There is always a fear that even a slight mention in a report or stating information that we shouldn't know and only know through a secret source or method will blow the program and potentially waste millions or, worse, put someone's life in danger.
Yeah, putting peoples' lives in danger is a real problem. Doesn't it seem kind of odd that the goverment can save one or two theoretical risks by classifying reams and reams of information that never should have been, while at the same time, putting thousands at risk by invading a country under false pretenses?
but many great CEOs are very introverted, out-of-the-limelight type of people.
That's not introversion you see, that's ego. Absurdly high pay, low visibility, and a parachute that will make any degree of non-performance a non-issue.
No, the fact is that you've watched too many cheesy shows on TV. The people that run the CIA are appointed. By elected officials.
There you go. In other words, people who can do thy master's bidding without drawing too much attention from the public. When attention does surface, nothing knows good PR like a sacrificial lamb or two.
There also exist situations where people who have done crappy work know they've done crappy work and offer their resignation, only to be turned down by the sitting president. Rumsfeld offered to resign not once, but twice - and he, many will say, has had a large hand in much of the lawlessness and secrecy surrounding the current adminstration.
That's done by congress. The members of the intelligence oversight committees are very aware of the cash flow and the programs they fund.
Apparently not - there are far too many people spending far too much time engaging in activities that are way out of line and completely without merit.
According to the article, Oracle is also looking at Zend, the makers of PHP...PHP has been used very widely in the implentation of MySQL-based solutions. Granted, PhP isn't the only available option, but all these aquisitions could make for some headaches for a large number of users.
Bear in mind, that Oracle is also planning the release of a low-end product, Oracle Express, presumably to compete with the likes of MySQL and Postgres. I don't think I would ever use or recommend it, because at its core is the beginning of a short road to Oracle's usually-expensive licensing.
you badly emulate OS widgets, with XUL you use OS widgets.
Well stated. I wish people who keep trying to create these faux css-based widgets would understand this. Compared to something like XUL, they look, and behave like cheap hacks.
Back when copyright was first implemented, it granted the author 14 years, with an option to extend the copyright for an additional 14. Now, think about how difficult it was at that point to disseminate a work of authorship - geographic considerations alone would provide quite an obstacle, so even with 14 years, there were many challenges faced by those who produced creatived works.
Contrast that with today, where the means exist to distribute a creative work for a miniscule fraction of the cost. With the internet, the geographic penetration is limitless...anyone with access to the net can have access to the means to legally acquire a copy of your work. The huge irony in all this: distribution (and by extension, income derived from said distribution), has become a non-issue. And yet, all the while that technology has made this possible, there have been major extensions to the term of a copyright. Copyright holders, quite literally, are having their cake and eating it too. Because of this, I opine that current terms of copyright are FAR removed from their original intent. If anything, I'd argue that the term of a copyright should have been reduced to reflect the increased accessibility that copyright holders now have to their respective audiences.
But, when patents get's involved, picture becomes more obscure.
And, far more serious. This is one case where simply being able to use your keyboard to type in the steps required to facilitate a certain objective can get you into legal trouble. Assuming that nothing has been copied (thereby eliminating any copyright issues), it's ludicrous that I can still be prevented from solving my own problems, and from helping others who might also find the solution of value - all because a patent has allowed someone to "lay claim" to, and cordon off that particular piece of knowledge.
This problem could be solved quite handily with an elightened group of representatives in our government. Increasingly, however, it seems that the interests of those currently in office, and those who framed the Constitution, are
Remember DivX? Consumers recognized the plague that it was and dumped it. DRM and "Trusted Computing" are just two more DivX-esque plagues with some shiny new enhancements (none of which are consumer-friendly). The landscape will be littered with something for sure- if consumers wise up, it will be the quarterly earnings statements that belong to the big players, showing massive declines in revenue.
That's a long table - maybe it would be more helpful to list the manufacturers who don't support this junk. If I want a non-TC-crippled machine, I won't care who makes them, I'll want to know who doesn't.
Now that's pretty far fetched if you ask me...They will not do that, it's almost impossible for them to do so - think about how many millions of programs are floating out there...are they going to sign all of them?
Of course not- that's the whole point. They get to decide what runs and what doesn't, not you, the owner.
Maybe...but also consider that this is a golden opportunity for others to step in and offer more reasonable terms...the DRM-dependant companies can sit back and bask in newly-created (and presumably endless) revenue stream until one day they'll wake up and be so far behind the game they'll never catch up. I'm positive that the pro-DRM companies think they have the upper hand, but when you play with fire (or in this case, a maelstrom), it's a game you could end up losing in a big way.
The acquisition of working models with respect to software probably won't be an issue - what they'll have to contend with is several submissions, since most of what is patented either has prior art, or is so obvious (aka "stupid") nobody without a lawyer on the payroll would consider patenting it in the first place. Most people despise government bureaucracy, but this is one case where it would actually do some justice - make the software patent process so cumbersome that it's just not worth the trouble.
To a lesser extent my boss does this, but in reverse, by under-promising and over-delivering, which makes our department look good. He calls it "managing expectations".
I think that's a great way to do business. I remember listening to Guy Kawasaki talk, back when he was an Apple evangelist- that was his motto as well. Unfortunately, Apple missed the boat a few times because they ended up doing exactly the opposite.
Of course, how they have cameras to take care of speeding accusations. Problem is, if a camera accuses you of speeding, there's no way (that I'm aware of) to prove it wrong, If it says you were speeding, you were speeding, whether or not you actually were. Not only that, but since these speeding tickets do not go on your record, and do not affect your insurance rates (at least where I live), you really have to wonder about the motives behind them.
All I'm saying is this...if you want the freedom to make the choices, then why not assume the risk that goes with it?
It seems that people want the ability to make any choice they please, but are willing to assume only minimal responsibility, and they do this by spreading their cost out over many others who pay for it. In effect, you have one group subsidizing another...something that clearly isn't fair.
If I don't wear my seat belt, who am I going to hurt?
While I agree with most of your post, I must take issue with this. You aren't going to hurt anyone, unless perhaps your body lands on top of someone after being ejected from the vehicle. The same argument is used by those who do not like being forced to wear helmets while riding a motorcycle.
The point is that by not wearing a seatbelt (or helmet), you can easily sustain injuries that are far more serious, and by extension, far more costly. Who do you think is paying that extra cost? Assuming you have insurance, do you really think its reasonable that other drivers should cover the cost associated with your choice not to wear a seatbelt?
Cosco does that, for example, and they're company has been doing pretty well.
Costco is run FAR better than Walmart. In fact, Costco is run far better than a lot of corporations. There is attention to the bottom line, but there is also a much more holistic approach to the business, where they see employees as valued resources, rather than industrial cogs. The other thing about Costco is that its CEO, Jim Sinegal, is a true leader. Not only does he actually take the time to deal face-to-face with the rank-and-file, he appears to be unaffected by the typical delusional thinking that characterize most CEOs with respect to reasonable compensation.
I'm more than a little concerned that the dept. of homeland insecurity folks have taken it upon themselves to assume the role of nanny.
It makes perfect sense to me. Haven't you hard of the latest threat? PMD - Pornography of Mass Destruction. Unleash some dirty porn in a heavily populated area, and they're as good as gone.
I can guarantee you that slapped or not, if it were my kid, he'd be living in a house that just was just relieved of its X-Box. I'd probably make him pack it up and accompany me to the nearest charity that would accept it as a donation.
I'm not sure which is more sad - the fact that the copyright has been extended so many times, or that consumers are stupid enough to continue paying for the material (I'm not advocating copyright infringement, I'm merely suggesting that people keep their money, and let the copyright "owners" keep their material).
I believe Kaman's motives where honorable, but I wonder if it's just something that turned out where the solution was a bigger problem than the problem itself. Hell, why not develop and market a line of two-wheeled scooters to adults? A little exercise, it beats walking, it's a pantload cheaper, and it would probably be faster than a segway to boot.
I remember looking at Comcast's lineup, and I'm sure they have business class accounts. You pay even more for that privilege, however.
I would be floored if they offered the kind of service that you've described. I remember very well one day I logged on for some assistance getting a direct connection to a friend's computer so that we could play Warcraft 3 one-on-one. The moron on the other end started hassling me about the ToS, saying that since one of us will be "serving" the game, this qualifies as a violation. The most rediculous part is that the bandwidth use would be exactly the same if we both logged onto battle.net to play.
Slashdot Mirror
There is always a fear that even a slight mention in a report or stating information that we shouldn't know and only know through a secret source or method will blow the program and potentially waste millions or, worse, put someone's life in danger.
Yeah, putting peoples' lives in danger is a real problem. Doesn't it seem kind of odd that the goverment can save one or two theoretical risks by classifying reams and reams of information that never should have been, while at the same time, putting thousands at risk by invading a country under false pretenses?
but many great CEOs are very introverted, out-of-the-limelight type of people.
That's not introversion you see, that's ego. Absurdly high pay, low visibility, and a parachute that will make any degree of non-performance a non-issue.
No, the fact is that you've watched too many cheesy shows on TV. The people that run the CIA are appointed. By elected officials.
There you go. In other words, people who can do thy master's bidding without drawing too much attention from the public. When attention does surface, nothing knows good PR like a sacrificial lamb or two.
There also exist situations where people who have done crappy work know they've done crappy work and offer their resignation, only to be turned down by the sitting president. Rumsfeld offered to resign not once, but twice - and he, many will say, has had a large hand in much of the lawlessness and secrecy surrounding the current adminstration.
That's done by congress. The members of the intelligence oversight committees are very aware of the cash flow and the programs they fund.
Apparently not - there are far too many people spending far too much time engaging in activities that are way out of line and completely without merit.
It describes Microsoft's new strategy:
Cooperate, Compete, Coopt.
(Embrace & Extend apparently wasn't working very well)
According to the article, Oracle is also looking at Zend, the makers of PHP...PHP has been used very widely in the implentation of MySQL-based solutions. Granted, PhP isn't the only available option, but all these aquisitions could make for some headaches for a large number of users.
Bear in mind, that Oracle is also planning the release of a low-end product, Oracle Express, presumably to compete with the likes of MySQL and Postgres. I don't think I would ever use or recommend it, because at its core is the beginning of a short road to Oracle's usually-expensive licensing.
you badly emulate OS widgets, with XUL you use OS widgets.
Well stated. I wish people who keep trying to create these faux css-based widgets would understand this. Compared to something like XUL, they look, and behave like cheap hacks.
at odds, or becoming increasingly divergent.
Back when copyright was first implemented, it granted the author 14 years, with an option to extend the copyright for an additional 14. Now, think about how difficult it was at that point to disseminate a work of authorship - geographic considerations alone would provide quite an obstacle, so even with 14 years, there were many challenges faced by those who produced creatived works.
Contrast that with today, where the means exist to distribute a creative work for a miniscule fraction of the cost. With the internet, the geographic penetration is limitless...anyone with access to the net can have access to the means to legally acquire a copy of your work. The huge irony in all this: distribution (and by extension, income derived from said distribution), has become a non-issue. And yet, all the while that technology has made this possible, there have been major extensions to the term of a copyright. Copyright holders, quite literally, are having their cake and eating it too. Because of this, I opine that current terms of copyright are FAR removed from their original intent. If anything, I'd argue that the term of a copyright should have been reduced to reflect the increased accessibility that copyright holders now have to their respective audiences.
But, when patents get's involved, picture becomes more obscure.
And, far more serious. This is one case where simply being able to use your keyboard to type in the steps required to facilitate a certain objective can get you into legal trouble. Assuming that nothing has been copied (thereby eliminating any copyright issues), it's ludicrous that I can still be prevented from solving my own problems, and from helping others who might also find the solution of value - all because a patent has allowed someone to "lay claim" to, and cordon off that particular piece of knowledge.
This problem could be solved quite handily with an elightened group of representatives in our government. Increasingly, however, it seems that the interests of those currently in office, and those who framed the Constitution, are
Remember DivX? Consumers recognized the plague that it was and dumped it. DRM and "Trusted Computing" are just two more DivX-esque plagues with some shiny new enhancements (none of which are consumer-friendly). The landscape will be littered with something for sure- if consumers wise up, it will be the quarterly earnings statements that belong to the big players, showing massive declines in revenue.
That's a long table - maybe it would be more helpful to list the manufacturers who don't support this junk. If I want a non-TC-crippled machine, I won't care who makes them, I'll want to know who doesn't.
Now that's pretty far fetched if you ask me...They will not do that, it's almost impossible for them to do so - think about how many millions of programs are floating out there...are they going to sign all of them?
Of course not- that's the whole point. They get to decide what runs and what doesn't, not you, the owner.
Say goodbye to software innovation.
Maybe...but also consider that this is a golden opportunity for others to step in and offer more reasonable terms...the DRM-dependant companies can sit back and bask in newly-created (and presumably endless) revenue stream until one day they'll wake up and be so far behind the game they'll never catch up. I'm positive that the pro-DRM companies think they have the upper hand, but when you play with fire (or in this case, a maelstrom), it's a game you could end up losing in a big way.
The acquisition of working models with respect to software probably won't be an issue - what they'll have to contend with is several submissions, since most of what is patented either has prior art, or is so obvious (aka "stupid") nobody without a lawyer on the payroll would consider patenting it in the first place. Most people despise government bureaucracy, but this is one case where it would actually do some justice - make the software patent process so cumbersome that it's just not worth the trouble.
To a lesser extent my boss does this, but in reverse, by under-promising and over-delivering, which makes our department look good. He calls it "managing expectations".
I think that's a great way to do business. I remember listening to Guy Kawasaki talk, back when he was an Apple evangelist- that was his motto as well. Unfortunately, Apple missed the boat a few times because they ended up doing exactly the opposite.
Of course, how they have cameras to take care of speeding accusations. Problem is, if a camera accuses you of speeding, there's no way (that I'm aware of) to prove it wrong, If it says you were speeding, you were speeding, whether or not you actually were. Not only that, but since these speeding tickets do not go on your record, and do not affect your insurance rates (at least where I live), you really have to wonder about the motives behind them.
All I'm saying is this...if you want the freedom to make the choices, then why not assume the risk that goes with it?
It seems that people want the ability to make any choice they please, but are willing to assume only minimal responsibility, and they do this by spreading their cost out over many others who pay for it. In effect, you have one group subsidizing another...something that clearly isn't fair.
If I don't wear my seat belt, who am I going to hurt?
While I agree with most of your post, I must take issue with this. You aren't going to hurt anyone, unless perhaps your body lands on top of someone after being ejected from the vehicle. The same argument is used by those who do not like being forced to wear helmets while riding a motorcycle.
The point is that by not wearing a seatbelt (or helmet), you can easily sustain injuries that are far more serious, and by extension, far more costly. Who do you think is paying that extra cost? Assuming you have insurance, do you really think its reasonable that other drivers should cover the cost associated with your choice not to wear a seatbelt?
Cosco does that, for example, and they're company has been doing pretty well.
Costco is run FAR better than Walmart. In fact, Costco is run far better than a lot of corporations. There is attention to the bottom line, but there is also a much more holistic approach to the business, where they see employees as valued resources, rather than industrial cogs. The other thing about Costco is that its CEO, Jim Sinegal, is a true leader. Not only does he actually take the time to deal face-to-face with the rank-and-file, he appears to be unaffected by the typical delusional thinking that characterize most CEOs with respect to reasonable compensation.
I'm more than a little concerned that the dept. of homeland insecurity folks have taken it upon themselves to assume the role of nanny.
It makes perfect sense to me. Haven't you hard of the latest threat? PMD - Pornography of Mass Destruction. Unleash some dirty porn in a heavily populated area, and they're as good as gone.
The (Christian) "religious nuts" to which the GP refers don't recognise separation of church and state, either.v
Of the difference between lawful and lawless activity- a dangerous combination.
I can guarantee you that slapped or not, if it were my kid, he'd be living in a house that just was just relieved of its X-Box. I'd probably make him pack it up and accompany me to the nearest charity that would accept it as a donation.
I think it's true about the "picking it up from the family" - either that, or parents that simply don't have any control. You may have seen this:9 8207965240
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-71531520
I'm not sure which is more sad - the fact that the copyright has been extended so many times, or that consumers are stupid enough to continue paying for the material (I'm not advocating copyright infringement, I'm merely suggesting that people keep their money, and let the copyright "owners" keep their material).
I believe Kaman's motives where honorable, but I wonder if it's just something that turned out where the solution was a bigger problem than the problem itself. Hell, why not develop and market a line of two-wheeled scooters to adults? A little exercise, it beats walking, it's a pantload cheaper, and it would probably be faster than a segway to boot.
I remember looking at Comcast's lineup, and I'm sure they have business class accounts. You pay even more for that privilege, however.
I would be floored if they offered the kind of service that you've described. I remember very well one day I logged on for some assistance getting a direct connection to a friend's computer so that we could play Warcraft 3 one-on-one. The moron on the other end started hassling me about the ToS, saying that since one of us will be "serving" the game, this qualifies as a violation. The most rediculous part is that the bandwidth use would be exactly the same if we both logged onto battle.net to play.