We can't afford universal health care because imagine the tax dollars that would be spent; but we can pay for this kind of arbitration?
And how exactly is having a PI license going to better the situation at hand, which is obviously that tech people can unethically snoop through customers' files? Does having a license magically make this ok? Does it somehow imply an agreement by the customer that their files are open for review, while without a license, this agreement does not exist?
I think you're applying a more stringent definition of the term savvy here. I'm not talking about being able to compile a Linux kernel, build a custom rig, or program in any certain language. I'm talking about overall familiarity with computer operation. Kids today, of course, are much more savvy than kids of 20 years ago because 20 years ago the PC revolution hadn't even taken off yet.
All of this is really besides my original point: demand drives everything. And as more and more kids grow up being used to using computers as social devices, it only stands to reason that the social revolution meets the challenge.
Your distinction between destinations and services is dead on. That being said, I think we're now talking semantics here. All of the "services" you're using as examples are, indeed, "social features."
Welcome to the social revolution, indeed.
"Web 2.0 is so much more than a technology."
Priceless. I can sum up the entirety of this book quite simply: If you want to be "Web 2.0", develop a web application that is social-based, use plenty of Flash or Ajax (Ajax preferable), and create an API that allows script kiddies everywhere to fashion useless add-ons (preferably that involve cute icons of small furry animals or various celebratory trinkets).
That's the Foreword, Prologue, and Chapters 1-5.
Chapters 6-10, Epilogue, and Appendices are as follows:
The magic behind the Web 2.0 movement is this: the generation of kids nowadays have grown up using computers, are computer savvy, and are used to being online. So websites have become portals for social interactivity. The more interactive you can make the sites, the more "social" they become.
So ends the mystery of Web 2.0.
Re:Stallman hasn't gone to hell yet?
on
A Year of GPLv3
·
· Score: 0
It sounds like you don't understand the GPL yourself. Did I ever state that I violated the GPL by not including the source and a copy of the GPL with the product? No. So try again.
You're perfectly "free" to use GPL software as long as you do these things. The previous poster was calling me a leech because I did not "contribute" or "give anything back to the community". Sorry, that's not part of the GPL.
Again, if you want to call people leeches for using a license according to its own terms, then by all means do so, but don't act like you are upholding that same license.
You have some salient points in your reply--I wholly agree that feedback from both levels should be required as an ultimate deciding factor. However, that's just not the real world, even for code monkeys. Oh sure, you get peer feedback, and if you're a pain in the ass to work with, eventually those effects will show. But ultimately it is those above you who make that call.
I still have to disagree regarding incompetence, however. Being a CIO has NOTHING to do with being a programmer, and it is this sort of assumption that lends itself to such wide-spread disregard of these higher positions. Understanding from first-hand experience the roles of those under you doesn't gaurantee that you'll be a better leader, any more than it dictates that those who don't have that experience will be poor ones. I don't disagree that higher level management roles seem like a bunch of fluff from where I'm standing as a programmer--but that's because it's coming from my perspective. I have no real idea all of what my CIO puts up with between those below him and those above him, between deadlines and any other such thing. My point here is, it's far too easy to assume that executives have it easy and just sit back massaging their career. So I ask you the same question: who here has been both a programmer and a CIO?
Your assumption is correct--I was an officer.
And was enlisted before that. I didn't go to any academy.
Re:Stallman hasn't gone to hell yet?
on
A Year of GPLv3
·
· Score: 0
Your statement is naive (but I like the pretentious insult tacked onto the end).
I'm afraid you missed the point of my post entirely (but not surprisingly). My complaint stems from how ridiculously convoluted the terms of the GPL are written, not from the inherent value of the GPL itself.
And sometimes you are forced to use GPLed software--that is, if you program beyond the hobbyist level and, like most professional programmers, are not the final call on third party solutions or architectures.
Spare me the faux nobility of the GPL. I write software for a living--which means, for money. I don't have time to "give back to the community" because I had to use GPLed software. If you hype your code up to be so principally free, and then turn around and bash those who use it without giving anything back, you're just a hypocrite who would have more integrity simply charging for it.
I see, so Apple is really gouging prices to help out the mom and pop stores. Thanks for the elucidation.
There are actually Cocoa programmers out there? How cute.
Are you friggin kidding me?
You "program Windows", and yet the only way you can get a cheap Windows machine is to go to Fry's or Best Buy? Best Buy employees don't work on commission, so your post is misleading at best.
And please, you mean to tell me that the Apple employees are somehow superior to the Geek Squad?
So let me get this straight: you PAID MONEY in order to work for Apple as a technician. And now you have the stones to come in here and actually use this fact as an example of how Apple is superior?
Priceless.
Stallman hasn't gone to hell yet?
on
A Year of GPLv3
·
· Score: 0, Troll
Does anyone really care about the GPL?
Free as in beer, free as in money, free as in I don't give a flying turd. Free as in let's pretend like software is somehow a noble thing that is an inalienable right in the 21st century. Yawn.
I've had to navigate my way around the GPL while coding custom software solutions. And truth be told, I'd rather just pay a licensing fee rather than jump through those hoops.
How about, free as in this won't be an absolute pain in the ass to deal with?
Jesus CHRIST.
This many comments over "what is a CIO, anyway?"
And the predictable whining from those underlings who *aren't* in officer positions. You sound EXACTLY like how enlisted men in the Army talk about officers.
A code monkey has the luxury to bad mouth the CIO because he (or she) is allowed to focus myopically on the task at hand (namely, the product). Which, of course, is great. But myopic all the same. So much of business has NOTHING to do with the product, and EVERYTHING to do with the business. Go figure.
It's also exactly why code monkeys would never want a CIO position to begin with.
While this is probably the most prudent thing Apple could have done, I must say, I was enjoying the strange turn of fate bestowed upon all those folks who just couldn't wait to buy the latest and greatest.
The key to Silverlight--and how mainstream it becomes--is that it will leverage the existing base of.net developers, which is substantial.
If these developers can take their existing knowledge of.net and extend that now into RIA, then I believe Flash will, indeed, see some serious competition.
It's not really a vicious circle; new technology has to break new ground at one point in its life. When Flash was introduced, people had to begin downloading it because web developers began incorporating it into their sites. Also, Microsoft will undoubtedly begin pushing down the Silverlight runtime via Windows Update, so users will more than likely have the capability even if they're not using it.
Anon, some things you may want to consider:
The 160 GB ipod is the successor to my current one, not the touch ipod. They are two separate beasts entirely. However, you bring up another point: why did Apple choose to implement the touch features only on the smaller new ipod instead of offering these same features for both the new generation video ipod and the slimmed down touch ipod? Surely they could have.
"Just forget about how it may not be feasible right now to do such things" I'm sorry, I just don't buy the idea that Apple can launch such stunning innovations (touch interface, wifi integration, included browser), but doesn't yet have the time or resources to allow wifi syncing. Again, may I remind you that the wifi capability is there...after all, they had no problems getting a wireless store to work. But using that same technology, they just couldn't figure out how to implement syncing? Right...
As for Starbuck's...I'm most certainly not opposed to having the ability to buy songs in remote environments...it's just the Starbuck's/Apple pairing that has me rolling my eyes. It has more to do with the exclusivity of it than anything else. Meaning...if Apple opened up this capability and had a generic "wifi store" icon rather than a branded Starbuck's one, and any establishment (coffeeshop, municipality, library, what have you) could offer access to a music store, then I wouldn't be complaining. It's the same thing with some of the newer versions of commercial software that are starting to include cross-sell links, online ads, even dedicated branded "features" that only work with certain companies. I find this to be intrusive and a blatant heavy-handed way steering folks a certain way. That's not "allowing" people to do what they want with their money, that's limiting where they can spend their money.
You make a good point of my own hypocrisy regarding the ipod and its storage capacity. Can't argue with you there.
At first blush, I thought the touch screen was pretty cool, too. After all, what's more intuitive than pinching your fingers to zoom in or out of pictures?
Unfortunately, what works best for tactile interface isn't necessarily what seems the coolest. I imagine the first dozen or so times of flipping through the album art or "scrolling" through my artist list would seem novel; by the 100th time, though, it would be tedious. Scrolling with the current wheel is already tedious--don't forget, you're having to physically move your thumb or finger about over and over to browse a very long list, rather than hold down a button and let the scroll do the work.
At first, I was impressed with the demos of the new touch ipod.
wifi integration? Built-in web browser? Slick touch-screen interface?
And then, the nagging little details began to surface:
16 gig max capacity? My current 80 gig ipod is roomy indeed, and while it's not maxed out, any less than that, I'd be cutting it close. But wait--the new ipod is using USB flash drives...so logically, Apple will produce separate drives that you can swap out to easily mitigate the miserly space restrictions....right?
Wrong. Let's not forget, people, these are the same devices with which you, the consumer, are not trusted to simply replace the battery. Swapping the drive? In your dreams.
Second, since it has wifi, that means I don't need to plug in a USB cable to sync my ipod, right?
Wrong. Of course, you can *purchase* new music over the ether, but something as insane as wirelessly syncing your library? You want the Brooklyn Bridge thrown in too?
Finally, integration with Starbuck's. I love it when companies team together like this. Waltz into one of the 4 neighborhood Starbuck's and neato! A shiny new icon appears on your ipod! Guess what! It's called forced advertising. The best part is, thousands of people will consider this an indispensable "feature". Because, you know, when you're hopping yourself up on caffeine, you absolutely MUST have access to a music store.
Once again I'm reminded of how indulgent we're becoming with our personal technology. As if cellphones weren't bad enough--people just couldn't live without being able to call Johnny up to discuss the latest gossip at any given moment--now we're going to have to tolerate folks who will absolutely *implode* if they can't check on the latest inane video uploaded to YouTube.
I agree with you...and who is saying that businesses that only use an Office program, a web browser, and an email client have to get the latest and greatest? As a point of perspective, Win2K is still very much supported (my own business is still running this OS on a good many machines). If OS's have a support shelf life of 10 years or so, I'd say that upgrading to Vista isn't being imposed on anyone.
What's more surprising? That./ has another article bashing Vista, or how quickly the./'rs come out of the woodwork in typical self-congratulatory style to bemoan their agreements?
Give Vista another 3 months and all the programs listed in this article will be compatible, and this thread will be a moot point.
Instead of continuously blaming Windows and Microsoft, why don't you turn your attention towards the third-party companies that have had ample time to prepare for Vista and yet come launch date, are still fumbling around with betas. Perhaps if Apple had spent more energy on updating ITunes rather than poking fun at nag screens, they wouldn't be asking folks to postpone upgrading.
I believe the game industry could show more backbone when it comes to censorship, but the fact of the matter is, the market for video games is extremely turbulent. Game houses, unfortunately, cannot afford to have their titles banned from retailers such as Walmart, so they cater their content according to the retailers' wishes.
This is why I find companies like Walmart insidious. But it's really our own faults. We want to save 10 cents on a 2 liter bottle of soda, we want to grocery shop while buying new underwear and DVDs, we're lazy and want everything right now. We continue to support companies that will grow so large (and already have) that they then dictate the quality of the very things they sell. Retailers defining products is a dangerous, dangerous thing indeed.
Slashdot Mirror
We can't afford universal health care because imagine the tax dollars that would be spent; but we can pay for this kind of arbitration? And how exactly is having a PI license going to better the situation at hand, which is obviously that tech people can unethically snoop through customers' files? Does having a license magically make this ok? Does it somehow imply an agreement by the customer that their files are open for review, while without a license, this agreement does not exist?
I think you're applying a more stringent definition of the term savvy here. I'm not talking about being able to compile a Linux kernel, build a custom rig, or program in any certain language. I'm talking about overall familiarity with computer operation. Kids today, of course, are much more savvy than kids of 20 years ago because 20 years ago the PC revolution hadn't even taken off yet. All of this is really besides my original point: demand drives everything. And as more and more kids grow up being used to using computers as social devices, it only stands to reason that the social revolution meets the challenge.
Your distinction between destinations and services is dead on. That being said, I think we're now talking semantics here. All of the "services" you're using as examples are, indeed, "social features." Welcome to the social revolution, indeed.
Amen.
"Web 2.0 is so much more than a technology." Priceless. I can sum up the entirety of this book quite simply: If you want to be "Web 2.0", develop a web application that is social-based, use plenty of Flash or Ajax (Ajax preferable), and create an API that allows script kiddies everywhere to fashion useless add-ons (preferably that involve cute icons of small furry animals or various celebratory trinkets). That's the Foreword, Prologue, and Chapters 1-5. Chapters 6-10, Epilogue, and Appendices are as follows: The magic behind the Web 2.0 movement is this: the generation of kids nowadays have grown up using computers, are computer savvy, and are used to being online. So websites have become portals for social interactivity. The more interactive you can make the sites, the more "social" they become. So ends the mystery of Web 2.0.
You're perfectly "free" to use GPL software as long as you do these things. The previous poster was calling me a leech because I did not "contribute" or "give anything back to the community". Sorry, that's not part of the GPL.
Again, if you want to call people leeches for using a license according to its own terms, then by all means do so, but don't act like you are upholding that same license.
You have some salient points in your reply--I wholly agree that feedback from both levels should be required as an ultimate deciding factor. However, that's just not the real world, even for code monkeys. Oh sure, you get peer feedback, and if you're a pain in the ass to work with, eventually those effects will show. But ultimately it is those above you who make that call. I still have to disagree regarding incompetence, however. Being a CIO has NOTHING to do with being a programmer, and it is this sort of assumption that lends itself to such wide-spread disregard of these higher positions. Understanding from first-hand experience the roles of those under you doesn't gaurantee that you'll be a better leader, any more than it dictates that those who don't have that experience will be poor ones. I don't disagree that higher level management roles seem like a bunch of fluff from where I'm standing as a programmer--but that's because it's coming from my perspective. I have no real idea all of what my CIO puts up with between those below him and those above him, between deadlines and any other such thing. My point here is, it's far too easy to assume that executives have it easy and just sit back massaging their career. So I ask you the same question: who here has been both a programmer and a CIO? Your assumption is correct--I was an officer. And was enlisted before that. I didn't go to any academy.
Your statement is naive (but I like the pretentious insult tacked onto the end). I'm afraid you missed the point of my post entirely (but not surprisingly). My complaint stems from how ridiculously convoluted the terms of the GPL are written, not from the inherent value of the GPL itself. And sometimes you are forced to use GPLed software--that is, if you program beyond the hobbyist level and, like most professional programmers, are not the final call on third party solutions or architectures. Spare me the faux nobility of the GPL. I write software for a living--which means, for money. I don't have time to "give back to the community" because I had to use GPLed software. If you hype your code up to be so principally free, and then turn around and bash those who use it without giving anything back, you're just a hypocrite who would have more integrity simply charging for it.
I see, so Apple is really gouging prices to help out the mom and pop stores. Thanks for the elucidation. There are actually Cocoa programmers out there? How cute.
Are you friggin kidding me? You "program Windows", and yet the only way you can get a cheap Windows machine is to go to Fry's or Best Buy? Best Buy employees don't work on commission, so your post is misleading at best. And please, you mean to tell me that the Apple employees are somehow superior to the Geek Squad? So let me get this straight: you PAID MONEY in order to work for Apple as a technician. And now you have the stones to come in here and actually use this fact as an example of how Apple is superior? Priceless.
Does anyone really care about the GPL? Free as in beer, free as in money, free as in I don't give a flying turd. Free as in let's pretend like software is somehow a noble thing that is an inalienable right in the 21st century. Yawn. I've had to navigate my way around the GPL while coding custom software solutions. And truth be told, I'd rather just pay a licensing fee rather than jump through those hoops. How about, free as in this won't be an absolute pain in the ass to deal with?
Jesus CHRIST. This many comments over "what is a CIO, anyway?" And the predictable whining from those underlings who *aren't* in officer positions. You sound EXACTLY like how enlisted men in the Army talk about officers. A code monkey has the luxury to bad mouth the CIO because he (or she) is allowed to focus myopically on the task at hand (namely, the product). Which, of course, is great. But myopic all the same. So much of business has NOTHING to do with the product, and EVERYTHING to do with the business. Go figure. It's also exactly why code monkeys would never want a CIO position to begin with.
As much as I love the convenience of wireless, there's no way it's as reliable as a good old-fashioned hardline. (Online gaming comes to mind:) )
While this is probably the most prudent thing Apple could have done, I must say, I was enjoying the strange turn of fate bestowed upon all those folks who just couldn't wait to buy the latest and greatest.
So that's why it takes so long to get rebates back! And here I was blaming the post office.
The key to Silverlight--and how mainstream it becomes--is that it will leverage the existing base of .net developers, which is substantial.
If these developers can take their existing knowledge of .net and extend that now into RIA, then I believe Flash will, indeed, see some serious competition.
It's not really a vicious circle; new technology has to break new ground at one point in its life. When Flash was introduced, people had to begin downloading it because web developers began incorporating it into their sites. Also, Microsoft will undoubtedly begin pushing down the Silverlight runtime via Windows Update, so users will more than likely have the capability even if they're not using it.
Anon, some things you may want to consider: The 160 GB ipod is the successor to my current one, not the touch ipod. They are two separate beasts entirely. However, you bring up another point: why did Apple choose to implement the touch features only on the smaller new ipod instead of offering these same features for both the new generation video ipod and the slimmed down touch ipod? Surely they could have. "Just forget about how it may not be feasible right now to do such things" I'm sorry, I just don't buy the idea that Apple can launch such stunning innovations (touch interface, wifi integration, included browser), but doesn't yet have the time or resources to allow wifi syncing. Again, may I remind you that the wifi capability is there...after all, they had no problems getting a wireless store to work. But using that same technology, they just couldn't figure out how to implement syncing? Right... As for Starbuck's...I'm most certainly not opposed to having the ability to buy songs in remote environments...it's just the Starbuck's/Apple pairing that has me rolling my eyes. It has more to do with the exclusivity of it than anything else. Meaning...if Apple opened up this capability and had a generic "wifi store" icon rather than a branded Starbuck's one, and any establishment (coffeeshop, municipality, library, what have you) could offer access to a music store, then I wouldn't be complaining. It's the same thing with some of the newer versions of commercial software that are starting to include cross-sell links, online ads, even dedicated branded "features" that only work with certain companies. I find this to be intrusive and a blatant heavy-handed way steering folks a certain way. That's not "allowing" people to do what they want with their money, that's limiting where they can spend their money. You make a good point of my own hypocrisy regarding the ipod and its storage capacity. Can't argue with you there.
Unfortunately, what works best for tactile interface isn't necessarily what seems the coolest. I imagine the first dozen or so times of flipping through the album art or "scrolling" through my artist list would seem novel; by the 100th time, though, it would be tedious. Scrolling with the current wheel is already tedious--don't forget, you're having to physically move your thumb or finger about over and over to browse a very long list, rather than hold down a button and let the scroll do the work.
At first, I was impressed with the demos of the new touch ipod. wifi integration? Built-in web browser? Slick touch-screen interface? And then, the nagging little details began to surface: 16 gig max capacity? My current 80 gig ipod is roomy indeed, and while it's not maxed out, any less than that, I'd be cutting it close. But wait--the new ipod is using USB flash drives...so logically, Apple will produce separate drives that you can swap out to easily mitigate the miserly space restrictions....right? Wrong. Let's not forget, people, these are the same devices with which you, the consumer, are not trusted to simply replace the battery. Swapping the drive? In your dreams. Second, since it has wifi, that means I don't need to plug in a USB cable to sync my ipod, right? Wrong. Of course, you can *purchase* new music over the ether, but something as insane as wirelessly syncing your library? You want the Brooklyn Bridge thrown in too? Finally, integration with Starbuck's. I love it when companies team together like this. Waltz into one of the 4 neighborhood Starbuck's and neato! A shiny new icon appears on your ipod! Guess what! It's called forced advertising. The best part is, thousands of people will consider this an indispensable "feature". Because, you know, when you're hopping yourself up on caffeine, you absolutely MUST have access to a music store. Once again I'm reminded of how indulgent we're becoming with our personal technology. As if cellphones weren't bad enough--people just couldn't live without being able to call Johnny up to discuss the latest gossip at any given moment--now we're going to have to tolerate folks who will absolutely *implode* if they can't check on the latest inane video uploaded to YouTube.
Sure are: http://www.microsoft.com/windows2000/default.mspx
I agree with you...and who is saying that businesses that only use an Office program, a web browser, and an email client have to get the latest and greatest? As a point of perspective, Win2K is still very much supported (my own business is still running this OS on a good many machines). If OS's have a support shelf life of 10 years or so, I'd say that upgrading to Vista isn't being imposed on anyone.
If that's the case, you're going to be changing your sheets well into your old age:)
Thank you sir (or madam), for being another voice of reason in this sea of chaos.
What's more surprising? That ./ has another article bashing Vista, or how quickly the ./'rs come out of the woodwork in typical self-congratulatory style to bemoan their agreements?
Give Vista another 3 months and all the programs listed in this article will be compatible, and this thread will be a moot point.
Instead of continuously blaming Windows and Microsoft, why don't you turn your attention towards the third-party companies that have had ample time to prepare for Vista and yet come launch date, are still fumbling around with betas. Perhaps if Apple had spent more energy on updating ITunes rather than poking fun at nag screens, they wouldn't be asking folks to postpone upgrading.
I believe the game industry could show more backbone when it comes to censorship, but the fact of the matter is, the market for video games is extremely turbulent. Game houses, unfortunately, cannot afford to have their titles banned from retailers such as Walmart, so they cater their content according to the retailers' wishes. This is why I find companies like Walmart insidious. But it's really our own faults. We want to save 10 cents on a 2 liter bottle of soda, we want to grocery shop while buying new underwear and DVDs, we're lazy and want everything right now. We continue to support companies that will grow so large (and already have) that they then dictate the quality of the very things they sell. Retailers defining products is a dangerous, dangerous thing indeed.