Its a funny comparison, but oh so true... Vista is neat, cool and interesting, but XP SP2 does everything I need it to. HDDVD is not even on my radar because that would imply buying an HDTV, imply buying HDTV tuner, etc, etc. And at the end of the day all I want to do is watch a program. I do not care if I can see Mel Gibsons butt pimples.... Actually that is too much information for me.
If a Russian plane flies into the US it has to be certified by the US. That usually means either Airbus, or Boeing or some other smaller plane manufacturer that has already been certified. If you want an interesting flight (my brother tells me this) fly in Russia using a domestic airline.
Cell phones are already tested for interference because otherwise they would interfere with other devices. Cell phones are certified to use regulated bandwidths. It's walkie-talkies and cordless phones that you need to be worried about since they use uncertified spectrum's.
The reality is that most of these things have already been verified as that is why you have little stickers on the back of the device indicating that they have been certified. And interestingly enough most countries have similar certifications because otherwise they would have wireless nightmares.
I think you have this inverted. It is not that the majority wants this, but a minority. Most governments are representational governments and thus authoritarian as the people who represent you are also authorities. When people become authorities they like to dictate terms because they think they know what you want.
In contrast Switzerland is a true tyranny of the majority and there are many many libertarians in this country that like their privacy. And privacy in Switzerland is part of the constitution (Article 13).
The problem in the UK is that nobody stands up and says, "enough is enough."
Yes you can argue of a relationship between majority and dictatorship. A simple majority implies an active opposition. A majority of say 60% implies many people are for a particular issue. Chavez won with 68% of the vote. This is 68% of the popular vote and it is extremely difficult to get. This does imply a lack of opposition through intimidation, rampant populism, or some other ways and means.
I consider America, Canada, and most European countries as true democracies. Take a look at election results and you will rarely see a 2/3 victory. In most countries 2/3 of the vote is necessary to make constitutional changes because usually it is very very difficult to get 2/3 of the vote.
Since Chavez and his cronies have over 2/3 of the vote they can do whatever they please and do not have to ask anybody for permission. Up to this point Chavez was a populist leader, now he is becoming a populist dictator, and in four years when he suppresses the opposition he will have become an official dictator.
Here are the things Chavez is doing that can be construed as dictator:
- He used to take home $930 a month from his butcher shop at the Guacaipuro Market. But that ended when the Venezuelan government cracked down on butchers and grocers who were selling products above price controls.
- On Jan. 8, Venezuelan president Hugo Chávez sent tremors through the international capitalist market when he announced a new wave of nationalizations. These nationalizations would eliminate foreign control over the country's largest telecommunications and electricity companies.
- Venezuela is intensifying a campaign against the media criticizing President Hugo Chávez' attempts at seizing freedom of expression for his self-proclaimed socialist revolution, the Inter-American Press Association said on Monday. - Press freedom watchdogs have accused Chavez of using the judiciary and new legislation restricting broadcast content to silence critics. Chavez denies threatening press freedoms and accuses Venezuela's privately owned media of conspiring to topple his government.
Chavez is moving from elected to dictatorship! Look at the statements he has made when the constitution requires him to step down. He says he will not step down, but change the constitution. He also now has power to do whatever he wants. BTW one tell tale sign that he is a dictator is his every increasing majority! After all Saddam had something like 98% of the vote, but I doubt anybody would say he was democratically elected!
Holding an election does not necessarily imply democracy... Democracy is the ability to vote and have freedoms without the interference of government. The interference part is definitely not happening with Chavez!
I read the article and have to disagree. I would have agreed to the article pre-9-11-2001, but not anymore.
Here is why:
1) Sabarnes Oxly is making it harder for corporations to do business. You can argue about its merits or lack of, but it makes life more complicated. 2) Immigration is becoming truly difficult in the US. 3) Travel within the US is becoming downright ugly due to the overdone security constraints (eg SSSS on your ticket is the kiss of guaranteed delays and pains.) 4) IP and patents are getting in the way of doing business. Lawyers are trigger happy to sue and it is taking its toll.
So while the US has many good attributes it is becoming more and more difficult for people who want to build technology. Just last week I was talking to other speakers at a conference and they were becoming concerned on the over-regulation and over-complication of the technology industry.
>>> BTW, You, sir, evidently know squat about modern and contemporary art and even less about Open Source or real world Linux use in the business.
Yes I do know about the modern art community because I am in it. I do art myself as a hobby, and my mother is a professional artist in the British Columbia area doing sculptures. Regarding Open Source, I do quite a bit of work with Apache, and Mono.
I would advise to you to read a book called: Why are Artists Poor. This book is written by an economist who happened to be an artist and he wondered why artists on the whole are poor. This book is very interesting in that it bears quite a bit of parallels to the Open Source community.
Now about Redhat making 278 million. That is peanuts! Redhat has been in the software game for about a decade and then some. They are the leader of their segment and all they have to show is 278 million? Take a good look at the bottom lines of Google, Symantec, Intuit. All of these companies are leaders in their respective fields and have been in business as long as Redhat (some longer). Yet their incomes are in the billions! If one wants to be blatant about it, add up all of the incomes of open source companies, and then add the incomes of say a quarter of the closed source companies (give some slack due to time) and you will see that open source as a product (eg support, sales, what have you) is not worth the money. As much as people say that you can earn money, you can't earn that much money. People don't pay for free software...
This is not to say Open Source is bad, in fact I rather like it. And I argue that Open Source in the sense of Eric Raymond's scratch an itch works wonderful. Open Source is an enabler and there are plenty of companies that have enabled themselves (eg Google, Amazon, Yahoo, etc). I think that people should view Open Source like the Apache Software Foundation does in that they help companies get things done without having the barrier of license fees. If you consider those companies that have been in existence as long as Redhat and use Open Source as part of their business you will see a very difference picture (Google = 10 billion income, Amazon = 10 billion income, etc). See the picture?
Redhat is fighting for table scraps, Google is setting the dinner, lunch, buffet and eating most of it itself. This is good for Open Source!
Ever look at a piece of modern art and think, "my kid could do that in five minutes?" Ever think why theater is too out in left field for you? Well there is a strong connection between modern art and Open Source.
Open source works and is great, but lets face the facts people in the open source community are not willing to pay money for software, or even software support. They expect it for free. Look at the bottom line of Redhat vs any closed source company. Their bottom lines are massively different.
So Novell, like the modern art community is saying and doing the things that PAYING CUSTOMERS or PAYING PATRONS expect. Modern art is not for the benefit of the general community because the general community does not buy art. Hence artists when they hear, "oh my kid can do this in five minutes" will laugh in your face because you critique as a non-paying person is completely irrelevant. Your opinion does not matter in the least. Likewise I think with Novell and Open Source growing apart, I think Novell is saying, "hey you folks are not paying the bills thus we are going to do what is best for our clients."
I went through the slides and looked at what business models there is for Open Source. The slides do not make the point that there is a business model. Yes Redhat makes money, but to me Redhat is a peanut gallery company. Sure people know them, but they do not have a serious revenue stream.
Let's compare. Redhat and Google started in the same era of the Internet bubble. Look at both companies today. Google is a gorilla making oodles of money. Redhat, well, they make money, but billions? I think not. And this is the crux of the open source business model in that it is a revenue stream. Does this mean open source is not useful? Far from it. Open Source is extremely useful and people are proving it everyday. Though what people need to realize is that these days it is not about building a software business model, but about building an information business model. The Google's, Amazon's, EBay's, Flicker's, etc use open source, but their business is data, not software. People need to get that through their noggen...
I have had at least 20-30 computers in the span of about 17 years. Apple is not that great. I had a Powerbook that had a faulty motherboard. Apple promptly and kindly fixed the computer, no complaints. Though now I can only run Linux on the Powerbook because when I reformatted the machine and installed OSX I have periodic lockouts. I have tried the utilities that people have recommended (eg memory stress test, etc, etc) yet no avail. Sure I could get Apple to fix it, but that would mean spending money.
If the Apple computer were a cheap box then I would not care, but Apples are expensive! To this day I have IBM's that are 10 years old and they are still running as if they were unpacked from a box. I cannot even complain about Dell since all my Dell's have survived at least five years.
My worst computers thus far: Sony, Apple, and a clone maker from the UK
My best computers thus far: IBM, Dell, HP/Compaq, Samsung, Toshiba, and clone makers.
Having gone through then and now I do see a general problem creeping up. Yes it is good to use languages which let us stop "dicking" around with the lower level details. I for one am all for Java, and C#. Hurrah! I don't ever want to code another line of C++.
Though having said all that I see the problem where applications like Thunderbird, Firefox, and Explorer take up 100 to 300 MB of RAM. I ask myself what the heck were those programmers smoking? The problem that we have with programming is that we don't write efficient code anymore. If an email box requires me loading five thousand emails so be it Thunderbird will load 5000 emails (and it does...) There is no piece of code saying, "hey dude you are about to load a whole honking load of email." There is no optimization because that would require algorithm optimization.
Another example, I deal in financial data from exchanges. There is a library called ta-lib and many people hate how "clunky" it is to use. The critique is that it is not "OO". Well, no ta-lib is not completely OO, but it is meant to calculate things in a darn touten fast manner. When I replaced the ta-lib routines with good "OO" objects my code was about 2 to 5 times slower. So people continue writing slower code because they don't want to optimize as that would require using their BRAIN...
I feel it is time that programmers learn about algorithm optimization (again), not just brute force...
Ok, Jobs saying no DRM in iTunes is a good thing, but DRM in OSX is a bad thing?
Read what you said:
"Pirates who want to breach the OSX EULA and run OSX on non-Apple hardware. That's the only real DRM contained within OSX to my knowledge (You can safely remove iTunes, and plenty of other apps as well). As much as we hate their decision, it is part of their license."
Well, if music has no DRM then it will have a license agreement as well. That means that it is up to the consumer to respect the EULA. So why can Jobs not do the same thing? Oh yeah I forgot, Jobs wants to make sure that he can sell overpriced hardware! Just like the Music producers want to make sure that they sell multiple copies of their music! There is no difference between DRM'd music and DRM'd OSX. The only difference is "who's getting the advantage perspective."
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2002/06/06 17_020618_croc.html ************ The desert crocodiles have adapted to the changing environment in northern Africa; 8,000 to 10,000 years ago, what is now desert was probably lush savannah and grasslands. Today the Sahara is hot and arid, the land sandy, rainfall minimal, and vegetation sparse.
"The extension of range almost certainly reflects climatic changes," said Ross. "We know that even in Roman times, the Sahara was much wetter and greener than it is now. As these places slowly dried up, remnant populations became isolated from the other crocodiles on the continent. How these populations adapted to the changing conditions is most interesting." *************** Ok so what happened here? Imagine if today the Sahara was drying up. The media and politicians would be saying the world end is near and everything is going to dry up and be burnt like a twig. Yet here we are 10,000 years later still alive...
As much as there is the *potential* for problems let's be very frank about this and realize that Microsoft has not been the company doing the suing. In fact it is Microsoft that is getting sued for this, that and the other thing. I am not trying to say Microsoft is the good guy here, but say if we are going to deal with the worst case let's look at the track record.
Novell buried the war ax and maybe the Open Source community should try the same. Again I agree Microsoft might not be the best company on the block but I think we need to move beyond "Microsoft is evil" emotion.
For example, what about companies like Google? If you look at their terms of service they have the ability to shutdown your webservice whenever they please. And recently with the shutting down of their search web service replaced with "market speak" REST UI many have had to deal with the problem without being given any real option. Imagine if Microsoft had the ability to shutdown any application at any time, we would cry bloody murder and demand the head of Bill Gates.
If people push Novell too hard I predict Novell will move to FreeBSD and that would be a shame...
Let's see, I have lived and had phones in Switzerland, Germany, France, Austria and the UK. Until I lived in Canada I never even knew that phones could be locked. I learned about it when I tried to put my German SIM into a Canadian phone (needed the analog support) and the phone said invalid SIM.
Then when I phoned my Canadian provider they said, "All phones are sim-locked." I replied, "maybe on your planet, but not on my planet."
Note: There are cell locked phones eg the HTC you were talking about because Microsoft has its head up's its butt. And interestingly enough very very few people buy those phones.
No this cell locked thing is a North American problem.
Ah yes pump and dump, hate those that do not allow the "real investor to make money". Come on give me a break. The stock market is about speculation.
Also remember that the stock market is not about past earnings, but future earnings. It is about expectations.
Now regarding Apple here are the details:
* The Apple stock has been riding high and some took profit. * Apple is making record earnings, but only in iPods. * Computer sales slacked and underperformed meaning that Apple is largely a one trick pony show.
Many were not happy that Apple is not more diverse. And this makes sense because iPods are increasingly under attack and thus Apple will have a harder time making future earnings. The iPhone is viewed by many as an over-priced, under-powered phone that cannot stand the competition from say Sony-Ericsson, Nokia, or Samsung.
As an investor I would not be bullish on Apple, but rather quite bearish because I am thinking Steve Jobs luck is coming to an end. Though then again I am one of those what you call vampires...
One things that bugs the heck out of me with Google is their, "Oh we will do this because we have the rights", yet if you want to use their stuff you need EXPLICIT permissions. http://www.google.com/permissions/index.html
" All of Google's trademarks, logos, web pages, screen shots, or other distinctive features ("Google Brand Features") are protected by applicable trademark, copyright, and other intellectual property laws. If you would like to use any of Google Brand Features on your website, in an advertisement, in an article or book, or reproduce them anywhere else, you must first receive Google's permission. We've tried to make this process as painless as possible."
Funny Google wants you to get permission and they are saying no such thing as fair use. YET they want publishers to opt out...
I think the bigger question is why Google is not able to make money any other way? Seriously, let's say that the SOAP API makes oodles of money, then well, Google would not be deprecating it. Google is a company that wants to make money. And it seems the new way of implementing a search is the only way Google can make money. AND THAT is the interesting thing. They have lots and lots of smart people who, it seems, are having a hard time making money outside of the original idea that spawned Google.
This is why sometimes countries get behind in technology. Instead of embracing the idea and seeing it as a challenge, they say, "nope no can do, too expensive, [insert excuse here]."
The Euro was introduced relatively quickly, and many other countries switched currencies without problems. In fact many countries regularly switch currencies without problems.
When you are required to change the change can be painful, but often it is for the better.
Or how about a conspiracy theory twist. MAYBE the Treasury does not want to switch the bills because it would cause financial chaos. http://www.fas.org/irp/gao/ggd96082.htm
Completely replacing a currency will mean accounting for all of the monies in circulation and that might prove problematic.
Huh, are you nuts? The person was unwilling to show his card. Fair enough, then escort him out. If necessary handcuff him. But don't taser and then keep yelling, "stand up, stand up, stand up" like a bunch of freaken drones. The student has a case against the police for excessive force.
The supreme court has said the following: (http://www.fbi.gov/publications/leb/1997/oct975.h tm) 1) the severity of the crime; The guy did not show his student card! This is not a severe crime!
2) whether the suspect poses an immediate threat to the safety of the officers or others; The guy is a student who fell to the ground and did not move. He did not fight, nor raise a fist, nada!
3) whether the suspect actively is resisting arrest or attempting to evade arrest by flight; He resisted arrest, but did not run away. He became a clump of lead.
Put these factors in, and the security guards went way over the line and used excessive force. There is a civil lawsuit here. Some people said "why did he mention the patriot act?" Simple because of my referenced link where the supreme court explicitly said, "Hey you can only use so much force, which the patriot act nullifies."
Is it? For example do you agree with the following comment?
"The new ICT Minister expressed his belief in censorship and said that even the most avid freedom of speech advocate would change his mind if he sees doctored pictures of his daughter's head on a naked body posted on the Internet."
No I think this guy meant what he said. From the article he also said:
"The new ICT Minister expressed his belief in censorship and said that even the most avid freedom of speech advocate would change his mind if he sees doctored pictures of his daughter's head on a naked body posted on the Internet."
This guy does not seem to understand freedom speech nor want to. But considering they have a military dictatorship it's no wonder.
Frankly my opinion about this guy is, "Moving along nothing to see here..."
To say that the American college system is a good illustration of how to do private education is a very bad example. Yes there are more affordable colleges, but that is due to government support.
The problem with letting private companies manage education is that education is from an investment perspective a looser. I know I invest/trade and education is a money looser and has to be subsidized by somebody. The subsidy has to come from either the student or the government, etc. The reason why we educate ourselves is that we are gambling that in the future we will be able to earn more money than without education. And in most cases that is correct.
Thus having private companies run education is dumb as they will try and wringe a profit from what would be an otherwise money loosing venture. What is needed at the public school level is accountability, and the support of the community. Education should be managed at the community level with goals coming from the federal level. The federal level should not be providing extra monies for more "A"'s. And if the community is failing its students then like most companies you send in a squad of people to fix it. But if a community has managed to educate its students using it's own secret sauce then so be it!
Slashdot Mirror
Its a funny comparison, but oh so true... Vista is neat, cool and interesting, but XP SP2 does everything I need it to. HDDVD is not even on my radar because that would imply buying an HDTV, imply buying HDTV tuner, etc, etc. And at the end of the day all I want to do is watch a program. I do not care if I can see Mel Gibsons butt pimples.... Actually that is too much information for me.
If a Russian plane flies into the US it has to be certified by the US. That usually means either Airbus, or Boeing or some other smaller plane manufacturer that has already been certified. If you want an interesting flight (my brother tells me this) fly in Russia using a domestic airline.
Cell phones are already tested for interference because otherwise they would interfere with other devices. Cell phones are certified to use regulated bandwidths. It's walkie-talkies and cordless phones that you need to be worried about since they use uncertified spectrum's.
The reality is that most of these things have already been verified as that is why you have little stickers on the back of the device indicating that they have been certified. And interestingly enough most countries have similar certifications because otherwise they would have wireless nightmares.
I think you have this inverted. It is not that the majority wants this, but a minority. Most governments are representational governments and thus authoritarian as the people who represent you are also authorities. When people become authorities they like to dictate terms because they think they know what you want.
In contrast Switzerland is a true tyranny of the majority and there are many many libertarians in this country that like their privacy. And privacy in Switzerland is part of the constitution (Article 13).
The problem in the UK is that nobody stands up and says, "enough is enough."
Yes you can argue of a relationship between majority and dictatorship. A simple majority implies an active opposition. A majority of say 60% implies many people are for a particular issue. Chavez won with 68% of the vote. This is 68% of the popular vote and it is extremely difficult to get. This does imply a lack of opposition through intimidation, rampant populism, or some other ways and means.
s -11/1175232470107850.xml&coll=1
0 4=o9k4jttqk2.app7b&page=NewsArticle&id=6573&news_i v_ctrl=1261
a rt_press-freedom-is-det_23A848043.shtml9 9.html
I consider America, Canada, and most European countries as true democracies. Take a look at election results and you will rarely see a 2/3 victory. In most countries 2/3 of the vote is necessary to make constitutional changes because usually it is very very difficult to get 2/3 of the vote.
Since Chavez and his cronies have over 2/3 of the vote they can do whatever they please and do not have to ask anybody for permission. Up to this point Chavez was a populist leader, now he is becoming a populist dictator, and in four years when he suppresses the opposition he will have become an official dictator.
Here are the things Chavez is doing that can be construed as dictator:
Price Controls:
http://www.nj.com/news/ledger/index.ssf?/base/new
- He used to take home $930 a month from his butcher shop at the Guacaipuro Market. But that ended when the Venezuelan government cracked down on butchers and grocers who were selling products above price controls.
Nationalization:
http://www.pslweb.org/site/News2?JServSessionIdr0
- On Jan. 8, Venezuelan president Hugo Chávez sent tremors through the international capitalist market when he announced a new wave of nationalizations. These nationalizations would eliminate foreign control over the country's largest telecommunications and electricity companies.
Freedom of the press:
http://english.eluniversal.com/2007/03/23/en_ing_
http://www.forbes.com/feeds/ap/2007/03/17/ap35264
- Venezuela is intensifying a campaign against the media criticizing President Hugo Chávez' attempts at seizing freedom of expression for his self-proclaimed socialist revolution, the Inter-American Press Association said on Monday.
- Press freedom watchdogs have accused Chavez of using the judiciary and new legislation restricting broadcast content to silence critics. Chavez denies threatening press freedoms and accuses Venezuela's privately owned media of conspiring to topple his government.
Yes Chavez is moving into dictatorship!
Chavez is moving from elected to dictatorship! Look at the statements he has made when the constitution requires him to step down. He says he will not step down, but change the constitution. He also now has power to do whatever he wants. BTW one tell tale sign that he is a dictator is his every increasing majority! After all Saddam had something like 98% of the vote, but I doubt anybody would say he was democratically elected!
Holding an election does not necessarily imply democracy... Democracy is the ability to vote and have freedoms without the interference of government. The interference part is definitely not happening with Chavez!
I read the article and have to disagree. I would have agreed to the article pre-9-11-2001, but not anymore.
Here is why:
1) Sabarnes Oxly is making it harder for corporations to do business. You can argue about its merits or lack of, but it makes life more complicated.
2) Immigration is becoming truly difficult in the US.
3) Travel within the US is becoming downright ugly due to the overdone security constraints (eg SSSS on your ticket is the kiss of guaranteed delays and pains.)
4) IP and patents are getting in the way of doing business. Lawyers are trigger happy to sue and it is taking its toll.
So while the US has many good attributes it is becoming more and more difficult for people who want to build technology. Just last week I was talking to other speakers at a conference and they were becoming concerned on the over-regulation and over-complication of the technology industry.
>>> BTW, You, sir, evidently know squat about modern and contemporary art and even less about Open Source or real world Linux use in the business.
Yes I do know about the modern art community because I am in it. I do art myself as a hobby, and my mother is a professional artist in the British Columbia area doing sculptures. Regarding Open Source, I do quite a bit of work with Apache, and Mono.
I would advise to you to read a book called: Why are Artists Poor. This book is written by an economist who happened to be an artist and he wondered why artists on the whole are poor. This book is very interesting in that it bears quite a bit of parallels to the Open Source community.
Now about Redhat making 278 million. That is peanuts! Redhat has been in the software game for about a decade and then some. They are the leader of their segment and all they have to show is 278 million? Take a good look at the bottom lines of Google, Symantec, Intuit. All of these companies are leaders in their respective fields and have been in business as long as Redhat (some longer). Yet their incomes are in the billions! If one wants to be blatant about it, add up all of the incomes of open source companies, and then add the incomes of say a quarter of the closed source companies (give some slack due to time) and you will see that open source as a product (eg support, sales, what have you) is not worth the money. As much as people say that you can earn money, you can't earn that much money. People don't pay for free software...
This is not to say Open Source is bad, in fact I rather like it. And I argue that Open Source in the sense of Eric Raymond's scratch an itch works wonderful. Open Source is an enabler and there are plenty of companies that have enabled themselves (eg Google, Amazon, Yahoo, etc). I think that people should view Open Source like the Apache Software Foundation does in that they help companies get things done without having the barrier of license fees. If you consider those companies that have been in existence as long as Redhat and use Open Source as part of their business you will see a very difference picture (Google = 10 billion income, Amazon = 10 billion income, etc). See the picture?
Redhat is fighting for table scraps, Google is setting the dinner, lunch, buffet and eating most of it itself. This is good for Open Source!
Ever look at a piece of modern art and think, "my kid could do that in five minutes?" Ever think why theater is too out in left field for you? Well there is a strong connection between modern art and Open Source.
Open source works and is great, but lets face the facts people in the open source community are not willing to pay money for software, or even software support. They expect it for free. Look at the bottom line of Redhat vs any closed source company. Their bottom lines are massively different.
So Novell, like the modern art community is saying and doing the things that PAYING CUSTOMERS or PAYING PATRONS expect. Modern art is not for the benefit of the general community because the general community does not buy art. Hence artists when they hear, "oh my kid can do this in five minutes" will laugh in your face because you critique as a non-paying person is completely irrelevant. Your opinion does not matter in the least. Likewise I think with Novell and Open Source growing apart, I think Novell is saying, "hey you folks are not paying the bills thus we are going to do what is best for our clients."
I can't blame them...
I went through the slides and looked at what business models there is for Open Source. The slides do not make the point that there is a business model. Yes Redhat makes money, but to me Redhat is a peanut gallery company. Sure people know them, but they do not have a serious revenue stream.
Let's compare. Redhat and Google started in the same era of the Internet bubble. Look at both companies today. Google is a gorilla making oodles of money. Redhat, well, they make money, but billions? I think not. And this is the crux of the open source business model in that it is a revenue stream. Does this mean open source is not useful? Far from it. Open Source is extremely useful and people are proving it everyday. Though what people need to realize is that these days it is not about building a software business model, but about building an information business model. The Google's, Amazon's, EBay's, Flicker's, etc use open source, but their business is data, not software. People need to get that through their noggen...
I have had at least 20-30 computers in the span of about 17 years. Apple is not that great. I had a Powerbook that had a faulty motherboard. Apple promptly and kindly fixed the computer, no complaints. Though now I can only run Linux on the Powerbook because when I reformatted the machine and installed OSX I have periodic lockouts. I have tried the utilities that people have recommended (eg memory stress test, etc, etc) yet no avail. Sure I could get Apple to fix it, but that would mean spending money.
If the Apple computer were a cheap box then I would not care, but Apples are expensive! To this day I have IBM's that are 10 years old and they are still running as if they were unpacked from a box. I cannot even complain about Dell since all my Dell's have survived at least five years.
My worst computers thus far: Sony, Apple, and a clone maker from the UK
My best computers thus far: IBM, Dell, HP/Compaq, Samsung, Toshiba, and clone makers.
Having gone through then and now I do see a general problem creeping up. Yes it is good to use languages which let us stop "dicking" around with the lower level details. I for one am all for Java, and C#. Hurrah! I don't ever want to code another line of C++.
Though having said all that I see the problem where applications like Thunderbird, Firefox, and Explorer take up 100 to 300 MB of RAM. I ask myself what the heck were those programmers smoking? The problem that we have with programming is that we don't write efficient code anymore. If an email box requires me loading five thousand emails so be it Thunderbird will load 5000 emails (and it does...) There is no piece of code saying, "hey dude you are about to load a whole honking load of email." There is no optimization because that would require algorithm optimization.
Another example, I deal in financial data from exchanges. There is a library called ta-lib and many people hate how "clunky" it is to use. The critique is that it is not "OO". Well, no ta-lib is not completely OO, but it is meant to calculate things in a darn touten fast manner. When I replaced the ta-lib routines with good "OO" objects my code was about 2 to 5 times slower. So people continue writing slower code because they don't want to optimize as that would require using their BRAIN...
I feel it is time that programmers learn about algorithm optimization (again), not just brute force...
Ok, Jobs saying no DRM in iTunes is a good thing, but DRM in OSX is a bad thing?
Read what you said:
"Pirates who want to breach the OSX EULA and run OSX on non-Apple hardware. That's the only real DRM contained within OSX to my knowledge (You can safely remove iTunes, and plenty of other apps as well). As much as we hate their decision, it is part of their license."
Well, if music has no DRM then it will have a license agreement as well. That means that it is up to the consumer to respect the EULA. So why can Jobs not do the same thing? Oh yeah I forgot, Jobs wants to make sure that he can sell overpriced hardware! Just like the Music producers want to make sure that they sell multiple copies of their music! There is no difference between DRM'd music and DRM'd OSX. The only difference is "who's getting the advantage perspective."
Please explain the following:
6 17_020618_croc.html
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2002/06/0
************
The desert crocodiles have adapted to the changing environment in northern Africa; 8,000 to 10,000 years ago, what is now desert was probably lush savannah and grasslands. Today the Sahara is hot and arid, the land sandy, rainfall minimal, and vegetation sparse.
"The extension of range almost certainly reflects climatic changes," said Ross. "We know that even in Roman times, the Sahara was much wetter and greener than it is now. As these places slowly dried up, remnant populations became isolated from the other crocodiles on the continent. How these populations adapted to the changing conditions is most interesting."
***************
Ok so what happened here? Imagine if today the Sahara was drying up. The media and politicians would be saying the world end is near and everything is going to dry up and be burnt like a twig. Yet here we are 10,000 years later still alive...
As much as there is the *potential* for problems let's be very frank about this and realize that Microsoft has not been the company doing the suing. In fact it is Microsoft that is getting sued for this, that and the other thing. I am not trying to say Microsoft is the good guy here, but say if we are going to deal with the worst case let's look at the track record.
Novell buried the war ax and maybe the Open Source community should try the same. Again I agree Microsoft might not be the best company on the block but I think we need to move beyond "Microsoft is evil" emotion.
For example, what about companies like Google? If you look at their terms of service they have the ability to shutdown your webservice whenever they please. And recently with the shutting down of their search web service replaced with "market speak" REST UI many have had to deal with the problem without being given any real option. Imagine if Microsoft had the ability to shutdown any application at any time, we would cry bloody murder and demand the head of Bill Gates.
If people push Novell too hard I predict Novell will move to FreeBSD and that would be a shame...
Let's see, I have lived and had phones in Switzerland, Germany, France, Austria and the UK. Until I lived in Canada I never even knew that phones could be locked. I learned about it when I tried to put my German SIM into a Canadian phone (needed the analog support) and the phone said invalid SIM.
Then when I phoned my Canadian provider they said, "All phones are sim-locked."
I replied, "maybe on your planet, but not on my planet."
Note: There are cell locked phones eg the HTC you were talking about because Microsoft has its head up's its butt. And interestingly enough very very few people buy those phones.
No this cell locked thing is a North American problem.
Ah yes pump and dump, hate those that do not allow the "real investor to make money". Come on give me a break. The stock market is about speculation.
Also remember that the stock market is not about past earnings, but future earnings. It is about expectations.
Now regarding Apple here are the details:
* The Apple stock has been riding high and some took profit.
* Apple is making record earnings, but only in iPods.
* Computer sales slacked and underperformed meaning that Apple is largely a one trick pony show.
Many were not happy that Apple is not more diverse. And this makes sense because iPods are increasingly under attack and thus Apple will have a harder time making future earnings. The iPhone is viewed by many as an over-priced, under-powered phone that cannot stand the competition from say Sony-Ericsson, Nokia, or Samsung.
As an investor I would not be bullish on Apple, but rather quite bearish because I am thinking Steve Jobs luck is coming to an end. Though then again I am one of those what you call vampires...
I don't even see an advantage for portable devices. Think Blackberry and all of the other phones that seem to have been made cool!
You are right, but you forgot one language. Romansh (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Switzerland)
One things that bugs the heck out of me with Google is their, "Oh we will do this because we have the rights", yet if you want to use their stuff you need EXPLICIT permissions. http://www.google.com/permissions/index.html
" All of Google's trademarks, logos, web pages, screen shots, or other distinctive features ("Google Brand Features") are protected by applicable trademark, copyright, and other intellectual property laws. If you would like to use any of Google Brand Features on your website, in an advertisement, in an article or book, or reproduce them anywhere else, you must first receive Google's permission. We've tried to make this process as painless as possible."
Funny Google wants you to get permission and they are saying no such thing as fair use. YET they want publishers to opt out...
Google is hypocritical!
I think the bigger question is why Google is not able to make money any other way? Seriously, let's say that the SOAP API makes oodles of money, then well, Google would not be deprecating it. Google is a company that wants to make money. And it seems the new way of implementing a search is the only way Google can make money. AND THAT is the interesting thing. They have lots and lots of smart people who, it seems, are having a hard time making money outside of the original idea that spawned Google.
This is why sometimes countries get behind in technology. Instead of embracing the idea and seeing it as a challenge, they say, "nope no can do, too expensive, [insert excuse here]."
The Euro was introduced relatively quickly, and many other countries switched currencies without problems. In fact many countries regularly switch currencies without problems.
When you are required to change the change can be painful, but often it is for the better.
Or how about a conspiracy theory twist. MAYBE the Treasury does not want to switch the bills because it would cause financial chaos. http://www.fas.org/irp/gao/ggd96082.htm
Completely replacing a currency will mean accounting for all of the monies in circulation and that might prove problematic.
Huh, are you nuts? The person was unwilling to show his card. Fair enough, then escort him out. If necessary handcuff him. But don't taser and then keep yelling, "stand up, stand up, stand up" like a bunch of freaken drones. The student has a case against the police for excessive force.
h tm)
The supreme court has said the following: (http://www.fbi.gov/publications/leb/1997/oct975.
1) the severity of the crime; The guy did not show his student card! This is not a severe crime!
2) whether the suspect poses an immediate threat to the safety of the officers or others; The guy is a student who fell to the ground and did not move. He did not fight, nor raise a fist, nada!
3) whether the suspect actively is resisting arrest or attempting to evade arrest by flight; He resisted arrest, but did not run away. He became a clump of lead.
Put these factors in, and the security guards went way over the line and used excessive force. There is a civil lawsuit here. Some people said "why did he mention the patriot act?" Simple because of my referenced link where the supreme court explicitly said, "Hey you can only use so much force, which the patriot act nullifies."
Is it? For example do you agree with the following comment?
"The new ICT Minister expressed his belief in censorship and said that even the most avid freedom of speech advocate would change his mind if he sees doctored pictures of his daughter's head on a naked body posted on the Internet."
Yeah I suppose censorship is better...
No I think this guy meant what he said. From the article he also said:
"The new ICT Minister expressed his belief in censorship and said that even the most avid freedom of speech advocate would change his mind if he sees doctored pictures of his daughter's head on a naked body posted on the Internet."
This guy does not seem to understand freedom speech nor want to. But considering they have a military dictatorship it's no wonder.
Frankly my opinion about this guy is, "Moving along nothing to see here..."
To say that the American college system is a good illustration of how to do private education is a very bad example. Yes there are more affordable colleges, but that is due to government support.
The problem with letting private companies manage education is that education is from an investment perspective a looser. I know I invest/trade and education is a money looser and has to be subsidized by somebody. The subsidy has to come from either the student or the government, etc. The reason why we educate ourselves is that we are gambling that in the future we will be able to earn more money than without education. And in most cases that is correct.
Thus having private companies run education is dumb as they will try and wringe a profit from what would be an otherwise money loosing venture. What is needed at the public school level is accountability, and the support of the community. Education should be managed at the community level with goals coming from the federal level. The federal level should not be providing extra monies for more "A"'s. And if the community is failing its students then like most companies you send in a squad of people to fix it. But if a community has managed to educate its students using it's own secret sauce then so be it!