It doesn't matter whether you standardize or not, it depends on having everyones buy in. If standardization is the route you're going, and even one team does their own thing it can ruin it for everyone.
If you're unsure of ALL of the management and business buying into the idea of standardization, and will adhere strictly to it, it will end up being a complete waste of time.
These gentlemen do not have this gene. The results of this prove nothing. It's impossible to do a study like this without a scientific baseline, and due to the fact that IQ is not a standard, you have no such evidence.
This is such BS. Forget the idea of the movies for a second. I want to talk about the sports side of it. My job is 24/7, and I have to work work weekends. I've spent thousands setting up a HD Home Theater.
No I'm a huge San Diego Chargers fan. Should ESPN have the right to tell me that after I've spend all this money and because I had to work, that when I come home to watch the game I must watch it in low-def? Why, because they want control?
Cool, and I'm not knocking that. Like I said, I don't see an advantage. My point was that it's just a browser. If someone could prove to me that it would make me any faster at searching the net, I might be impressed, but I can flip between 2 or 3 browsers and tell you where the bottleneck, it's how fast I can read. So if someone can find me a browser that can help me read (or type) faster than what I'm currently running at, then it's truly newsworthy. But on a 10MB connection with a 3.0Ghz and a GB of RAM, I'm not seeing a speed advantage between browsers.
I do use my browser for both work and fun. I'd say I'm on the net a minimum 8 hours a day. I've never had a virus, I never had stuff installed on my machine I don't ask for, and I've never found any one browser to be faster than any other.
Tabbed browsing is not that special. I've heard about the memory usage issues. In today's day and age it's not that big of a deal. If you're opening enough windows to down 512MB or 1GB of RAM, maybe you should re-think what you're doing. Personally, I've used maybe 3 or 4 windows at a time. I can't read more than one at a time. I ususally read an article then move on to the next one.
Who cares? It's a browser. It looks at web pages. I never understood all the excitement. IE, Firefox, Opera. They all basically do the same thing, look at web pages. I've used all 3 and each one had good features and bad features.
Personally, I'll stick with IE. I find pop-up blocking annoying. I've never had a pop-up problem ever and all the blockers do is make me do a couple extra steps to use sites sometimes. Also, some sites don't work correctly in other browsers when active-x controls are required.
Let Microsoft be. It's the quickest way to beat them. By forcing all of these issues, you're creating an even bigger monopoly out of the company.
If you simple let them be, someone will eventually come along and do something better. They will create a competitive product. This is still a relatively new market (Less than 20 years old). Look at the market in cars or anything else. It just takes time for this all to happen.
By allowing Microsoft to go along their merry way, they will stop being innovative and then superior products will begin to overtake the giant.
Right now we're just playing into the old addage - That which does not kill us makes us stronger. And nothing we've done has killed microsoft yet.
You're talking about all of these things on a small scale. My statements are based upon a theory of the majority of all users globally moving to linux. You're completely right about why an OS would be considered insure. If the linux OS was targeted as often as Windows (which would only happen if the OS had the desktop numbers that Windows does not), the holes would start to show a bit more. No OS is secure out of the box, and no OS is foolproof. Holes will show in an OS when it faces as much malware as windows does. Computers will remain insecure until users learn to patch their holes. For any OS to be 100% secure out of the box, the programmer would have to be perfect.
Consider the fact that the majority of windows users are non-tech savy users, and the that your majority of linux users are tech savy.
Now, move all your non-tech savy users over to linux and let everyone know that you have.
What you would find is linux being hit just as hard as windows in the worm/spyware category. This is not to comment on level of security between MS/Linux, but to comment on the ability to secure a system between users. Can a windows system be just as secure as a linux system? Sure it can, you just need to do the setup right.
The average users, just wants to get on their computer and user it. They do not want to worry about all those little things. As long as that is the mindset of your average user (by average, I mean overall average, not average by OS), then whichever OS has the majority of users will be the "least" secure, and have the most worms and spyware.
I know a lot of people who grab these movies, and I don't see why the industry is complaining. Everyone I've ever met who does it still goes to the theater, and still buy movies.
If anyone has a right to complain about this, it's the rental places. Most people download to save on the price of a rental.
Hollywood and all the people making movies are probably not losing millions (despite the claim), but I'm willing to bet that Blockbusters profit margin is down.
Slashdot Mirror
It doesn't matter whether you standardize or not, it depends on having everyones buy in. If standardization is the route you're going, and even one team does their own thing it can ruin it for everyone.
If you're unsure of ALL of the management and business buying into the idea of standardization, and will adhere strictly to it, it will end up being a complete waste of time.
These gentlemen do not have this gene. The results of this prove nothing. It's impossible to do a study like this without a scientific baseline, and due to the fact that IQ is not a standard, you have no such evidence.
Guys it's back to the drawing board.
How does AMD go and make this sort of claim when the sales are close to 50/50?
This is such BS. Forget the idea of the movies for a second. I want to talk about the sports side of it. My job is 24/7, and I have to work work weekends. I've spent thousands setting up a HD Home Theater.
No I'm a huge San Diego Chargers fan. Should ESPN have the right to tell me that after I've spend all this money and because I had to work, that when I come home to watch the game I must watch it in low-def? Why, because they want control?
I just don't think it's right
I wish Lotus would release it's notes client as an option. I use Thunderbird at home but would much rather have a notes client with designer.
I find the security & features blow away any other email client on the market.
Sadly, this is not to be the case any time soon.
an internet problem that can't be blamed on IE
Cool, and I'm not knocking that. Like I said, I don't see an advantage. My point was that it's just a browser. If someone could prove to me that it would make me any faster at searching the net, I might be impressed, but I can flip between 2 or 3 browsers and tell you where the bottleneck, it's how fast I can read. So if someone can find me a browser that can help me read (or type) faster than what I'm currently running at, then it's truly newsworthy. But on a 10MB connection with a 3.0Ghz and a GB of RAM, I'm not seeing a speed advantage between browsers.
I do use my browser for both work and fun. I'd say I'm on the net a minimum 8 hours a day. I've never had a virus, I never had stuff installed on my machine I don't ask for, and I've never found any one browser to be faster than any other.
Tabbed browsing is not that special. I've heard about the memory usage issues. In today's day and age it's not that big of a deal. If you're opening enough windows to down 512MB or 1GB of RAM, maybe you should re-think what you're doing.
Personally, I've used maybe 3 or 4 windows at a time. I can't read more than one at a time. I ususally read an article then move on to the next one.
So what are the advantages again?
Who cares? It's a browser. It looks at web pages. I never understood all the excitement. IE, Firefox, Opera. They all basically do the same thing, look at web pages. I've used all 3 and each one had good features and bad features.
Personally, I'll stick with IE. I find pop-up blocking annoying. I've never had a pop-up problem ever and all the blockers do is make me do a couple extra steps to use sites sometimes. Also, some sites don't work correctly in other browsers when active-x controls are required.
Why the fines? Why the lawsuits?
Let Microsoft be. It's the quickest way to beat them. By forcing all of these issues, you're creating an even bigger monopoly out of the company.
If you simple let them be, someone will eventually come along and do something better. They will create a competitive product. This is still a relatively new market (Less than 20 years old). Look at the market in cars or anything else. It just takes time for this all to happen.
By allowing Microsoft to go along their merry way, they will stop being innovative and then superior products will begin to overtake the giant.
Right now we're just playing into the old addage - That which does not kill us makes us stronger. And nothing we've done has killed microsoft yet.
You're talking about all of these things on a small scale. My statements are based upon a theory of the majority of all users globally moving to linux. You're completely right about why an OS would be considered insure. If the linux OS was targeted as often as Windows (which would only happen if the OS had the desktop numbers that Windows does not), the holes would start to show a bit more. No OS is secure out of the box, and no OS is foolproof. Holes will show in an OS when it faces as much malware as windows does. Computers will remain insecure until users learn to patch their holes. For any OS to be 100% secure out of the box, the programmer would have to be perfect.
I don't expect anyone to ever be perfect, do you?
Consider the fact that the majority of windows users are non-tech savy users, and the that your majority of linux users are tech savy.
Now, move all your non-tech savy users over to linux and let everyone know that you have.
What you would find is linux being hit just as hard as windows in the worm/spyware category. This is not to comment on level of security between MS/Linux, but to comment on the ability to secure a system between users. Can a windows system be just as secure as a linux system? Sure it can, you just need to do the setup right.
The average users, just wants to get on their computer and user it. They do not want to worry about all those little things. As long as that is the mindset of your average user (by average, I mean overall average, not average by OS), then whichever OS has the majority of users will be the "least" secure, and have the most worms and spyware.
I know a lot of people who grab these movies, and I don't see why the industry is complaining. Everyone I've ever met who does it still goes to the theater, and still buy movies.
If anyone has a right to complain about this, it's the rental places. Most people download to save on the price of a rental.
Hollywood and all the people making movies are probably not losing millions (despite the claim), but I'm willing to bet that Blockbusters profit margin is down.