Controlling wealth is NOT income. Since the CEO of General Electric controls the billions of dollars of assets of the company (directly or indirectly), you're saying he should be taxed on that? I don't think so.
So what if the top 1% control 38% of the wealth? That means that the bottom 99% control 62% of the wealth, doesn't it? Those numbers look FINE to me.
Before you start crying about fairness and the plight of the poor (BTW - I used to BE one of the poor. I fixed THAT), remember there is an implied incentive here: Accumulate wealth, pay less taxes. It worked for me.
...and on Americans who choose to riot or protest.
Rioting is NOT a right. It is a crime. Orderly protests are not surpressed. If they are, THAT is a crime. In this age of video cameras, the full record can be known.
Kent State Massacre? That's what you get when troops UNTRAINED in civil order measures are allowed to be used. No one gave an order to fire at Kent State. Confusion was the culprit - that's the real tragedy.
Who watches the watchers? NOBODY and EVERYBODY. There is enough media coverage in this country such that blatant, illegal acts of police on protestors will be broadcast nationwide on the six-o'clock news. The people and courts will have the final say in the end.
Imagine CAD programs teaching students to assemble processors, even multiple processor configurations.
The article says that transistors have already been created. Well from transistors, you can create receivers, transmitters, oscillators, flip-flop circuits, etc etc etc...
I can imagine uses for school classrooms, or even budding hardware hackers who now use those home kits you can get at radio shack and other places (I myself built a heathkit radio as a teenager).
Don't like the computer chip GM installed into your car? Well, make one yourself! How about a better microcontroller to monitor your power usage in your house? The possibilities and opportunities of development will skyrocket as people will be able to move development from dedicated labs to the privacy of their homes.
On the dark side, I can imagine all kinds of signal processing devices like cable TV decoders (yes, it's a "victimless" crime, but still illegal), encryption devices (for illegal purposes) and weapons control systems.
The printing press, when first developed, opened up fantastic opportunities, but also made it easier to steal intellectual property and disseminate false information. We have to use this new tool wisely...
Re:IS the traditional OS-sales business model dead
on
Endgame For SCO
·
· Score: 1
Win-32 a common OS architecture? Sounds like a troll. But in case you've spent most of your time in the MS Universe (which a LOT of people do), let's look at Windows (9X/NT, doesn't matter).
Does Windows run on Alpha, MIPS, PowerPC, M68k (to name a few processors)? The answer is NO. NT, in its early days, ran on Alpha, MIPS, PowerPC and x86. Currently, Microsoft has seen fit to restrict it to only the x86 platform. Linux not only runs on these processors, but it also runs on old M68k Macs, IBM Mainframes, embedded devices and even the Palm (an outfit in S Korea ported it recently). There are over 2 dozen distributions listed on linux.org that target multiple configurations.
Windows comes in ONE configuration only. Windows runs only on one processor. WinCE, or whatever it's called now, is not publicly distributed in any form and is restricted to Handhelds and a few other devices.
Windows may be on more people's desktop machines than any other OS, but that only denotes ONE use on ONE platform. By comparison, Linux has multiple uses on multiple platforms. That's what makes an OS architecture common.
Answer: Young people BECOME old farts!!! The flower children of the 60's became the stockbrokers of the 80's. This discussions rears its head every ten years - with the SAME outcome.
IS the traditional OS-sales business model dead?
on
Endgame For SCO
·
· Score: 5
A quote:Total revenue dropped by nearly 50% from Q3 1999 to Q3 2000, while sales of Tarantella and professional services have supposedly increased.
Linux really has introduced a new business model to computing. Almost overnight, without any warning, several different technology companies have chosen Linux or some other publicly available OS (think Mach kernel on MacOSX) to be their foundation for a variety of products. This begs the question: Can the concept of an Operating System now be considered to be that of a general-purpose, standardized factory part and not a specialized, proprietary addition to be sold separately for a premium price?
In the earliest days of personal computing the Altair (or S-100) bus was the rage because it allowed for a common set of peripherals to be constructed for PC's. That paved the way for the AT bus and the concept of a whole common PC architecture, which pretty much exists today. Because of this, the profit margins on PC's are small.
Shouldn't the next logical step be a common OS architecture? Traditionally, an OS was something on which you could make a huge profit. When you buy a copy of MS-Windows at the local computer store, what's the cost of the media and packaging compared to the price? Pretty small. Sure you can say that MS is trying to recover R&D, but seriously, most of that was probably recovered a LONG time ago. Besides, you're LUCKY if you get the media with a new computer these days. It's mostly profit. Now in walks Linux, the product of a Grad School student gone berserk. It's free, stable and encourages others to transport it to other platforms. Suddenly, the corporate powers-that-be realize that they no longer have to pay MS, SUN and SCO to get a good, general purpose OS. Furthermore, they themselves can add to the development of Linux, ensuring for themselves a common development platform thereby lowering their own proprietary development costs.
So these people stop buying OS's. SCO, which had called themselves "an undifferentiated solution with price as the selling point" dies first. Price IS a way of differentiating your product; Linux, on that front, apparently does it better than SCO (it's free). Linux has taken over the low to medium end in server computing. How long before it encroaches on the high end? The surviving Linux companies today differentiate themselves by offering different services to different markets. The Linux companies don't sell Linux the OS; they sell Linux solutions to people. John Zedlewski's article talks about SCO selling of Tarantella, even though it's making money for the company. I think SCO should realize that there's far less money to be made in the general purpose OS market than there used to be. The money right now is to be made in special-purpose server/middleware and other application software.
But what of Microsoft? Aren't they suffering? Not in the desktop market. Linux doesn't have a simple, relatively fool-proof desktop anyone can use - yet. Additionally, MS's monopoly power will generate cash for the forseeable future. The server market is another story. Most low-end boxes that run Linux are boxes that don't run NT/2000. Sales of NT/2000 may be good, but not as good as they can be. Furthermore, for the sophisticated user, Linux flexibility far outstrips NT/2000's. Shell scripting, background apps and stablility are 3 big advantages that immediately come to mind. With the coming breakup of Microsoft, I wonder if, in ten years, it will be viewed more of as a spin-off than a break-up. Windows currently contributes 1/2 of MS's revenues, but would this still be the case 10 years from now if no breakup were to occur? The break-up will hurt MS now, but certainly won't kill it. And without Windows to worry about, what's to stop it from pushing into the UNIX/Linux markets?
I realize that there are niche products/markets where a proprietary OS is the best solution. But for the general purpose market, is this the future?
A few quotes:"...At first, employers were wary of workers going on the Net. But they've learned to love and encourage it, since it keeps employees chained to their desks for longer hours." and:
The American Demographic report validates the suspicion that corporatist employers are taking advantage of new technologies and of workers' anxieties to demand longer hours and increased productivity -- the very things new technologies were supposed to liberate people from.
You can't have it both ways. If employers are encouraging workers to surf the net, then shouldn't they also want to be compensated for the time the employees aren't working? If my employer allows, let's say, an hour (apart from lunch) for me to surf to pay bills, order dinner, etc. shouldn't I be required to work that hour to make up for it? Time is, after all, money.
But there is a point were returns begin to diminish. When you work a person too hard, they begin to produce less. Continue to work them too hard and they'll just leave for a better pasture, especially if their skills are in high demand. Technical and professional people are probably the most able to protect themselves. They have transportable skills. I work for an IT company that goes out of its way to make its people comfortable. If the people I work with don't like it, they can (and do) just leave.
There are 2 types of people that work long hours: those "loyal" to the "company family" and those wanting to earn overtime. The first type usually burn out when they realize the motivational awards at the end of the quarter don't translate to cash ("OHMYGOD, I've been used!!!!"). The second type collect the money and search for ways to reduce the stress. They stop the overtime when they stop getting paid for it. Somehow they last longer and have more fun. Guess which group I belong to?
I'm of the mind that we create our own shackles. Life is too short to be jerked around on someone else's chain. If you want freedom, free yourself.
I would imagine that 90% percent of people out there have no idea what overclocking means. They flip a switch, the box lights up and they then proceed to happily pound away at the keyboard.
As a person with a fair amount of hardware experience, I personally have no interest in overclocking my equipment. Since I also buy equipment for the entity I work for, I certainly would like to be certain that the equipment I receive is what I paid for. In the overall picture of AMD vs Intel, this is probably just an issue of quality control. The last thing AMD needs is bad publicity. Their target market isn't overclockers.
This isn't to say that I don't respect the overclocking community. I DO feel that once you buy something, its YOURS to do with as you wish. In AMD's case, they feel it is better to repond to the needs of the many over the needs of a few.
you receive a letter from a lawyer, it doesn't mean that you are in fact violating the law. That's for a court of law to decide. The letter informs Mr. Meader that he has disclosed trade secrets. Well, did he actually have access to them in the first place? Did he sign a non-disclosure agreement? If not, isn't he only repeating opinion of some source? And if that's the case, does any opinion that anyone has constitute someone else's trade secret?
Sue the lawyer hasn't made plain just what laws are being violated. Mr. Meader's lawyer should have her clarify just what it is he's doing wrong.
We don't have to roll over and die just because a lawyer tells us to. It's for a court of law to decide.
from the article: "Say you get lousy service from Barnes & Noble and you criticize it in your favorite chatroom. Barnes & Noble, an eWatch customer, could -- if it wanted to -- monitor that complaint, identify who you are, and get B&N's public relations crew to send you an e-mail trying to change your mind."
I know of a lot of people who like to spend their time bitching to corporations just to get t-shirts, mugs, coupons and other free stuff. Let's face it: no company is going to pull an orwellian "re-education" on you. Most people are saturated with enough corporate marketing to ignore most of it. They all know that word of mouth is the best way to market their goods. After all do you trust a corporation or your REAL friends? Forget lawsuits. A person with a legitimate gripe will do more damage to a reputation by word of mouth than anything else.
Companies have a right to protect their basic interests against inflammatory speech. A frivolous lawsuit against someone with a paper trail could cost them millions. In a country where stupid people who spill coffee on themselves can make millions by suing the restaurants that sold them the coffee, it's the corporations that that should be scared. NOT US.
Let's assume that music distributed electronically by whatever means becomes so widespread that big labels will no longer be able to make money from them.
Does this mean the end of the big label?
Hell, no. TheTomcat is absolutely correct in stating that record labels act as screening agents and production and project managers. These activities give them access to the big media distribution centers (radio, TV, etc). Since they'll no longer be able to make money on CDs, their only other option lies in making money through their artists' personal likeness and popularity.
Case in point: How many products is Britney Speaks hawking? How many things have her name on it that someone receives a royalty for? Can she even give her autograph to anyone she wants? Don't scoff, some baseball players CAN'T. Today, professional sports players can make more money with product endorsements. Will the same be true of musicians? In a few years, will all the "popular" artists just be flashy caricatures with an 18 month product life cycle? Think how easy that will be to manage! Get a few good-looking boys from some backstreet neighborhoods (Hey, that's a great name, "Backstreet Boys"), tell them to sign on the dotted line and they will become famous - as an added bonus throw in $50,000 to sweeten the deal (more money than they're ever known). Now put them on the road, manage them, write songs for them and rake in the dough. As an added insurance policy, secretly train another group to take their place in case things don't work out and they decide their plans don't need to be in sync (hey, another great name, "In Sync") with yours. Now that's a cool business plan. I wonder if it would work????
If an artist wants to make millions of dollars, be prepared to sell out. There is no way to avoid it. Big money attracts more big money. Sure there might be some corporate interests that want to see you make big money, but only if they can too. Not to say anyone should starve, but I would think that an artist can better communicate his or her own ideas without having to look over his or her shoulder for the corporate censor.
Perhaps the internet will allow new styles and artists to flourish. There is a need for originality now more than ever before. New ideas mean new possibilities. I'm sure there's a place for individual music distribution right along side the big labels.
Generally, you don't need to worry about your computer at home. However, if you use broadband and leave the machine on, you are more vulnerable if only because a full-time connection is available.
Even this won't stop an administrator from installing software. Software can be installed by the network administrator using an administrative C$ share on the user's machine. With a little imagination, you can place a setup.exe or other executable in the person's startup folder to start or install ANYTHING YOU WANT then have it erase itself. The casual user will know NOTHING.
I used to do this when I needed to give people data files and programs that they needed. It was fun watching them react to how I could so easily "invade" their privacy. Some learned a lesson, on others it was lost, sadly.
Locking the desktop prevents people from using the keyboard. It does nothing to stop file sharing.
Shouldn't this be a moot point? Aren't foreign companies who do business in the US still subject to the same laws as everybody else?
This isn't a private, diplomatic communications channel that were talking about. This is a public access medium that must incorporate here, pay taxes here and issue financial statements according to US law.
Not to say that I trust the US Government to safeguard privacy, but this is ridiculous. If I were a terrorist bent on sending messages over the internet, there are any number of methods to encrypt these messages publicly available. Once more, it doesn't take much for a small group to gather the resources here to blow up, let's say, a federal building or other large structure.
Maybe the federal government should stick to building expensive ABM systems to ward off nuclear attacks from the dangerously technologically advanced 3rd world countries.
I do not believe the average American is an idiot. I believe people should be free.
Have you never worked closely with people? After working for 15 months at Sears behind the customer service desk, I made the following observations:
1. Most people have no concept of compound interest; a low monthly credit card payment means you got a "good deal."
2. A simple sales tax computation is beyond the grasp of a good number of people, including fresh high-school graduates.
People are idiots because they refuse to think. The brain, like a muscle, atropies when not used. Sure there ARE predators out there that are out to rip people off, but failing to read the fine print on a contract or not doing simple math is no excuse to cry injustice. There are certain survival skills that all of us have to follow, whether it be in the jungle or in the city. Failing to grasp the simpler skills makes you an easy target.
We can't live in an idiot proof society; idiots won't let us. Libertarianism is fine thing for people who stand up to take responsibility for their lives. Unfortunately, irresponsible people will see this as a license to commit even more irresponsible acts.
Until virtually everyone decides to practice critical thinking and responsible decision making, we WILL have to suffer fools.
From the Article: "I am happy to give someone Solaris source code and let them do whatever they want with it, if they don't use the name 'Solaris' when they are done," said Gadre. "
This sounds a lot like they want to protect their brand name more than anything else. That's understandable, given the time and money spent to create the brand name. However, managing the brand name means controlling closely the product and those who use the product. If means placing the product into certain niches and portraying it in a certain light. That's fine for a closed-source, proprietary product.
In order for open source Solaris to succeed, SUN has to be able to loosen the reins a bit and allow the community to take Solaris into places where the community feels it should go. SUN's marketing people may feel that Solaris should be used in a certain environment - they may even have research that shows this. However, I don't think Linus Torvalds could have forseen Linux on IBM mainframes, Macs or PDAS. The public took Linux in directions no single person or mega-corporation could ever dream of or plan for. Sure there are problems with some ports to obscure platforms, but on the whole, no one would say Linux is a failure. Linux, the open source product, provides people with OPTIONS. If I don't like Win/MS-DOS, MacOS or even Solaris, I can opt to use Linux, instead. If Solaris is going to be released to the public, SUN should expect it in computers housed in coffee-cans and pizza boxes. It should expect it both in a Mac and a mainframe.
Open source isn't a business - you can't make money off something you give away for free - it's a philosophy and for some people, a way of life. If SUN tries to understand open source from a business perspective, they'll only waste their time and come away more ignorant. SUN, if it really wants to release Solaris as open source, should require distributers to place their company names in front of it such that we'll see things as "SUN Solaris", "Red Hat Solaris" or "PPC Solaris" In that way we'll always be able to evaluate and distinguish between different releases.
Katz says that the US is the country least able to wield this technology without ever naming an alternative. I guess he's saying that places like Libya, Iran, Iraq and Somalia are better at dealing with the technical and ethical issues that this technology brings up. Take a reality check, Katz. There are far worse places on this planet than the US. Personally, I can't think of a more freer and open society in which to deal with and debate this most important issue.
Afraid of corporations controlling this? Reality check, again. Individuals put their hard earned money into them to take a chance that this might pay off. Bio-technology is one of the RISKIEST investments on the face of the planet. Lots of people will lose their shirts. A lucky few will actually make money off this. They will be entitled to it because of the risk they took to develop the technology. If you don't want corporations to develop it who better, the government? Do you really want underpaid bureaucrats guiding this? Of course, money would be no object; they could just use tax dollars. Never mind about results when when they're paid the same regardless of the outcome.
Don't bash the US until you can come up with something better. They day you can, I'll move there.
And what's wrong with having the perfect baby? You write: "we haven't even even begun to discuss the social, cultural and ethical consequences of eliminating certain diseases, traits, addictions and affictions... That's just total nonsense. Let's see, eliminate disease, addiction and affliction and we get... HAPPY PEOPLE!!! When a doctor prescribes a treatment for me for a disease or other affliction, I get HAPPY as a result of being well. Other people report to me similiar euphoria. I have NEVER heard of a person becoming depressed as a result of getting well, have you? This seems to be a very good ethical outcome. As far as the social and cultural outcomes, we already know that, too. The answer is OVERPOPULATION. In third world countries, population has skyrocketed due to better medicines being introduced over the past century. Since these cultures are used to having lots of children to offset infant mortality, better medicine has decreased infant mortality and also improved the lives of people still living. This has been a problem for a long time. We are all aware of it. The solution lies in those cultures changing with the times. Western society has changed (remember women's sufferage?) with the times; they can, too. Personally, I don't want a blind, deaf or retarded baby. I would like my child to be able to have the most opportunities available to it unhampered by any afflictions or disabilities. Life is tough enough economically and socially without physical barriers to deal with.
But what about "designer childen?" You write, "Parents with resources will inevitably seek to breed children who conform to particular notions of beauty, intelligence and desirability." I say let them. The more someone conforms, the less they innovate. People with superior resources have them because they take the paths LEAST followed. They are aggressive, imaginative and independent. Introducing traits of conformity results in a passive, dull and dependent person (if you doubt that, walk into any government office and observe the career people). Besides, if these parents all pick the "beautiful" traits, won't their kids all look alike, sound alike and act alike? What's beautiful about that? People with brains, tenacity and independance make it in the long run. Looks and test scores may get you in the door, but NOT up the stairs.
It would make much more sense. But since MS would want to make it simple and powerful for maximum adoptability, a BASIC (or FoxPro) syntax would be the most logical way to do this. Besides, if it doesn't work out, it can quietly disappear.
Lots of people have invested time and money into learning VB, Java and C++. Of the three, VB (in all flavors) is the easiest to learn. If a MS were going to introduce a new language, the BASIC syntax offers the smallest learning curve.
It took several years for VB and Java to evolve into the entities they are. When they were introduced, VB had the double advantage of an easy GUI IDE and syntactical familiarity, and Java had the advantage of widespread industry support. C#, in order to be adopted, needs something going for it. Today, easily navigable GUI IDEs are more common. The most recognizable syntax is BASIC. No one is going to back this thing outside the NT/2000 community; UNIX people are too well aware of alternatives to MS.
Given these contraints, is there any question where this must head?
The basic description sounds like they're trying to reinvent PHP.
From the PHP-FAQ:
Much of its syntax is borrowed from C, Java and Perl with a couple of unique PHP-specific features thrown in. The goal of the language is to allow web developers to write dynamically generated pages quickly.
While the CNET article doesn't mention Web scripting, where else does this "C#" go? VB and VC++ are used primarily for stand-alone apps, while MS only has VBScript and JScript. Do they want to establish a wholly new server scripting language? Considering that classical CGI is impractical on NT/2000, server-side scripting is the only niche they can exploit. Given the wealth of tools available in the UNIX/Linux world, it'll never be popular there.
In fact, I'll bet that this new "language" will resemble BASIC (or maybe even FoxPro) in syntax more that anything else. Maybe it'll use C++ and JAVA functions, but it'll never be called innovative by anyone familiar with the industry.
As far as being a JAVA killer, developers should not forget that being familiar with multiple platforms makes you a more valuable programmer. The Microsoft world is just one of many worlds in the UNIXverse (couldn't resist the pun). It'll be just one more thing the MCSE, MCD and other MS cult members will get certified in only to watch it fade away in a couple of years.
A few years ago I decided to try C++ as a programming language for Windows. Until that point, I had been using Visual Basic to develop in the windows environment (mostly database stuff). Because certain things in VB can only be done by accessing the WinAPI, I decided to investigate the possibility of using C++. Since VB and Visual C++ came from the same company, I thought, their IDEs were probably similiar. I had learned C++ in some college classes on a Solaris Box, so I wasn't too concerned with being overwhelmed.
Surprise. Surprise. The VC++ IDE was/is NOTHING like VB's. Windows development in VC++ was more primitive. You actually had to define the main window, create it and create the message loop for the program. In all, in order to bring up "Hello World" in a single window you needed several lines of code and about 30 minutes. Over the next few days, I learned a few other things, but was always astonished that it took so much to do so little. Needless to say, I looked to explore other options.
About this time, Borland released the trial version of C++ Builder. They said that it used the Delphi VCL and IDE. Since my current job at the university included a T3 connection to my computer, it took only a few minutes to download and install.>
For those of you who've never used C++ Builder, think Visual Basic IDE with C++ syntax. In was able to make that same "Hello World" app in 5 minutes, including compile time. This, I thought to myself, was what M$ should have done. Since that time, I've used C++ builder as much as I could. It's stable and does NOT MARRY ITSELF TO THE OPERATING SYSTEM like all other MS products. If Borland/Inprise ever developed a BASIC version of VCL, I would push my company to switch in a heartbeat.
Microsoft's products seem to exist to promote themselves, rather than to encourage the programmer. Their documentation in Visual Studio is almost total garbage. I find myself using 3rd party books and tools just so I won't have to deal with it. I've even used the HLP file on Visual Basic version 4 to look up syntax after a similiar MSDN query on Visual Studio kept giving me the wrong answer consistently.
Regarding programming tools and options for Linux, J++ Builder Foundation a very good tool to use to learn JAVA. Borland/Inprise has a very good history of designing IDEs/GUIs and that much is apparent. The only downside is the sheer size of the APP. You'll need 128MB RAM to run the thing without pounding your disk cache constantly. If you want a good, powerful text editor, use EMACS. If you want a good, simple text editor, use Pico. If you are doing web development and need a server side language, there is a Java plug-in for Apache called JServ. PHP is also a good language, I've recently discovered. Also check out shell scripting. Unlike DOS, The command interpreter in Linux is very sophisticated.
As a coding environment, Linux offers the best choices and widest variety. Once you start, the thought of going back to Windows will make you ill.
There's always a lot of talk about "improving" the human species. But what really would we want to change?
Let's look at intelligence. Most people tend to focus on that. Do we really want to blindly engineer people with IQs of 150? I've known a number of people who have had PhDs, yet also had the worst interpersonal skills I had ever encountered. One person I knew had a PhD in physics, yet chose to work in retail. A roommate of mine in college carried a 4.0 average in a 5 year mechanical engineering program, but had the personality of a rock and smelled like a goat. On the other hand, I've also known people who barely made it through school, but were the best organizers of people and events. Maybe there IS an inverse relationship between classical IQ and the ability to work in groups. Humanity has advanced though its ability to work in groups. Occasionally, a bright individual appears and influences the group, but this doesn't happen often. The history of civilization is more the story of newer groups standing on the shoulders of the older ones to build newer things. Within humanity, there are people who are best at organizing, there are people who are best at following and there are those who are best at working alone, needing no direction and offering none. These three personalities merge together to give us the humanity we are most familiar with. Humanity is not just a collection of individuals, it is a dynamic, supremely adaptable mass greater than the sum of its parts.
Are we still evolving? That depends on your point of view. Humanity has left the bush. It's less likely that odd populations will become so isolated as to allow genetic mutations to create new breeds or species of humans. Today's focus in genetics lies in curing diseases. Can we create a smarter person? Quite possibly. Can we force that newly created person to act intelligently? Quite probably NOT. Humans CHOOSE to act stupidly. That act of intelligent decision making requires WORK - and there are LOTS of lazy people.
When changing the genetic behavior of individuals, the group aspects must be considered.
That is a good point. The article's use of the word "flesh" brought back images of the Crayola Crayon color of flesh, namely the pinkish skin tone prevalent among caucasians, that I used to use in kindergarten.
Given the fact that there are many different skin tones in the world, how is it to distinguish? Are they so arrogant that they assume only images of blond-haired, blue-eyed people are being downloaded?
First, you have to buy the television. That costs you money directly.
Second, you have to pay for programming. Assuming you are using the "free" transmission consider that TV stations are staffed with engineers, technicians and administrators. They operate sophisticated receivers and transmitters. None of this is cheap or free. To operate, they sell advertising space to companies. Those companies then pass the cost of this advertising to the consumer (you), so, indirectly, you pay for programming.
Slashdot Mirror
Controlling wealth is NOT income. Since the CEO of General Electric controls the billions of dollars of assets of the company (directly or indirectly), you're saying he should be taxed on that? I don't think so.
So what if the top 1% control 38% of the wealth? That means that the bottom 99% control 62% of the wealth, doesn't it? Those numbers look FINE to me.
Before you start crying about fairness and the plight of the poor (BTW - I used to BE one of the poor. I fixed THAT), remember there is an implied incentive here: Accumulate wealth, pay less taxes. It worked for me.
...and on Americans who choose to riot or protest.
Rioting is NOT a right. It is a crime. Orderly protests are not surpressed. If they are, THAT is a crime. In this age of video cameras, the full record can be known.
Kent State Massacre? That's what you get when troops UNTRAINED in civil order measures are allowed to be used. No one gave an order to fire at Kent State. Confusion was the culprit - that's the real tragedy.
Who watches the watchers? NOBODY and EVERYBODY. There is enough media coverage in this country such that blatant, illegal acts of police on protestors will be broadcast nationwide on the six-o'clock news. The people and courts will have the final say in the end.
Imagine CAD programs teaching students to assemble processors, even multiple processor configurations.
The article says that transistors have already been created. Well from transistors, you can create receivers, transmitters, oscillators, flip-flop circuits, etc etc etc...
I can imagine uses for school classrooms, or even budding hardware hackers who now use those home kits you can get at radio shack and other places (I myself built a heathkit radio as a teenager).
Don't like the computer chip GM installed into your car? Well, make one yourself! How about a better microcontroller to monitor your power usage in your house? The possibilities and opportunities of development will skyrocket as people will be able to move development from dedicated labs to the privacy of their homes.
On the dark side, I can imagine all kinds of signal processing devices like cable TV decoders (yes, it's a "victimless" crime, but still illegal), encryption devices (for illegal purposes) and weapons control systems.
The printing press, when first developed, opened up fantastic opportunities, but also made it easier to steal intellectual property and disseminate false information. We have to use this new tool wisely...
Win-32 a common OS architecture? Sounds like a troll. But in case you've spent most of your time in the MS Universe (which a LOT of people do), let's look at Windows (9X/NT, doesn't matter).
Does Windows run on Alpha, MIPS, PowerPC, M68k (to name a few processors)? The answer is NO. NT, in its early days, ran on Alpha, MIPS, PowerPC and x86. Currently, Microsoft has seen fit to restrict it to only the x86 platform. Linux not only runs on these processors, but it also runs on old M68k Macs, IBM Mainframes, embedded devices and even the Palm (an outfit in S Korea ported it recently). There are over 2 dozen distributions listed on linux.org that target multiple configurations.
Windows comes in ONE configuration only. Windows runs only on one processor. WinCE, or whatever it's called now, is not publicly distributed in any form and is restricted to Handhelds and a few other devices.
Windows may be on more people's desktop machines than any other OS, but that only denotes ONE use on ONE platform. By comparison, Linux has multiple uses on multiple platforms. That's what makes an OS architecture common.
Answer: Young people BECOME old farts!!! The flower children of the 60's became the stockbrokers of the 80's. This discussions rears its head every ten years - with the SAME outcome.
A quote:Total revenue dropped by nearly 50% from Q3 1999 to Q3 2000, while sales of Tarantella and professional services have supposedly increased.
Linux really has introduced a new business model to computing. Almost overnight, without any warning, several different technology companies have chosen Linux or some other publicly available OS (think Mach kernel on MacOSX) to be their foundation for a variety of products. This begs the question: Can the concept of an Operating System now be considered to be that of a general-purpose, standardized factory part and not a specialized, proprietary addition to be sold separately for a premium price?
In the earliest days of personal computing the Altair (or S-100) bus was the rage because it allowed for a common set of peripherals to be constructed for PC's. That paved the way for the AT bus and the concept of a whole common PC architecture, which pretty much exists today. Because of this, the profit margins on PC's are small.
Shouldn't the next logical step be a common OS architecture? Traditionally, an OS was something on which you could make a huge profit. When you buy a copy of MS-Windows at the local computer store, what's the cost of the media and packaging compared to the price? Pretty small. Sure you can say that MS is trying to recover R&D, but seriously, most of that was probably recovered a LONG time ago. Besides, you're LUCKY if you get the media with a new computer these days. It's mostly profit. Now in walks Linux, the product of a Grad School student gone berserk. It's free, stable and encourages others to transport it to other platforms. Suddenly, the corporate powers-that-be realize that they no longer have to pay MS, SUN and SCO to get a good, general purpose OS. Furthermore, they themselves can add to the development of Linux, ensuring for themselves a common development platform thereby lowering their own proprietary development costs.
So these people stop buying OS's. SCO, which had called themselves "an undifferentiated solution with price as the selling point" dies first. Price IS a way of differentiating your product; Linux, on that front, apparently does it better than SCO (it's free). Linux has taken over the low to medium end in server computing. How long before it encroaches on the high end? The surviving Linux companies today differentiate themselves by offering different services to different markets. The Linux companies don't sell Linux the OS; they sell Linux solutions to people. John Zedlewski's article talks about SCO selling of Tarantella, even though it's making money for the company. I think SCO should realize that there's far less money to be made in the general purpose OS market than there used to be. The money right now is to be made in special-purpose server/middleware and other application software.
But what of Microsoft? Aren't they suffering? Not in the desktop market. Linux doesn't have a simple, relatively fool-proof desktop anyone can use - yet. Additionally, MS's monopoly power will generate cash for the forseeable future. The server market is another story. Most low-end boxes that run Linux are boxes that don't run NT/2000. Sales of NT/2000 may be good, but not as good as they can be. Furthermore, for the sophisticated user, Linux flexibility far outstrips NT/2000's. Shell scripting, background apps and stablility are 3 big advantages that immediately come to mind. With the coming breakup of Microsoft, I wonder if, in ten years, it will be viewed more of as a spin-off than a break-up. Windows currently contributes 1/2 of MS's revenues, but would this still be the case 10 years from now if no breakup were to occur? The break-up will hurt MS now, but certainly won't kill it. And without Windows to worry about, what's to stop it from pushing into the UNIX/Linux markets?
I realize that there are niche products/markets where a proprietary OS is the best solution. But for the general purpose market, is this the future?
A few quotes:"...At first, employers were wary of workers going on the Net. But they've learned to love and encourage it, since it keeps employees chained to their desks for longer hours." and :
The American Demographic report validates the suspicion that corporatist employers are taking advantage of new technologies and of workers' anxieties to demand longer hours and increased productivity -- the very things new technologies were supposed to liberate people from.
You can't have it both ways. If employers are encouraging workers to surf the net, then shouldn't they also want to be compensated for the time the employees aren't working? If my employer allows, let's say, an hour (apart from lunch) for me to surf to pay bills, order dinner, etc. shouldn't I be required to work that hour to make up for it? Time is, after all, money.
But there is a point were returns begin to diminish. When you work a person too hard, they begin to produce less. Continue to work them too hard and they'll just leave for a better pasture, especially if their skills are in high demand. Technical and professional people are probably the most able to protect themselves. They have transportable skills. I work for an IT company that goes out of its way to make its people comfortable. If the people I work with don't like it, they can (and do) just leave.
There are 2 types of people that work long hours: those "loyal" to the "company family" and those wanting to earn overtime. The first type usually burn out when they realize the motivational awards at the end of the quarter don't translate to cash ("OHMYGOD, I've been used!!!!"). The second type collect the money and search for ways to reduce the stress. They stop the overtime when they stop getting paid for it. Somehow they last longer and have more fun. Guess which group I belong to?
I'm of the mind that we create our own shackles. Life is too short to be jerked around on someone else's chain. If you want freedom, free yourself.
I would imagine that 90% percent of people out there have no idea what overclocking means. They flip a switch, the box lights up and they then proceed to happily pound away at the keyboard.
As a person with a fair amount of hardware experience, I personally have no interest in overclocking my equipment. Since I also buy equipment for the entity I work for, I certainly would like to be certain that the equipment I receive is what I paid for. In the overall picture of AMD vs Intel, this is probably just an issue of quality control. The last thing AMD needs is bad publicity. Their target market isn't overclockers.
This isn't to say that I don't respect the overclocking community. I DO feel that once you buy something, its YOURS to do with as you wish. In AMD's case, they feel it is better to repond to the needs of the many over the needs of a few.
you receive a letter from a lawyer, it doesn't mean that you are in fact violating the law. That's for a court of law to decide. The letter informs Mr. Meader that he has disclosed trade secrets. Well, did he actually have access to them in the first place? Did he sign a non-disclosure agreement? If not, isn't he only repeating opinion of some source? And if that's the case, does any opinion that anyone has constitute someone else's trade secret?
Sue the lawyer hasn't made plain just what laws are being violated. Mr. Meader's lawyer should have her clarify just what it is he's doing wrong.
We don't have to roll over and die just because a lawyer tells us to. It's for a court of law to decide.
from the article: "Say you get lousy service from Barnes & Noble and you criticize it in your favorite chatroom. Barnes & Noble, an eWatch customer, could -- if it wanted to -- monitor that complaint, identify who you are, and get B&N's public relations crew to send you an e-mail trying to change your mind."
I know of a lot of people who like to spend their time bitching to corporations just to get t-shirts, mugs, coupons and other free stuff. Let's face it: no company is going to pull an orwellian "re-education" on you. Most people are saturated with enough corporate marketing to ignore most of it. They all know that word of mouth is the best way to market their goods. After all do you trust a corporation or your REAL friends? Forget lawsuits. A person with a legitimate gripe will do more damage to a reputation by word of mouth than anything else.
Companies have a right to protect their basic interests against inflammatory speech. A frivolous lawsuit against someone with a paper trail could cost them millions. In a country where stupid people who spill coffee on themselves can make millions by suing the restaurants that sold them the coffee, it's the corporations that that should be scared. NOT US.
Let's assume that music distributed electronically by whatever means becomes so widespread that big labels will no longer be able to make money from them.
Does this mean the end of the big label?
Hell, no. TheTomcat is absolutely correct in stating that record labels act as screening agents and production and project managers. These activities give them access to the big media distribution centers (radio, TV, etc). Since they'll no longer be able to make money on CDs, their only other option lies in making money through their artists' personal likeness and popularity.
Case in point: How many products is Britney Speaks hawking? How many things have her name on it that someone receives a royalty for? Can she even give her autograph to anyone she wants? Don't scoff, some baseball players CAN'T. Today, professional sports players can make more money with product endorsements. Will the same be true of musicians? In a few years, will all the "popular" artists just be flashy caricatures with an 18 month product life cycle? Think how easy that will be to manage! Get a few good-looking boys from some backstreet neighborhoods (Hey, that's a great name, "Backstreet Boys"), tell them to sign on the dotted line and they will become famous - as an added bonus throw in $50,000 to sweeten the deal (more money than they're ever known). Now put them on the road, manage them, write songs for them and rake in the dough. As an added insurance policy, secretly train another group to take their place in case things don't work out and they decide their plans don't need to be in sync (hey, another great name, "In Sync") with yours. Now that's a cool business plan. I wonder if it would work????
If an artist wants to make millions of dollars, be prepared to sell out. There is no way to avoid it. Big money attracts more big money. Sure there might be some corporate interests that want to see you make big money, but only if they can too. Not to say anyone should starve, but I would think that an artist can better communicate his or her own ideas without having to look over his or her shoulder for the corporate censor.
Perhaps the internet will allow new styles and artists to flourish. There is a need for originality now more than ever before. New ideas mean new possibilities. I'm sure there's a place for individual music distribution right along side the big labels.
Generally, you don't need to worry about your computer at home. However, if you use broadband and leave the machine on, you are more vulnerable if only because a full-time connection is available.
Even this won't stop an administrator from installing software. Software can be installed by the network administrator using an administrative C$ share on the user's machine. With a little imagination, you can place a setup.exe or other executable in the person's startup folder to start or install ANYTHING YOU WANT then have it erase itself. The casual user will know NOTHING.
I used to do this when I needed to give people data files and programs that they needed. It was fun watching them react to how I could so easily "invade" their privacy. Some learned a lesson, on others it was lost, sadly.
Locking the desktop prevents people from using the keyboard. It does nothing to stop file sharing.
Shouldn't this be a moot point? Aren't foreign companies who do business in the US still subject to the same laws as everybody else?
This isn't a private, diplomatic communications channel that were talking about. This is a public access medium that must incorporate here, pay taxes here and issue financial statements according to US law.
Not to say that I trust the US Government to safeguard privacy, but this is ridiculous. If I were a terrorist bent on sending messages over the internet, there are any number of methods to encrypt these messages publicly available. Once more, it doesn't take much for a small group to gather the resources here to blow up, let's say, a federal building or other large structure.
Maybe the federal government should stick to building expensive ABM systems to ward off nuclear attacks from the dangerously technologically advanced 3rd world countries.
I do not believe the average American is an idiot. I believe people should be free.
Have you never worked closely with people? After working for 15 months at Sears behind the customer service desk, I made the following observations:
1. Most people have no concept of compound interest; a low monthly credit card payment means you got a "good deal."
2. A simple sales tax computation is beyond the grasp of a good number of people, including fresh high-school graduates.
People are idiots because they refuse to think. The brain, like a muscle, atropies when not used. Sure there ARE predators out there that are out to rip people off, but failing to read the fine print on a contract or not doing simple math is no excuse to cry injustice. There are certain survival skills that all of us have to follow, whether it be in the jungle or in the city. Failing to grasp the simpler skills makes you an easy target.
We can't live in an idiot proof society; idiots won't let us. Libertarianism is fine thing for people who stand up to take responsibility for their lives. Unfortunately, irresponsible people will see this as a license to commit even more irresponsible acts.
Until virtually everyone decides to practice critical thinking and responsible decision making, we WILL have to suffer fools.
From the Article: "I am happy to give someone Solaris source code and let them do whatever they want with it, if they don't use the name 'Solaris' when they are done," said Gadre. "
This sounds a lot like they want to protect their brand name more than anything else. That's understandable, given the time and money spent to create the brand name. However, managing the brand name means controlling closely the product and those who use the product. If means placing the product into certain niches and portraying it in a certain light. That's fine for a closed-source, proprietary product.
In order for open source Solaris to succeed, SUN has to be able to loosen the reins a bit and allow the community to take Solaris into places where the community feels it should go. SUN's marketing people may feel that Solaris should be used in a certain environment - they may even have research that shows this. However, I don't think Linus Torvalds could have forseen Linux on IBM mainframes, Macs or PDAS. The public took Linux in directions no single person or mega-corporation could ever dream of or plan for. Sure there are problems with some ports to obscure platforms, but on the whole, no one would say Linux is a failure. Linux, the open source product, provides people with OPTIONS. If I don't like Win/MS-DOS, MacOS or even Solaris, I can opt to use Linux, instead. If Solaris is going to be released to the public, SUN should expect it in computers housed in coffee-cans and pizza boxes. It should expect it both in a Mac and a mainframe.
Open source isn't a business - you can't make money off something you give away for free - it's a philosophy and for some people, a way of life. If SUN tries to understand open source from a business perspective, they'll only waste their time and come away more ignorant. SUN, if it really wants to release Solaris as open source, should require distributers to place their company names in front of it such that we'll see things as "SUN Solaris", "Red Hat Solaris" or "PPC Solaris" In that way we'll always be able to evaluate and distinguish between different releases.
Katz says that the US is the country least able to wield this technology without ever naming an alternative. I guess he's saying that places like Libya, Iran, Iraq and Somalia are better at dealing with the technical and ethical issues that this technology brings up. Take a reality check, Katz. There are far worse places on this planet than the US. Personally, I can't think of a more freer and open society in which to deal with and debate this most important issue.
Afraid of corporations controlling this? Reality check, again. Individuals put their hard earned money into them to take a chance that this might pay off. Bio-technology is one of the RISKIEST investments on the face of the planet. Lots of people will lose their shirts. A lucky few will actually make money off this. They will be entitled to it because of the risk they took to develop the technology. If you don't want corporations to develop it who better, the government? Do you really want underpaid bureaucrats guiding this? Of course, money would be no object; they could just use tax dollars. Never mind about results when when they're paid the same regardless of the outcome.
Don't bash the US until you can come up with something better. They day you can, I'll move there.
And what's wrong with having the perfect baby? You write: "we haven't even even begun to discuss the social, cultural and ethical consequences of eliminating certain diseases, traits, addictions and affictions... That's just total nonsense. Let's see, eliminate disease, addiction and affliction and we get... HAPPY PEOPLE!!! When a doctor prescribes a treatment for me for a disease or other affliction, I get HAPPY as a result of being well. Other people report to me similiar euphoria. I have NEVER heard of a person becoming depressed as a result of getting well, have you? This seems to be a very good ethical outcome. As far as the social and cultural outcomes, we already know that, too. The answer is OVERPOPULATION. In third world countries, population has skyrocketed due to better medicines being introduced over the past century. Since these cultures are used to having lots of children to offset infant mortality, better medicine has decreased infant mortality and also improved the lives of people still living. This has been a problem for a long time. We are all aware of it. The solution lies in those cultures changing with the times. Western society has changed (remember women's sufferage?) with the times; they can, too. Personally, I don't want a blind, deaf or retarded baby. I would like my child to be able to have the most opportunities available to it unhampered by any afflictions or disabilities. Life is tough enough economically and socially without physical barriers to deal with.
But what about "designer childen?" You write, "Parents with resources will inevitably seek to breed children who conform to particular notions of beauty, intelligence and desirability." I say let them. The more someone conforms, the less they innovate. People with superior resources have them because they take the paths LEAST followed. They are aggressive, imaginative and independent. Introducing traits of conformity results in a passive, dull and dependent person (if you doubt that, walk into any government office and observe the career people). Besides, if these parents all pick the "beautiful" traits, won't their kids all look alike, sound alike and act alike? What's beautiful about that? People with brains, tenacity and independance make it in the long run. Looks and test scores may get you in the door, but NOT up the stairs.
"PHP is rather like ASP, though. I think this is an attempt to step up the maturity of ASP into a "real language"."
I can agree with that. It reminds me of the OLE's progression into ActiveX (or whatever it's called now) via a myriad of different names.
It would make much more sense. But since MS would want to make it simple and powerful for maximum adoptability, a BASIC (or FoxPro) syntax would be the most logical way to do this. Besides, if it doesn't work out, it can quietly disappear.
Lots of people have invested time and money into learning VB, Java and C++. Of the three, VB (in all flavors) is the easiest to learn. If a MS were going to introduce a new language, the BASIC syntax offers the smallest learning curve.
It took several years for VB and Java to evolve into the entities they are. When they were introduced, VB had the double advantage of an easy GUI IDE and syntactical familiarity, and Java had the advantage of widespread industry support. C#, in order to be adopted, needs something going for it. Today, easily navigable GUI IDEs are more common. The most recognizable syntax is BASIC. No one is going to back this thing outside the NT/2000 community; UNIX people are too well aware of alternatives to MS.
Given these contraints, is there any question where this must head?
The basic description sounds like they're trying to reinvent PHP.
From the PHP-FAQ:
Much of its syntax is borrowed from C, Java and Perl with a couple of unique PHP-specific features thrown in. The goal of the language is to allow web developers to write dynamically generated pages quickly.
While the CNET article doesn't mention Web scripting, where else does this "C#" go? VB and VC++ are used primarily for stand-alone apps, while MS only has VBScript and JScript. Do they want to establish a wholly new server scripting language? Considering that classical CGI is impractical on NT/2000, server-side scripting is the only niche they can exploit. Given the wealth of tools available in the UNIX/Linux world, it'll never be popular there.
In fact, I'll bet that this new "language" will resemble BASIC (or maybe even FoxPro) in syntax more that anything else. Maybe it'll use C++ and JAVA functions, but it'll never be called innovative by anyone familiar with the industry.
As far as being a JAVA killer, developers should not forget that being familiar with multiple platforms makes you a more valuable programmer. The Microsoft world is just one of many worlds in the UNIXverse (couldn't resist the pun). It'll be just one more thing the MCSE, MCD and other MS cult members will get certified in only to watch it fade away in a couple of years.
A few years ago I decided to try C++ as a programming language for Windows. Until that point, I had been using Visual Basic to develop in the windows environment (mostly database stuff). Because certain things in VB can only be done by accessing the WinAPI, I decided to investigate the possibility of using C++. Since VB and Visual C++ came from the same company, I thought, their IDEs were probably similiar. I had learned C++ in some college classes on a Solaris Box, so I wasn't too concerned with being overwhelmed.
Surprise. Surprise. The VC++ IDE was/is NOTHING like VB's. Windows development in VC++ was more primitive. You actually had to define the main window, create it and create the message loop for the program. In all, in order to bring up "Hello World" in a single window you needed several lines of code and about 30 minutes. Over the next few days, I learned a few other things, but was always astonished that it took so much to do so little. Needless to say, I looked to explore other options.
About this time, Borland released the trial version of C++ Builder. They said that it used the Delphi VCL and IDE. Since my current job at the university included a T3 connection to my computer, it took only a few minutes to download and install.>
For those of you who've never used C++ Builder, think Visual Basic IDE with C++ syntax. In was able to make that same "Hello World" app in 5 minutes, including compile time. This, I thought to myself, was what M$ should have done. Since that time, I've used C++ builder as much as I could. It's stable and does NOT MARRY ITSELF TO THE OPERATING SYSTEM like all other MS products. If Borland/Inprise ever developed a BASIC version of VCL, I would push my company to switch in a heartbeat.
Microsoft's products seem to exist to promote themselves, rather than to encourage the programmer. Their documentation in Visual Studio is almost total garbage. I find myself using 3rd party books and tools just so I won't have to deal with it. I've even used the HLP file on Visual Basic version 4 to look up syntax after a similiar MSDN query on Visual Studio kept giving me the wrong answer consistently.
Regarding programming tools and options for Linux, J++ Builder Foundation a very good tool to use to learn JAVA. Borland/Inprise has a very good history of designing IDEs/GUIs and that much is apparent. The only downside is the sheer size of the APP. You'll need 128MB RAM to run the thing without pounding your disk cache constantly. If you want a good, powerful text editor, use EMACS. If you want a good, simple text editor, use Pico. If you are doing web development and need a server side language, there is a Java plug-in for Apache called JServ. PHP is also a good language, I've recently discovered. Also check out shell scripting. Unlike DOS, The command interpreter in Linux is very sophisticated.
As a coding environment, Linux offers the best choices and widest variety. Once you start, the thought of going back to Windows will make you ill.
There's always a lot of talk about "improving" the human species. But what really would we want to change?
Let's look at intelligence. Most people tend to focus on that. Do we really want to blindly engineer people with IQs of 150? I've known a number of people who have had PhDs, yet also had the worst interpersonal skills I had ever encountered. One person I knew had a PhD in physics, yet chose to work in retail. A roommate of mine in college carried a 4.0 average in a 5 year mechanical engineering program, but had the personality of a rock and smelled like a goat. On the other hand, I've also known people who barely made it through school, but were the best organizers of people and events. Maybe there IS an inverse relationship between classical IQ and the ability to work in groups. Humanity has advanced though its ability to work in groups. Occasionally, a bright individual appears and influences the group, but this doesn't happen often. The history of civilization is more the story of newer groups standing on the shoulders of the older ones to build newer things. Within humanity, there are people who are best at organizing, there are people who are best at following and there are those who are best at working alone, needing no direction and offering none. These three personalities merge together to give us the humanity we are most familiar with. Humanity is not just a collection of individuals, it is a dynamic, supremely adaptable mass greater than the sum of its parts.
Are we still evolving? That depends on your point of view. Humanity has left the bush. It's less likely that odd populations will become so isolated as to allow genetic mutations to create new breeds or species of humans. Today's focus in genetics lies in curing diseases. Can we create a smarter person? Quite possibly. Can we force that newly created person to act intelligently? Quite probably NOT. Humans CHOOSE to act stupidly. That act of intelligent decision making requires WORK - and there are LOTS of lazy people.
When changing the genetic behavior of individuals, the group aspects must be considered.
That is a good point. The article's use of the word "flesh" brought back images of the Crayola Crayon color of flesh, namely the pinkish skin tone prevalent among caucasians, that I used to use in kindergarten.
Given the fact that there are many different skin tones in the world, how is it to distinguish? Are they so arrogant that they assume only images of blond-haired, blue-eyed people are being downloaded?
Television isn't free.
First, you have to buy the television. That costs you money directly.
Second, you have to pay for programming. Assuming you are using the "free" transmission consider that TV stations are staffed with engineers, technicians and administrators. They operate sophisticated receivers and transmitters. None of this is cheap or free. To operate, they sell advertising space to companies. Those companies then pass the cost of this advertising to the consumer (you), so, indirectly, you pay for programming.
What's free about it?
True.. But I suspect that there is a strong correlation between the two.