Well, building huge rockets on earth and using them to push Earth is a much simpler and better idea.
If we use the rocket idea, we can push Earth to another sun, that way after the sun has dries out, we can keep earth around, moving it from one sun to another.
I believe my rocket idea is a much better solution; it is a solution that looks into the future much further and can be re-used over and over.
This is what "compotation" is all about. Yes some will see Intel as "evil" in entering this market but lets be realistic -- this is all about business and there is nothing fair when it comes to business since: "business is war".
Both solutions from Sun and MS are designed to connect systems together over the net -- this is nothing new and we have been doing it for years. The big difference is how they are doing it.
Sun does it via API while MS does it via *data* (using XML). That is MS is making the data to be the central communication protocol, not the API or SDK.
Because MS's solution is based on enabling the *data*, this solution is better as it is not an "invasive" one; i.e.: the client and the server don't have to be "one" (i.e.: Java)
For example, must every new device that we come up with support Java in order for it to talk to a server that supports only Java? With Sun's solution this is the case, the client (the new device) must support Java in order for it to talk with the Java based server. MS's solution removes this requirement; both the server and the client (the new device) can be anything using any SDK or language as long as they understand XML.
Your point holds when you are writing new code. However, there are a lot of diverse (as you pointed out) code out there that are still in use and won't go away anytime soon (or ever) that must be supported AND work with new code.
If anything, this is where.NET shines.
Just in time for Supper Bowl XXXV
on
The ASCII Cam
·
· Score: 1
Now I can watch the game truly live on my C-Phone.
Simulated rape, murder, etc. are all done at ones own well and concession. Either an adult or a guardian is approving it before it get "simulated". As a result this is OK acceptable knowing that the child is innocent.
As for simulated child porn, most of the child porn are done with OUT the child's concession.
Today that is true, but the end result of this merger, if AOL+TM play their cards right, will be that no one will recognize "Windows" (maybe only during boat time) -- instead everyone will now see "IM" as there interface to the world and to applications. I.e.: the brand name "Windows" that comes from MS now has the potential of being replaced by "IM" that comes from AOL+TM.
This is no different than the thread that MS saw with Netscape browser+Java over 5 years ago which is why MS killed Netscape.
Beside, do you *really* need a MS OS to run "IM"? A JVM under "IM" on a Linux, PalmOS, BeOS, etc. box can do the job just fine.
In few more years the an OS will fade away into the dark -- it is the "interface" and the "applications" that will matter -- and most consumers go after well known brand names, not technology names.
From the business perspective you are right. But once you look at the consumer and entertainment arena you will see that this merger makes it virtually impossible for MS to get into the homes.
Also, just like the browser was a thread to MS's OS market (when Netscape was king) -- today IM is the next killer application.
If you look at IM as a simple messages between two or more geeks having fun at work, than you are missing the whole picture. If AOL and TW play their cards right, soon, not only can they use IM to exchange messages (and files which they do now) like they do not, but they can also exchange "applets" that execute on remote computers and with it IM becomes the "OS" just like the Netscape browser was going to be come the "OS"
This is a real thread for MS. Netscape was a small company, but now it is AOL+TM; in addition, now there is a whole new game that MS is not familiar with: the home market and the entertainment market.
So yes, this is a "real" thread for MS this time around.
If anything is bad about this merger is that it now gives MS a good dose of ammunitions to defend its position that it has competition and thus it can now argue that breaking MS up is a sure prescription to kill it off.
The only area where I see MS finds Linux as a thread is in the Server market. In fact, Linux is a thread to *any* OS in this segment.
What I would like/. readers to get out of Ballmer's claims, is to ask (and answer) the question: when will Linux be a thread to MS (or any other OS) from the client end and at the home market?
Frankly, I don't see that is happening any time soon, not even by 2005. Do you?
It seems to me that your background is in 'math' so I will use VisCal as an example.
When VisCal 1.0 came out -- there was only selected hardware that it would run on. And than when ver 2.0, and onward came out, those versions required new OS and new hardware configuration. The majority of the users, went out and upgraded there conf. to be able to run VisCal. The rest took more time but eventually cached on.
Now coming back to the browsers plug-in, if you are still using a browser that doesn't support the latest tech, than yes you are out of luck -- and my answer is: too bad -- because the rest of the world wants to move on but you don't seem to want to.
I still remember the days when people demanded that the latest version of their favorite application written for Win 3.1 to also run on MS-DOS 3.0 with the SAME features and capability on the old MS-DOS 3.0 hardware with no hard-disk. A lot of companies got burned out when they got such demands from the marketing folks and couldn't deliver.
So, if your grandmother wants to be able to do plug-in via her appliance, than she needs a hardware that supports it. Yes, such hardware doesn't exists today, but that doesn't mean MathML is dead on arrival and eventually once those hardware are available, she will move on to that hardware.
As for "...is textbook example of a Really Bad Idea" -- I don't get it. Requiring users to use the plug-in is no different as requiring users to have an HTML browser to access the sit in the first place.
How far is "... a while back while working on an unnamed CPU project..."? If you are talking 5+ years, or even 3+ years, than you data is out of date as today's compilers are much more efficient about optimizing C++ code.
If you take OOP as a "silver bullet" solution for your development problems, than yes, you have fooled yourself. What a lot of people missed out about OOP is the fact that OOP does nothing but "unifies" common programming practices and provides a common "language" and communication gateway for developers to use when they are working on their projects.
Without OOP, we could all be talking about MVC (Model/View/Controller), call-backs, iterates, etc. in a completely different language and yet not understand each other which result into communication breakdown.
For those who are not familiar with OOP my suggestion is to read the "Design Patterns" book. The book doesn't talk about anything new or revolutionary. On the contrary, all the stuff in the book (and most other OOP books) are things that were covered over 30+ years ago. All what the book does is "unifies" those practices so that the next time when two developers are working on a call-back design, they don't just give it their own invented "cool" name or "cool" implementation.
Folks, OOP is no different than what you would find when you talk to an electrician (or any other well establish engineering field). In those fields there are "standard" language, process, and practices that get carried out and communicated. It is time for the software filed to standardize too.
Finally, regarding the payback of using OOP that the article pointes out -- there are countless research and study that show that on medium to large projects, OOP is the way to go.
Everyone is talking about getting fired -- how about when it is *you* that want to leave but can't do it because when you give them your notice, they came back and ask you to stay.
This happened twice to me -- in one case both the CEO and one of the board-advisors talked me into staying (stupid me I staied -- but hey they offered me a good bonuce.) I am no longer with this company as 6 month down the road they are near bankrupt status.
So, has anyone experienced such pressure? You want to leave but they won't let you go?
It is the capability of the OS (and hardware design in the box) that must first be addressed in order to see the benefit of performance when you have 2 or more CPU in a PC box. And even than, the fact of having 2 CPU doesn't mean you will get two times faster results. Many other variables (hardware and OS) are at play.
I have a dual processor Intel box with a 500MHz CPU. On this box I have Win98, W2K, and Linux. Win98 uses only one CPU, no mater how many you have -- so you won't see any speed up. W2K, does take advantage of the CPU, but this box doesn't complete a task twice as fast as another one 500MHz CPU -- it probably does it 30-60% faster depending on the application. The same is true for Linux.
I worked with the Mac OS since 1988. The improvement that Apple put into the OS since than up to OS 9 are not around dual processors. In fact, OS 9 is no better than Windows 3.x when it comes to multitasking. Yes, that's how out of date is the MacOS 9 is.
IF by your statement of "So tell me, why do I need a Ferrari?" you mean why you need a Mac -- than I agree with you (and I assume you agree with me).
If not, than I urge you to check out and compare the price of a non Mac PCs and what you get with them to a Mac PC. You should also do the same for the UI and ease of application use.
I don't known much about Mac OS X -- but as long as Apple keeps the doors for the Mac close to the outsiders, it will never take off.
When Apple first came up with the Mac, there was a reason to use them for the fact that the Mac was an all new type of computer which is what lead to what Windows is today.
Unfortunately, from day one, Apple kept its doors tight close and would not let anyone except Apple to get in. In addition, Apple targeted its market to a narrow and small segment such as "graphic artist and desktop publisher". In addition, Apple marketed itself as a "cool" company that produces "cool" product.
It is my belief that those event along with other erroneous events directly caused by Apple are what make Apple what it is today -- corporations don't take their product seriously to do anything with it.
So while the Mac OS X is "cool", that is all what it is "cool" -- if there is no business strategy to deliver it to the consumers and corporations that it will just be used by those Mac fan and no one else.
Finally, 10 years ago, there used to be a reason to buy a Mac, for publishing and graphic. Today, you can get those applications on a PC: Photo Shop, Adobe, etc.
And for those Mac users who keep toting its UI as being easy to use -- would you please stop it and get a life!! Just use Windows, KDE, GNUME, OpenLook, etc. (any other UI) for few weeks and you will see that the Mac UI is not the magic you think it is.
In the US, there is this saying that (I don't known the full, correct phrase): "the grass next door is always greener".
The point in this statement is that it depends on where you are standing. If you are in your own backyard, than your neighbors grass is greener than yours. On the other hand, your neighbors, standing on his backyard is seeing the same thing.
Wait a minute?! If you're telling me that the teacher should be blamed than you got it wrong. Why you ask?!
Well, if my boss or anyone else, tells me to jump off the 10th floor window and I took the dive without "looking into it" than it is my own doing and no one but "I" to be held responsible for the consequence.
However, if I was dumb and was tricked into it, than it's a different story. With this teacher/student story, I don't think the student is dumb -- otherwise s/he wouldn't figured out how to hack the system.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, building huge rockets on earth and using them to push Earth is a much simpler and better idea.
If we use the rocket idea, we can push Earth to another sun, that way after the sun has dries out, we can keep earth around, moving it from one sun to another.
I believe my rocket idea is a much better solution; it is a solution that looks into the future much further and can be re-used over and over.
So, when do we start building the rockets?
Did the customer "wanted this solution yesterday"? So aren't the scientists who figured this out today are billion years too late?
I guess we are now all domed. Good bye people, it was nice getting to know you all but ate least I know who to blame it on.
This is what "compotation" is all about. Yes some will see Intel as "evil" in entering this market but lets be realistic -- this is all about business and there is nothing fair when it comes to business since: "business is war".
Both solutions from Sun and MS are designed to connect systems together over the net -- this is nothing new and we have been doing it for years. The big difference is how they are doing it.
Sun does it via API while MS does it via *data* (using XML). That is MS is making the data to be the central communication protocol, not the API or SDK.
Because MS's solution is based on enabling the *data*, this solution is better as it is not an "invasive" one; i.e.: the client and the server don't have to be "one" (i.e.: Java)
For example, must every new device that we come up with support Java in order for it to talk to a server that supports only Java? With Sun's solution this is the case, the client (the new device) must support Java in order for it to talk with the Java based server. MS's solution removes this requirement; both the server and the client (the new device) can be anything using any SDK or language as long as they understand XML.
Your point holds when you are writing new code. However, there are a lot of diverse (as you pointed out) code out there that are still in use and won't go away anytime soon (or ever) that must be supported AND work with new code.
.NET shines.
If anything, this is where
Now I can watch the game truly live on my C-Phone.
Good question. Here is my answer.
Simulated rape, murder, etc. are all done at ones own well and concession. Either an adult or a guardian is approving it before it get "simulated". As a result this is OK acceptable knowing that the child is innocent.
As for simulated child porn, most of the child porn are done with OUT the child's concession.
It is this that the law is trying to stop.
I hope they don't use MS OS to control the laser, cause I don't want to see the blue-screen-of-death while the laser is being used. :-)
Today that is true, but the end result of this merger, if AOL+TM play their cards right, will be that no one will recognize "Windows" (maybe only during boat time) -- instead everyone will now see "IM" as there interface to the world and to applications. I.e.: the brand name "Windows" that comes from MS now has the potential of being replaced by "IM" that comes from AOL+TM.
This is no different than the thread that MS saw with Netscape browser+Java over 5 years ago which is why MS killed Netscape.
Beside, do you *really* need a MS OS to run "IM"? A JVM under "IM" on a Linux, PalmOS, BeOS, etc. box can do the job just fine.
In few more years the an OS will fade away into the dark -- it is the "interface" and the "applications" that will matter -- and most consumers go after well known brand names, not technology names.
From the business perspective you are right. But once you look at the consumer and entertainment arena you will see that this merger makes it virtually impossible for MS to get into the homes.
Also, just like the browser was a thread to MS's OS market (when Netscape was king) -- today IM is the next killer application.
If you look at IM as a simple messages between two or more geeks having fun at work, than you are missing the whole picture. If AOL and TW play their cards right, soon, not only can they use IM to exchange messages (and files which they do now) like they do not, but they can also exchange "applets" that execute on remote computers and with it IM becomes the "OS" just like the Netscape browser was going to be come the "OS"
This is a real thread for MS. Netscape was a small company, but now it is AOL+TM; in addition, now there is a whole new game that MS is not familiar with: the home market and the entertainment market.
So yes, this is a "real" thread for MS this time around.
If anything is bad about this merger is that it now gives MS a good dose of ammunitions to defend its position that it has competition and thus it can now argue that breaking MS up is a sure prescription to kill it off.
The only area where I see MS finds Linux as a thread is in the Server market. In fact, Linux is a thread to *any* OS in this segment.
/. readers to get out of Ballmer's claims, is to ask (and answer) the question: when will Linux be a thread to MS (or any other OS) from the client end and at the home market?
What I would like
Frankly, I don't see that is happening any time soon, not even by 2005. Do you?
Has this been around last year, the DotComGuy would have put it into a good use.
:-)
For example, with a few more modification, he would have been able to spend the entire year stuck to his chair.
...with few more modification and its users don't even have to get up!
:-)
I think Microsoft is trying a "bit" too hard to get into the consumer market.
This may hurt my "karma" but I couldn't resist myself not posting.
It seems to me that your background is in 'math' so I will use VisCal as an example.
When VisCal 1.0 came out -- there was only selected hardware that it would run on. And than when ver 2.0, and onward came out, those versions required new OS and new hardware configuration. The majority of the users, went out and upgraded there conf. to be able to run VisCal. The rest took more time but eventually cached on.
Now coming back to the browsers plug-in, if you are still using a browser that doesn't support the latest tech, than yes you are out of luck -- and my answer is: too bad -- because the rest of the world wants to move on but you don't seem to want to.
I still remember the days when people demanded that the latest version of their favorite application written for Win 3.1 to also run on MS-DOS 3.0 with the SAME features and capability on the old MS-DOS 3.0 hardware with no hard-disk. A lot of companies got burned out when they got such demands from the marketing folks and couldn't deliver.
So, if your grandmother wants to be able to do plug-in via her appliance, than she needs a hardware that supports it. Yes, such hardware doesn't exists today, but that doesn't mean MathML is dead on arrival and eventually once those hardware are available, she will move on to that hardware.
As for "...is textbook example of a Really Bad Idea" -- I don't get it. Requiring users to use the plug-in is no different as requiring users to have an HTML browser to access the sit in the first place.
"Needless to say, I'm not very comfortable with depending on browser plug-ins for anything."
:-)
Well, a browser plug-ins are no different than a software or hardware update.
If you disagree, than you should still be using a 1980s hardware and software.
Yes, it is a pain. But there is no gain with out a pain. Go figure.
How far is "... a while back while working on an unnamed CPU project..."? If you are talking 5+ years, or even 3+ years, than you data is out of date as today's compilers are much more efficient about optimizing C++ code.
If you take OOP as a "silver bullet" solution for your development problems, than yes, you have fooled yourself. What a lot of people missed out about OOP is the fact that OOP does nothing but "unifies" common programming practices and provides a common "language" and communication gateway for developers to use when they are working on their projects.
Without OOP, we could all be talking about MVC (Model/View/Controller), call-backs, iterates, etc. in a completely different language and yet not understand each other which result into communication breakdown.
For those who are not familiar with OOP my suggestion is to read the "Design Patterns" book. The book doesn't talk about anything new or revolutionary. On the contrary, all the stuff in the book (and most other OOP books) are things that were covered over 30+ years ago. All what the book does is "unifies" those practices so that the next time when two developers are working on a call-back design, they don't just give it their own invented "cool" name or "cool" implementation.
Folks, OOP is no different than what you would find when you talk to an electrician (or any other well establish engineering field). In those fields there are "standard" language, process, and practices that get carried out and communicated. It is time for the software filed to standardize too.
Finally, regarding the payback of using OOP that the article pointes out -- there are countless research and study that show that on medium to large projects, OOP is the way to go.
Everyone is talking about getting fired -- how about when it is *you* that want to leave but can't do it because when you give them your notice, they came back and ask you to stay.
This happened twice to me -- in one case both the CEO and one of the board-advisors talked me into staying (stupid me I staied -- but hey they offered me a good bonuce.) I am no longer with this company as 6 month down the road they are near bankrupt status.
So, has anyone experienced such pressure? You want to leave but they won't let you go?
It is the capability of the OS (and hardware design in the box) that must first be addressed in order to see the benefit of performance when you have 2 or more CPU in a PC box. And even than, the fact of having 2 CPU doesn't mean you will get two times faster results. Many other variables (hardware and OS) are at play.
I have a dual processor Intel box with a 500MHz CPU. On this box I have Win98, W2K, and Linux. Win98 uses only one CPU, no mater how many you have -- so you won't see any speed up. W2K, does take advantage of the CPU, but this box doesn't complete a task twice as fast as another one 500MHz CPU -- it probably does it 30-60% faster depending on the application. The same is true for Linux.
I worked with the Mac OS since 1988. The improvement that Apple put into the OS since than up to OS 9 are not around dual processors. In fact, OS 9 is no better than Windows 3.x when it comes to multitasking. Yes, that's how out of date is the MacOS 9 is.
IF by your statement of "So tell me, why do I need a Ferrari?" you mean why you need a Mac -- than I agree with you (and I assume you agree with me).
If not, than I urge you to check out and compare the price of a non Mac PCs and what you get with them to a Mac PC. You should also do the same for the UI and ease of application use.
I don't known much about Mac OS X -- but as long as Apple keeps the doors for the Mac close to the outsiders, it will never take off.
When Apple first came up with the Mac, there was a reason to use them for the fact that the Mac was an all new type of computer which is what lead to what Windows is today.
Unfortunately, from day one, Apple kept its doors tight close and would not let anyone except Apple to get in. In addition, Apple targeted its market to a narrow and small segment such as "graphic artist and desktop publisher". In addition, Apple marketed itself as a "cool" company that produces "cool" product.
It is my belief that those event along with other erroneous events directly caused by Apple are what make Apple what it is today -- corporations don't take their product seriously to do anything with it.
So while the Mac OS X is "cool", that is all what it is "cool" -- if there is no business strategy to deliver it to the consumers and corporations that it will just be used by those Mac fan and no one else.
Finally, 10 years ago, there used to be a reason to buy a Mac, for publishing and graphic. Today, you can get those applications on a PC: Photo Shop, Adobe, etc.
And for those Mac users who keep toting its UI as being easy to use -- would you please stop it and get a life!! Just use Windows, KDE, GNUME, OpenLook, etc. (any other UI) for few weeks and you will see that the Mac UI is not the magic you think it is.
So tell me, why do I need a Mac?
In the US, there is this saying that (I don't known the full, correct phrase): "the grass next door is always greener".
The point in this statement is that it depends on where you are standing. If you are in your own backyard, than your neighbors grass is greener than yours. On the other hand, your neighbors, standing on his backyard is seeing the same thing.
Wait a minute?! If you're telling me that the teacher should be blamed than you got it wrong. Why you ask?!
Well, if my boss or anyone else, tells me to jump off the 10th floor window and I took the dive without "looking into it" than it is my own doing and no one but "I" to be held responsible for the consequence.
However, if I was dumb and was tricked into it, than it's a different story. With this teacher/student story, I don't think the student is dumb -- otherwise s/he wouldn't figured out how to hack the system.
Well, all what this is is what Windows 98/2000 explorer already does.
So are we saying that the non Windows world has finally catching up? And who is copying who in this case?!