Every subsidy, cheap loan, and grant is a distortion of that market unless it goes to areas that cannot make a profit.
Your ability to post that comment was created by the government investing billions of dollars in technology research that didn't even have a specific end goal or product in mind, only a mission of "radical innovation".
The goal is laudable but strategically speaking: do we really want to focus more OSS efforts to replicate MS protocols and methods?
Yes, we do.
Why do you think Microsoft has such a stranglehold on the corporate desktop? Outlook and Exchange are the cornerstone of that lock. It's brilliant if you can produce a true Outlook replacement; that means everybody's email and calendars can stay the same. If you try to introduce a brand new calendering/email system, you have to deal with migration, and that is a ridiculously huge headache affecting the entire organization. Not to mention all the retraining and retooling (and likely re-hiring) you have to do with a new server architecture...
No wonder nobody does it.
If you can replace the client, you are much more likely to have clients that can talk to multiple back ends (e.g. Exchange or an open source alternative). Then you have the real possibility of replacing the back end much more transparently at a later date.
Unfortunately this two step solution is, for the next few years, the only real way it could possibly happen in most companies.
I already make sure that if I'm going to visit my bank, I close my browser, start a new one, do the banking thing, then close the browser before I do anything else. While banking I don't browse other sites.
I figured an attack like this was possible but had no idea there was a way to check other sites you are visiting via JavaScript. That seems like a very obvious security flaw. Anyone know how that is possible? Is it via standard JavaScript, or does it require a bizarre hack that happens to work on today's browsers? The article doesn't say.
So, pray tell, which religions do you have in mind, which _didn't_ facilitate a few choice atrocities? Again, only those which existed for any length of time, please, not late 20'th century new age cults or jokes like Pastafarianism.
There's a HUGE difference between a religion which, at its source, justifies slavery, death and destruction, vs a religion which expressly prohibits it. Anyone can perverse anything. That isn't really relevant. If you really want to "judge" the religion, you have to look at its source, not just what zealots have done to twist its meaning.
In this capacity the religions of the Old Testament clearly suck and don't really deserve to be a model for a just, free society. Buddhism is completely different; under no circumstances is killing allowed, and slavery is also seen as bad.
Well, browsers are a little different, from a security perspective you could argue they *are* broke whenever new vulnerabilities are discovered. For a web browser, they need continuing updates to address new security vulnerabilities. Unfortunately there's only so much interest in continuing security-only fixes to older versions...
I suspect most of the time the problem is the developers themselves. Good developers will write good code in most any decent language; bad developers will write bad code in any language.
The problem is likely the team (including clueless management) who did the project, they would have likely created a mess in anything else too.
"Shaped the course of history"? Gimme a break. It IS just a movie. And yes, it has great cultural significance. But at the end of the day, has it influenced foreign policy? Have real life people been killed because of it? Are people willing to give their life, or alter their concept of what life is about in the most sacred way, because of it? Have nations altered their behavior because of it?
Star Wars is just a movie and a successful business franchise. Influential, yes, and I'm sure some souls out there fit under some category I've mentioned above, but to say that it has "shaped the course of human history" is a bit over the top.
IT people tend to be pretty security focused with borderline paranoia. That is healthy because that's their role in society.
Talk to a dentist. You'll hear a whole lot about how important it is to floss your teeth for 15 minutes a day. A fitness nut will tell you how you need to exercise an hour and a half a day. The house painter told me I should wash the house once every 3 months to preserve the paint. A mechanic friend told me to check my car's oil every week. Etc etc.
Most people just don't have the time/energy to do everything they're told so they ignore most advice.
You should spend more time proofing your posts.;-)
The fact that all those features are irrelevant to being exclusive to one carrier for 5 years?
Everything you say has nothing to do with carrier exclusivity; it has to do with choosing one carrier at a time, because you can't do all those things with all carriers at once. Apple could have very well chosen to choose AT&T first because they were the best partner to do all these features first... And then rolled out with Sprint a few months or a year later... Then Verizon... And so on. Even if AT&T was the only initial carrier to have agreed to give up on control of the retail/sales channel, that didn't mean they had to be exclusive, in terms of a binding contract, for 5 years. It just means that they are the only ones they could do those features with right now.
Apple chose carrier exclusivity not because of those features, it chose exclusivity because of the money AT&T is paying Apple each month you are in the contract, in exchange for staying exclusive with AT&T.
Either create the project with "Use existing ant build file", or once you've created it, create a new ant builder for the project and point it to the right build.xml.
So? I have a Treo that I sometimes bring on vacations where I don't have cell phone coverage because I use the other PDA functions. If I had an iPhone I would've done the same thing, and would have been equally outraged.
I've been using Camino, but I miss some Firefox features (which I use at work on Windows XP), so I tried switching to FF at home and the first thing I noticed is that Firefox can't maximize a window properly:
I'm not crazy about DRM, but as a movie buff, I'm looking forward to HD DVD content (either Sony or Toshiba). I notice the artifacts in existing DVDs, and think standard DVD resolution is a waste of an HD TV. (I only watch movies on my 34" Widescreen TV, I don't even get cable.)
I realize I'm not the typical customer (I started collecting movies with LaserDisc back in 1995). But if the format wars get settled and either format takes off, I'll go for it. I figure that's at least one or two years away, but that's cool, I need time to save up for my new HD TV, which I'll buy when I upgrade to HD DVD.
I understand. I wasn't arguing that aspect (suing Ford vs. Chevy), only the point that this is only for "potential" damages, the customer didn't suffer hearing loss.
From the article: "Patterson does not know if the device has damaged his hearing, said his attorney, Steve W. Berman, of Seattle. But that's beside the point of the lawsuit, which takes issue with the potential the iPod has to cause irreparable hearing loss, Berman said."
Why was this post modded Troll? I happen to completely disagree with the post, and agree with all the +5 responses saying parents should do the job of guarding their kids, not laws... but so what? The original poster is merely expressing an opinion, not blatantly posting flamebait for the hell of it.
I have a new idea for Slashdot moderation points: -1 (RTFA). The article is about launching new web services, not new standalone software products. Not to mention that even taking standalone products into account, Netscape is a bad counter example. Microsoft was slow to wake up and smell the Internet, not Netscape. Once Bill Gates got the importance of the Internet, it was all over, regardless of how long Netscape Navigator had been out there.
Note: I've been using GNOME since 0.30, so I have a certain sense of loyalty to it.
A case in point was the whole debacle over what was hailed as a great, new achievement in usability for Nautilus: the spatial metaphor.
What a disaster. It was amazing to me that it took a whole month or two of users complaining and bitching left and right, before the developers decided to add the ability to easily disable spatial mode. Agreed, they finally added it, but it was like pulling teeth. The "we developers know better than the users" attitude was very stricking.
I don't care whether you prefer spatial or not, the merits of spatial are a separate argument. But so many people complained about it, so vehemently, that it's amazing it took more than say a few days before they patched a simple menu accessible toggle. Today you will still get people saying stupid things like "well you could always disable it in gconf". Sigh.
Thanks for suggesting feature X. Please let us know when you've finished coding it
That is way too polite. The real reponse would be more like "stop bitching about it, if you want it, write it yourself" or "if you're not willing to write it, then you don't have a right to complain".
I rather think I can. It was your post that suggested a revenue stream from registration data.
When I said "they need to make money" I did not mean to imply they sell their registration data. I meant that they use such data to better understand their customers, which allows them to make more money.
I do not approve of any business model based upon supplying personal information to marketers, and I do not feel that I should be required to condone such a model, either explicity, or implicitly by keeping silent about my dislike.
I'm with you on that one.
However, if a company elects to gather my personal data, I shall not presume that they do it with my benefit in mind.
This is I think where you make a mistake... as I said previously, unfortunately you have much valid basis for that, but it doesn't apply to everyone, or all situations. I've worked closely (as a software engineer) with enough marketing people to see both sides of the coin.
The poster that you told to "grow up" and to "deal with it" was offering valuable feedback to the marketing industry.
Maybe. Such knee jerk reactions can be valuable, but they can also just be ignored as naive. In the poster's case, it was definitely an ignorant reaction, as Salon doesn't require registration, they require you to view an ad. (I'm happily subscribed to Salon, so I don't normally get that, but my recollection from the few times I go to their site on a new computer is that you see an ad, not a registration page.)
Slashdot Mirror
Your ability to post that comment was created by the government investing billions of dollars in technology research that didn't even have a specific end goal or product in mind, only a mission of "radical innovation".
Yes, we do.
Why do you think Microsoft has such a stranglehold on the corporate desktop? Outlook and Exchange are the cornerstone of that lock. It's brilliant if you can produce a true Outlook replacement; that means everybody's email and calendars can stay the same. If you try to introduce a brand new calendering/email system, you have to deal with migration, and that is a ridiculously huge headache affecting the entire organization. Not to mention all the retraining and retooling (and likely re-hiring) you have to do with a new server architecture...
No wonder nobody does it.
If you can replace the client, you are much more likely to have clients that can talk to multiple back ends (e.g. Exchange or an open source alternative). Then you have the real possibility of replacing the back end much more transparently at a later date.
Unfortunately this two step solution is, for the next few years, the only real way it could possibly happen in most companies.
I already make sure that if I'm going to visit my bank, I close my browser, start a new one, do the banking thing, then close the browser before I do anything else. While banking I don't browse other sites.
I figured an attack like this was possible but had no idea there was a way to check other sites you are visiting via JavaScript. That seems like a very obvious security flaw. Anyone know how that is possible? Is it via standard JavaScript, or does it require a bizarre hack that happens to work on today's browsers? The article doesn't say.
Well, actually Buddhism:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/buddhism/history/slavery.shtml
There's a HUGE difference between a religion which, at its source, justifies slavery, death and destruction, vs a religion which expressly prohibits it. Anyone can perverse anything. That isn't really relevant. If you really want to "judge" the religion, you have to look at its source, not just what zealots have done to twist its meaning.
In this capacity the religions of the Old Testament clearly suck and don't really deserve to be a model for a just, free society. Buddhism is completely different; under no circumstances is killing allowed, and slavery is also seen as bad.
Well, browsers are a little different, from a security perspective you could argue they *are* broke whenever new vulnerabilities are discovered. For a web browser, they need continuing updates to address new security vulnerabilities. Unfortunately there's only so much interest in continuing security-only fixes to older versions...
I suspect most of the time the problem is the developers themselves. Good developers will write good code in most any decent language; bad developers will write bad code in any language.
The problem is likely the team (including clueless management) who did the project, they would have likely created a mess in anything else too.
"Shaped the course of history"? Gimme a break. It IS just a movie. And yes, it has great cultural significance. But at the end of the day, has it influenced foreign policy? Have real life people been killed because of it? Are people willing to give their life, or alter their concept of what life is about in the most sacred way, because of it? Have nations altered their behavior because of it?
Star Wars is just a movie and a successful business franchise. Influential, yes, and I'm sure some souls out there fit under some category I've mentioned above, but to say that it has "shaped the course of human history" is a bit over the top.
Link please?
The fact that all those features are irrelevant to being exclusive to one carrier for 5 years?
Everything you say has nothing to do with carrier exclusivity; it has to do with choosing one carrier at a time, because you can't do all those things with all carriers at once. Apple could have very well chosen to choose AT&T first because they were the best partner to do all these features first... And then rolled out with Sprint a few months or a year later... Then Verizon... And so on. Even if AT&T was the only initial carrier to have agreed to give up on control of the retail/sales channel, that didn't mean they had to be exclusive, in terms of a binding contract, for 5 years. It just means that they are the only ones they could do those features with right now.
Apple chose carrier exclusivity not because of those features, it chose exclusivity because of the money AT&T is paying Apple each month you are in the contract, in exchange for staying exclusive with AT&T.
Either create the project with "Use existing ant build file", or once you've created it, create a new ant builder for the project and point it to the right build.xml.
Vtwm has been around since the late 80s, and I'm sure there are others from that era.
Next?
So? I have a Treo that I sometimes bring on vacations where I don't have cell phone coverage because I use the other PDA functions. If I had an iPhone I would've done the same thing, and would have been equally outraged.
I've been using Camino, but I miss some Firefox features (which I use at work on Windows XP), so I tried switching to FF at home and the first thing I noticed is that Firefox can't maximize a window properly:
0 1
https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3787
Sigh. If FF can't properly implement one of the basic window operations available, it doesn't give me a lot of hope that they've really looked at it.
Since when do you have a right to be reachable by cell phone?
I think it makes sense to let people know cell phones won't work, but you do not have a right to have your cell phone work anywhere.
I'm not crazy about DRM, but as a movie buff, I'm looking forward to HD DVD content (either Sony or Toshiba). I notice the artifacts in existing DVDs, and think standard DVD resolution is a waste of an HD TV. (I only watch movies on my 34" Widescreen TV, I don't even get cable.)
I realize I'm not the typical customer (I started collecting movies with LaserDisc back in 1995). But if the format wars get settled and either format takes off, I'll go for it. I figure that's at least one or two years away, but that's cool, I need time to save up for my new HD TV, which I'll buy when I upgrade to HD DVD.
I understand. I wasn't arguing that aspect (suing Ford vs. Chevy), only the point that this is only for "potential" damages, the customer didn't suffer hearing loss.
From the article: "Patterson does not know if the device has damaged his hearing, said his attorney, Steve W. Berman, of Seattle. But that's beside the point of the lawsuit, which takes issue with the potential the iPod has to cause irreparable hearing loss, Berman said."
So much for actual damage.
It hasn't happened on Slashdot, so I doubt it will happen there. :)
Why was this post modded Troll? I happen to completely disagree with the post, and agree with all the +5 responses saying parents should do the job of guarding their kids, not laws... but so what? The original poster is merely expressing an opinion, not blatantly posting flamebait for the hell of it.
* Duke Nukem Forever in stores
I have a new idea for Slashdot moderation points: -1 (RTFA). The article is about launching new web services, not new standalone software products. Not to mention that even taking standalone products into account, Netscape is a bad counter example. Microsoft was slow to wake up and smell the Internet, not Netscape. Once Bill Gates got the importance of the Internet, it was all over, regardless of how long Netscape Navigator had been out there.
A case in point was the whole debacle over what was hailed as a great, new achievement in usability for Nautilus: the spatial metaphor.
What a disaster. It was amazing to me that it took a whole month or two of users complaining and bitching left and right, before the developers decided to add the ability to easily disable spatial mode. Agreed, they finally added it, but it was like pulling teeth. The "we developers know better than the users" attitude was very stricking.
I don't care whether you prefer spatial or not, the merits of spatial are a separate argument. But so many people complained about it, so vehemently, that it's amazing it took more than say a few days before they patched a simple menu accessible toggle. Today you will still get people saying stupid things like "well you could always disable it in gconf". Sigh.
That is way too polite. The real reponse would be more like "stop bitching about it, if you want it, write it yourself" or "if you're not willing to write it, then you don't have a right to complain".
Sigh.
When I said "they need to make money" I did not mean to imply they sell their registration data. I meant that they use such data to better understand their customers, which allows them to make more money.
I do not approve of any business model based upon supplying personal information to marketers, and I do not feel that I should be required to condone such a model, either explicity, or implicitly by keeping silent about my dislike.
I'm with you on that one.
However, if a company elects to gather my personal data, I shall not presume that they do it with my benefit in mind.
This is I think where you make a mistake... as I said previously, unfortunately you have much valid basis for that, but it doesn't apply to everyone, or all situations. I've worked closely (as a software engineer) with enough marketing people to see both sides of the coin.
The poster that you told to "grow up" and to "deal with it" was offering valuable feedback to the marketing industry.
Maybe. Such knee jerk reactions can be valuable, but they can also just be ignored as naive. In the poster's case, it was definitely an ignorant reaction, as Salon doesn't require registration, they require you to view an ad. (I'm happily subscribed to Salon, so I don't normally get that, but my recollection from the few times I go to their site on a new computer is that you see an ad, not a registration page.)