Slashdot Mirror

I can just hear Jack Nichelson's voice: "Where does he get all of those toys?"

http://ai.about.com/library/weekly/aa072099.htm
http://www.forbes.com/2001/02/13/0213robot.html%20
http://www1.cnn.com/TECH/9612/11/interactive.robot s/
http://www.daily.umn.edu/daily/1999/12/07/news/new 2/
http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/sci/tech/newsid_1 112000/1112411.stm
http://internet.cybermesa.com/~haddrill/robots.htm l
http://www.berkeley.edu/news/media/releases/97lega cy/robot.html
http://www.it.umn.edu/inventing/98fall/cover/
http://slashdot.org/articles/99/06/21/1934206.shtm l
http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/4.03/robots.htm l
http://ai.miningco.com/library/weekly/aa072099.htm

here:

Why Broadband Is So Narrow?

where the state of broadband is discussed in good detail. In fact, this month's issue of Forbes ASAP had a few articles (check the first 4 listed starting at Internet II in particular) discussing the current viability of broadband, future implications of Internet II, how the Internet should grow in the future, and how the government should help its growth.

I don't know enough about the current situation regarding these topics to make intelligent comments about it, but these articles IMO did a good job painting the current picture. I HIGHLY suggest these articles for anyone not familiar with the current nightmare growing in broadband regulation/deregulation, the growth of the net, and DSL vs. Cable Modem providers.

t.

here:

Why Broadband Is So Narrow?

where the state of broadband is discussed in good detail. In fact, this month's issue of Forbes ASAP had a few articles (check the first 4 listed starting at Internet II in particular) discussing the current viability of broadband, future implications of Internet II, how the Internet should grow in the future, and how the government should help its growth.

I don't know enough about the current situation regarding these topics to make intelligent comments about it, but these articles IMO did a good job painting the current picture. I HIGHLY suggest these articles for anyone not familiar with the current nightmare growing in broadband regulation/deregulation, the growth of the net, and DSL vs. Cable Modem providers.

t.

This Hoover's capsule says TBS is a subsidiary of AOL/TW - I think Time Warner bought it outright. Generally, "Inc." is used for private companies (Although Sun Microsystems, Inc. is a notable exception) and "Corp." is used for public companies. Although Turner did manage the division under Time Warner, This article at Forbes says he lost control with the merger with AOL.

Amazing isn't it how one poor decision leads to an avalanche of further massive expenditures, good money following bad? HP decided it didn't want to spend the resources on the next generation of PA-RISC, so it decided to partner with Intel on Itanium. Unfortunately this was in time to concede huge markets to Sun, a company that has chosen to go against Wintel in both hardware and software. So HP missed out on the boom. And now it's trying to make up ground in the downturn. Look near the bottom of this article from Forbes. Since 1994! HP has been caught in a trap where it is perceived that its flagship processor will be phased out. Under those circumstances it is impossible to grow that part of the Unix business. So HP has been caught trying to sell "NT workstations", expanding into selling consumer PCs, anything to generate the slightest bit of revenue.

Meanwhile Sun and IBM went on developing their next generation 64 bit processors. After the downturn ends, and it will end, who are going to be in a better position, companies who sell their own chips or companies that are fighting to be Intel resellers? What exactly will be the barrier to one's competitors also becoming Intel resellers if that is right?

What no one seems to want to acknowledge is that if Dell continues to hold the lead in efficiency, there really is no reason for any other major player to be in the commodity Intel PC business. It doesn't matter if you're twice, three times, whatever Dell's size. If Dell is more efficient, if Dell can make money and expand even in a downturn, it's only a matter of time. And Dell can use its current strong position to keep moving up into higher revenue markets.

The combined HP/Compaq will not be able to cut a better deal from Intel than Dell can because Dell has always been an Intel-only shop, the most loyal one. Dell's competition in laptops is Sony not from anything HP/Compaq does. The only area HP/Compaq has an edge is in PDAs.

Let's think--who will survive selling PCs in five years and why. Dell wins because they are the most efficient. Sony wins because they can bundle multimedia goodies and sell at a premium, plus if PCs are getting to be more like commodities, Sony has the edge in consumer electronic design. Apple stays alive by staying off Intel and also exploiting its reputation in education and multimedia. (Although in education it is once again Dell that is the main competitor, not HP or Compaq.)

What's especially absurd is that neither HP nor Compaq can exploit what makes Dell so efficient because they can't solve the problem of how to sell directly without alienating the middlemen distributors. This problem is impossible to solve with the companies' present business model.

The prospect of trying to combine a corporation whose roots are in the Bay Area of California with one whose roots are in Texas--how come no one questions these catastrophic mis-marriages of disparate corporate culture? Houston, Texas and Palo Alto, California?! What a joke.

A company called Bannerama tried this. They offered software to replace banners not with other banner ads, but with pithy quotes & other content. Don't know what happened to them--bannerama.com isn't working.

The gist of the Forbes piece is that "companies won't give up their lost ad value without a fight." Of course CPMs were much higher when the article was written.

Still searching for my Inner Adult...

You had some good things to say, but I really have to correct the record on one point that you made, something which was also brought up at the Roundtable:

[T]he motivation behind Free Software, as advocated by Richard Stallman, is to advance humanity as a whole.

Actually, the whole motivation behind Richard Stallman's Free Software crusade is pure jealousy and ego. When fellow workers at MIT started taking the research and actually applying it to produce real products to be used by consumers, and of course making money from it, it really honked RMS off. From Steven Levy's Hackers (emphasis mine):

This was RMS's opportunity for revenge.... Stallman had no illusions that his act would significantly improve the world at large. He had come to accept that the domain around the AI Lab had been permanently polluted. He was out to cause as much damage to the culprit as he could.

[Stallman] retaliated [against the computer scientists who left the MIT AI Lab to form Symbolics] by sabotaging his former colleagues' sophisticated commercial programs for powerful computers, singlehandedly hacking up his own versions and giving them away. "They accused me of costing them millions of dollars," he says. "I hope it's true."

Not really too surprising from someone who has invested so much energy in attacking anybody who says "Linux" without appending "GNU" to the front of it, is it? How many more hours have been wasted by programmers thinking they were serving some noble goal, when in reality they were just feeding Richard Stallman's childish insecurities and ego? Programmers that Stallman would be thrilled to see homeless and begging for change if they ever even think about making a bigger splash than him. Pity.

Cheers,

Defending the BSD license --

quote: ... You would only be a "dupe" if you did not understand the terms of the BSD license --
which is unlikely, since it is a very short, simple and clear license. (The GPL, on the other hand,
goes on for pages and contains much legalese.) The BSD license, and the MIT X license, say that
anyone can use the code in any way he or she wants -- so long as they release the author from
liability for bugs. Simple, clear, and to the point. There's not much room to be "duped" here!

GPL: The Great Wall
Avoiding GPL "infection"
Un-"GNUing" software

quote: In fact, if you understand the history of the GPL (which is documented in Steven Levy's book
Hackers, you know that one of Richard Stallman's goals in creating the GPL was exactly this:
to prevent the reuse of the products of government-sponsored research in commercial products.

Richard Stallman, who did government-sponsored research at the MIT AI Lab, was traumatized when his co-workers left the Lab to convert its research into "real" products that people could use. As Levy wrote:

This was RMS's opportunity for revenge.... Stallman
had no illusions that his act would significantly improve
the world at large. He had come to accept that the domain
around the AI Lab had been permanently polluted. He was
out to cause as much damage to the culprit as he could.

A recent story in Forbes corroborates Levy's account. It says:

[Stallman] retaliated [against the computer scientists
who left the MIT AI Lab to form Symbolics] by sabotaging his
former colleagues' sophisticated commercial programs for powerful
computers, singlehandedly hacking up his own versions
and giving them away. "They accused me of costing them millions
of dollars," he says. "I hope it's true."

Forbes has this to say about Red Hat..
NEW YORK - Red Hat Software has squeezed out a first-quarter profit distributing a product that, for all intents and purposes, it doesn't own.

So its a lot like Microsoft which has made profits distributing a product that, for all intents and purposes, doesn't work.

Microsoft has cash on hand (cash and short-term investments) of $26.9B (report).

Is it just me, or does it seem that just maybe the networks/studios/MPAA, et al called up Tivo and said:

• "You're allowing our viewers to skip through our advertising. This is a violation of the DMCA. Pay us royalties or face the fate of Napster."

After reading articles like the one that idiot Dvorak penned (http://www.forbes.com/2001/04/16/0416dvorak.html) I don't think it's too far fetched to think that Tivo may be getting pressure to pay for the "privelege" of allowing users to use these features.

I smell a class action lawsuit by Tivo purchasers coming...

Nope, just your basic piss poor business model. Forbes had a fairly long article (free registration required) on the company about 2 issues (1 month) ago, they didn't seem to think Psinet would be around for long. They used debt for aquisitions, not stock swaps. When the dotcom bust happened last year the debt equity markets slammed shut on them. When ya gotta borrow money to make your interest payments it's a good bet you're on the downward spiral.

All your snot are belong to, uhh, nevermind.

hey, the javascript wasn't working on the page for me, so here's the link. quicktime 3 required. http://www.forbes.com/static_html/troody.html john

http://www.forbes.com/400richest/

--

If I may provide a little Slashback -- the Sunday Times report that Gates has dropped to second place was completely inaccurate. It ascribed all of Sam Walton's inheritance to one son instead of splitting it across his four kids and widow. (Details here)

Unsettling MOTD at my ISP.

This Markoff guy is scary. According to Kevin Mitnick's interview with forbes he almost single handedly created the "Mitnick hacker legend". I always thought that yellow journalism was something to rant about in American history class. I guess that was just practice for real life.

Maskirovka

This Markoff guy is scary. According to Kevin Mitnick's interview with forbes he almost single handedly created the "Mitnick hacker legend". I always thought that yellow journalism was something to rant about in American history class. I guess that was just practice for real life.

Maskirovka

Dvoraks article was so ignorant that I actually wrote and sent a letter to Forbes in response. Ok, so maybe it won't have any effect, but at least I can share it with you. Some of the ideas in the letter came from reading posts on Slashdot, so this letter is almost Open Source in a way:

Dear Forbes Magazine,

In regards to the recent commentary by John C. Dvorak "Commercial-Free Conundrum" (Dvorak Article). Until I read this article, I thought that Forbes was a professional magazine that would stay away from crass tactics to draw readership. Yet, this appears to be exactly what is happening with Mr. Dvorak's article. To summarize the claims that Dvorak seems to be making in his article:

1. Making a personal copy of a TV show and time shifting it is inherently wrong.

"In many ways the device is similar to MP3 technology: It's a way to steal programming."

2. As a TV viewer, I am required to watch advertisements to watch the programming being broadcast.

"Is it any different to steal programming by skipping the commercials (which paid for the programs) than it is to download a song?"

3. "Someday, though, all the barriers may be resolved and every TV just might have these capabilities built in. Perhaps that's when someone will notice the looming issue over intellectual property that has been largely ignored until now."

Without drawing this out into a full blown debate, I would like a chance to respond to each of these points:

1. Since the Betamax decision, TV viewers everywhere have been copying and time shifting TV broadcast for personal use. The fact that PVR is a new technology doesn't change the nature of this use. In fact, using a Tivo it is impossible to make additional copies and give them to other people, something which VHS permits quite easily.

2. There is nothing requiring anyone to watch TV advertisements. I can mute an advertisement for a show, change the channel, or turn off the TV. If I am recording on VCR, I can hit pause until the commercial is over and resume recording when the show restarts.

3. When "every" TV has this feature built in, it will be no different than the situation today with TV/VCR combo units. Every TV built won't have this feature because it is an added cost, but I do think combo units will appear. Mr. Dvorak, you seem to imply that I am stealing something by not watching the advertisements for a particular show. I find this insulting and counter by asking you: Do you watch the advertisements when you watch TV? Or do you perhaps get up for a snack or a trip to the bathroom?

The PVR is clearly a slightly enhanced VCR with the added advantage from the point of view of the publishers that there is no media associated with it which can easily be traded (like a VHS cassette tape). The current PVR could just as easily been implemented using VHS and there are enhanced VCR devices with features similar to PVR devices.

I hope the above points make clear to you my frustration with this article. If Dvorak were addressing the potential issue that will arise when video of all types is easily traded over the internet (not the case with any of the devices he mentioned) then perhaps he would have an editorial with some ground to stand on. As it stands, his current article only serves to incite and draw the readership of people who are offended by his statements. This is why I am disturbed that his article appeared in Forbes. I did not previously believe that Forbes is the type of magazine that would print pure sensationalism for the purpose of drawing readership.

You claim that your company is "among the most trusted resources for the world's business and investment leaders." Please do something to reassure me that Forbes is the professional magazine I once believed it to be.

*** Personal Info Deleted ***

Ok, your post piqued my interest so I went onto Forbes site and there isn't anything on Slashdot recently. But, last Feb. they did have an article on, interestingly enough, the Slashdot Effect. It's kind of an amusing read. The article your talking about probably hasn't been posted on the site yet.

Ok, your post piqued my interest so I went onto Forbes site and there isn't anything on Slashdot recently. But, last Feb. they did have an article on, interestingly enough, the Slashdot Effect. It's kind of an amusing read. The article your talking about probably hasn't been posted on the site yet.

In this article Timex recently announced a new watch with messaging capabilities. They worked with Motorola and Skytel, apparently. The only problem is that there is no way to send messages, only to receive them for now. Still, it might be good for IT guys who need to get urgent "our network has been compromised by script kiddies get your ass over here" messages, but don't want the inconvenience of carrying another device.

By Peter Brimelow, Forbes Magazine, 12.11.00

THE LEFT IS RIGHT: AMERICA IS AN UNJUST SOCIETY." Startling words to come from Paul Craig Roberts, 61, an architect (as assistant secretary of the Treasury) of the Reagan tax-cut revolution and now a syndicated columnist and chairman of the Institute for Political Economy. But he's not talking about discrimination or the unequal distribution of wealth. The problem, he says, is this: "Americans are no longer secure in law-the justice system no longer seeks truth and prosecutors are untroubled by wrongful convictions."

This may have appeared recently on /. when I wasn't paying attention, but just in case...
Check out this article from Forbes on Life; Turing Machines aren't the only things that can come out of Life programs.

Oh, just an amusing story along with it... i saw it in a forbes magazine just laying around the house, thought /.'ers should see it. Went to forbes.com, found the online version, submitted it for posting. Doesn't seem to have made it to the front page, but hey, the link's still useful.

~the Koosh man

"Turbolinux Inc., a developer of software based on the Linux operating system, announced on Monday that it has notified U.S. regulators of the proposed initial public offering of its common stock. Here's the link to the news.

The Forbes article has a somewhat different spin. Rather than saying that a glut of foreign workers is responsible for the "labor shortage", Matloff contends that companies are setting unreasonably high standards for applicants. He says that companies are rejecting people that, while they may have experience and good programming skills, don't have the specific skills the company is looking for (although they could be retrained in a minimal amount of time).

There's probably some truth to this argument, but I believe that, as some others have brought up, age is more of a factor than this.

For some really great examples of group think, try here.

Fujitsu and Sony are already on, Hitachi and NEC are expected...but this chip only has an edge in a limited market (laptops and assorted PDAs). Plus they outsource the manufacture of the chips to IBM. The cynic in me would say this is another case of CEO's buffing the company image before their IPO...

"Transmeta, which filed in mid-August for an initial public offering, is gaining in stature within the industry and on Wall Street..."

They do have Linus Torvalds onboard and Paul Allen's cash behind them, but that doesn't mean you have half a decade lead time over Intel or AMD. Bottom line: the market for PDAs and laptops is small. Their production set up is small. If the Suits at Intel or AMD decide to throw money at the problem, they could play catch-up faster than you might think.

http://www.forbes.com/forbes/99/0614/6312194a.htm

Last time we discussed this was in January of '99, when we all argued over the relative merits of my existence. (One of the more nerve-wracking experiences I've ever had.) Adam Penenberg (who has since quit after Forbes wanted him to expose a source in a hacking story) did a story on me called "Quit School. Join the web." I guess I'm a better example now -- I've got my own company that's actually doing very well. So I guess you can still chalk me up as an advocate of "joining the web."

-Waldo

-------------------

Last time we discussed this was in January of '99, when we all argued over the relative merits of my existence. (One of the more nerve-wracking experiences I've ever had.) Adam Penenberg (who has since quit after Forbes wanted him to expose a source in a hacking story) did a story on me called "Quit School. Join the web." I guess I'm a better example now -- I've got my own company that's actually doing very well. So I guess you can still chalk me up as an advocate of "joining the web."

-Waldo

-------------------

Last time we discussed this was in January of '99, when we all argued over the relative merits of my existence. (One of the more nerve-wracking experiences I've ever had.) Adam Penenberg (who has since quit after Forbes wanted him to expose a source in a hacking story) did a story on me called "Quit School. Join the web." I guess I'm a better example now -- I've got my own company that's actually doing very well. So I guess you can still chalk me up as an advocate of "joining the web."

-Waldo

-------------------

As for google not coming up with anything, bah.

By the way, the cat is also being distributed to all subscribers of Forbes magazine; the FAQ is here..

The 'official' site is www.getcat.com.

As for google not coming up with anything, bah.

By the way, the cat is also being distributed to all subscribers of Forbes magazine; the FAQ is here..

The 'official' site is www.getcat.com.

Forbes magazine says they are rolling the :cue:C.A.T. out soon. Publications with barcodes start 9/11/00.

For example, if we showed a calculator to someone fifty years ago, they would have had no problem calling this device "intelligent" amazed at its problem solving ability (in math).

There are two sources are, the story in a 99 Forbes article based on this report

These figures have been disputed here , with much lower estimates

According to Forbes Stephen King made $63,000,000 last year. I mean, how much more money does he actually need?

• If it's *that* good, release its source code in the public domain.
• If not, keep it a secret (but, please, *do* release some Linux driver).

article that adam penenberg (sp?) is being asked to verify is here:

This is having an important effect on the open source community.I've studied it and have come to several conclusions, which are illustrated in the following articles.

1. Forbes Magazine article
2. "Microsoft on the Defensive"
3. "Reflections on the Cathedral and the Bazaar"











>sad`ji3br#Z5ei"d?0-t42()(f.n1i(itrukt=-b%1'_.20cq `h9,'4et\#ecb*(up7#`c_9\j 1o\4"\g:a,og&.?#]p_.)+c^b14\\?'&`65b4k^a-7\.>[k4^? .24'`e<?u1

How do they get hot chicks? Buy 'em.

And there's the simple question of "Would you rather see the loser main character (which you should identify with) dating attractive women, or plain women?"
--

On graduation, Ballmer took a job as an assistant product manager with Procter & Gamble. There he learned about elbowing for shelf space. Ballmer and his P&G colleagues came up with the horizontal brownie mix box, printed so that it took up a few more inches of width on the shelf and left less room for Duncan Hines competitors.

Evidently, he's still pulling the same trick at Microsoft today.

--

On graduation, Ballmer took a job as an assistant product manager with Procter & Gamble. There he learned about elbowing for shelf space. Ballmer and his P&G colleagues came up with the horizontal brownie mix box, printed so that it took up a few more inches of width on the shelf and left less room for Duncan Hines competitors.

Evidently, he's still pulling the same trick at Microsoft today.

--

The necessary post full of other links....

Salon article
"End of the tech world" piece from AnchorDesk
a "So What?" peice from E-Commerce Times
Forbes says sell the stock...
...but StarTribune say keep it
MS and hardware
And last, but certainly not least, Ballmer says if they're broken up, prices will rise.

Sometimes, it really baffles me that people get paid to write some of this stuff.

If you don't have property rights, you're just a serf.

BTW, according to Forbes Ellison may very soon edge out Bill Gates (aka Bilgatus of Borg) to become the wealthiest person alive (at least on paper).

• 
  
• March, 2000 - $133 million towards people being able to receive health benefits of the advancements in pharmaceuticals
• October, 1999 - $7.7 million towards New York State public libraries for internet access and technical training/information
• September, 1999 - $1 billion for the Gates Millenium Scholarships to pay for 1,000 college students' tuition, room, and board

• Phamaseuticals = 0.15 %
• Libraries = 0.009 %
• Scholarships = 1.17%

• Phamaseuticals = $75
• Libraries = $4.50
• Scholarships = $588

It's a big difference. Micros~1 is on the ropes, but they might still make a comeback. However, they and the financial community know that they have serious troubles. I mean, heck have you seen poor, sad Bill Gates' commercials trying to rebuild M$'s (and his own) image? Despite everything, having a judge rule against you in a very public, potentially very damaging case is a big public relations loss.

AOL, though, has done a lot of shady things, and yet their image is hunky-dory in the public eye. Some shady things AOL has done:

1. Exploited High School students by having them work as AOL volunteers.

2. Practiced Trojan Horse Marketing.

3. Disclosed confidential information about its members.

And, well, the list goes on. The only thing we should worry about AOL competing with M$ in is shady business practices. I don't care if they continue to produce their crummy Internet service as long as they do so honestly and ethically. Their past track record, however, does not give me much confidence of this.

Of course, I never underestimate Bill Gates, he might make a comeback and beat all his enemies, sort of like Francis Urquhart in that BBC series...

But why does it have to be a competition between AOL and Micros~1, can't I hate both companies? ;_;

(And despite his many infamous deeds, I still prefer Bill Gates to the Soap Salesman. I can at least picture Bill reading Heinlein or Asimov.... I don't even want to imagine what the Soap Salesman reads... probably stuff about synergy and marketing brochures.)

The solution the shortage of able sysadmins, of course, is to make the kids the sysadmins. George Gilder wrote this article about a school that did just that. It seems to work, and it gives some kids a chance to excel at something where they may have really hated school otherwise(sound familiar?).