Oh could you explain again to us why your family chose not to live in China anymore?
I suspect it would have more to do with money and opportunity, than freedom and escaping oppression. As there becomes more money and opportunity in China for more people, I'm going to venture a guess that you will see far less emigration.
Do you think Hezbollah or Hammas gives 100% accurate information and that the U.S. is just a lie machine seeking to destroy everyone's freedom?
Who said anything about Hamas giving 100% accurate information? It's like when I'm watching the Jerry Springer show. I wish families like that didn't exist, but I'm not losing any sleep over their problems. And I'm most certainly not going to call into the show to try and "save" them. However, if my OWN family were like that, my revulsion would be an order of magnitude higher because I actually have to live with them. Plus, my perception of my own character and basic decency as a human being is reflected by what my family is like. As an American, I'd like to think that I'm not nationalistically arrogant and ethnically ignorant.
Tell me - would you rather have the Bush administration in power or the Ayatollah?
You mean to tell me that if we didn't have the Bush administration in power, we'd have the Ayatollah? Try and think a little before you pose this kind of question, ok?
First off, thank you for giving me the benefit of the doubt in your statements regarding the medical industry. Second of all, you may be surprised to find that I agree with much of what you say. I'm well aware of the studies that you cited. I would even go so far as to say that I tend to believe most strongly in the HealthGrade study that shows that medical error is the THIRD leading cause of death in this country after heart disease and cancer.
That said, let me expand upon my original comment. When I made that comment about the legal world, I was referring specifically to the painfully slow progress of medical IT. However, I do think it applies in a broader context as well. This is a complex issue and I didn't mean to make it sound as if the blame completely belongs to lawyers. There's enough blame to go around - doctors, lawyers, insurance companies, and yes, the patients themselves. How to begin? Whew...
Well, let me first acknowledge the validity of part of your point. Some lawsuits are warranted and needed to keep the medical field on its toes. Absolutely, I agree. There are cases where the doctor, nurse, or hospital was negligent and the patient suffered or died for it. However, mistakes in the medical field are not as easy to categorize or avoid as you think they are. You seem to be under the impression that if they just changed the system, things will get better. You cited the story about anesthesiologists. That may work for certain examples, and where it can work, people in the healthcare field DO make an effort to make these changes.
But there are others in which mistakes are unavoidable (unfortunately, there always will be errors). But the system creates the environment in which those errors become more likely. Many times, it is NOT entirely the healthcare system's fault. That you think it does is a good example of a widespread public perception that medicine is an exact science. Much of the public also thinks that (thanks to the media) modern medicine is responsible for the long life expectancy in this country (it is NOT; that is thanks to public health measures such as clean water supplies and sanitation measures). That perception leads many who aren't in the healthcare field to believe that because we know so much about the human body and disease, that nearly everything is fixable, and thus, mistakes can be avoided if healthcare providers are simply careful enough. Unfortunately, the powers-that-be in the medical world do nothing to change this perception. After all, it feels good to be placed on a pedestal. On an individual basis, you won't find many doctors who would agree wholeheartedly that this perception is justifiable. It is an unfortunate fact that with as much as we know (rather, as much as we THINK we know), there is far, far, FAR more that we don't know, or that we don't understand. For every door we unlock in the science aspect of medicine, 5 more are revealed.
Here's my oversimplified, overgeneralized one-sentence opinion about modern healthcare: I feel that the healthcare profession overtest, overdiagnose, and overtreats patients. It leads to a lot of the errors that you spoke of. And some of this may be greed. But a lot of it is fear of litigation. (Perhaps some of it used to justify the greed.) The point is, many doctors order unnecessary tests, write unnecessary prescriptions, perform unnecessary procedures simply because A) it is considered standard of care, B) the patient wants it, or C) to cover their ass. However, these unnecessary tests, prescriptions and procedures themselves are the source of much morbidity and yes, mortality. These are then attributed to "medical error". As a healthcare professional, what do you do? Do you discourage hospital stays, expensive exams, and treatments, and RISK missing something (even if unlikely) and an expensive, career-ruining lawsuit? Or do you order up the entire battery of tests, procedures, etc knowing that the patient's insurance will cover it anyhow, because it's the "
>IMHO medical information privacy is more of a theoretical concern than a real-life concern.
No, it's a very real concern. Medical records contain a wealth of information that can be extremely damaging to a person. There's addresses, next-of-kin, insurance company/payment information, social security numbers and so on. If I want a one-stop shop for gathering information to to use for identity theft, medical records beat a credit card database every time.
I'll refer you to the above reply I made to shilly on this. I didn't mean to come off as being blase about it. Just that my opinion is that our current security standards are sufficient to minimize the risk to the point that the benefits outweigh the risks. The truth is, it's impossible to have zero risk. No matter how you securely you store the data, confidentiality can always be violated by people.
>Most people don't have much they would really care about hiding in their medical records.
That's your judgement, not necessarily that of the patients. It's their decision as to whether they want their medical information released, not yours. In my experience, physicians are the worst offenders when it comes to information security and patient confidentiality. I could get clerks, nurses, techs, and everyone else to understand it, but physicians were the group that blew it off.
It's a generalization I'm making based on the dozens of patient records that I see everyday. I'm not personally making a judgement on whether they SHOULD care or not about the privacy of the records. Again, don't get me wrong - I have complete respect for a patient's wish for confidentiality. But a paper record does not guarantee that confidentiality either. My argument is in favor of a centralized electronic medical records database versus our current system - multiple incompatible local electronic databases, or worst of all, paper charts. The fear that a centralized database is significantly MORE dangerous than the paper chart is, I believe, an overblown fear. Especially with the current state of computer security.
You're right about healthcare IT being a mess. The problem is that most healthcare administrators and physicians don't understand IT or its needs, and IT doesn't understand the end-users' needs. Add in the fact that there is a stew of messaging standards (HL-7, X-12, DOM, and so on) and you have a nightmare for development.
100% agreement. Not sure how this is going to be fixed. I'm working on some ideas and plans myself.
I may have poorly worded my original post, so allow me to be a little more precise. It's not that I don't think there is any real risk. There clearly is. I just don't think that the risk is as great as people imagine it to be. Also, it's all relative. Are the risks of a centralized medical record system that uses current technological security measures any greater a risk than current fragmented electronic medical records (unencrypted as in this case), or even paper records? You saw what happened with Hurricane Katrina and the tens of thousands (or was it millions?) of paper records that were lost. Forever.
I don't know a lot about the examples you presented, but in two of your examples, it has nothing to do with breakins and all about inappropriate (and illegal I might add) dispensation of privileged information. Paper chart, electronic chart, centralized database, whatever. No information system can protect against human intent.
Let's say I develop some terminal cancer. I have 1 year to live. I don't want anyone else to know. If my medical record was in those tapes or disks, how worried am I really going to be that anyone at work or any of my family or friends are going to find out? I don't think I'll lose even a minute of sleep. It just doesn't seem plausible that some random thief is going to steal that information so that he can dispense that information to my family or co-workers just to cause me grief. Blackmail through theft of a hospital's medical patient database just isn't something I see as feasible as a system-wide problem. You can always come up with individual exceptions. But these are outliers and should not prevent us from implementing electronic medical records which have numerous benefits to counter the risks.
Again, let me re-emphasize. It's not that I'm indifferent about the security of medical information or that we should just allow anyone to access a centralized database. I just feel that the current state of electronic security is sufficient enough that the benefits of such a system (freedom to visit any hospital without repeating tests and lengthy questionnaires, reduction of redundant tests, reduction of morbidity and mortality due to overtesting, etc) far outweigh the potential risks of identity theft, blackmail, or terrorism. There are risks to EVERY system. A database that isn't electronic or centralized would not have lessened the risk of medical information being used in the examples you gave. And then there's hurricanes. Who the hell would've predicted that?? An centralized, backed up electronic database using cloning technology would've made that a complete non-issue.
Well, finally a Slashdot post I can write about with some experience. FWIW, I'm a physician in Portland and medical informatics is an interest of mine.
First of all, while it may shock many IT people that hospitals would use such rudimentary forms of backup and with little encryption, you have to understand that the state of IT in the medical world is backwards. Very backwards. There are a variety of reasons for this. One is that information systems are designed by IT people with little to no understanding of how the healthcare system works (which is understandable - many people in healthcare have little understanding of how it works). At the same time, you have healthcare professionals who really don't understand the full potential of how IT can be applied to healthcare or what its limitations are, but at the same time will complain about solutions that the IT world comes up with. There's this chasm between the two worlds and what you end up getting is a solution that no one likes and you end up having to go back to the drawing board over and over and over. It is absolutely amazing how much money gets sunk into medical IT and how very little progress it has made.
Another reasons includes the vast amounts of red tape in the medical world that are MEANT to prevent lawsuits and provide the best quality healthcare. But there's so much that it what it really ends up doing is bringing any kind of progress or new idea to a grinding halt. There is no industry I can think of which is so ill adapted to making changes even when they're necessary or make sense. The legal world has the medical world frozen in fear of the next litigation. The result is a paradoxical decrease in healthcare quality and increased costs.
Medical information privacy is one of those issues that seems to always be #1 on the list of concerns of electronic medical records. This has always been rather strange to me. How many people are really all that concerned with someone knowing about their cold, or their broken leg? Most people don't have much they would really care about hiding in their medical records. Of course, there are the people with mental illness, HIV, or sexually transmitted diseases. But even then, what exactly is this thief going to do with that information? IMHO medical information privacy is more of a theoretical concern than a real-life concern.
And then of course, there's the REAL reason people are considered with medical information being digitized identity theft for money reasons. I really blame the credit card industry for this more than anyone else. It's surprising to me that they could simply issue a credit card if someone just writes down a name, social security number and address. In this day and age with inexpensive biometric security systems, one would think they could require a submission of a fingerprint (or two). Hell, nowadays with branch offices literally EVERYWHERE, they could simply request you come in with your driver's license. It seems to me that it would be in a bank's best financial interests to do something like this.
Closer in the sense that adding central heating/air brings a mobile home closer to feeling like a modern 3 bedroom, two story house, sure.
Dude, melodramatic much? It's also a touch arrogant to make the assumption that your view of what's better IS what's better. For some applications, the minor trade-off in responsiveness is worth the gains in convenience of portability and cost-savings of installation to some people. If you had free gas with that mobile home and you could drive south for the winter and park it on some beachfront area in Mexico, I'd bet that some (actually probably quite a few) people would pick the mobile home over your precious 3 bedroom two story house. IOW, just because you might not find the idea of having a movable home useful, doesn't mean that no one else would.
HTML is meant for rendering documents and simple forms. If you can'tfigure out how that would limit you, I don't know what to tell you.If you've ever programmed in a real GUI environment with proper widgets, events, callbacks, etc, you'd understand.
Clearly you and I have different ideas in mind about what people want to use AJAX for. In my mind, Office applications like a word processor/spreadsheet/presentation software could easily be useful applications to be run off the internet. What HTML is meant for and what it CAN be extended to do by combining them with other technologies (like, oh say...AJAX?) are two different things. There are lots of things that HTML was never designed for and yet can now handle, esp with the prevalence of broadband connections nowadays. Look at all the multimedia applications now available. HTML has its limitations, but then again, that's why it's not the only game in town anymore. XML, for example, was created to deal with other types of data structures than traditional "documents". In the end, it's all just data. AJAX is a meshwork of several types of technologies brought together and thus is not limited by HTML's limitations, so I'm not sure why you've fixated on HTML limitations.
But when you do want to use the thesaurus, are you going to want to wait 1 minute while it downloads? Loading just part of a map is different than loading just part of an application. I think you underestimate the value of having an entire application runningfrom a relatively fast local hard drive using proper UI elements.
Again, check out Google Suggest. It brings up search terms from their ENTIRE index, AS YOU TYPE. I think I can safely say that a thesaurus is MUCH smaller than Google's search index. I was amazed myself the first time I used it. Didn't think it was possible in a web app. I was wrong. BTW, just how much is your CPU and hard drive running while you're typing something in Word? B/C mine is doing pretty much nothing. I don't know where you're getting the notion that Word is such a processor intensive application. It's not exactly tracking weather in real time. Specifically what part of Word, do you think CAN'T be run across the Internet?
I've used Gmail. Good webmail application. But reallly not that much different than a traditional web app. I'd still prefer a local application running on my desktop independent of a web browser.
Then you haven't tried Yahoo's NEW E-mail Beta. When it comes out to the general public and you've tried it, you might re-think the necessity of a local e-mail app over one that's accessible anywhere you might go, using any device that has a standards compliant browser.
BTW, regarding keyboard shortcuts, you haven't fully explored GMail yet if you don't know about the keyboard shortcuts in that app. Check it out the next time you're using it. You might like them. Assuming your computer is not a 486, I think it feels pretty damn snappy.
Things are already interesting. I'm just sick andtired of people ranting and raving about new technologies that never seem to pan out as claimed.
Nobody's really ranting or raving about AJAX. As numerous
Those are nice advantages. The only problem with your argument is that AJAX isn't required for any of them. I never said they were. The OP was arguing against AJAX apps because they wouldn't be good enough to replace traditional locally run apps. My argument was geared towards addressing THAT specific comparison. AJAX gets us closer to the traditional local app "feel" while providing the advantages of network distributed apps.
What does this have to do with AJAX? You could always deploy web based apps instantly.
YOU argued against AJAX vs traditional local apps. That's what my response was based on. NOT on how AJAX is better than other web apps. I'm just saying that AJAX brings us closer to the local app feel and yet gives you the flexibility and other advantages of a web app (as I listed previously).
Portable... as long as the programmer was smart enough to make it work with the quirks of all browsers on all platforms. Frankly, I find the thought of a web based MS Word to be positvely frightening. But again, this doesn't have much to do with AJAX. You're limited by the HTML, not your ability tocomunicate with a server.
Um, you act as if it's not already being done by Google, Yahoo, Microsoft, and others. Clearly, there are plenty of "smart enough" programmers out there. I also have no idea why you think server run MS Word would be positively frightening since you never say why. I also have no idea why you think HTML would limit you. I'm also still not clear as to why you would have a problem with a Word-type application running of an internet server. Unless you just simply hate Microsoft. But hey, I never said it had to be MS that would make the application.
You'd rather wait 5 minutes for the application to load in a web browser every time you wantedto use it? Surely there are better ways of managing applications than cramming them into a document (not application) oriented web browser.
Huh? Have you used ANY AJAX apps? GMail, Google Maps, Microsoft Live, the new Yahoo Maps, the new Yahoo Mail, etc? Which one of these takes an agonizingly long time to load? The web browser was PREVIOUSLY document "oriented" only because whoever designed the web browser said so. Not because it's inherently so. If Google, Microsoft, Firefox, or whoever decides to extend its functionality such that it's better optimized for applications, then that's precisely what it's designed to do. I think that the real problem here is that you, my friend, lack imagination or vision. The limitations of today are NOT limitations of tomorrow.
So you'd rather DOWNLOAD the 10 gig application every time you want to use it? Where do you think all that Javascript, HTML, CSS, and graphics go when you view a web page? Also, realize that most applications would not run effectively inside a web browser. Web browsers impose someheafty restrictions on what a program can do. As a general rule, they can't access your harddrive. Even trivial things like hot-keys (shortcuts) are difficult to implement in a web app.
Again, huh? Correct me if I'm wrong, but when you open up Google Maps, it doesn't put the ENTIRE map onto your computer. Just the parts that you're looking at. And it does it asynchronously which is why it feels so smooth compared to previous map apps like MapQuest. Likewise, let's take an imaginary word processor designed by AJAX as an example. If you're not using the thesaurus, it simply won't download onto your computer. At the same time, it's not taking up however many dozens of megabytes it takes up, sitting on your computer. AJAX allows the computer to simply download the components of the application you're using. When you use a large app, you are NEVER using the full amount of that app's files. That's the whole point, you can use a 10 gig application without having to download the whole 10 gigs. All the functionality is available on the server. When I need it, I have it. When I don't, it doesn't waste space on my harddrive. Your average user's computer never touches 90% of the files in the Microsoft Office folder. The other 10% is probably only used once in awhile too. And this is me speaking as a fairly heavy computer user.
As for short-cuts being difficult to implement in a web-app, I again recommend you try out some of the fine AJAX applications such as Gmail before you jump to such conclusions. Clearly not THAT difficult to implement since everyone's no
>It is bullshit. AJAX does NOT give one the ability to deliver desktop quality applications through the web. Not even close. Sorry. At best, AJAX >spices up traditional web applications. But it is still using HTML/CSS for the UI. The HTML/CSS document model simply doesn't work well for >desktop quality applications.
Of course not. It delivers a desktop-LIKE feel to certain web applications. However, that is NOT the only point of it. Other advantages include: #1 Immediate deployment - You can distribute your web-served application nearly instantly. Tell me what corporation WOULDN'T love the idea of having their 1000 employees have near instant access to an Office-like application and not have their IT department lift a pinky finger? #2 Portability - I can use the same application at any location and it'll have the same feel. If website also offers storage, I can also work on the same document/e-mail/project. Don't tell me that you wouldn't find a web version of MS Word that you could access from any internet connected computer, INCREDIBLY useful. #3 Everyone would be using the most up-to-date versions. I'm sick of having to download updates to my dozens of programs. Would LOVE it if everytime I used an app, I didn't have to even think about it. #4 Takes up very little space on your harddrive, and doesn't mess with your OS. Yes, storage is cheap, but raise your hand if you haven't had to ever re-install Windows (or simply chose to do so) because you've installed and uninstalled so many freaking apps on your computer, your registry is FUBAR, and your OS feels like it's running on a 386? How about because your menus read like an encyclopedia index of apps and are just cluttered beyond all recognition? Yeah, thought so. Plus, I just hate having a 10 gig application, that I use like once a month, sitting on my machine. Makes defragmenting, virus scans, and ad-ware scanning a royal pain too.
So yes, you are correct, in that it can't quite match the snappiness of a local app. Not yet anyhow but that's what's great about technology, eh? What's not possible today, IS possible tomorrow. But aside from that, the advantages I listed above FAR outweigh the disadvantage of not having a "true" local app "feel". Whatever that means anyhow.
I was excited at first, reading the subject title because I thought they were trying to undercut Apple iTunes and ABC. Then when I read the details, I was disappointed. This is kind of a lame move on NBC and CBS's part. Other than INITIAL cost of Tivo, it doesn't provide any advantage over it. With NBC and CBS's offer, you first of all need to pay for monthly Comcast cable (which negates the cost advantage over Tivo after about a year). Second of all, you HAVE to be physically tied to your cable connection. On TOP of that, they're asking you to pay $0.99 for each show that you should easily be able to record with Comcast's own (albeit crappy) DVR solution. The whole reason iTunes TV was exciting was that it allowed you pay one fee and allowed you to transport your show with you (whether via the dinky iPod video screen or via notebook computer). You don't HAVE to be connected to the Internet after you download it, to watch it. Regarding NBC and CBS's announcement, I say again, lame.
Here's what I want: I want to be able to pay $0.99 and then have access to that show anytime I have an internet connection. I'll even accept one or two targeted commercials right up front before the show begins. Really, is this too much to ask?
Oh come on. People have speculated about Google's interest in developing an online Office for a LOOOONG time now. And you'd have to be crazy to think that Microsoft also hasn't considered it and even done some work on it. Microsoft's release of Live most certainly has SOMETHING to do with Google's growing aspirations.
I don't understand all this righteous indignation as if Google owes you something. No one's going to FORCE these ads down your throat. This is still a free country. If you don't want the service because of the ads then DON'T buy it. That's IF Google's even charging for it. If they don't, then you STILL have the option of not watching.
It's not like they make it a secret that they will be targeting the ads. You know that they do that now with their search service. Does that stop you from using it?
I know it's popular to bash MS around here, but the reason I think they have succeeded so well thus far is NOT just marketing or using their monopoly-like power. I firmly believe that the big companies that have "succeeded" up to this point all have one thing in common - a leader who is a visionary. I know, I know. Bill Gates - a visionary?? Hear me out. You can argue that Microsoft's products have always followed someone else, which may be true. However, in going after other people's products, there has always been a larger picture they have been going after, and I think people don't give Gates enough credit for this. Even with all their monopolistic scheming, I think Bill is a true geek who envisions using computers in ways that he simply thinks are cool. Probably the same visions that many of us other geeks have, but the difference is that he actually can and still wants to make it happen. Having a monopoly is not the goal, but a means to have enough influence and power to make a vision of the future become reality.
You don't really think that IBM plans on making money selling Cell processors just through Sony? This topic indicates where they plan on making the real money - through server sales, and the associated software and services that they sell along with it. In my opinion, they are simply using the PS3 as a beta test of sorts and to showcase/market the power of Cell, as a MEANS to promote server sales. IBM didn't get to be the company they are today by making foolish business investments.
You know what would be a KILLER idea? If you could list what TV shows or TYPES of TV shows your interested in, and then it lists when they're showing in the next week with a countdown of how long before the show begins (kinda like when bidding is going to end E-Bay style) and whether it's a new episode or re-run. If you want to browse what's coming up in the next 3 hours, it would list shows according to the CURRENT time and based on what you've been interested in before or based on your ratings of a show (Tivo thumbs up/down style).
It would be MUCH better than the cluttered and space wasting TV Guide-style TV listing that Yahoo currently uses. The Yahoo one is also frustrating in that it's not smart about the time listing it shows. It can be 10 am and it will still show you the 8-11 pm prime time block. Even on weekends.
The crux of Dvorak's argument seems to be that the gaming business will die off because there have been no new 'types' of games. Well, there are essentially 3 types of movies (and books for that matter): man vs nature, man vs man, and man vs himself. Yet, you don't see anyone predicting the end of the movie industry.
I wonder if this "It Just Works" campaign is coming about along with a series of tangible products that will culminate next year with Longhorn. What I mean by this is the StartSomethingPC site I'm sure everyone here is familiar with, and the strong rumor that this mystery product (set to be unveiled on Monday April 25, is the Athens PC they first showed at the May 2003 WinHEC. I doubt it's a coincidence.
I'm tired of hearing the argument that no one NEEDS this much computing power. If we went by need, Intel would've stopped developing new chips about 3 years ago. Besides, the definition of "need" changes as people find new ways to use the extra power. Games get better looking. We can put more widgets on the desktop. We can quickly manipulate those LARGE uncompressed photos. And if we can do it all the same time? Why the hell NOT?!
Also, often times, technology progresses forward just because we CAN do it; we CAN create it. We'll figure out how to utilize that power later. But sometimes just having it is...fun! Do we really need a better reason?
Well, what would a better architecture really do? I mean, the average computer sold nowadays is FAR more than enough to run web browsers, e-mail programs, and office applications. So why do we go for faster computers? #1 Because we're geeks and faster computers make our pulse quicken. #2 Games. (And not necessarily in that order.) The point is that unless you're mapping genetic code, doing graphics design work, or tracking weather in real-time (and you're average user is NOT), then improving the architecture is an R&D cost that isn't worth it for what we use it for.
Not that I'm not for improving architecture for JUST the sake of technological progress. I'm just saying overclocking 2 to 2.8 is not a significantly less achievement than developing new architecture. Hey, it takes smarts to deal with heat, power, and yield issues too.
Even if it was a joke, the question actually is within the realm of realistic and reasonable. Here's a link to that book you were talking about. I've been curious about that myself as I weigh my options (such as LASIK eye surgery).
Wow, don't go and rupture an aneurysm. No one said that 3% was an exact figure. It's an estimate. Your argument is that the 3% number is "wrong". Your argument goes on to say that the number is wrong because the requests don't necessarily come from all the Macs being used and you cited an example of 200 Macs at a company that never get used for Internet. Um...SO WHAT?! There are also companies that use PC's that never hookup to the Internet. Your assumption of a bias may be true, but you've given no reason as to why the bias ONLY works in favor of Macs. As long as your example of 'outliers' can also work equally for PC's, the end figure comes out close. As an analogy, if you get a week of unseasonably warm dry weather during winter, it does not mean that your average temperature over a year period is necessarily warmer if you also get a week of colder than usual weather during summer.
The estimate of 3% is a reasonable one based on a reasonable model. There is no reason to suspect that the probability of usage of Google would correlate with the OS with any significance (if it did, then the numbers WOULD be biased - but you need a plausible reason for why it would). Therefore, with a large enough sample size (and I think it's reasonable to say Google gets a large sample size), there should be very little bias in terms of which OS users use Google. If you presume random sampling - ie lack of inherent bias - (like how clinical trials are done), then your final figure should be fairly close.
The 3% number may not be exact, but that's not the point. You have absolutely no basis to claim that it is wrong. You have one anecdotal claim and you think that THAT disproves the 3% estimate?
How they choose to make their money is up to them. Their leadership can either decide that it's best to maintain a good public image over getting every last penny, or they could choose the "every last penny over everything else" route.
You can't see the difference between the way that Apple operates and the way SCO or Rambus operates? One of them tries their best to maintain their public image, while the other 2 threw all ethics out the windows and will go as far as scamming people to make money.
Every company wants a good public image. It's good for business. But if a company decides to run scams, that is THEIR risk to take. If the public decides the "scam" is bad enough, they judge with their wallets. That hurts the bottom line.
And yeah, I do see a difference between SCO, Rambus and Apple. SCO and Rambus got caught practicing 'immoral' business. They paid dearly for it - how's business for them nowadays? But if you are suggesting Apple is a moral company, with all due respect, you are seriously deluded. They just haven't gotten caught with as obvious a PR mistake as the other two. Have you forgotten how they advertised the G5 as the world's fastest PC? Have you forgotten about their recent lawsuit spree against anyone and everyone out there who published any rumors about their upcoming products (they only seemed to sue the ones that published accurate rumors...hmmm). Let's not forget about the iPod Shuffle. It's a $149 flash MP3 player with no screen and cannot play songs in order. Scam or clever marketing? It's a VERY hazy line.
If Intel did in fact somehow cheat the benchmarks, but AMD did NOTHING about it, then quite frankly, I find it hard to sympathize with AMD or condemn Intel. The need to survive in business will always drive marketing tactics that may seem to border on shady. But as long as they're not breaking laws, anything is fair game. You as the consumer provide the counterbalance with your choice to open or close your wallet.
Oh, please don't tell me you actually assign moralities to big companies? Corporations are neither good nor evil. They all do have one thing in common though. That is to make money. And yeah, sometimes you have to use some "dirty" tactics. Don't tell me AMD wouldn't have done the EXACT same thing if they had thought of it first or could afford it. Nor ANY other company. You call it "dirty". I call it smart marketing strategies.
Watch Google start using these strategies when they start feeling the heat of competition. Their "do no evil" motto will go flying right out the window. If they stick with it, they will not be around for very long.
Slashdot Mirror
Oh could you explain again to us why your family chose not to live in China anymore?
I suspect it would have more to do with money and opportunity, than freedom and escaping oppression. As there becomes more money and opportunity in China for more people, I'm going to venture a guess that you will see far less emigration.
Do you think Hezbollah or Hammas gives 100% accurate information and that the U.S. is just a lie machine seeking to destroy everyone's freedom?
Who said anything about Hamas giving 100% accurate information? It's like when I'm watching the Jerry Springer show. I wish families like that didn't exist, but I'm not losing any sleep over their problems. And I'm most certainly not going to call into the show to try and "save" them. However, if my OWN family were like that, my revulsion would be an order of magnitude higher because I actually have to live with them. Plus, my perception of my own character and basic decency as a human being is reflected by what my family is like. As an American, I'd like to think that I'm not nationalistically arrogant and ethnically ignorant.
Tell me - would you rather have the Bush administration in power or the Ayatollah?
You mean to tell me that if we didn't have the Bush administration in power, we'd have the Ayatollah? Try and think a little before you pose this kind of question, ok?
First off, thank you for giving me the benefit of the doubt in your statements regarding the medical industry. Second of all, you may be surprised to find that I agree with much of what you say. I'm well aware of the studies that you cited. I would even go so far as to say that I tend to believe most strongly in the HealthGrade study that shows that medical error is the THIRD leading cause of death in this country after heart disease and cancer.
That said, let me expand upon my original comment. When I made that comment about the legal world, I was referring specifically to the painfully slow progress of medical IT. However, I do think it applies in a broader context as well. This is a complex issue and I didn't mean to make it sound as if the blame completely belongs to lawyers. There's enough blame to go around - doctors, lawyers, insurance companies, and yes, the patients themselves. How to begin? Whew...
Well, let me first acknowledge the validity of part of your point. Some lawsuits are warranted and needed to keep the medical field on its toes. Absolutely, I agree. There are cases where the doctor, nurse, or hospital was negligent and the patient suffered or died for it. However, mistakes in the medical field are not as easy to categorize or avoid as you think they are. You seem to be under the impression that if they just changed the system, things will get better. You cited the story about anesthesiologists. That may work for certain examples, and where it can work, people in the healthcare field DO make an effort to make these changes.
But there are others in which mistakes are unavoidable (unfortunately, there always will be errors). But the system creates the environment in which those errors become more likely. Many times, it is NOT entirely the healthcare system's fault. That you think it does is a good example of a widespread public perception that medicine is an exact science. Much of the public also thinks that (thanks to the media) modern medicine is responsible for the long life expectancy in this country (it is NOT; that is thanks to public health measures such as clean water supplies and sanitation measures). That perception leads many who aren't in the healthcare field to believe that because we know so much about the human body and disease, that nearly everything is fixable, and thus, mistakes can be avoided if healthcare providers are simply careful enough. Unfortunately, the powers-that-be in the medical world do nothing to change this perception. After all, it feels good to be placed on a pedestal. On an individual basis, you won't find many doctors who would agree wholeheartedly that this perception is justifiable. It is an unfortunate fact that with as much as we know (rather, as much as we THINK we know), there is far, far, FAR more that we don't know, or that we don't understand. For every door we unlock in the science aspect of medicine, 5 more are revealed.
Here's my oversimplified, overgeneralized one-sentence opinion about modern healthcare: I feel that the healthcare profession overtest, overdiagnose, and overtreats patients. It leads to a lot of the errors that you spoke of. And some of this may be greed. But a lot of it is fear of litigation. (Perhaps some of it used to justify the greed.) The point is, many doctors order unnecessary tests, write unnecessary prescriptions, perform unnecessary procedures simply because A) it is considered standard of care, B) the patient wants it, or C) to cover their ass. However, these unnecessary tests, prescriptions and procedures themselves are the source of much morbidity and yes, mortality. These are then attributed to "medical error". As a healthcare professional, what do you do? Do you discourage hospital stays, expensive exams, and treatments, and RISK missing something (even if unlikely) and an expensive, career-ruining lawsuit? Or do you order up the entire battery of tests, procedures, etc knowing that the patient's insurance will cover it anyhow, because it's the "
I may have poorly worded my original post, so allow me to be a little more precise. It's not that I don't think there is any real risk. There clearly is. I just don't think that the risk is as great as people imagine it to be. Also, it's all relative. Are the risks of a centralized medical record system that uses current technological security measures any greater a risk than current fragmented electronic medical records (unencrypted as in this case), or even paper records? You saw what happened with Hurricane Katrina and the tens of thousands (or was it millions?) of paper records that were lost. Forever.
I don't know a lot about the examples you presented, but in two of your examples, it has nothing to do with breakins and all about inappropriate (and illegal I might add) dispensation of privileged information. Paper chart, electronic chart, centralized database, whatever. No information system can protect against human intent.
Let's say I develop some terminal cancer. I have 1 year to live. I don't want anyone else to know. If my medical record was in those tapes or disks, how worried am I really going to be that anyone at work or any of my family or friends are going to find out? I don't think I'll lose even a minute of sleep. It just doesn't seem plausible that some random thief is going to steal that information so that he can dispense that information to my family or co-workers just to cause me grief. Blackmail through theft of a hospital's medical patient database just isn't something I see as feasible as a system-wide problem. You can always come up with individual exceptions. But these are outliers and should not prevent us from implementing electronic medical records which have numerous benefits to counter the risks.
Again, let me re-emphasize. It's not that I'm indifferent about the security of medical information or that we should just allow anyone to access a centralized database. I just feel that the current state of electronic security is sufficient enough that the benefits of such a system (freedom to visit any hospital without repeating tests and lengthy questionnaires, reduction of redundant tests, reduction of morbidity and mortality due to overtesting, etc) far outweigh the potential risks of identity theft, blackmail, or terrorism. There are risks to EVERY system. A database that isn't electronic or centralized would not have lessened the risk of medical information being used in the examples you gave. And then there's hurricanes. Who the hell would've predicted that?? An centralized, backed up electronic database using cloning technology would've made that a complete non-issue.
Well, finally a Slashdot post I can write about with some experience. FWIW, I'm a physician in Portland and medical informatics is an interest of mine.
First of all, while it may shock many IT people that hospitals would use such rudimentary forms of backup and with little encryption, you have to understand that the state of IT in the medical world is backwards. Very backwards. There are a variety of reasons for this. One is that information systems are designed by IT people with little to no understanding of how the healthcare system works (which is understandable - many people in healthcare have little understanding of how it works). At the same time, you have healthcare professionals who really don't understand the full potential of how IT can be applied to healthcare or what its limitations are, but at the same time will complain about solutions that the IT world comes up with. There's this chasm between the two worlds and what you end up getting is a solution that no one likes and you end up having to go back to the drawing board over and over and over. It is absolutely amazing how much money gets sunk into medical IT and how very little progress it has made.
Another reasons includes the vast amounts of red tape in the medical world that are MEANT to prevent lawsuits and provide the best quality healthcare. But there's so much that it what it really ends up doing is bringing any kind of progress or new idea to a grinding halt. There is no industry I can think of which is so ill adapted to making changes even when they're necessary or make sense. The legal world has the medical world frozen in fear of the next litigation. The result is a paradoxical decrease in healthcare quality and increased costs.
Medical information privacy is one of those issues that seems to always be #1 on the list of concerns of electronic medical records. This has always been rather strange to me. How many people are really all that concerned with someone knowing about their cold, or their broken leg? Most people don't have much they would really care about hiding in their medical records. Of course, there are the people with mental illness, HIV, or sexually transmitted diseases. But even then, what exactly is this thief going to do with that information? IMHO medical information privacy is more of a theoretical concern than a real-life concern.
And then of course, there's the REAL reason people are considered with medical information being digitized identity theft for money reasons. I really blame the credit card industry for this more than anyone else. It's surprising to me that they could simply issue a credit card if someone just writes down a name, social security number and address. In this day and age with inexpensive biometric security systems, one would think they could require a submission of a fingerprint (or two). Hell, nowadays with branch offices literally EVERYWHERE, they could simply request you come in with your driver's license. It seems to me that it would be in a bank's best financial interests to do something like this.
Just my $0.02.
Closer in the sense that adding central heating/air brings a mobile home closer to feeling like a modern 3 bedroom, two story house, sure.
Dude, melodramatic much? It's also a touch arrogant to make the assumption that your view of what's better IS what's better. For some applications, the minor trade-off in responsiveness is worth the gains in convenience of portability and cost-savings of installation to some people. If you had free gas with that mobile home and you could drive south for the winter and park it on some beachfront area in Mexico, I'd bet that some (actually probably quite a few) people would pick the mobile home over your precious 3 bedroom two story house. IOW, just because you might not find the idea of having a movable home useful, doesn't mean that no one else would.
HTML is meant for rendering documents and simple forms. If you can'tfigure out how that would limit you, I don't know what to tell you.If you've ever programmed in a real GUI environment with proper widgets, events, callbacks, etc, you'd understand.
Clearly you and I have different ideas in mind about what people want to use AJAX for. In my mind, Office applications like a word processor/spreadsheet/presentation software could easily be useful applications to be run off the internet. What HTML is meant for and what it CAN be extended to do by combining them with other technologies (like, oh say...AJAX?) are two different things. There are lots of things that HTML was never designed for and yet can now handle, esp with the prevalence of broadband connections nowadays. Look at all the multimedia applications now available. HTML has its limitations, but then again, that's why it's not the only game in town anymore. XML, for example, was created to deal with other types of data structures than traditional "documents". In the end, it's all just data. AJAX is a meshwork of several types of technologies brought together and thus is not limited by HTML's limitations, so I'm not sure why you've fixated on HTML limitations.
But when you do want to use the thesaurus, are you going to want to wait 1 minute while it downloads? Loading just part of a map is different than loading just part of an application. I think you underestimate the value of having an entire application runningfrom a relatively fast local hard drive using proper UI elements.
Again, check out Google Suggest. It brings up search terms from their ENTIRE index, AS YOU TYPE. I think I can safely say that a thesaurus is MUCH smaller than Google's search index. I was amazed myself the first time I used it. Didn't think it was possible in a web app. I was wrong. BTW, just how much is your CPU and hard drive running while you're typing something in Word? B/C mine is doing pretty much nothing. I don't know where you're getting the notion that Word is such a processor intensive application. It's not exactly tracking weather in real time. Specifically what part of Word, do you think CAN'T be run across the Internet?
I've used Gmail. Good webmail application. But reallly not that much different than a traditional web app. I'd still prefer a local application running on my desktop independent of a web browser.
Then you haven't tried Yahoo's NEW E-mail Beta. When it comes out to the general public and you've tried it, you might re-think the necessity of a local e-mail app over one that's accessible anywhere you might go, using any device that has a standards compliant browser.
BTW, regarding keyboard shortcuts, you haven't fully explored GMail yet if you don't know about the keyboard shortcuts in that app. Check it out the next time you're using it. You might like them. Assuming your computer is not a 486, I think it feels pretty damn snappy.
Things are already interesting. I'm just sick andtired of people ranting and raving about new technologies that never seem to pan out as claimed.
Nobody's really ranting or raving about AJAX. As numerous
Those are nice advantages. The only problem with your argument is that AJAX isn't required for any of them.
I never said they were. The OP was arguing against AJAX apps because they wouldn't be good enough to replace traditional locally run apps. My argument was geared towards addressing THAT specific comparison. AJAX gets us closer to the traditional local app "feel" while providing the advantages of network distributed apps.
What does this have to do with AJAX? You could always deploy web based apps instantly.
YOU argued against AJAX vs traditional local apps. That's what my response was based on. NOT on how AJAX is better than other web apps. I'm just saying that AJAX brings us closer to the local app feel and yet gives you the flexibility and other advantages of a web app (as I listed previously).
Portable... as long as the programmer was smart enough to make it work with the quirks of all browsers on all platforms. Frankly, I find the thought of a web based MS Word to be positvely frightening. But again, this doesn't have much to do with AJAX. You're limited by the HTML, not your ability tocomunicate with a server.
Um, you act as if it's not already being done by Google, Yahoo, Microsoft, and others. Clearly, there are plenty of "smart enough" programmers out there. I also have no idea why you think server run MS Word would be positively frightening since you never say why. I also have no idea why you think HTML would limit you. I'm also still not clear as to why you would have a problem with a Word-type application running of an internet server. Unless you just simply hate Microsoft. But hey, I never said it had to be MS that would make the application.
You'd rather wait 5 minutes for the application to load in a web browser every time you wantedto use it? Surely there are better ways of managing applications than cramming them into a document (not application) oriented web browser.
Huh? Have you used ANY AJAX apps? GMail, Google Maps, Microsoft Live, the new Yahoo Maps, the new Yahoo Mail, etc? Which one of these takes an agonizingly long time to load? The web browser was PREVIOUSLY document "oriented" only because whoever designed the web browser said so. Not because it's inherently so. If Google, Microsoft, Firefox, or whoever decides to extend its functionality such that it's better optimized for applications, then that's precisely what it's designed to do. I think that the real problem here is that you, my friend, lack imagination or vision. The limitations of today are NOT limitations of tomorrow.
So you'd rather DOWNLOAD the 10 gig application every time you want to use it? Where do you think all that Javascript, HTML, CSS, and graphics go when you view a web page? Also, realize that most applications would not run effectively inside a web browser. Web browsers impose someheafty restrictions on what a program can do. As a general rule, they can't access your harddrive. Even trivial things like hot-keys (shortcuts) are difficult to implement in a web app.
Again, huh? Correct me if I'm wrong, but when you open up Google Maps, it doesn't put the ENTIRE map onto your computer. Just the parts that you're looking at. And it does it asynchronously which is why it feels so smooth compared to previous map apps like MapQuest. Likewise, let's take an imaginary word processor designed by AJAX as an example. If you're not using the thesaurus, it simply won't download onto your computer. At the same time, it's not taking up however many dozens of megabytes it takes up, sitting on your computer. AJAX allows the computer to simply download the components of the application you're using. When you use a large app, you are NEVER using the full amount of that app's files. That's the whole point, you can use a 10 gig application without having to download the whole 10 gigs. All the functionality is available on the server. When I need it, I have it. When I don't, it doesn't waste space on my harddrive. Your average user's computer never touches 90% of the files in the Microsoft Office folder. The other 10% is probably only used once in awhile too. And this is me speaking as a fairly heavy computer user.
As for short-cuts being difficult to implement in a web-app, I again recommend you try out some of the fine AJAX applications such as Gmail before you jump to such conclusions. Clearly not THAT difficult to implement since everyone's no
>It is bullshit. AJAX does NOT give one the ability to deliver desktop quality applications through the web. Not even close. Sorry. At best, AJAX >spices up traditional web applications. But it is still using HTML/CSS for the UI. The HTML/CSS document model simply doesn't work well for >desktop quality applications.
Of course not. It delivers a desktop-LIKE feel to certain web applications. However, that is NOT the only point of it. Other advantages include:
#1 Immediate deployment - You can distribute your web-served application nearly instantly. Tell me what corporation WOULDN'T love the idea of having their 1000 employees have near instant access to an Office-like application and not have their IT department lift a pinky finger?
#2 Portability - I can use the same application at any location and it'll have the same feel. If website also offers storage, I can also work on the same document/e-mail/project. Don't tell me that you wouldn't find a web version of MS Word that you could access from any internet connected computer, INCREDIBLY useful.
#3 Everyone would be using the most up-to-date versions. I'm sick of having to download updates to my dozens of programs. Would LOVE it if everytime I used an app, I didn't have to even think about it.
#4 Takes up very little space on your harddrive, and doesn't mess with your OS. Yes, storage is cheap, but raise your hand if you haven't had to ever re-install Windows (or simply chose to do so) because you've installed and uninstalled so many freaking apps on your computer, your registry is FUBAR, and your OS feels like it's running on a 386? How about because your menus read like an encyclopedia index of apps and are just cluttered beyond all recognition? Yeah, thought so. Plus, I just hate having a 10 gig application, that I use like once a month, sitting on my machine. Makes defragmenting, virus scans, and ad-ware scanning a royal pain too.
So yes, you are correct, in that it can't quite match the snappiness of a local app. Not yet anyhow but that's what's great about technology, eh? What's not possible today, IS possible tomorrow. But aside from that, the advantages I listed above FAR outweigh the disadvantage of not having a "true" local app "feel". Whatever that means anyhow.
I was excited at first, reading the subject title because I thought they were trying to undercut Apple iTunes and ABC. Then when I read the details, I was disappointed. This is kind of a lame move on NBC and CBS's part. Other than INITIAL cost of Tivo, it doesn't provide any advantage over it. With NBC and CBS's offer, you first of all need to pay for monthly Comcast cable (which negates the cost advantage over Tivo after about a year). Second of all, you HAVE to be physically tied to your cable connection. On TOP of that, they're asking you to pay $0.99 for each show that you should easily be able to record with Comcast's own (albeit crappy) DVR solution. The whole reason iTunes TV was exciting was that it allowed you pay one fee and allowed you to transport your show with you (whether via the dinky iPod video screen or via notebook computer). You don't HAVE to be connected to the Internet after you download it, to watch it. Regarding NBC and CBS's announcement, I say again, lame.
Here's what I want: I want to be able to pay $0.99 and then have access to that show anytime I have an internet connection. I'll even accept one or two targeted commercials right up front before the show begins. Really, is this too much to ask?
Oh come on. People have speculated about Google's interest in developing an online Office for a LOOOONG time now. And you'd have to be crazy to think that Microsoft also hasn't considered it and even done some work on it. Microsoft's release of Live most certainly has SOMETHING to do with Google's growing aspirations.
I don't understand all this righteous indignation as if Google owes you something. No one's going to FORCE these ads down your throat. This is still a free country. If you don't want the service because of the ads then DON'T buy it. That's IF Google's even charging for it. If they don't, then you STILL have the option of not watching.
It's not like they make it a secret that they will be targeting the ads. You know that they do that now with their search service. Does that stop you from using it?
I know it's popular to bash MS around here, but the reason I think they have succeeded so well thus far is NOT just marketing or using their monopoly-like power. I firmly believe that the big companies that have "succeeded" up to this point all have one thing in common - a leader who is a visionary. I know, I know. Bill Gates - a visionary?? Hear me out. You can argue that Microsoft's products have always followed someone else, which may be true. However, in going after other people's products, there has always been a larger picture they have been going after, and I think people don't give Gates enough credit for this. Even with all their monopolistic scheming, I think Bill is a true geek who envisions using computers in ways that he simply thinks are cool. Probably the same visions that many of us other geeks have, but the difference is that he actually can and still wants to make it happen. Having a monopoly is not the goal, but a means to have enough influence and power to make a vision of the future become reality.
You don't really think that IBM plans on making money selling Cell processors just through Sony? This topic indicates where they plan on making the real money - through server sales, and the associated software and services that they sell along with it. In my opinion, they are simply using the PS3 as a beta test of sorts and to showcase/market the power of Cell, as a MEANS to promote server sales. IBM didn't get to be the company they are today by making foolish business investments.
You know what would be a KILLER idea? If you could list what TV shows or TYPES of TV shows your interested in, and then it lists when they're showing in the next week with a countdown of how long before the show begins (kinda like when bidding is going to end E-Bay style) and whether it's a new episode or re-run. If you want to browse what's coming up in the next 3 hours, it would list shows according to the CURRENT time and based on what you've been interested in before or based on your ratings of a show (Tivo thumbs up/down style).
It would be MUCH better than the cluttered and space wasting TV Guide-style TV listing that Yahoo currently uses. The Yahoo one is also frustrating in that it's not smart about the time listing it shows. It can be 10 am and it will still show you the 8-11 pm prime time block. Even on weekends.
The crux of Dvorak's argument seems to be that the gaming business will die off because there have been no new 'types' of games. Well, there are essentially 3 types of movies (and books for that matter): man vs nature, man vs man, and man vs himself. Yet, you don't see anyone predicting the end of the movie industry.
[Nelson]Ha haaaa![/Nelson]
Touche, TigerDirect!
I wonder if this "It Just Works" campaign is coming about along with a series of tangible products that will culminate next year with Longhorn. What I mean by this is the StartSomethingPC site I'm sure everyone here is familiar with, and the strong rumor that this mystery product (set to be unveiled on Monday April 25, is the Athens PC they first showed at the May 2003 WinHEC. I doubt it's a coincidence.
I'm tired of hearing the argument that no one NEEDS this much computing power. If we went by need, Intel would've stopped developing new chips about 3 years ago. Besides, the definition of "need" changes as people find new ways to use the extra power. Games get better looking. We can put more widgets on the desktop. We can quickly manipulate those LARGE uncompressed photos. And if we can do it all the same time? Why the hell NOT?!
Also, often times, technology progresses forward just because we CAN do it; we CAN create it. We'll figure out how to utilize that power later. But sometimes just having it is...fun! Do we really need a better reason?
Well, what would a better architecture really do? I mean, the average computer sold nowadays is FAR more than enough to run web browsers, e-mail programs, and office applications. So why do we go for faster computers? #1 Because we're geeks and faster computers make our pulse quicken. #2 Games. (And not necessarily in that order.) The point is that unless you're mapping genetic code, doing graphics design work, or tracking weather in real-time (and you're average user is NOT), then improving the architecture is an R&D cost that isn't worth it for what we use it for.
Not that I'm not for improving architecture for JUST the sake of technological progress. I'm just saying overclocking 2 to 2.8 is not a significantly less achievement than developing new architecture. Hey, it takes smarts to deal with heat, power, and yield issues too.
Even if it was a joke, the question actually is within the realm of realistic and reasonable. Here's a link to that book you were talking about. I've been curious about that myself as I weigh my options (such as LASIK eye surgery).
Wow, don't go and rupture an aneurysm. No one said that 3% was an exact figure. It's an estimate. Your argument is that the 3% number is "wrong". Your argument goes on to say that the number is wrong because the requests don't necessarily come from all the Macs being used and you cited an example of 200 Macs at a company that never get used for Internet. Um...SO WHAT?! There are also companies that use PC's that never hookup to the Internet. Your assumption of a bias may be true, but you've given no reason as to why the bias ONLY works in favor of Macs. As long as your example of 'outliers' can also work equally for PC's, the end figure comes out close. As an analogy, if you get a week of unseasonably warm dry weather during winter, it does not mean that your average temperature over a year period is necessarily warmer if you also get a week of colder than usual weather during summer.
The estimate of 3% is a reasonable one based on a reasonable model. There is no reason to suspect that the probability of usage of Google would correlate with the OS with any significance (if it did, then the numbers WOULD be biased - but you need a plausible reason for why it would). Therefore, with a large enough sample size (and I think it's reasonable to say Google gets a large sample size), there should be very little bias in terms of which OS users use Google. If you presume random sampling - ie lack of inherent bias - (like how clinical trials are done), then your final figure should be fairly close.
The 3% number may not be exact, but that's not the point. You have absolutely no basis to claim that it is wrong. You have one anecdotal claim and you think that THAT disproves the 3% estimate?
How they choose to make their money is up to them. Their leadership can either decide that it's best to maintain a good public image over getting every last penny, or they could choose the "every last penny over everything else" route.
You can't see the difference between the way that Apple operates and the way SCO or Rambus operates? One of them tries their best to maintain their public image, while the other 2 threw all ethics out the windows and will go as far as scamming people to make money.
Every company wants a good public image. It's good for business. But if a company decides to run scams, that is THEIR risk to take. If the public decides the "scam" is bad enough, they judge with their wallets. That hurts the bottom line.
And yeah, I do see a difference between SCO, Rambus and Apple. SCO and Rambus got caught practicing 'immoral' business. They paid dearly for it - how's business for them nowadays? But if you are suggesting Apple is a moral company, with all due respect, you are seriously deluded. They just haven't gotten caught with as obvious a PR mistake as the other two. Have you forgotten how they advertised the G5 as the world's fastest PC? Have you forgotten about their recent lawsuit spree against anyone and everyone out there who published any rumors about their upcoming products (they only seemed to sue the ones that published accurate rumors...hmmm). Let's not forget about the iPod Shuffle. It's a $149 flash MP3 player with no screen and cannot play songs in order. Scam or clever marketing? It's a VERY hazy line.
If Intel did in fact somehow cheat the benchmarks, but AMD did NOTHING about it, then quite frankly, I find it hard to sympathize with AMD or condemn Intel. The need to survive in business will always drive marketing tactics that may seem to border on shady. But as long as they're not breaking laws, anything is fair game. You as the consumer provide the counterbalance with your choice to open or close your wallet.
Oh, please don't tell me you actually assign moralities to big companies? Corporations are neither good nor evil. They all do have one thing in common though. That is to make money. And yeah, sometimes you have to use some "dirty" tactics. Don't tell me AMD wouldn't have done the EXACT same thing if they had thought of it first or could afford it. Nor ANY other company. You call it "dirty". I call it smart marketing strategies.
Watch Google start using these strategies when they start feeling the heat of competition. Their "do no evil" motto will go flying right out the window. If they stick with it, they will not be around for very long.