners. Read the article - it makes the comparison to American states and to Norway, both of which do not have this 'non-european menace' you seem so scared of.
"Another"? Please reread both the post you replied to, and whichever previous post you believe I made pinning the problems of the US on foreigners. I can't recall ever making this claim, and it's so wildly divergent from my general world view that I suspect you clicked "reply" on the wrong post.
Let me just point out that:
a) I don't consider variation in average performance due to composition changes to be a problem (in this post I explicitly disavow that view:
http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3378157 )
b) in the post you reply to I said that composition changes were too small to affect average performance anyway - i.e., I'm saying Finland has too few immigrants to significantly move their averages.
For people like me who are afraid of flying, this lady is just disturbing the peace. People should be searched before being let on planes. If people are not searched, there will be more plane attacks and global transport will decline. Planes will always be targets for terrorists because of what they represent.
The law is not about technicalities. It's about reason and sense, and sensible is that when someone is behaving like a crazy person, then take the person and find out why. Technical law is when a fixed sentence is applied for a particular crime (like marijuana possession), that is then applied without sense.
Smile and go through the scanner. There is nothing strange about being seen naked by strangers, most of evolution we've been naked.
Yeah, disturbers of the peace, like that damn black woman who wouldn't move to the back of the bus. My peace > your rights.
> If people are not searched, there will be more plane attacks and global transport will decline.
Damn right, brother! I say we take this a step further, and start searching people when they enter the mall. I mean, a terrorist in the mall is just as dangerous. Especially during the holidays.
Or hell, let's search everyone going to the new years bash in Times Square. Just make 'em strip. As you say, nothing strange about being seen naked by strangers.
And we should also start using these scanners at schools. Clearly, with all the school shootings going on, gotta protect the innocent kids, right?
We can also take the same approach online. Have everyone register their computer's OS with their ISP, and only those registered computers can use the internet. I mean, if you are innocent, you have nothing to worry about, right? This can help stop child pornography, you know. And people distributing files they don't have the right to distribute.
Personally, I'm afraid of dying in cars. Did you know, more people die in an automobile accident then a terrorist attack? Clearly, we need to rid ourselves of these terrorists of the road. Make every car require a breathalyzer. If you've had a drink, you can't drive. Keep it simple. Keep it safe. Save lives! It's reasonable. I mean, I'm afraid of other drivers, and they are just disturbing my peace. I mean, the only people that would disagree are terrorists, child pornographers, drunk drivers, and pirating thieves!
This dichotomy you present holds two points: a) the TSA has full rights to our person, or b) The terrorists win. Please consider there is actually a c-z.
Let me put it this way. There are thousands of mechanical and electronic pieces on a plane, most of which were assembled by private enterprise. You trust them with your life to fly your ass miles through the air, and to land on a strip of tar -- safely, timely, and efficiently. Yet, they're not capable of keeping you safe from "terrorists"?
If this manufactured image of terrorists were actually a real threat to airliners, they would be addressing it themselves, just like they would any other life-threatening safety flaw on their plane.
Take a look at airport security in Israel sometime. They don't have this silly invasive rigamarole that we do. They have highly trained agents that observe peoples' behavior to look for suspicious events. If they search someone, then it's because they have reasonable cause.
We don't want to do that because it's expensive to do it right. So we have the TSA, which is just a jobs program for the most unskilled folks in the population, and creates an illusion of security without having to provide real security.
Everyone mentions Israel, but have you actually been there? I am curious about what would happen, should you get singled out for "enhanced screening" there by their staff.
Prior to 9/11, I went to Japan on vacation. The security made it look like it was a domestic flight, not a 24-hour one. Me and my sister got pulled from the line and led to a small room, with dozens of people.
We were only let go 4 hours later (after 27 hours flying, that wasn't exactly pleasant). And that's only because they were checking our story with out uncle, who was a native Japanese and went looking for us when we didn't show up at the airport.
And don't even get started on their multiple-page form, in Spanish. I asked for an English version because I couldn't figure it out (I am Brazilian, so they probably figured it was ok).
Also, my posessions got searched and I even got inquired about my religious beliefs - there was a postcard from my grandmother to my aunt which had a christian image. I guess that sort of thing would not happen in the US - at least not to a citizen, anyway.
Needless to say, while I loved the country, I hate the screening to this day.
In the US, a couple of years ago, something similar happened. I got pulled to the "yellow room", because my fingerprint didn't match the Visa (my brother's went on the record insted, probably due to confusion, as our names are similar). In any case, I was let go in a couple of minutes, after the officer inquired who the guy showing on the monitor was, and I pointed to my brother waiting a few meters from us. No idea what would have happened if I wasn't travelling with him tho.
He also mentioned I will always have that problem (until the Visa expires, that is). But, even with all these "enhanced measures", I'll still rather take my chances with the US if I have a choice.
Disclaimer: that was before the full-body scanners and the enhanced patdowns were in place at the particular airport I went to.
> There is nothing strange about being seen naked by strangers, most of evolution we've been naked.
What about being bombarded by ionizing radiation? The millimeter wave machines don't bother me so much, but there's a reason they cover you with a lead vest when you're at the dentist. Full-body x-ray scanners are banned across Europe due to cancer concerns.
