CNet is reporting that the courts have struck down the FCC's broadcast flag requirement!
You make it sound like there's been a final determination that we just can't have a broadcast flag. Not correct. A particular appeals court is saying that the FCC currently doesn't have the authority to impose the broadcast flag. That court could be overruled. Or Congress could give the FCC the authority. Given the politics of our current Congress, that's very likely.
We have stories about the Federal legal decisions almost every day. Yet Slashdotters (and worse, the Slashdot editors) manage to read all these stories without learning anything about how the courts work. Pretty pathetic.
The venerable sunflower was abandoned because the G5 and its giant heat sink couldn't be quietly cooled inside the same footprint.
So all of a sudden, it was totally uncool to sell Apple's based on G4s? Certainly not iMac users -- that product line has always been targeted to basic user, as opposed to high-powered systems that come in big boxes.
So you're basically saying that the pedestal iMac was abandoned to provide extra processor power that would never be used -- but which adds a big coolness factor. You're really making my case for me.
If you suspect a public terminal -- or any other computer you don't have admin access to -- has malware installed, then you should bloody well report your suspicions to somebody who can address the problem. And until your suspicions are addressed, the system is not a safe place to do sensitive work. Assuming that you can outsmart a keylogger is just plain silly.
1.1 billion people is just so many warm bodies --they mean nothing unless they're part of a vital economy. Fifty years the population ratio was almost as lopsided, but the Chinese couldn't even feed themselves, much less buy fancy technology. At that time, the U.S. dominated the planet in infrastructure, manufacturing base, skilled workforce, advanced, raw economic power, and a lot of other factors. Not led, dominated.
In 1955, most people wouldn't have had any notion what "Broadband Internet Access" was.
But if you could make them understand that it was a key technology of the 21st century, and that it would be more available in China than in the U.S....
An American would have reported you to the FBI for spreading commie propaganda. And a Chinese would have shaken his head at your obvious dementia. The U.S. has lost its edge, and this is another sign of it.
If you judge somebody by the amount of evil they could do, Google went beyond the pale some time ago, since they already have a lot of capability to spy on people. But it's usual to judge people the amount of evil they actually do. If Google implements a reasonable privacy policy, and sticks to it, they're off the hook.
A 4GL programming language is designed to run inside another program. 4GL languages do not replace 3GL languages but instead run inside of them.
That's they way 4GLs are currently used. But they were certainly not intended to be embedded languages. Look up anything written on the subject 20 years ago, and you'll see what I mean.
"Fourth Generation Language" is one of the those silly concepts that never caught on, but still survives, woefully distorted. The idea was that writing software by encoding procedures and algorithms was obsolete ("third generation language"), and needed to be replaced by languages that used more advanced paradigms.
The so-called 3GLs didn't get replaced by the so-called 4GLs, because the latter aren't superior languages in every respect -- they just do some things better. The most conspicuous area where 4GLs excel is database access. As a result, many people think 4GL means "database language", and apply it to 3GL languages like Delphi and Visual Basic that are widely used in database apps.
I guess the term "4GL" will be around forever, but it really isn't very useful. If you want to categorize languages in a meaningful way, use terms that describe how they actually work, like "imperative" (3GL, more or less) and "functional" (4GL, ditto).
Of course the games don't run any faster with extra video RAM. Why should it? There's a false analogy here with main RAM, which does tend to increase performance, but only because it reduces virtual memory thrashing. On a video card, there's no virtual memory to thrash. The purpose of that extra video ram is to allow game designers to create more detailed graphics. Existing games won't work any better, because they're not programmed to use this RAM. Future games will.
The iMac G4 had to be redesigned because the LCD display was a totally different shape.
So they threw out the whole pedestal computer concept just so they could use a new kind of LCD? You're making my case for me -- you're saying that Apple considered the pedestal concept a minor design feature. Once its novelty wore off, it was history.
Bored now. I enjoy a good debut -- but only with people who respond to what I actually say.
I shouldn't headshrink someone I haven't met -- but you sound like you're struggling to rationalize your own technological footdragging. Perhaps you should remember that I'm not the person you need to convince. You should be worrying about explaining to your boss why you insisted on hanging onto that obsolete system until it collapsed of its own weight.
It gets really old -- people keep arguing with the things they thought you were supposed to say, not the things you actually said. I admire the pedastal iMac, therefore I'm one of those Mac geeks who judge their toys by how cool they look.
Wrong. I'm one of the philistines who considers a computer just another appliance -- something you'd know if you taken any care reading my previous post. I admire the pedestal iMac for its usability and ergonomics. I could give it shit that it looks cute.
You're hiding behind a silly quibble over the definition of the word "legacy". Nobody calls an application that rolled out last year a "legacy application". There may be a gray area, but there is clearly a lot of crap out there that's "legacy" in the worst sense of the word. Software that doesn't generate or use the kind of data that fits modern workflows. Software that only runs on ancient platforms that you keep around for the sole purpose of running them. Software that requires constant attention by aging employees who aren't easily replaced.
Sure, you need to figure the cost of replacing your legacy systems -- but only as an offset against the cost of not replacing them. And most of all, you need to think of the future of your company, and put it ahead of your own professional inertia.
True, it doesn't swivel quite as much as it used to. But in practice, I never saw anybody move it forward-and-back much in normal usage. If you want to move it left or right, it's not hard to just turn the whole computer.
Forward/backward is not a big deal ergonomically. But up and down is. People complain a lot about eye strain -- that's why so many people shade their windows and minimize their overhead lighting. But one of the best -- and most neglected -- ways to minimize eyestrain is to position the monitor just below eye level. The pedestal iMac was ideal for that. To get the same effect with the current model, you have to get a VESA mount (clunky, ugly, expensive) or an adjustable desk (really expensive).
Anyway, whatever the merits of the current model, the pedestal model obviously worked better for some people. It wasn't abandoned because it was obsolete -- it was abandoned because it was passé.
Wall mounts are nice -- if want to spend $200 for an ugly VESA mount, and your desk is right next to a suitable wall. Monitor arms are also ugly and expensive, and are awkward to work with. Neither would work in my home office -- my desk wouldn't handle a monitor arm, and my landlord doesn't like me drilling holes.
I suppose VESA stuff suits some people -- but for most of us, a simple all-in-one system that doesn't use up a lot of desk space is much more practical.
The Slashdot headline is misleading (as usual). This is only incidentally about risk management. The real subject is, Legacy Applications -- and how you get rid of them before they bite you in the ass.
As the article says, a lot of resistance to upgrades comes from employees who know how to do things a certain way, and won't retool without much screaming and kicking. I suspect that this is often the problem, and other problems -- distractions like strikes and the Y2K bug, managment that doesn't pay sufficient attention to the problem -- are just just secondary.
Here's some personal experience that isn't nearly the same scale, but neatly illustrates what I mean. I once worked for a pubs department that delivered copy to printshops as raw Postscript. There was a push from management to upgrade to Acrobat-generated PDF. This should have been a no-brainer -- print shops hate dealing with raw Postscript, and the existing process relied on an ancient, unsupported printer driver that ran only on Windows 98. But the people who managed the process just totally balked, claiming that tight schedules left them no extra time to learn Acrobat. A lame excuse? Sure. But it took a new pubs manager, and escalation to the do-it-or-your-fired level, to get the chage made.
I think this kind of issue had a lot to do with the failure of IBM's famous plan to use Unix or Linux for all their internal bureaucratic needs. Too many people dug in their heels, claiming that they couldn't possibly retool their Windows-based workflow.
When you talk about this stuff, somebody always says, "If people can't get with the program, they should be fired!" Well, it often comes to that, as it almost did with the PDF issue. But you can't just abitrarily fire everybody who resists policy and process changes. It's expensive, there are legal ramifications -- and you risk destroying the very corporate infrastructure you're trying to save.
You follow the link to the Apple site and you see the embeded monitor iMac, which is now the only iMac available. It's a decent design, but not nearly as good as the pedestal iMac, which has to be the acme of system design that maximizes ergonomics and usability, while minimizing desk footprint.
But being a sound, usable design seems to be a minor concern for Apple's product strategy. The big selling point with all iMacs, starting with the original candy iMacs, is that they look cool. Once familiarity has blunted the coolness factor, an iMac design is discarded -- no matter how good it is.
Pretty sad. When the pedestal iMac came out, I rather hoped that competitors would imitate it. Not its overall appearance -- Apple is notoriously intolerant of that kind of imitation. But the more general idea of a pedestal computer. Alas, nobody did, and now even Apple has lost interest in the idea. It's all about branding these days, not usability. And though Apple's designers are the best, they only live to serve that purpose.
A programmatic juicer would be really impractical -- it would actually be more difficult to operate than a regular juicer. Not that an elaborate device that just mixes fruit juice is a model of practicality either. People who design stuff like that should be forced to watch Brazil over and over, until they grasp the concept that technology is not an end in itself!
I don't know launchd at all, but I don't think it'd be very hard to improve on cron. I've never had any trouble understanding it -- but I learned Unix back in the days when dealing with weird little config files with obscure syntax was part of the game. Given Apple's fetish for good user interfaces, I'd be amazed if they didn't take one look at cron and scream "No! Evil! Start over from scratch!"
When I worked the help desk at a company that sold shared hosting, helping people figure out what they'd done wrong with their crontabs was a regular chore.
Slashdot Mirror
We have stories about the Federal legal decisions almost every day. Yet Slashdotters (and worse, the Slashdot editors) manage to read all these stories without learning anything about how the courts work. Pretty pathetic.
So you're basically saying that the pedestal iMac was abandoned to provide extra processor power that would never be used -- but which adds a big coolness factor. You're really making my case for me.
Well, if the editors aren't capable of giving submissions a proper review, they're certainly not capable of giving the submitters an IQ test!
If you suspect a public terminal -- or any other computer you don't have admin access to -- has malware installed, then you should bloody well report your suspicions to somebody who can address the problem. And until your suspicions are addressed, the system is not a safe place to do sensitive work. Assuming that you can outsmart a keylogger is just plain silly.
In 1955, most people wouldn't have had any notion what "Broadband Internet Access" was. But if you could make them understand that it was a key technology of the 21st century, and that it would be more available in China than in the U.S....
An American would have reported you to the FBI for spreading commie propaganda. And a Chinese would have shaken his head at your obvious dementia. The U.S. has lost its edge, and this is another sign of it.
If you judge somebody by the amount of evil they could do, Google went beyond the pale some time ago, since they already have a lot of capability to spy on people. But it's usual to judge people the amount of evil they actually do. If Google implements a reasonable privacy policy, and sticks to it, they're off the hook.
The so-called 3GLs didn't get replaced by the so-called 4GLs, because the latter aren't superior languages in every respect -- they just do some things better. The most conspicuous area where 4GLs excel is database access. As a result, many people think 4GL means "database language", and apply it to 3GL languages like Delphi and Visual Basic that are widely used in database apps.
I guess the term "4GL" will be around forever, but it really isn't very useful. If you want to categorize languages in a meaningful way, use terms that describe how they actually work, like "imperative" (3GL, more or less) and "functional" (4GL, ditto).
Of course the games don't run any faster with extra video RAM. Why should it? There's a false analogy here with main RAM, which does tend to increase performance, but only because it reduces virtual memory thrashing. On a video card, there's no virtual memory to thrash. The purpose of that extra video ram is to allow game designers to create more detailed graphics. Existing games won't work any better, because they're not programmed to use this RAM. Future games will.
I think the editors are having some kind of contest to see who can write the most confusing and misleading headline!
... now if we can just do something about those endless "Ender" stories!
I shouldn't headshrink someone I haven't met -- but you sound like you're struggling to rationalize your own technological footdragging. Perhaps you should remember that I'm not the person you need to convince. You should be worrying about explaining to your boss why you insisted on hanging onto that obsolete system until it collapsed of its own weight.
Wrong. I'm one of the philistines who considers a computer just another appliance -- something you'd know if you taken any care reading my previous post. I admire the pedestal iMac for its usability and ergonomics. I could give it shit that it looks cute.
Sure, you need to figure the cost of replacing your legacy systems -- but only as an offset against the cost of not replacing them. And most of all, you need to think of the future of your company, and put it ahead of your own professional inertia.
Anyway, whatever the merits of the current model, the pedestal model obviously worked better for some people. It wasn't abandoned because it was obsolete -- it was abandoned because it was passé.
It's astonishing that anybody who's even heard of the Titanic can say something like that with a straight face.
I suppose VESA stuff suits some people -- but for most of us, a simple all-in-one system that doesn't use up a lot of desk space is much more practical.
As the article says, a lot of resistance to upgrades comes from employees who know how to do things a certain way, and won't retool without much screaming and kicking. I suspect that this is often the problem, and other problems -- distractions like strikes and the Y2K bug, managment that doesn't pay sufficient attention to the problem -- are just just secondary.
Here's some personal experience that isn't nearly the same scale, but neatly illustrates what I mean. I once worked for a pubs department that delivered copy to printshops as raw Postscript. There was a push from management to upgrade to Acrobat-generated PDF. This should have been a no-brainer -- print shops hate dealing with raw Postscript, and the existing process relied on an ancient, unsupported printer driver that ran only on Windows 98. But the people who managed the process just totally balked, claiming that tight schedules left them no extra time to learn Acrobat. A lame excuse? Sure. But it took a new pubs manager, and escalation to the do-it-or-your-fired level, to get the chage made.
I think this kind of issue had a lot to do with the failure of IBM's famous plan to use Unix or Linux for all their internal bureaucratic needs. Too many people dug in their heels, claiming that they couldn't possibly retool their Windows-based workflow.
When you talk about this stuff, somebody always says, "If people can't get with the program, they should be fired!" Well, it often comes to that, as it almost did with the PDF issue. But you can't just abitrarily fire everybody who resists policy and process changes. It's expensive, there are legal ramifications -- and you risk destroying the very corporate infrastructure you're trying to save.
But being a sound, usable design seems to be a minor concern for Apple's product strategy. The big selling point with all iMacs, starting with the original candy iMacs, is that they look cool. Once familiarity has blunted the coolness factor, an iMac design is discarded -- no matter how good it is.
Pretty sad. When the pedestal iMac came out, I rather hoped that competitors would imitate it. Not its overall appearance -- Apple is notoriously intolerant of that kind of imitation. But the more general idea of a pedestal computer. Alas, nobody did, and now even Apple has lost interest in the idea. It's all about branding these days, not usability. And though Apple's designers are the best, they only live to serve that purpose.
Nobody cares what kind of porn you're watching. In fact, we'd really rather not know!
A programmatic juicer would be really impractical -- it would actually be more difficult to operate than a regular juicer. Not that an elaborate device that just mixes fruit juice is a model of practicality either. People who design stuff like that should be forced to watch Brazil over and over, until they grasp the concept that technology is not an end in itself!
That "douglas fir" is a lot better disguised than any cell tower I've ever seen.
Mass Trekkicide is certainly worth considering. But booze and hookers? That only works on people capable of social interaction.
When I worked the help desk at a company that sold shared hosting, helping people figure out what they'd done wrong with their crontabs was a regular chore.