IMO, the UAC did not have to be as annoying as it is. All they needed was a "allow admin stuff to happen for 5 minutes" dialog so that installing a program would only take one prompt. Too smart for their own good... It would allow some sneaky malware to hide in the background, waiting for privilege.
But what if Universal had signed a contract with each and every DJ and reviewer that got a promo copy that said "in exchange for getting this CD a week early, you have to keep it secret." The key phrase from the parent was unrequested by the recipient. It is fundamental to contract law, that a contract must be accepted by both parties to be valid. The "long term effect" of abandoning that is severe.
The way to deal with reviewers who doesn't treat your unsolicited promo material with proper discretion, is to stop sending unsolicited promo material to those reviewers.
It's not an easy issue and there are arguments on both sides. Yes, on one side there is respect for the fundamentals of contract law. On the other side, there is the slight inconvenience of labels to have to maintain a list of trusted reviewers (rather than just maintain a list of reviews).
It does say something about how the labels have gotten adjusted to having the law formed for their convenience, that they now want to change how the legal system works, just to avoid the inconvenience of making some minor changes to their internal procedures.
I don't recall anyone ever saying "To have a free market, it must be provided by public Government services", a free market can never have any Government regulation or intervention, else it is not a free market. A free market cannot be approximated without a government-like force regulating it. A free market will tend to lead to a perfect market, where profit (due to competition) is minimal. Big profits are possible when the market is imperfect, and best achieved when it is unfree. The means are monopolies, trusts, guilds, unions, and cartels.
Or said in another way. It is far more profitable to sabotage your competitors (by e.g. sending assassins after them), than to improve the value/cost ratio of your own product.
The main problem with Libertarians is that their dogmas prevent them from seeing the simple economic reality.
The top spot, Denmark, is 2.2 million square kilometers, or approximately three times the size of Texas.
Of course, most of it is uninhabited ice, but the point stands, absolute size doesn't matter much here. Population distribution is more important, almost all the population of Denmark lives in an area only twice the size of New Jersey, with a bit more than half the population.
Actually,, for state owned broadcaster like BBC, the question is whether it should be paid by the consumers (those who need the larger bandwidth), or the tax payers (those who finance BBC, essentially everybody).
Even Linux is more than 15 years old. But the term "open source" as applied to source code can be dated very precisely to the free software summit 10 years ago.
And the birth of that phrase, together with ESR's "Cathedral&Bazaar" and the Netscape source code release, did represent the beginning of the popularization of the idea of free software as a business opportunity. If you read the interviews, you will see that they almost all deal with exactly that aspect, namely the acceptance of free software in the commercial world.
Of course commercial free software didn't start with the summit, we had Russ Nelson's Crynwr, and Peter Deutch' Aladdin, and of course the poster child, Michael Tiemann and John Gilmore's Cygnus. Michael Tiemann said is best, he read the GNU Manifesto but saw a business plan. But the Cygnus web site also exemplified the problem. It started with centered around a friendly child drawing and information about the free software philosophy and how it could help your company, and ended up (at the time of the summit) as a boring business-like page stripped of all mentions of free software.
Free software was not a sales argument. The open source movement was about changing that, and it was wildly successful. It is cause for celebration.
Theists are not more socially adapted to survival. They get more children than atheists, on average. So a selfish gene would prefer to be part of a theist over an atheist.
The rational survive in an emergency. The religious panic and pray, and as a result die. As the quote exemplify, there is no guarantee that atheists think rationally even when there isn't an emergency. When there is an emergency, believing in something greater than yourself (which does not have to be a God) may prevent panic, and allow you to act rationally. But mostly behavior in an emergency has little to do with faith, and is a question of training. Your specific kind irrationality (putting irrationally much emphasis on the number of gods, a trend shared by outspoken atheist and outspoken theists alike) prevent you from seeing that, and may decrease your survival chance. Although not much, in modern society "emergency" no longer describe the situation of most deaths.
Any license out of the FSF is going to be an implementation of activism. It's like the people who like Fox News "Because it is SOOOOO unbiased!". Actually, it is worse than that. The FSF has never tried to hide that they are a political activist organization. Anyone interviewing RMS has to be extremely careful not not to get a lecture on the political goals of the FSF. Or just send a bug report where you call Emacs "open source", and you will get the same political rant.
I'm not necessarily saying that your statistic is wrong; I would just like to see a source, and I definitely would prefer to do apples-to-apples comparisons (consistent collection methods). Did you know that 91% of the statistics found on discussion fora is made up by the poster? And that research furthermore indicates that if the poster has "troll" in his handle, the likelihood increases to 97% Amazing, but true.
It's technology is called SharePoint. It is actually much closer to Microsoft Office Live, as it doesn't require you to run a server (Microsoft does it for you) or pay a fee (apart from what you already paid for Microsoft Office).
SharePoint seems to be traditional client-server technology, and not related to any recent buzzwords like "cloud computing". For companies with a strong IT department, SharePoint it probably superior. For the rest of us, is is Google Docs or Office Live (or email, sadly).
Ever heard of SharePoint? Only indirectly when reading reviews of Microsoft Office Live, which is supposed to be a simplified version of SharePoint. So...
I have evaluated both for use by my workplace, mostly because I despise the the "document sharing through email". I used cvs (and LaTeX) for collaborations on group assignments as a student back in the 80s, so I know how much better it can be. Unfortunately, both fail in my current work environment.
Google Docs fail because it is not Microsoft Office, and I'm not going to convince my cow-orkers to learn a new set of office applications.
Microsoft Office Live fails because it is too complicated and confusing for me to learn, much less teach. I couldn't even figure out if the documents are under version control, and the "integration" into the office applications is a joke (it is very slow and requires multiple indirections just to open a document, and it takes a separate navigation bar).
So while my workplace is a lost cause, I use Google Docs with my family. It has a simple and intuitive interface, and my family are much less tied to MS Office than my workspace.
You would be surprised at how reliable pens, paper and scrutineers are. Not perfection (screw with the votes instead of with the count), but a lot safer that "voting machines". I don't believe pen & paper is more tampering proof than voting machines, but the process is transparent and understandable to the average voter. Which is maybe even more important. When people cheat in pen&paper voting, they cheat in a way people can understand.
no media ever dies Exactly! That is why I use rune stones whenever I have a message that needs to last. It works for my ancestors, so it should work for me. And no other media has such a strong track record: Papyrus burns, clay tablets breaks, only rune stones last.
Of course, I imagine 55% of the rest of the profit comes from services/consulting. 55% of their revenue, but only 37% of their profit, comes from services. Follow the link in the GP.
Despite the fact that the year 2008 is only 40 years away--as far ahead as 1928 is in the past--it will be a world as strange to us as our time (1968) would be to the pilgrims. Actually, 2008 would probably be no more strange to a visitor from 1968, than 1968 would be to a visitor from 1928. Maybe less so.
Architecture isn't much different from what was modern in 1968. Cars are more boring if anything. Traffic more intense. Social norms have changed, but not compared to what was considered "advanced" in 1968 (or 1928 for that matter).
Key applications are WebSphere, "Information Management" (db2?), Lotus, Tivoli, Rational, and operating systems.
Some of this is probably tied to the success of their hardware and service departments, I doubt many people buy IBM operating systems (2% of their total revenue, 12% of their software revenue) without IBM hardware.
But the non-disclosed revenue from Rational is probably pretty much standalone.
That's not really open source. It is open source, according to the people who invented the term.
Open Source would never make you pay server licensing fees for use in commercial software, it would only make you distribute your source at worst. MySQL doesn't make you pay a license fee in commercial software, if you distribute your software under an open source (as defined by the people who invented the term) license. Like, e.g., Sun does with their very commercial MySQL product.
At least, I never liked them. My entry into computers was through the "home computers" of the 80's and variants of Microsoft BASIC was used in most of them. This was boring, it was much more exciting with e.g. the BBC Micro which had a much better BASIC, or even more the Jupiter Ace which had FORTH.
When DOS became popular, I had started at the University, and my frame of reference was UNIX. Obviously, DOS seemed extremely bad in comparison. It took 15 years (with the release of NT 4.0) for Windows to come out with an OS that wasn't complete crap in every way except hardware price compared to the Unixen of the time.
So the change has that I used to dislike Microsoft for making boring and crappy software, but now dislike Microsoft for their systematic use of illegal business practices.
I have known Apple for almost as long (our University had a "Apple Lisa" room), and loved them for the user interfaces, but disliked them for their programming interfaces (until they bought NeXT) and their closed platform.
I still love Google for making it obvious that public information is public.
Slashdot Mirror
The way to deal with reviewers who doesn't treat your unsolicited promo material with proper discretion, is to stop sending unsolicited promo material to those reviewers. It's not an easy issue and there are arguments on both sides. Yes, on one side there is respect for the fundamentals of contract law. On the other side, there is the slight inconvenience of labels to have to maintain a list of trusted reviewers (rather than just maintain a list of reviews).
It does say something about how the labels have gotten adjusted to having the law formed for their convenience, that they now want to change how the legal system works, just to avoid the inconvenience of making some minor changes to their internal procedures.
Or said in another way. It is far more profitable to sabotage your competitors (by e.g. sending assassins after them), than to improve the value/cost ratio of your own product.
The main problem with Libertarians is that their dogmas prevent them from seeing the simple economic reality.
And the top #2 spot, Sweden, is the size of California, with quarter of the population.
The top spot, Denmark, is 2.2 million square kilometers, or approximately three times the size of Texas.
Of course, most of it is uninhabited ice, but the point stands, absolute size doesn't matter much here. Population distribution is more important, almost all the population of Denmark lives in an area only twice the size of New Jersey, with a bit more than half the population.
Actually,, for state owned broadcaster like BBC, the question is whether it should be paid by the consumers (those who need the larger bandwidth), or the tax payers (those who finance BBC, essentially everybody).
Even Linux is more than 15 years old. But the term "open source" as applied to source code can be dated very precisely to the free software summit 10 years ago.
And the birth of that phrase, together with ESR's "Cathedral&Bazaar" and the Netscape source code release, did represent the beginning of the popularization of the idea of free software as a business opportunity. If you read the interviews, you will see that they almost all deal with exactly that aspect, namely the acceptance of free software in the commercial world.
Of course commercial free software didn't start with the summit, we had Russ Nelson's Crynwr, and Peter Deutch' Aladdin, and of course the poster child, Michael Tiemann and John Gilmore's Cygnus. Michael Tiemann said is best, he read the GNU Manifesto but saw a business plan. But the Cygnus web site also exemplified the problem. It started with centered around a friendly child drawing and information about the free software philosophy and how it could help your company, and ended up (at the time of the summit) as a boring business-like page stripped of all mentions of free software.
Free software was not a sales argument. The open source movement was about changing that, and it was wildly successful. It is cause for celebration.
Actually, what I found most interesting was the add for Myka, a BitTorrent based set-top box. Could have potential.
The home page looks a bit suspect though. Anyone have any real information on it?
Or just look at their home page.
A simple linear interpretation of the data isn't that useful - maybe I should RTFA to see if there's a graph or something?
The original source has a graph, kind of, and the increase seems pretty much linear to me.SharePoint seems to be traditional client-server technology, and not related to any recent buzzwords like "cloud computing". For companies with a strong IT department, SharePoint it probably superior. For the rest of us, is is Google Docs or Office Live (or email, sadly).
I have evaluated both for use by my workplace, mostly because I despise the the "document sharing through email". I used cvs (and LaTeX) for collaborations on group assignments as a student back in the 80s, so I know how much better it can be. Unfortunately, both fail in my current work environment.
Google Docs fail because it is not Microsoft Office, and I'm not going to convince my cow-orkers to learn a new set of office applications.
Microsoft Office Live fails because it is too complicated and confusing for me to learn, much less teach. I couldn't even figure out if the documents are under version control, and the "integration" into the office applications is a joke (it is very slow and requires multiple indirections just to open a document, and it takes a separate navigation bar).
So while my workplace is a lost cause, I use Google Docs with my family. It has a simple and intuitive interface, and my family are much less tied to MS Office than my workspace.
What is GNU Java? GCJ?
I read it as "Researchers Create a Protein Map of Human Spirit." Much more interesting that way.
Architecture isn't much different from what was modern in 1968. Cars are more boring if anything. Traffic more intense. Social norms have changed, but not compared to what was considered "advanced" in 1968 (or 1928 for that matter).
Is the rate of change increasing or decreasing?
I asked my local IBM sales representive since they now sell PostgreSQL, and he gave the pronunciation in the subject line.
The software division of IBM accounts for 20% of their revenue, and 40% of their profit.
See http://www.ibm.com/annualreport/2007/md_4rco.shtml
Key applications are WebSphere, "Information Management" (db2?), Lotus, Tivoli, Rational, and operating systems.
Some of this is probably tied to the success of their hardware and service departments, I doubt many people buy IBM operating systems (2% of their total revenue, 12% of their software revenue) without IBM hardware.
But the non-disclosed revenue from Rational is probably pretty much standalone.
At least, I never liked them. My entry into computers was through the "home computers" of the 80's and variants of Microsoft BASIC was used in most of them. This was boring, it was much more exciting with e.g. the BBC Micro which had a much better BASIC, or even more the Jupiter Ace which had FORTH.
When DOS became popular, I had started at the University, and my frame of reference was UNIX. Obviously, DOS seemed extremely bad in comparison. It took 15 years (with the release of NT 4.0) for Windows to come out with an OS that wasn't complete crap in every way except hardware price compared to the Unixen of the time.
So the change has that I used to dislike Microsoft for making boring and crappy software, but now dislike Microsoft for their systematic use of illegal business practices.
I have known Apple for almost as long (our University had a "Apple Lisa" room), and loved them for the user interfaces, but disliked them for their programming interfaces (until they bought NeXT) and their closed platform.
I still love Google for making it obvious that public information is public.