Of course Microsoft would buy into OpenID, its the Swiss cheese of identity management. It neither solves an actual identity management that the world has nor is it in any way a secure protocol for authenticating users against a single identity.
The snooty arrogance in this thread is astounding.
There is no doubt that if you are designing a system from scratch, the metric system is superior.
There is also no doubt that if you are in science and engineering, you should be using the metric system.
But for every day use? It does not matter one tiny bit. Whatever accurately supports commerce is really all that matters. And the Imperial system works in the US.
Some dirty secrets for you all who think the rest of the world has adopted: a lot of the Commonwealth nations have adopted the metric only in an official capacity. Go to the UK and see how often you see Imperial units.
In fact, the entire question of free will versus determinism is silly.
What exactly do you want when you yearn for free will? Uncaused actions? That is random behavior and completely irrational. There is no choice in that concept, just random events.
Capitalism is about wealth creation, specifically the belief that the most efficient mechanism for creating wealth is to let individuals create that wealth in a free market in which the best ideas (best ideas being those that people want to pay MORE for than it costs to produce them) win.
If minimizing costs is significant, why isn't minimizing costs for the boss's office space also significant? Do dollars change value depending on who's spending them? No they don't.
Yes, they do change. A dollar spent on someone who providers greater value to the company has a higher ROI. Thus, spending the money on the boss' office is generally a better investment than spending the money on a programming drone's office.
If the "higher up" will move on because he/she doesn't have a fancy enough office, doesn't that just prove my point that the whole thing is about perception of power? Yes it does.
No, it does not. Everyone wants a corner office because it's a nicer environment to work in than a cube or even a single window office. Unfortunately, there are only so many corner offices to go around. Therefore, you allocate those offices to the people who provide the greatest value.
Superstar programmers who want superstar salaries are nothing more than prima-donnas a company can do without.
Follow the path of the Patriots.
Money is only one component of compensation. People who just want money and nothing else tend to be a) troublesome for the company in general and b) will follow the next, better money offer that comes along. You don't want to compete for employees on price any more than you want to compete for customers on price--salary (and price) simply are not sustainable competitive advantages.
[i]I'd be discouraged from applying because I don't have a Bachelors, I think a lot of high-level IT workers are tired of getting our resumes filtered by some HR person that can't understand that MySQL experience isn't that much different than "Basic SQL with Oracle".[/i]
A college degree matters.
It may or may not matter in your specific case, but as an employer who does not know you from a bum on the street, it matters a lot.
The reality is that hiring managers have very few data points to go on, and a college degree means some specific things as well as being a good indicator of likely success. It does not mean the candidate will be a success, but the chances are significantly higher that any given candidate with a college degree will perform better than one without. And that statistical issue is important to the hiring process.
Beyond the statistical issue. Having a college degree shows you can take on a long-term project and see it through. Not having a college degree shows you have a problem in that area. There may be good reasons why you ended up without a college degree, but the rest of your resume should scream those good reasons. Otherwise, on paper, you look like a loser.
Unless you have a hard, fixed pay range for a position, posting the salary is a terrible idea.
It forces people to self-select out who may not think they are qualified enough (but in fact are) or who are overqualified, but whom you might be willing to pay a little extra to get.
The so-called security vendors are best off when there is a proliferation of viruses and people are scared to death of the Internet. Their business model disappears if the Internet actually becomes a secure platform.
Microsoft wants to see the number of exploits impacting its operating system disappear to zero. Only if they are successful will they kill the security vendors. And if not, the security vendors will prosper.
This strikes me as a rather insane abuse of statistics.
First, don't we expect a vast majority of music on an iPod to be from CDs even for people who buy a lot online? I mean the iTunes Music Store is only a few years old, yet most CD collections are a decade or two old. It would take me a long, long, long, long time of buying online music to equal my CD collection.
Second, the article says just 17% of iPod users are regular online shoppers of music. In my experience, a small percentage of people buy every CD they want and the rest just buy key stuff. I would expect a similar trend in online shopping.
So what conclusions are we really to draw from these stats?
I wrote a system that does what the Microsoft patent is claiming in the Nightmare Mudlib over 10 years ago. I also ported some of it with additional features over to Java and released it for a time in the Meme distribution.
The logic that they switched to Intel, so why not Windows lacks any business sense whatsoever.
They switched to Intel because it made business sense and aligned with their underlying value proposition as a company.
Becoming another WinTel vendor, however, is completely antithetical to their business model.
Their business model is based on differentiating the experiential components of computer use. The CPU is not a mechanism by which they can provide differentiation; the OS is. OS X is generally considered a better user experience than any Windows version.
Why on earth would they switch?
They would not. The fact is, Dvorak makes money off getting people to click to that stupid page, and he does it by saying stupid things. If he had the first clue about Apple, he might actually have had a correct prediction about the company in the past decade. How many times has he proclaimed the company dead?
Slashdot Mirror
You are a moron.
This is a post from someone who evidently does not have any kids.
OpenID is the phisher's dream. I honestly don't get what would motivate someone to implement this specification.
Of course Microsoft would buy into OpenID, its the Swiss cheese of identity management. It neither solves an actual identity management that the world has nor is it in any way a secure protocol for authenticating users against a single identity.
Show me where this is causing consistent problems that make it worth while engineering a vast societal change.
The snooty arrogance in this thread is astounding.
There is no doubt that if you are designing a system from scratch, the metric system is superior.
There is also no doubt that if you are in science and engineering, you should be using the metric system.
But for every day use? It does not matter one tiny bit. Whatever accurately supports commerce is really all that matters. And the Imperial system works in the US.
Some dirty secrets for you all who think the rest of the world has adopted: a lot of the Commonwealth nations have adopted the metric only in an official capacity. Go to the UK and see how often you see Imperial units.
In fact, the entire question of free will versus determinism is silly.
What exactly do you want when you yearn for free will? Uncaused actions? That is random behavior and completely irrational. There is no choice in that concept, just random events.
None of that has anything to do with capitalism.
Capitalism is about wealth creation, specifically the belief that the most efficient mechanism for creating wealth is to let individuals create that wealth in a free market in which the best ideas (best ideas being those that people want to pay MORE for than it costs to produce them) win.
Nintendo's strategy is essential capitalism.
Only an ignorant engineer who does not understand the value of management would suggest such a thing.
If minimizing costs is significant, why isn't minimizing costs for the boss's office space also significant? Do dollars change value depending on who's spending them? No they don't.
Yes, they do change. A dollar spent on someone who providers greater value to the company has a higher ROI. Thus, spending the money on the boss' office is generally a better investment than spending the money on a programming drone's office.
If the "higher up" will move on because he/she doesn't have a fancy enough office, doesn't that just prove my point that the whole thing is about perception of power? Yes it does.
No, it does not. Everyone wants a corner office because it's a nicer environment to work in than a cube or even a single window office. Unfortunately, there are only so many corner offices to go around. Therefore, you allocate those offices to the people who provide the greatest value.
That's a seriously idiotic commentary.
Cubes are about minimizing office space costs. They costs are very real and very significant.
Higher up people get offices because as one gets higher in an organization, the company has to give up things to retain those people.
No, you don't.
Superstar programmers who want superstar salaries are nothing more than prima-donnas a company can do without.
Follow the path of the Patriots.
Money is only one component of compensation. People who just want money and nothing else tend to be a) troublesome for the company in general and b) will follow the next, better money offer that comes along. You don't want to compete for employees on price any more than you want to compete for customers on price--salary (and price) simply are not sustainable competitive advantages.
[i]I'd be discouraged from applying because I don't have a Bachelors, I think a lot of high-level IT workers are tired of getting our resumes filtered by some HR person that can't understand that MySQL experience isn't that much different than "Basic SQL with Oracle".[/i]
A college degree matters.
It may or may not matter in your specific case, but as an employer who does not know you from a bum on the street, it matters a lot.
The reality is that hiring managers have very few data points to go on, and a college degree means some specific things as well as being a good indicator of likely success. It does not mean the candidate will be a success, but the chances are significantly higher that any given candidate with a college degree will perform better than one without. And that statistical issue is important to the hiring process.
Beyond the statistical issue. Having a college degree shows you can take on a long-term project and see it through. Not having a college degree shows you have a problem in that area. There may be good reasons why you ended up without a college degree, but the rest of your resume should scream those good reasons. Otherwise, on paper, you look like a loser.
Unless you have a hard, fixed pay range for a position, posting the salary is a terrible idea.
It forces people to self-select out who may not think they are qualified enough (but in fact are) or who are overqualified, but whom you might be willing to pay a little extra to get.
I am guessing you are a conspiracy theory nut.
From a business perspective, your theory makes absolutely no sense.
News to me.
The so-called security vendors are best off when there is a proliferation of viruses and people are scared to death of the Internet. Their business model disappears if the Internet actually becomes a secure platform.
Microsoft wants to see the number of exploits impacting its operating system disappear to zero. Only if they are successful will they kill the security vendors. And if not, the security vendors will prosper.
First, don't we expect a vast majority of music on an iPod to be from CDs even for people who buy a lot online? I mean the iTunes Music Store is only a few years old, yet most CD collections are a decade or two old. It would take me a long, long, long, long time of buying online music to equal my CD collection.
Second, the article says just 17% of iPod users are regular online shoppers of music. In my experience, a small percentage of people buy every CD they want and the rest just buy key stuff. I would expect a similar trend in online shopping.
So what conclusions are we really to draw from these stats?
I wrote a system that does what the Microsoft patent is claiming in the Nightmare Mudlib over 10 years ago. I also ported some of it with additional features over to Java and released it for a time in the Meme distribution.
How to I bring this to light?
If he does not like it, he should go work for another company. It's not like the government is telling him to be silent.
Has it dawned on any of you that HP might be doing this because telecommuting just isn't that successful?
Sarbanes-Oxley is god's gift to consultants.
It really says nothing about technology. Yet consultants get companies to do whatever they want by claiming it will put them in violation of SOX.
FUD FUD FUD FUD!!!
The logic that they switched to Intel, so why not Windows lacks any business sense whatsoever.
They switched to Intel because it made business sense and aligned with their underlying value proposition as a company.
Becoming another WinTel vendor, however, is completely antithetical to their business model.
Their business model is based on differentiating the experiential components of computer use. The CPU is not a mechanism by which they can provide differentiation; the OS is. OS X is generally considered a better user experience than any Windows version.
Why on earth would they switch?
They would not. The fact is, Dvorak makes money off getting people to click to that stupid page, and he does it by saying stupid things. If he had the first clue about Apple, he might actually have had a correct prediction about the company in the past decade. How many times has he proclaimed the company dead?
This is the single dumbest thing I have heard in a long, long time.
We are all now dumber for having read it.
It serves both. As it should.