You summarize the issue nicely. Just this once, I agree with the NRA, when they say that the difference between an offensive and defensive weapon is the way it's used, not the weapon itself.
Amiga.com may be short of technical details but they really are working on the OS. It's true that Amiga is branching out to other platforms via their Indian subsidiary, but that's a recent development -- the Amiga OS products have around for years .
This is aimed at the relatively tiny group of users who have continued using the Amiga OS long after its commercial demise...
No, it isn't. Check out the Amiga Inc. web site. They honestly believe AmigaOS has a future as an alternative OS, on PCs, PDAs, and for embedded applications. They're even pushing it as an alternative API under Windows, with the OS running on a VM!
Obviously this is an exercise in wishful thinking. But all the kewl platforms have advocates who continue to believe in them long after they become commercially irrelevant.
I'm kind of amused by all these negative comments. Not that I disagree. But a couple of years ago, a few sceptics (including me) were making similar comments on Slashdot, and Amiga fanboys were all over us, accusing of flamebaiting and fuding. Where are they now?
I don't think that quite counts as tool use. A tool is device you operate. If you use a rock to crack a nut, then the rock is a tool. But if you throw the nut against a wall, you're not using the wall as a tool.
That said, those crows who figured out nuts left in the roadway will be crushed open by passing cars are showing definite signs of creative intelligence. I don't suppose it matters whether their smarts deserve the label "tool use" or not.
Does that mean that if I like some government interference I have to go to North Korea? Seriously, that's silly.
Why is it silly? People move because they don't like their government every day. (Some to North Korea; not everybody has given up on Stalinism.) Many folks leave the U.S. because they don't approve of the way it's governed; during the Vietnam war, when I was of draft age, I considered doing it myself. I still fantasize about moving to Australia (now for cultural rather than political reasons), but never will, being too old to get a work visa.
Somalia was hyperbole on my part (not even Somalis care for their lack of functional government). That hype had two points: you have a lot more choice about what kind of government you live under than you like to pretend you do. And even an inept government is better than no government.
There are alternatives to using Microsoft, despite what you say.
I didn't say there was no alternative. I said that, for most people, there's no practical alternative.
My own employer, Sun, is a case in point. It used to be a leader in the anti-Microsoft crusade. When I first worked for them in 1998, there was a rule (widely ignored) against using any Microsoft product in-house unless there was an absolute need. Now management has decided (and I thoroughly agree) that this religious attitude is very bad for the company. So Windows-based laptops are widely used to supplement the Solaris SunRays that are everywhere. Microsoft Office is still forbidden, but only because we make a competing product. And even there, the legal department is exempt; I guess they need to trade files with outside lawyers.
Oh yes, and we just became a Microsoft OEM. Which will make my job writing manuals for x64 systems a lot easier.
Perhaps you think Sun should have stuck by its guns and continued to fight the good fight, whatever the cost. I find it hard to agree, since that would have precluded my current job from even existing. Breaking up monopolies is the government's job. And it's one case where we definitely don't have enough government.
Well, you can avoid government interference by moving to some place where there isn't any, such as Somalia. And you can avoid Microsoft interference by not using their products. But just as most people complain about the government but don't really have a choice about dealing with them, most people complain about Microsoft but don't have a choice about dealing with them either. If you live in a totally Microsoft-free world, good for you, but it's not a choice for most of us.
You know, I think you're right. I take it all back. Still, I do hope that the XO will have some influence on consumer computing in the developed world. I'd especially like to see more systems that aren't so obscenely feature bloated.
Private sector competence can (generally) be avoided and sometimes lead to extinction of the incompetent company.
Microsoft (which forgot to renew major domains twice would seem to be immune from this rule.
Public sector incompetence is supported under threat of arrest.
So who's been arrested in connection with the ca.gov snafu?
I guess the faulty assumption I've been attacking is that government bureaucrats tend to be less competent than private-sector bureaucrats. In fact. bureaucratic ineptitude is more strongly related to the size of the organization than to the type of organization. As the corporate lackey of a major player in the computer hardware business, I speak from personal experience.
I also don't think you understand the marketing costs and risk associated with a mass retail marketing effort, particular of a product which is designed for the specific needs of a very different one than you are trying to market it to at retail.
You make it sound more complicated than it is. In simple terms: nobody wants to spend a lot of money trying to market a cheap computer that isn't really designed for the U.S. market. Even if Americans wanted to buy it, there's no hope of making any money selling it.
On the other hand, all these stories about what kids in the developing world are doing with these computers will probably create a demand for them in the industrialized world. Despite its limitations, the XO boasts as much computer power as most casual users need. Plus it's got some cool educational software that deserves attention even outside the OLPC world.
This was back when Google was privately held. I don't know anything about their ownership structure back then, but I'd guess that the VCs who had put up the money had a lot of say in how the company was run. Certainly more than the all the current Class A shareholders who have two thirds of the company's equity, but only one third of the votes.
As for Eric Schmidt: Page and Brin might have preferred not to hire an outsider, but they managed to get one who wouldn't interfere with their way of doing things.
The way things work in theory and practice? People believe they have the right to access information, and that other people, be they governments or network providers, don't have the right to interfere. There are other factors, but that one factor gets a lot of weight. There's a theory for your.
I believe his point is that any network builds to handle the maximum likely usage, because they can't possibly afford to build to handle the possible usage. So it's not as simple as saying "if you sell X, build X."
Since when has YouTube been about making money? Originally, they were about come up with technology that was so ridiculously kewl that Google couldn't stop themselves from buying them out. Now, like most of Google, YouTube is just about coming up with technology that's ridiculously kewl. Google gets huge profits from its keyword advertising, which subsidizes all the other money-losing operations. Sometimes they go through the motions of trying to make the other business profitable, but they don't really have any incentive to do this: Page, Brin, and Schmidt have a voting majority of shares, and don't really answer to the other stockholders.
With the internet you can do what you want without asking or a license.
Sure no license. But do what you want? Not if ISPs are allowed to impose terms of service with all kinds of restrictive conditions — including the requirement that you not publically criticize the ISP! Not if ISPs are allowed to pick and choose who sends packets over their networks.
You're basically reciting the Libertarian mantra: "Less government! More individual rights!" This logic ignores the fact that powerful individuals are just as capable of taking away your rights as any government.
This is why you and I are using TCP/IP to talk right now and not X.25.
Excuse me? Both protocols have semi-governmental origins. X.25 was invented by the International Telecommunications Union, which has 700 private entities as members; its advocates in the U.S. were mostly private telecom companies. TCP/IP was invented by DoD-sponsored researchers. Neither was ever imposed by government fiat.
The government regulates all kinds of things. Businesses used to assert the right not to serve people of color; that's now illegal. Zoning laws tell people what they can and cannot do with their buildings and land. Food and drugs cannot be distributed if the government determines they are unsafe or ineffective. These are all private activities that the government regulates.
Unlike most Slashdotters, I don't pretend to be a legal expert, so don't try to get me into an argument about specific cases. I'm simply pointing out that when there's a conflict between property rights and other rights, property rights don't always come first.
Slashdot Mirror
You summarize the issue nicely. Just this once, I agree with the NRA, when they say that the difference between an offensive and defensive weapon is the way it's used, not the weapon itself.
Amiga.com may be short of technical details but they really are working on the OS. It's true that Amiga is branching out to other platforms via their Indian subsidiary, but that's a recent development -- the Amiga OS products have around for years .
Obviously this is an exercise in wishful thinking. But all the kewl platforms have advocates who continue to believe in them long after they become commercially irrelevant.
I'm kind of amused by all these negative comments. Not that I disagree. But a couple of years ago, a few sceptics (including me) were making similar comments on Slashdot, and Amiga fanboys were all over us, accusing of flamebaiting and fuding. Where are they now?
Did you miss where I used the word "operate"?
You're redefining "tool use" so that it means the same thing as "problem solving". The latten term is more descriptive.
I don't think that quite counts as tool use. A tool is device you operate. If you use a rock to crack a nut, then the rock is a tool. But if you throw the nut against a wall, you're not using the wall as a tool.
That said, those crows who figured out nuts left in the roadway will be crushed open by passing cars are showing definite signs of creative intelligence. I don't suppose it matters whether their smarts deserve the label "tool use" or not.
I would think the problem would be obvious: Travelex wasn't getting enough media attention.
Somalia was hyperbole on my part (not even Somalis care for their lack of functional government). That hype had two points: you have a lot more choice about what kind of government you live under than you like to pretend you do. And even an inept government is better than no government.I didn't say there was no alternative. I said that, for most people, there's no practical alternative.
My own employer, Sun, is a case in point. It used to be a leader in the anti-Microsoft crusade. When I first worked for them in 1998, there was a rule (widely ignored) against using any Microsoft product in-house unless there was an absolute need. Now management has decided (and I thoroughly agree) that this religious attitude is very bad for the company. So Windows-based laptops are widely used to supplement the Solaris SunRays that are everywhere. Microsoft Office is still forbidden, but only because we make a competing product. And even there, the legal department is exempt; I guess they need to trade files with outside lawyers.
Oh yes, and we just became a Microsoft OEM. Which will make my job writing manuals for x64 systems a lot easier.
Perhaps you think Sun should have stuck by its guns and continued to fight the good fight, whatever the cost. I find it hard to agree, since that would have precluded my current job from even existing. Breaking up monopolies is the government's job. And it's one case where we definitely don't have enough government.
Well, you can avoid government interference by moving to some place where there isn't any, such as Somalia. And you can avoid Microsoft interference by not using their products. But just as most people complain about the government but don't really have a choice about dealing with them, most people complain about Microsoft but don't have a choice about dealing with them either. If you live in a totally Microsoft-free world, good for you, but it's not a choice for most of us.
You know, I think you're right. I take it all back. Still, I do hope that the XO will have some influence on consumer computing in the developed world. I'd especially like to see more systems that aren't so obscenely feature bloated.
I guess the faulty assumption I've been attacking is that government bureaucrats tend to be less competent than private-sector bureaucrats. In fact. bureaucratic ineptitude is more strongly related to the size of the organization than to the type of organization. As the corporate lackey of a major player in the computer hardware business, I speak from personal experience.
On the other hand, all these stories about what kids in the developing world are doing with these computers will probably create a demand for them in the industrialized world. Despite its limitations, the XO boasts as much computer power as most casual users need. Plus it's got some cool educational software that deserves attention even outside the OLPC world.
OK, and so what? What does the power of arrest have to do with network management competence?
This was back when Google was privately held. I don't know anything about their ownership structure back then, but I'd guess that the VCs who had put up the money had a lot of say in how the company was run. Certainly more than the all the current Class A shareholders who have two thirds of the company's equity, but only one third of the votes.
As for Eric Schmidt: Page and Brin might have preferred not to hire an outsider, but they managed to get one who wouldn't interfere with their way of doing things.
Yes they do.
The way things work in theory and practice? People believe they have the right to access information, and that other people, be they governments or network providers, don't have the right to interfere. There are other factors, but that one factor gets a lot of weight. There's a theory for your.
What you just reported is also top secret. That makes you a spy. Please wait for the DHS agents to come and arrest you.
Before everybody gets all snickery about government incompetence, remember that the private sector has its moments too.
I believe his point is that any network builds to handle the maximum likely usage, because they can't possibly afford to build to handle the possible usage. So it's not as simple as saying "if you sell X, build X."
Since when has YouTube been about making money? Originally, they were about come up with technology that was so ridiculously kewl that Google couldn't stop themselves from buying them out. Now, like most of Google, YouTube is just about coming up with technology that's ridiculously kewl. Google gets huge profits from its keyword advertising, which subsidizes all the other money-losing operations. Sometimes they go through the motions of trying to make the other business profitable, but they don't really have any incentive to do this: Page, Brin, and Schmidt have a voting majority of shares, and don't really answer to the other stockholders.
Are you saying that I have to watch my mouth around Windows users? I always though that Linuxites were the prigish ones...
You're basically reciting the Libertarian mantra: "Less government! More individual rights!" This logic ignores the fact that powerful individuals are just as capable of taking away your rights as any government.Excuse me? Both protocols have semi-governmental origins. X.25 was invented by the International Telecommunications Union, which has 700 private entities as members; its advocates in the U.S. were mostly private telecom companies. TCP/IP was invented by DoD-sponsored researchers. Neither was ever imposed by government fiat.
Unlike most Slashdotters, I don't pretend to be a legal expert, so don't try to get me into an argument about specific cases. I'm simply pointing out that when there's a conflict between property rights and other rights, property rights don't always come first.