I'd like to comment on the ideological rant that is the dearaol.com open letter. Quotations are from that source.
We wish to express our serious concern with AOL's adoption of Goodmail's CertifiedEmail, which is a threat to the free and open Internet.
The opening remarks set the theme and tone. Note that the tone is egregiously alarmist: "a threat to the free and open Internet" indeed. Imminent death of the 'net predicted -- again.
This system would create a two-tiered Internet in which affluent mass emailers could pay AOL a fee that amounts to an "email tax" for every email sent, in return for a guarantee that such messages would bypass spam filters and go directly to AOL members' inboxes. Those who did not pay the "email tax" would increasingly be left behind with unreliable service. Your customers expect that your first obligation is to deliver all of their wanted mail, and this plan is a step away from that obligation.
"Two-tiered Internet" is not only an exaggeration, it's an abuse of a current buzzword for propagandist purposes. The process creates an additional class of email service at AOL, specifically, and AOL is not "the Internet". Exactly how many email classes of service currently exist at AOL is anyone's guess, since it's an on-going process to try to classify mail such that wanted mail is delivered, and unwanted mail is not.
"Affluent mass emailers... bypass spam filters" is a clear insinuation that AOL is selling out their users to spammers. They don't come right out and say it, though: presumably that would be libellous, since it is defamatory and utterly unsubstantiated.
"Email tax" is more propagandist rhetoric. Why is anyone obliged to pay this "tax"? Do AOL have any kind of monopoly on anything other than AOL users?
"Those who did not pay... left behind with unreliable service." This is true in one sense, and conjecture in another. The sense in which it is true is that the spam problem does seem to be getting worse, so unless you pay for certified email, you are likely to experience a gradual worsening of service -- along with every other email user on the planet. The sense in which it is conjecture is the insinuation (later made explicit) that AOL will deliberately neglect uncertified email for lack of profit motive.
"... this plan is a step away from that obligation." The authors of the letter are depicting it as such. When certified email is portrayed as an anti-phishing technology, however, it is clearly seen as advantageous to AOL's customer base. Financial institutions and other frequent targets of phishing attacks can pay for certification such that their email is delivered, and phish-mail is blocked.
I'd continue, but there's only so much rampant ideological propaganda that I can stomach in one night.
I agree that some kind of Mac-middleware for Windows is far more likely than OSX for generic PC hardware, but this is partly because I think Apple is very shy of the generic hardware thing. Jobs pulled the company away from that direction once: I don't think he's going do an about face on the matter. Not only that, but targeting a broad range of hardware is difficult relative to targeting the Windows API.
But how likely is the middleware option in an absolute sense? Would Microsoft perceive it as hostile and engineer breakages through security updates (the Samba story)? Does it really have any upside for Apple, in the overall scheme of things? Maybe it does if they can sell it at a price which offers them about as much profit as a bottom-end Mac. If they can also get proper dual booting of Windows and OSX on Mac hardware, it might even be seen as a "teaser" way to get Windows users to switch to Mac hardware -- an upside that applies even to the unauthorised copies which would inevitably proliferate.
It's a fair assumption. Microsoft have been playing this game for quite a long time now. Look, for example, at Netcraft's April 2002 survey. This is about as close as Microsoft ever got to Apache in market share. Consider the following quotation from that page.
Some of the big moves are because Microsoft has been able to identify people who control very large numbers of sites, are not bound tightly to a particular technology, and persuade them to switch to Microsoft servers. The leading domain registrars, Verisign and register.com, are prime examples of this.
"Per$uade", or "purse-swayed", I'm sure.
Attempts to purchase survey results like this seem a little desparate to me, given the long term trend. Still, you can get an idea of the effect Microsoft is purchasing by looking at the January 2006 survey, where Apache lost nearly a million sites worth of share to the "other" category thanks to a bit of tweaking by GoDaddy. See that page for more detail.
Well, a lot of people would be reluctant to play it for the first time in an arcade setting because they are self-conscious about it. It's possible that just having the opportunity to play in the privacy of a home is enough to overcome that.
Having said that, my greatest successes in getting people to play dance games has been at parties. A couple of mats, a sound system and a video projector go a long way. People tend to queue up to play, and even when they're not on the mats, a lot of other people will be trying to follow the steps somewhere in the background. If I were in the business of selling dance games, I'd also offer a hire service for parties precisely because it's such a good way to get people interested.
If it's not too big a deal for you, financially, I'd say go ahead and buy the thing. If the GF is still reluctant to play, invite a few friends around to play it with you. When everyone is goofing off and doing badly at it, she may give it a try and find it entertaining.
Do be aware that there is a broad range of natural aptitude when it comes to rhythm games like this, and aptitude for dance doesn't necessarily translate to DDR aptitude. Also, it can take a while to get the hang of following those arrows: it's a skill picked up with practice, practice, practice, so stick with it. You'll amaze yourself and your friends if you do.
Yeah, the title says a lot, but I wish you'd elaborated a little. I would have modded you up instead of replying. Let that be a lesson to you.
Anyhow, I also vote for "Dance Dance Revolution" and its ilk (see StepMania if your platform is a computer, not a console). If you haven't played before, then it's a toss-up as to whether you or your GF is going to be the better player, so the whole skill disparity thing may not be an issue. Even if you're a relatively experienced player, it's possible for two to play at widely different skill levels. And then, ultimately, it doesn't matter who wins: you mostly play to beat your personal best.
On top of all that, it's a great way to get exercise. Be entertained and get fit at the same time. Get experienced enough that the soft mats don't cut it for you anymore, and upgrade to the hard platforms. Get good enough that you can go for half an hour on the hardest levels and work up such a drenching sweat that you both need to shower afterwards.
The picture looks a little different when you consider things from the perspective of Buena Vista releases. Walt Disney Pictures isn't just animation (think "Narnia"), and The Walt Disney Company isn't just Walt Disney Pictures: think Touchstone and others. If your point was that Pixar animations do better than Walt Disney animations, then sure -- point made. My point is that "animation" is only a subset of Disney films.
The article summary made my brain hurt with it's sheer badness. Paraphrasing, "we now know how bees fly, thus proving that they weren't designed." WTF? Seriously, WTFFFF? Surely the original article can't be that bad. So I break with time-honoured tradition and RTFA. Sure enough, ID is mentioned in the opening paragraph, as follows.
Proponents of intelligent design, which holds that a supreme being rather than evolution is responsible for life's complexities, have long criticized science for not being able to explain some natural phenomena, such as how bees fly.
I've heard ID proponents claim "irreducible complexity" in a number of things, but not, to the best of my recollection, in the bumblebee. I always understood the bumblebee problem was just a well-known case of scientific ignorance, not a star exhibit for Intelligent Design.
So basically this opening paragraph was written by yet another person with a bee in his bonnet (pun intended) about Intelligent Design -- anti-ID rather than pro-ID, obviously, but still a fanatic in the sense that he can't change his mind and won't change the subject. The question of whether bees are the product of ID or natural evolution is utterly orthogonal to the subject at hand, and mentioning the issue at all is nothing but flamebait.
Beam me up, Scotty. There's no intellegent life down here.
How about these variations.
Strong Agnosticism
The view that the existence (or not) of a supernatural God (or gods) is not something that can be classified as knowledge. By this definition, a person can simultaneously be a strong agnostic and a theist (or atheist) if he believes that no kind of evidence justifies belief in the existence or nonexistence of God, but chooses believe that God exists (or not) anyhow as a matter of faith or principle.
Weak Agnosticism
The weak agnostic does not take a position on whether the existence of God is a possible subject of knowledge, but merely asserts that he is not aware of any evidence that justifies belief one way or the other. A weak agnostic could also be a theist or atheist, but will typically hold the position only tentatively on the basis that a proof one way or the other may show up eventually.
Non-Agnostic
("Gnostic" not used because it is associated with an early quasi-Christian sect.) Someone who is not agnostic takes the position that there exists an acceptable proof either for or against the existence of God or gods. We might further categorise this as "weak" (the belief that such proof is possible in principle) or "strong" (the assertion that a specific argument constitutes valid proof).
Strong Atheism
A strict denial of all god-like entities. A bold assertion that no such thing exists.
Weak Atheism
Scepticism with regard to the proposition that there exists a God or god-like entities in general. Weak atheists feel that the non-existence of godlike beings is more likely to be true than the alternative, but aren't certain about it.
Weak Theism
Scepticism with regard to the proposition that no godlike beings exist. Symmetric opposite of weak atheism. Weak theists suspect that there is some kind of supernatural God, but lack assurance as to detail.
Strong Theism
A bold assertion that a specific God or gods exist. Also covers "deism", which is the position that God exists, but is disinterested and/or impersonal.
If there is a genuinely neutral position between the weak forms of theism and atheism, I'm neither familiar with its name, nor sure how such a person would behave (although "erratically" springs to mind).
The answer to "will this program ever halt?" is always "yes" for any real program.
Naturally, you weren't talking about real programs that actually execute (and are thus capable of halting in a literal sense), but rather the abstract concept of "program" and halting-in-theory. That being so, the available range of answers you've offered ("yes" and "no") is insufficient. It's not a case of not knowing the answer -- it's a case of knowing that neither "yes" nor "no" are correct in certain cases.
Not everyone is going to agree with my conclusion here, because not everyone is willing to consider a logical calculus that deviates from the pure yes/no true/false of classical logic. To those that are so constrained I ask, what is the basis for your dogmatism? Anyone sufficiently well-versed in logic should know that classical logic can't prove its own correctness, so why insist on it?
I think the idea that they are attempting to impose standards is misplaced. I suspect that their main motivation is the desire to have standards that don't involve royalty payments -- at least, not external ones. It's a massive drain on profitability to be paying per-unit license fees on all these things.
Another thing to note about standards is that they are primarily a matter of ubiquity. You really don't have to care what encoding your digital mobile phone uses, or your video disc uses, etc., so long as its quality is "good enough" and you don't run into compatibility issues. Microsoft knows this, and uses their dominance of the desktop as leverage: if they want something to be a de facto standard, they just include it in the next Windows service pack. So long as enough goods are manufactured which support a particular protocol, that protocol becomes a de facto standard.
This is utterly exasperating. An example of what happens when only one theory is taught. Do you really suppose that evolutionary terms are the only ones that can explain what is happening with regards to the Bird Flu? If the virus had evolved into a bacterium, you might have a point, but to point out variations (whether natural or the product of mutation) and claim that only evolution has the answer is just woefully ignorant of the alternative theories.
Likewise your example of mice and men. Has it not occurred to you that your statement can be re-worded, "modern genetics simply wouldn't work if it weren't for the fact that mice and men were the product of a common creator," without loss of impact? The fact of the matter is that there are certain similarities between disparate forms of life which allow us, for example, to perform certain medical trials on non-human organisms with some confidence that the result will be relevant to humans. You can explain these similarities as a product of descent from a common ancestor, or you can chalk it up to a designer re-using bits of code. You don't even have to explain the similarities at all in order to use them productively.
Get over it -- evolution is not the cornerstone of modern science that you think it is. It's along for the ride, not driving the bus.
modern medicine wouldn't exist without that oh-so-hated cornerstone of science, the Theory of Evolution.
What is this argument based on? The fact that both modern medicine and evolution are both "modern", and must therefore be intimitely interrelated? What, exactly, about anaesthetics, or surgery, or germ theory, or gene theory, or antibiotics, or you-name-it related to modern medicine depends on the idea that all life is descended from a common ancestor? And if it wasn't the "common ancestry" part of evolution to which you were referring as vital, then what makes you think that whatever-it-is is unique to the theory of evolution?
Do tell, please. I'm beyond fed up with people blandly asserting this, as though it were self-evident that belief in evolution is synonymous with being pro-technology, and vice versa. Hasn't anyone noticed that many great scientists and contributors to technology were creationists, or non-evolutionists at the very least? Some of you people make it sound like Darwin singlehandedly invented modern science. The hero-worship is conspicuous.
Or, just as bad, we may be saying, "I'd never go anywhere without my wonderful towel," (footnote 1) but this may be the worst insult imaginable in the toungue of the recipient, and they could wage interstellar war on us as a consequence.
Footnote 1: That's, "I seem to be having this tremendous difficulty with my lifestyle," for the old-school crowd.
Footnote 2: Isn't it fun reading through all the footnotes?
most likely lots of virus code has already been processed because random noise will eventually produce every virus, just like monkeys and keyboards will produce Shakespeare...
Monkeys and Typewriters aren't likely to produce anything meaningful at all in an information space as sparsely populated as that of "functional computer programs" and "meaningful language". Important disclosure: before you go clicking on that link, be aware that the conclusion of the article is supportive of creationism. The guts of the article is pure mathematics disguised as humour, but I know how touchy the average Slashdotter is about creationists, so don't say I tried to preach at you.
As a philosophy graduate, I have a question. What is this "data" of which you speak?
Re:Bloat? Don't talk to me about bloat...
on
OpenOffice Bloated?
·
· Score: 5, Funny
I have compiled OpenOffice from scratch... took a while!
I realise you're trying to make a statement with all your telnet to port 80 instead of using a browser and such, but I think you should at least have used a compiler to build OpenOffice.
It may not be as simple as selecting one single vendor, but I'd be inclined to deal with the problem in the following way. For a start, choose something that's supported by more than one vendor. You're pretty much obliged to do this to avoid vendor lock-in, right? And we want to avoid that. So, given that it's available from more than one viable vendor, choose two vendors and give your subordinates the leeway to select one or the other on a case by case basis. That way your suppliers keep each other on their toes, rather than resting on the fact that switching vendors is going to cause you more hassle than it's worth. A federal government is going to be sufficiently large that they don't have to offer an exclusive contract to attract tenders. Well, maybe not New Zealand, but most federal governments.
unsustainable - (adj.)1. Following a pattern which can not continue indefinitely due to the inherent limitations of the system. "Present growth is unsustainable in the long term."2. A term expressing distaste, annoyance, and a personal desire to change things. "The current situation is unsustainable."
in my experience, more than half the developers at any reasonably sized organization are not really capable of dealing with abstractions like SOA, OOP, or whatever.
Amen to that. And it's not always the industry newbie who's to blame. There are career programmers who've never worked any other way. And often those code cowboys are considered valuable for their ability to get code working rapidly. What's not seen, of course, is the maintenance nightmare they create in the same stroke.
Stance 1: They're selling you a CD. Stance 2: They're selling you a limited license to listen to a collection of music.
Stance 3: They're selling you a limited license to listen to a collection of music played off this particular CD on a particular range of equipment that they figure you can mostly be trusted with.
Not offering much, are they? Charging an ever-increasing price for an ever-shrinking set of features, aren't they? Stance 4 will be like stance 3, only time-limited or rent-based.
Slashdot Mirror
I'd like to comment on the ideological rant that is the dearaol.com open letter. Quotations are from that source.
The opening remarks set the theme and tone. Note that the tone is egregiously alarmist: "a threat to the free and open Internet" indeed. Imminent death of the 'net predicted -- again.
"Two-tiered Internet" is not only an exaggeration, it's an abuse of a current buzzword for propagandist purposes. The process creates an additional class of email service at AOL, specifically, and AOL is not "the Internet". Exactly how many email classes of service currently exist at AOL is anyone's guess, since it's an on-going process to try to classify mail such that wanted mail is delivered, and unwanted mail is not.
"Affluent mass emailers ... bypass spam filters" is a clear insinuation that AOL is selling out their users to spammers. They don't come right out and say it, though: presumably that would be libellous, since it is defamatory and utterly unsubstantiated.
"Email tax" is more propagandist rhetoric. Why is anyone obliged to pay this "tax"? Do AOL have any kind of monopoly on anything other than AOL users?
"Those who did not pay ... left behind with unreliable service." This is true in one sense, and conjecture in another. The sense in which it is true is that the spam problem does seem to be getting worse, so unless you pay for certified email, you are likely to experience a gradual worsening of service -- along with every other email user on the planet. The sense in which it is conjecture is the insinuation (later made explicit) that AOL will deliberately neglect uncertified email for lack of profit motive.
"... this plan is a step away from that obligation." The authors of the letter are depicting it as such. When certified email is portrayed as an anti-phishing technology, however, it is clearly seen as advantageous to AOL's customer base. Financial institutions and other frequent targets of phishing attacks can pay for certification such that their email is delivered, and phish-mail is blocked.
I'd continue, but there's only so much rampant ideological propaganda that I can stomach in one night.
But how likely is the middleware option in an absolute sense? Would Microsoft perceive it as hostile and engineer breakages through security updates (the Samba story)? Does it really have any upside for Apple, in the overall scheme of things? Maybe it does if they can sell it at a price which offers them about as much profit as a bottom-end Mac. If they can also get proper dual booting of Windows and OSX on Mac hardware, it might even be seen as a "teaser" way to get Windows users to switch to Mac hardware -- an upside that applies even to the unauthorised copies which would inevitably proliferate.
Nah. He'll walk out onto the lawn and yell at some kids to get off it.
Disclosure: I'm thirtysomething.
Is it just me, or does anyone else always feel the urge to pronounce "Theo de Raadt" as "Theo da Rat" with a mafia godfather style accent?
It's a fair assumption. Microsoft have been playing this game for quite a long time now. Look, for example, at Netcraft's April 2002 survey. This is about as close as Microsoft ever got to Apache in market share. Consider the following quotation from that page.
"Per$uade", or "purse-swayed", I'm sure.
Attempts to purchase survey results like this seem a little desparate to me, given the long term trend. Still, you can get an idea of the effect Microsoft is purchasing by looking at the January 2006 survey, where Apache lost nearly a million sites worth of share to the "other" category thanks to a bit of tweaking by GoDaddy. See that page for more detail.
Having said that, my greatest successes in getting people to play dance games has been at parties. A couple of mats, a sound system and a video projector go a long way. People tend to queue up to play, and even when they're not on the mats, a lot of other people will be trying to follow the steps somewhere in the background. If I were in the business of selling dance games, I'd also offer a hire service for parties precisely because it's such a good way to get people interested.
If it's not too big a deal for you, financially, I'd say go ahead and buy the thing. If the GF is still reluctant to play, invite a few friends around to play it with you. When everyone is goofing off and doing badly at it, she may give it a try and find it entertaining.
Do be aware that there is a broad range of natural aptitude when it comes to rhythm games like this, and aptitude for dance doesn't necessarily translate to DDR aptitude. Also, it can take a while to get the hang of following those arrows: it's a skill picked up with practice, practice, practice, so stick with it. You'll amaze yourself and your friends if you do.
Anyhow, I also vote for "Dance Dance Revolution" and its ilk (see StepMania if your platform is a computer, not a console). If you haven't played before, then it's a toss-up as to whether you or your GF is going to be the better player, so the whole skill disparity thing may not be an issue. Even if you're a relatively experienced player, it's possible for two to play at widely different skill levels. And then, ultimately, it doesn't matter who wins: you mostly play to beat your personal best.
On top of all that, it's a great way to get exercise. Be entertained and get fit at the same time. Get experienced enough that the soft mats don't cut it for you anymore, and upgrade to the hard platforms. Get good enough that you can go for half an hour on the hardest levels and work up such a drenching sweat that you both need to shower afterwards.
DDR: a healthy addiction.
The picture looks a little different when you consider things from the perspective of Buena Vista releases. Walt Disney Pictures isn't just animation (think "Narnia"), and The Walt Disney Company isn't just Walt Disney Pictures: think Touchstone and others. If your point was that Pixar animations do better than Walt Disney animations, then sure -- point made. My point is that "animation" is only a subset of Disney films.
I've heard ID proponents claim "irreducible complexity" in a number of things, but not, to the best of my recollection, in the bumblebee. I always understood the bumblebee problem was just a well-known case of scientific ignorance, not a star exhibit for Intelligent Design.
So basically this opening paragraph was written by yet another person with a bee in his bonnet (pun intended) about Intelligent Design -- anti-ID rather than pro-ID, obviously, but still a fanatic in the sense that he can't change his mind and won't change the subject. The question of whether bees are the product of ID or natural evolution is utterly orthogonal to the subject at hand, and mentioning the issue at all is nothing but flamebait.
Beam me up, Scotty. There's no intellegent life down here.
How about these variations. Strong Agnosticism The view that the existence (or not) of a supernatural God (or gods) is not something that can be classified as knowledge. By this definition, a person can simultaneously be a strong agnostic and a theist (or atheist) if he believes that no kind of evidence justifies belief in the existence or nonexistence of God, but chooses believe that God exists (or not) anyhow as a matter of faith or principle. Weak Agnosticism The weak agnostic does not take a position on whether the existence of God is a possible subject of knowledge, but merely asserts that he is not aware of any evidence that justifies belief one way or the other. A weak agnostic could also be a theist or atheist, but will typically hold the position only tentatively on the basis that a proof one way or the other may show up eventually. Non-Agnostic ("Gnostic" not used because it is associated with an early quasi-Christian sect.) Someone who is not agnostic takes the position that there exists an acceptable proof either for or against the existence of God or gods. We might further categorise this as "weak" (the belief that such proof is possible in principle) or "strong" (the assertion that a specific argument constitutes valid proof). Strong Atheism A strict denial of all god-like entities. A bold assertion that no such thing exists. Weak Atheism Scepticism with regard to the proposition that there exists a God or god-like entities in general. Weak atheists feel that the non-existence of godlike beings is more likely to be true than the alternative, but aren't certain about it. Weak Theism Scepticism with regard to the proposition that no godlike beings exist. Symmetric opposite of weak atheism. Weak theists suspect that there is some kind of supernatural God, but lack assurance as to detail. Strong Theism A bold assertion that a specific God or gods exist. Also covers "deism", which is the position that God exists, but is disinterested and/or impersonal. If there is a genuinely neutral position between the weak forms of theism and atheism, I'm neither familiar with its name, nor sure how such a person would behave (although "erratically" springs to mind).
Slow news day, huh? Not surprising. Well, if this sort of thing interests you, you may also like my short article on the Protestant Laziness Ethic .
The answer to "will this program ever halt?" is always "yes" for any real program.
Naturally, you weren't talking about real programs that actually execute (and are thus capable of halting in a literal sense), but rather the abstract concept of "program" and halting-in-theory. That being so, the available range of answers you've offered ("yes" and "no") is insufficient. It's not a case of not knowing the answer -- it's a case of knowing that neither "yes" nor "no" are correct in certain cases.
Not everyone is going to agree with my conclusion here, because not everyone is willing to consider a logical calculus that deviates from the pure yes/no true/false of classical logic. To those that are so constrained I ask, what is the basis for your dogmatism? Anyone sufficiently well-versed in logic should know that classical logic can't prove its own correctness, so why insist on it?
I think the idea that they are attempting to impose standards is misplaced. I suspect that their main motivation is the desire to have standards that don't involve royalty payments -- at least, not external ones. It's a massive drain on profitability to be paying per-unit license fees on all these things.
Another thing to note about standards is that they are primarily a matter of ubiquity. You really don't have to care what encoding your digital mobile phone uses, or your video disc uses, etc., so long as its quality is "good enough" and you don't run into compatibility issues. Microsoft knows this, and uses their dominance of the desktop as leverage: if they want something to be a de facto standard, they just include it in the next Windows service pack. So long as enough goods are manufactured which support a particular protocol, that protocol becomes a de facto standard.
Likewise your example of mice and men. Has it not occurred to you that your statement can be re-worded, "modern genetics simply wouldn't work if it weren't for the fact that mice and men were the product of a common creator," without loss of impact? The fact of the matter is that there are certain similarities between disparate forms of life which allow us, for example, to perform certain medical trials on non-human organisms with some confidence that the result will be relevant to humans. You can explain these similarities as a product of descent from a common ancestor, or you can chalk it up to a designer re-using bits of code. You don't even have to explain the similarities at all in order to use them productively.
Get over it -- evolution is not the cornerstone of modern science that you think it is. It's along for the ride, not driving the bus.
What is this argument based on? The fact that both modern medicine and evolution are both "modern", and must therefore be intimitely interrelated? What, exactly, about anaesthetics, or surgery, or germ theory, or gene theory, or antibiotics, or you-name-it related to modern medicine depends on the idea that all life is descended from a common ancestor? And if it wasn't the "common ancestry" part of evolution to which you were referring as vital, then what makes you think that whatever-it-is is unique to the theory of evolution?
Do tell, please. I'm beyond fed up with people blandly asserting this, as though it were self-evident that belief in evolution is synonymous with being pro-technology, and vice versa. Hasn't anyone noticed that many great scientists and contributors to technology were creationists, or non-evolutionists at the very least? Some of you people make it sound like Darwin singlehandedly invented modern science. The hero-worship is conspicuous.
A race for karma
Carelessness surely follows
Always preview first
Footnote 1: That's, "I seem to be having this tremendous difficulty with my lifestyle," for the old-school crowd.
Footnote 2: Isn't it fun reading through all the footnotes?
Monkeys and Typewriters aren't likely to produce anything meaningful at all in an information space as sparsely populated as that of "functional computer programs" and "meaningful language". Important disclosure: before you go clicking on that link, be aware that the conclusion of the article is supportive of creationism. The guts of the article is pure mathematics disguised as humour, but I know how touchy the average Slashdotter is about creationists, so don't say I tried to preach at you.
There are quite a few other probability-related articles on Nutters, such as Monkeys and the Lottery , Proverbial Probability Problems , and What a coincidence! .
Rightly so: some day the shoe may be on the other foot.
(And in the interests of disclosure, I'll point out that I am a Christian, and a creationist.)
As a philosophy graduate, I have a question. What is this "data" of which you speak?
I realise you're trying to make a statement with all your telnet to port 80 instead of using a browser and such, but I think you should at least have used a compiler to build OpenOffice.
It may not be as simple as selecting one single vendor, but I'd be inclined to deal with the problem in the following way. For a start, choose something that's supported by more than one vendor. You're pretty much obliged to do this to avoid vendor lock-in, right? And we want to avoid that. So, given that it's available from more than one viable vendor, choose two vendors and give your subordinates the leeway to select one or the other on a case by case basis. That way your suppliers keep each other on their toes, rather than resting on the fact that switching vendors is going to cause you more hassle than it's worth. A federal government is going to be sufficiently large that they don't have to offer an exclusive contract to attract tenders. Well, maybe not New Zealand, but most federal governments.
unsustainable - (adj.) 1. Following a pattern which can not continue indefinitely due to the inherent limitations of the system. "Present growth is unsustainable in the long term." 2. A term expressing distaste, annoyance, and a personal desire to change things. "The current situation is unsustainable."
Amen to that. And it's not always the industry newbie who's to blame. There are career programmers who've never worked any other way. And often those code cowboys are considered valuable for their ability to get code working rapidly. What's not seen, of course, is the maintenance nightmare they create in the same stroke.
Stance 2: They're selling you a limited license to listen to a collection of music.
Stance 3: They're selling you a limited license to listen to a collection of music played off this particular CD on a particular range of equipment that they figure you can mostly be trusted with.
Not offering much, are they? Charging an ever-increasing price for an ever-shrinking set of features, aren't they? Stance 4 will be like stance 3, only time-limited or rent-based.