Perhaps this really isn't about the end user in China at all, rather it's about computer Chinese computer manufacturers that are being forced to sell their systems bundled with Windows and being gouged at it. China does seem to make just about anything (and everything). I'd think that since end users in China just seem to pirate the 'doze already, the real losers in China are legitimate computer manufacturers who 'lose' tons of money buying licenses to bundle with their machines. It's government looking out industry. A classic maneuver in most any country.
It's not necessarily that companies can't be trusted, it's that one entity can't be put in charge and trusted to remain true and pure while doing it. We need a checks and balances system in place to ensure that all interests are being met to the best degree they can as a whole. Some kind of Gvt/private sector/user advocacy setup. Maybe Fed/Industry Group/EFF kinda deal? I dunno. Putting one body in charge of this stuff might end one set of problems, but open up new can of worms. I guess the same could be said of any solution.
Agreed on the American educational bureaucracy. It's a pretty big nightmare, especially when the politics of both left and right get involved.
I think I see your point. Combining different forces into the education process to make the system more open and accountable does sound like a good idea. We can get some hybrid strength through this means while at the same time weakening the stronghold that many different educational have at the top of the educational governance; Be they educational agencies or people in various universities who think they know everything there is to know about what is good for children.
You don't. You simply let the children learn with them.
Learn in or out of the class? Learn with or without structure?
Has it ever occurred to you that that question is indicative of a problem with education? What if the curriculum is the problem? Or more precisely, the belief that the best way to educate children is to have teachers impose curricula on them?
Educational systems are flawed, but I am quite skeptical that throwing computers at a bunch of kids while removing teachers from the equation will make them better off. OLPC needs to prove that its solution is beneficial. Heads of state and heads of educational systems don't want to throw good money after bad. Is it indicative of a problem with education? Maybe it is, but I have minimal proof to confirm or deny something on such a grand scale.
Which is exactly why we need to rely more on OLPC and less on educational bureaucracy. Say what? Instead of relying on the huge diverse locales of the developing world that cater to the multitude of cultures, peoples, learning styles, etc. we should rely on the one ivory tower of Nicholas Negroponte and Company? I don't really know what's considered educational bureaucracy...everybody's particulars vary. OLPC is not bureaucracy free, either. It is certainly not without its own disfunctionalities as well.
I choose to remain skeptical, but at the same time hope for the best.
"Useless" is a bit extreme. One might say that the format is useless to many without proper documentation. The API provides immediate use without a guarantee of support in the long term. This just adds overhead for support for those using the format in its current state with MS's API. Of course, the wise decision for continued long term use would be to avoid this document format..though that doesn't mean it's "useless". I suppose usefulness is pretty subjective, too.
Wall Street of all people should know the economic advantages of Open Source solutions compared to the proprietary alternatives (all things considered, of course...to be fair). This really comes as no surprise.
It seems to me that OLPC packed those tiny laptops with some really nifty features and some kinda neat pieces of software. Problem is, how do you integrate these devices into curricula? How do you prove to teachers that integrating these devices into curricula is beneficial? How do you adapt these devices to the multitude of curricula in many different locales and cultures? The intent of the project is pure, but sometimes seems somewhat boneheaded. This initial flop comes with little surprise. I hope the project can adapt to maximize the benefits for all parties involved. This will have to include much more conversation between the intended user base and the producers. There really can't be a one size fits all solution for the third world's educational needs. One size fits all solutions just don't exist. I have yet to find a good baseball cap that stays on my head;-).
What steps is the Army taking to avoid overlap with the Air Force's "cyber warfare" program(s)? Is avoiding overlap considered necessary, or is redundancy considered a good thing?
Are there plans to collaborate on large scale with the Air Force, or keep the programs isolated from one another?
One makes me very angry and forces me to set up and maintain filters. The other one I can just wipe my bottom with.
Watch out for paper cuts, though. Ouch.
Pretty soon we'll have implants in our heads that will debit our accounts every time we recall a song from memory.
Got that Shakira piece stuck in your head again? Boy, you are going to pay....dearly.
Shakira-Sha--SHIT!!!
I'm kind of confused as to how your Linux toys really tie into this. Microsoft does have a 'one OS to rule them all' approach, but it is customizable to a large extent...not to the point of Linux, but still very tweakable (and breakable for that matter). The removal of Microsoft from the marketplace is not necessarily a direct advancement for Linux or free software. Another big lumbering hulk could step in and fill the void left by the pre-paid software model of Macrosoft.
As for departments of government making their own Linux distros..I have a hard time trusting many government offices to do things like...basic arithmetic (it's that time of the year in the US).
On a minor note, I think trying to apply Windows as a problem solution to the entire spectrum of IT is a bit too much of a stretch. Other solutions exist and are (much) better than Windows for many different things.
removing Microsoft from this position could result in innovation in some areas Haha. I don't disagree enough to fight you over it. I believe the process is already happening in quite a natural way. Maybe it's not as fast as we want it to happen, but that doesn't call for snap judgements on market disruptions IMO. Though I might add, I'm not at all against punitive measures being taken against Microsoft if they have broken the law. Everybody is under the law. That's part of being civilized...even if it is really Intense civilization;-)
Specifically, a product that's perceived as free and sufficient reduces or removes the motivation for anybody to compete...
Good idea, but I'm still inclined to disagree.
Your argument is pretty strong if you maintain perspective only in "the now". Your point seems to be under the assumption that the market is ever static. With the progression of time, new improvements are discovered/realized and users move to demand more of these. Quick and agile firms jump on top of the opportunity and beat the lumbering Microsoft to the punch with a better app. The counter argument would be that Microsoft can use its superior market position to maintain its dominance of everybody else. Though I don't think this holds water, either. Microsoft's stranglehold on the market gets a bit more loose every business quarter with more users switching to Firefox, using iTunes, dual booting a free O/S, etc. In the coming years, Microsoft is going to be forced to do what it has feared all along: truly innovate.
Looks can be deceiving. I think excluding a source of solutions (as bad as we claim it is, regardless) could have a negative impact on the market and competitive. Of course Microsoft could be engaged in underhanded tactics (vis ISO standardization of Office Open XML..). I'd like to think that Microsoft's ubiquity may very well have raised the bar/baseline for many different software products.
Ubiquity of the (somewhat decent, I guess) baseline bundled Windows Mediaplayer results in raising the bar in competing media players (iTunes, Winamp?, etc.) Ubiquity of Internet Explorer results in stronger browser competition (Firefox, Opera, etc.). Microsoft makes noises like it's going to compete in other areas like web design products and you see companies like Adobe (attempt to) shore up their products to stay ahead of the baseline (Microsoft). I suppose you could throw office products in there as well, but Microsoft has that market so well cornered like that with its OS...and standards are an issue..
My point is this, Microsoft may be the devil, but the ubiquity of its (sometimes bad) products has resulted in a marketplace with competing products that are better than Microsoft products because they MUST be in order to compete. I'm not saying this is entirely due to Microsoft's presence, but it has definitely been a key factor in application progression over the past ~10-20 years.
For these reasons, I think removing Microsoft from this position could result in stagnation in some areas of application progression and improvement. Then again maybe it won't. Maybe other solutions are to the point that removing Microsoft from the picture completely won't affect much of anything. Regardless, I don't think that this is a decision that needs to be taken lightly in order to pander to constituents (politicians are amazing at pandering).
Would it encourage Americans to burn it more wantonly? Quite possibly. We could use the petrol for other nice things as well...perhaps manufacturing hydrogen fuel cells. Hydrocarbons are a great source of Hydrogen, which is something the Hydrogen car guys are still trying to work out...though we would still need to store that carbon. Tsk tsk. You can make plenty of cool things out of it, including gas, either way. We can use the economic gain in the short term and funnel it for the sustainable long term (probably by legislation and regulation).
Regardless, if there are massive amounts of oil in the Dakotas, that stuff is gonna come up out of the ground one way or another, one day or another. The best way of dealing with it is planning, legislating, and getting active to use the resource to advance your own agenda..which in your case is saving the world. The way I see it, you can't stop something as valuable as that from happening (granted it exists). You just have to find other ways to work around/with it. Preaching about inferno doomsday has been only so effective so far:(. I say it's time for a more pragmatic approach.
Hold up there, buddy. I didn't say it was anything. I just said it had nothing to do with ecology. Not that it's a good thing, though. It comes from a line of thinking that doesn't really take an ecological perspective on things...which probably isn't good.
The term just reflects a point of view.
You could use a more precise term like "sustainable energy independence", then we could all hold hands and dance and sing around the Maypole.
"Energy independence" doesn't mean having as much oil to burn as you would ever like. Really? I thought it did. I don't think the term really applies to anything ecological at all.
Slashdot Mirror
As I am waiting for my patent on my quit-Facebook procedure.
Because how can you wiretap something with no wires? It must be completely immune to wiretapping XD.
Perhaps this really isn't about the end user in China at all, rather it's about computer Chinese computer manufacturers that are being forced to sell their systems bundled with Windows and being gouged at it. China does seem to make just about anything (and everything). I'd think that since end users in China just seem to pirate the 'doze already, the real losers in China are legitimate computer manufacturers who 'lose' tons of money buying licenses to bundle with their machines. It's government looking out industry. A classic maneuver in most any country.
It's not necessarily that companies can't be trusted, it's that one entity can't be put in charge and trusted to remain true and pure while doing it. We need a checks and balances system in place to ensure that all interests are being met to the best degree they can as a whole. Some kind of Gvt/private sector/user advocacy setup. Maybe Fed/Industry Group/EFF kinda deal? I dunno. Putting one body in charge of this stuff might end one set of problems, but open up new can of worms. I guess the same could be said of any solution.
Agreed on the American educational bureaucracy. It's a pretty big nightmare, especially when the politics of both left and right get involved.
I think I see your point. Combining different forces into the education process to make the system more open and accountable does sound like a good idea. We can get some hybrid strength through this means while at the same time weakening the stronghold that many different educational have at the top of the educational governance; Be they educational agencies or people in various universities who think they know everything there is to know about what is good for children.
Funny to my mind
Magic Water Powered Car
This Haiku Stinks Bad
"Useless" is a bit extreme. One might say that the format is useless to many without proper documentation. The API provides immediate use without a guarantee of support in the long term. This just adds overhead for support for those using the format in its current state with MS's API. Of course, the wise decision for continued long term use would be to avoid this document format..though that doesn't mean it's "useless". I suppose usefulness is pretty subjective, too.
Wall Street of all people should know the economic advantages of Open Source solutions compared to the proprietary alternatives (all things considered, of course...to be fair). This really comes as no surprise.
Agreed. It's one of the basic principles if not THE basic principle of technological design.
It seems to me that OLPC packed those tiny laptops with some really nifty features and some kinda neat pieces of software. Problem is, how do you integrate these devices into curricula? How do you prove to teachers that integrating these devices into curricula is beneficial? How do you adapt these devices to the multitude of curricula in many different locales and cultures? The intent of the project is pure, but sometimes seems somewhat boneheaded. This initial flop comes with little surprise. I hope the project can adapt to maximize the benefits for all parties involved. This will have to include much more conversation between the intended user base and the producers. There really can't be a one size fits all solution for the third world's educational needs. One size fits all solutions just don't exist. I have yet to find a good baseball cap that stays on my head ;-).
Avast, me hearties!
What steps is the Army taking to avoid overlap with the Air Force's "cyber warfare" program(s)? Is avoiding overlap considered necessary, or is redundancy considered a good thing? Are there plans to collaborate on large scale with the Air Force, or keep the programs isolated from one another?
I'm still waiting on P6P. Ain't upgrading 'til it comes out.
One makes me very angry and forces me to set up and maintain filters. The other one I can just wipe my bottom with. Watch out for paper cuts, though. Ouch.
Pretty soon we'll have implants in our heads that will debit our accounts every time we recall a song from memory. Got that Shakira piece stuck in your head again? Boy, you are going to pay....dearly. Shakira-Sha--SHIT!!!
3's me some Linux
I'm kind of confused as to how your Linux toys really tie into this. Microsoft does have a 'one OS to rule them all' approach, but it is customizable to a large extent...not to the point of Linux, but still very tweakable (and breakable for that matter). The removal of Microsoft from the marketplace is not necessarily a direct advancement for Linux or free software. Another big lumbering hulk could step in and fill the void left by the pre-paid software model of Macrosoft.
As for departments of government making their own Linux distros..I have a hard time trusting many government offices to do things like...basic arithmetic (it's that time of the year in the US).
On a minor note, I think trying to apply Windows as a problem solution to the entire spectrum of IT is a bit too much of a stretch. Other solutions exist and are (much) better than Windows for many different things.
Good idea, but I'm still inclined to disagree.
Your argument is pretty strong if you maintain perspective only in "the now". Your point seems to be under the assumption that the market is ever static. With the progression of time, new improvements are discovered/realized and users move to demand more of these. Quick and agile firms jump on top of the opportunity and beat the lumbering Microsoft to the punch with a better app. The counter argument would be that Microsoft can use its superior market position to maintain its dominance of everybody else. Though I don't think this holds water, either. Microsoft's stranglehold on the market gets a bit more loose every business quarter with more users switching to Firefox, using iTunes, dual booting a free O/S, etc. In the coming years, Microsoft is going to be forced to do what it has feared all along: truly innovate.
Looks can be deceiving. I think excluding a source of solutions (as bad as we claim it is, regardless) could have a negative impact on the market and competitive. Of course Microsoft could be engaged in underhanded tactics (vis ISO standardization of Office Open XML..). I'd like to think that Microsoft's ubiquity may very well have raised the bar/baseline for many different software products.
Ubiquity of the (somewhat decent, I guess) baseline bundled Windows Mediaplayer results in raising the bar in competing media players (iTunes, Winamp?, etc.) Ubiquity of Internet Explorer results in stronger browser competition (Firefox, Opera, etc.). Microsoft makes noises like it's going to compete in other areas like web design products and you see companies like Adobe (attempt to) shore up their products to stay ahead of the baseline (Microsoft). I suppose you could throw office products in there as well, but Microsoft has that market so well cornered like that with its OS...and standards are an issue..
My point is this, Microsoft may be the devil, but the ubiquity of its (sometimes bad) products has resulted in a marketplace with competing products that are better than Microsoft products because they MUST be in order to compete. I'm not saying this is entirely due to Microsoft's presence, but it has definitely been a key factor in application progression over the past ~10-20 years.
For these reasons, I think removing Microsoft from this position could result in stagnation in some areas of application progression and improvement. Then again maybe it won't. Maybe other solutions are to the point that removing Microsoft from the picture completely won't affect much of anything. Regardless, I don't think that this is a decision that needs to be taken lightly in order to pander to constituents (politicians are amazing at pandering).
Would it encourage Americans to burn it more wantonly? Quite possibly. We could use the petrol for other nice things as well...perhaps manufacturing hydrogen fuel cells. Hydrocarbons are a great source of Hydrogen, which is something the Hydrogen car guys are still trying to work out...though we would still need to store that carbon. Tsk tsk. You can make plenty of cool things out of it, including gas, either way. We can use the economic gain in the short term and funnel it for the sustainable long term (probably by legislation and regulation). Regardless, if there are massive amounts of oil in the Dakotas, that stuff is gonna come up out of the ground one way or another, one day or another. The best way of dealing with it is planning, legislating, and getting active to use the resource to advance your own agenda..which in your case is saving the world. The way I see it, you can't stop something as valuable as that from happening (granted it exists). You just have to find other ways to work around/with it. Preaching about inferno doomsday has been only so effective so far :(. I say it's time for a more pragmatic approach.
Hold up there, buddy. I didn't say it was anything. I just said it had nothing to do with ecology. Not that it's a good thing, though. It comes from a line of thinking that doesn't really take an ecological perspective on things...which probably isn't good. The term just reflects a point of view. You could use a more precise term like "sustainable energy independence", then we could all hold hands and dance and sing around the Maypole.
Powered by our new oil reserves!!!:-D