Don't say I didn't tell you so when IBM *SETTLES* with SCO so that it appears to korporate amerika as the only "legitimate" Linux source.
I urge Slashdotters to not be blinded by their idealism and realize that this is a corporate battle for shareholder interests. What's "right" has absolutely no fucking thing to do with this argument. None of the parties involved are motivated by "rightness"; they are motivated by profit.
Make sure if you support any effort to fight SCO that it's contingent on ** NO SETTLEMENT ** !!
Of course it's a dumb idea. It's all about turning your PC into a super-expensive air-freshener which requires you to spend more money over-and-over refilling the scent cartriges. Not unlike the inkjet cart mafia.
That notwithstanding, most people are dumb. Look at the crap that consumers waste money on. You wonder who comes up with these boneheaded ideas, but even more scary are the people that buy into them.
Interesting topic, though I would characterize Fast Company as the "Cosmo" of tech/business publications. I found some of the articles non-researched, ill-conceived and sophmoric. In one section Fast Company continues to propagate the myth that Al Gore claimed he 'invented the Internet'.
I was one of the folks who stood around scratching his head at the explosion of IPOs for "dot coms" that had no legs to stand on. Why the imposion occurred shouldn't have surprised anyone who was paying attention, but it played on many peoples' sense of greed at the expense of their common sense.
I was one of the people who was there in the early days with technology and services that were way ahead of their time. OTOH, I was one of those that didn't run out, sign up a bunch of pimply-faced MBAs for a management team and then rush to do an IPO. Today, my company is far from the largest, but we're very stable and have a solid client base. I don't have a personal helocopter, but I did get my small slice of the dot-com pie when I sold a domain I registered in 1994 for an insane amount of money. That was exciting and depressing at the same time. It wasn't what I ever imagined would be one of the big payoffs relative to what we were doing. I suspect there may have been at least a few other companies who really wanted to build an honest solid net-based business model, that were overshadowed by the parade of spineless, over-hyped dot-coms run by people who perhaps a month before were selling life insurance.
While we're arguing about this, I'd like to remind people that they might want to check if their mutual funds are any of the ones listed below - because you'll be taking a bath soon enough: My intreptation of the financial stats.
Top mutual funds with [bad] holdings of SCOX:
Bjurman, Barry Micro-Cap Growth Fund ING Inv Tr-Ing/Capital Guardian Small Cap Port Royce Technology Value Fund Oberweis Micro-Cap Portfolio
Top SCO institutional stock holders:
Capital Guardian Trust Company Royce & Associates, Inc. Integral Capital Management Vi, LLC Bjurman, Barry & Associates Empire Capital Partners LP Vanguard Group, Inc. (The)
In the two months, it appears two more large scale insider stock dumps have been perpetrated (in addition to the previous months HUGE insider stock dumps):
VP GASPARRO, LARRY 5,259 shares Director RAIMONDI, THOMAS P., JR. 11,841 shares (exercised option @$1.12/share - nice dump) $210,000 pocket change!
Most obnoxious co-conspirator to the stock scam: Deutsche Securities - issuing an analyst recommendation "buy" on SCOX - they are probably also helping to launder money that's feeding the SCO legal campaign I bet.
After listening to this work, I can't say that I'm terribly impressed. It's basically Jay-Z with some looped hooks from the White album stomping in and out of the rhymes, but many of the Beatles samples used are lame. It's a shame because the white album is loaded with great material that could be sampled but I don't see a whole lot of thought or care in this production.
The concept is clever. The execution seems mediocre though. There's not enough diversity in the loops per track. There are a few amusing spots, such as how Danger Mouse manages to make Jay-Z come off totally gay in "Change Clothes" with a sample from George Harrison's "Piggies".
If you're a Jay-Z fan and you like the beatles, you'll dig it. If you're a Beatles fan and you're not into Jay-Z or rap, save your bandwidth. If you're into creating or producing music, you can probably do better. Nonetheless, I think it's a worthwhile attempt.
You might want to check out Songramp. It's pretty much a haven for mediocre artists, but you can find some real diamonds in the rough on the site. They're pretty grass roots and there's lots of content on the site with no record labels or distribution companies to fuck things up.
Java cannot compare with C and C++, because it is simply so much easier to write applications in Java
I agree with the original poster. If you want an "easy" development environment, Java would be far from the first choice. The problem with Java is that unlike other languages such as C, Perl, Cobol, Fortran, Basic, it never had a niche that it was developed for. It's NOT nearly as portable as C with the proper libraries, and the proper libraries can turn even the most obtuse language into an easy development environment.
So what is Java used for? Mainly it's a PR vehicle for SUN IMO. Making it OS might actually find some developers out there who can turn it into something special, but right now, it's not something special. But what do I know... I've only been programming for 30 years on everything from basic web apps to commercial software to high-end mission-critical applications. I've NEVER had any application (except perhaps some client-side graphical eye-candy) really scream out to be coded in Java.
A good developer picks the best language for the job. The job usually dictates the language. One thing I notice about Java aficiandos is that it usually ends up being their primary (if not only) language and they're trying to squeeze it to work in a wide variety of environments where it really is not the best choice.
OMG.. That's hilarious... which makes me think that Amazon may have unwittingly become the "American Idol" of comedy writing. You post a really funny review of a book or album, and then the public votes on it and the funniest reviews make it to the top. Brilliant.
When you see a book with reviews of 1,1,2 and then a bunch of 5s with flowery, glowing-yet-ambiguous praise, it's pretty obvious they're shills. That's why I've always made it a practice to prioritize the most realistic reviews by clicking "yes" to "Did you find this review helpful?"
Beyond this, if you're going to write a review of your own book, the least you can do is register anonymously. That's too funny.
Once thing that annoys me about Amazon reviews is that they'll clear the slate for subsequent editions. I spent more than a month compiling notes on some Oracle manuals that really exposed their horribly-documented publications, and then they came out with a new edition that was more of the same crap, but Amazon obsoleted the reviews. I know sometimes new editions are really "new" but most of the time they're not. If there are reviews of previous editions of a book, they should be prominently featured on the latest edition review page.
Who wants to look at Windows' obviously bloated, hacked-together code in the first place? Are we not satisfied with the stability of our current OS projects that we might want to see what one of the world's worst development teams ever has come up with?
Yea, it might be enticing to check out the code to identify back doors and subversive code, but you don't need the source code to prove that.
This is about as exciting as finding out the original master tapes from Air Supply's Greatest Hits are making the rounds in Kazaa. OMFG!
What's next? Kevin Mitnick is caught showing his pierced belly button?
Remember all this stuff come election time. Remember which party *cough* republicans *cough* is primarily responsible for rolling back media regulations and allowing a few select mega-corporations to dominate the marketplace. Remember that when you look at your cable bill. Remember that when you look at the headers of the spam you're getting and see most of the domestic spam is coming from Comcast. I can't wait to see the looks on peoples' faces when they go on vacation to the Magic Kingdom and find out they can't get in because they didn't pay their cable bill. Then again, it would be convenient to have just one company that handles everything right?
One problem is that people are becoming more passive-aggressive and non-confrontational. Part of the whole corporate customer-support business model is based around making it as inconvenient as possible to seek help. Gone are the days when a support 800 number was available, much less obvious.
Admittedly, people are getting dumber and have shorter attention spans than ever, and the new customer support business model exploits that by making it very difficult to get help. Customers are treated with apathy and disrespect from the moment they make contact nowadays.
The only way to fight back is to FIGHT BACK.
I hate to say it, but every time I've not censored my opinion on an issue, I get things resolved.
Here are some suggestions:
1. Always ask for the person's name you're speaking with - immediately. This puts them on the defensive and makes them behave a little better.
2. In most cases, you should NEVER deal with tier-one support. Immediately ask to be "escalated" - the first tiers are morons whose main job is to make you feel guilty you called in the first place and get you off the line ASAP.
3. Still having problems? Contact the PRESIDENT of the company or the highest accessible executive. You will be AMAZED how quickly you can get a problem resolved. A friend of mine had a billing problem with a local ISP/telco. He sat outside the president's office -- until he came out and was forced to field my friend's issue. The President assigned a special assistant to my friend to deal with the problem and made it go away fast. I'm sure the President said to his assistant, "Do whatever you have to do, but I don't want to see these people again." - and it worked!
I also like to remind them that hell hath no fury like a pissed off customer, that you'll write letters, put up a web page, or other things. In the past, I got a $17,000 settlement against a company after I put up a web page addressing the problems I had. While some companies don't give a damn, others do, and in several circumstances I've made it clear that if they don't resolve my problem, I'll shout about it from the rooftops and it'll cost them a thousand times my loss in bad PR for them.
Speaking of problems, I recently got ripped off from a company called Big Impressions out of Arkansas. I highly recommend you avoid these sleazebags.
The reviewer makes an excellent point. Programming is a *means to an end*. People don't learn how to program just so they can say they program. To not put the art of learning programming into the context of real-world applications is counterproductive.
Then again, pardon me for being cynical, but this seems reflective of the new type of motivation we have these days behind people choosing vocations. People go to law school, not because they have any interest in law, but because they're under the impression they can make money if they're a lawyer. The bottom line is that if you get into any vocation without having any passion or interest, you'll never be any good at it.
This reminds me of the arguments over which programming language is best. It's moot. The application and environment should dictate which tools be used. Likewise, if you want to learn to program, and don't know for what platform or application you're interested, you're on the wrong track... figure that out before you buy any books.
Is all this NASA stuff really science? You people just don't get it.
Space is not the new frontier, creating new technology that can slice onions and potatoes into neat shapes, the ability to organize large quantities of neckties utilizing a single closet hanger, a hard taco wrapped inside a flour tortilla with ranch-flavored "Rio Grande Sauce", a chocolate-covered candy bar that will make you lose weight, a light beer "that doesn't taste like a light beer", now THAT'S science!
Why, why, why? Why do we insist on exploring the heavens when we have so many challenging frontiers upon us here in the real world?
I don't understand why any slashdotters would even be arguing this issue. Shouldn't it be obvious?
If the images we see DON'T have an influence on the way we think, there would be no billboards, or no commercials!
You don't think movies like "2 Fast 2 Furious" influence people? You don't think "Urban Cowboy" motivated a bunch of dweebs to wear cowboy hats, or "Saturday Night Fever" didn't help pump the disco dancing craze? You think those kids in columbine didn't imagine in their minds some video game scenario they'd been playing?
I remember the first time I played "Crusin' USA" on N64. It was a lot of fun. However, the next time I got in my own car, I found myself driving much faster and more reckless. All these images do have an influence. That doesn't mean we're all going to go out and bump somebody off the road or car jack an old lady, but to deny that video games and other imagery desensitize us to many things is foolish.
Slashdot Mirror
Stay away from free.fr at all cost.
I'm not going to make a joke about this... I'm not going to make a joke about this... I will not measure the viscosity of the irony therein... no way.
Don't say I didn't tell you so when IBM *SETTLES* with SCO so that it appears to korporate amerika as the only "legitimate" Linux source.
I urge Slashdotters to not be blinded by their idealism and realize that this is a corporate battle for shareholder interests. What's "right" has absolutely no fucking thing to do with this argument. None of the parties involved are motivated by "rightness"; they are motivated by profit.
Make sure if you support any effort to fight SCO that it's contingent on ** NO SETTLEMENT ** !!
Links to the company's SEC filings are here. Pretty illuminating.
Of course it's a dumb idea. It's all about turning your PC into a super-expensive air-freshener which requires you to spend more money over-and-over refilling the scent cartriges. Not unlike the inkjet cart mafia.
That notwithstanding, most people are dumb. Look at the crap that consumers waste money on. You wonder who comes up with these boneheaded ideas, but even more scary are the people that buy into them.
that's the revenue generated if the share options were sold at the current stock price
Obviously we're not paying Halliburton enough to feed them.
Interesting topic, though I would characterize Fast Company as the "Cosmo" of tech/business publications. I found some of the articles non-researched, ill-conceived and sophmoric. In one section Fast Company continues to propagate the myth that Al Gore claimed he 'invented the Internet'.
I was one of the folks who stood around scratching his head at the explosion of IPOs for "dot coms" that had no legs to stand on. Why the imposion occurred shouldn't have surprised anyone who was paying attention, but it played on many peoples' sense of greed at the expense of their common sense.
I was one of the people who was there in the early days with technology and services that were way ahead of their time. OTOH, I was one of those that didn't run out, sign up a bunch of pimply-faced MBAs for a management team and then rush to do an IPO. Today, my company is far from the largest, but we're very stable and have a solid client base. I don't have a personal helocopter, but I did get my small slice of the dot-com pie when I sold a domain I registered in 1994 for an insane amount of money. That was exciting and depressing at the same time. It wasn't what I ever imagined would be one of the big payoffs relative to what we were doing. I suspect there may have been at least a few other companies who really wanted to build an honest solid net-based business model, that were overshadowed by the parade of spineless, over-hyped dot-coms run by people who perhaps a month before were selling life insurance.
While we're arguing about this, I'd like to remind people that they might want to check if their mutual funds are any of the ones listed below - because you'll be taking a bath soon enough: My intreptation of the financial stats.
Top mutual funds with [bad] holdings of SCOX:
Bjurman, Barry Micro-Cap Growth Fund
ING Inv Tr-Ing/Capital Guardian Small Cap Port
Royce Technology Value Fund
Oberweis Micro-Cap Portfolio
Top SCO institutional stock holders:
Capital Guardian Trust Company
Royce & Associates, Inc.
Integral Capital Management Vi, LLC
Bjurman, Barry & Associates
Empire Capital Partners LP
Vanguard Group, Inc. (The)
In the two months, it appears two more large scale insider stock dumps have been perpetrated (in addition to the previous months HUGE insider stock dumps):
VP GASPARRO, LARRY 5,259 shares
Director RAIMONDI, THOMAS P., JR. 11,841 shares (exercised option @$1.12/share - nice dump) $210,000 pocket change!
Most obnoxious co-conspirator to the stock scam:
Deutsche Securities - issuing an analyst recommendation "buy" on SCOX - they are probably also helping to launder money that's feeding the SCO legal campaign I bet.
After listening to this work, I can't say that I'm terribly impressed. It's basically Jay-Z with some looped hooks from the White album stomping in and out of the rhymes, but many of the Beatles samples used are lame. It's a shame because the white album is loaded with great material that could be sampled but I don't see a whole lot of thought or care in this production.
The concept is clever. The execution seems mediocre though. There's not enough diversity in the loops per track. There are a few amusing spots, such as how Danger Mouse manages to make Jay-Z come off totally gay in "Change Clothes" with a sample from George Harrison's "Piggies".
If you're a Jay-Z fan and you like the beatles, you'll dig it. If you're a Beatles fan and you're not into Jay-Z or rap, save your bandwidth. If you're into creating or producing music, you can probably do better. Nonetheless, I think it's a worthwhile attempt.
You might want to check out Songramp. It's pretty much a haven for mediocre artists, but you can find some real diamonds in the rough on the site. They're pretty grass roots and there's lots of content on the site with no record labels or distribution companies to fuck things up.
Mixing Jay-Z with the White Album? How about ACDC's "Back in Black" with the White Album.. that would rock!
Java cannot compare with C and C++, because it is simply so much easier to write applications in Java
I agree with the original poster. If you want an "easy" development environment, Java would be far from the first choice. The problem with Java is that unlike other languages such as C, Perl, Cobol, Fortran, Basic, it never had a niche that it was developed for. It's NOT nearly as portable as C with the proper libraries, and the proper libraries can turn even the most obtuse language into an easy development environment.
So what is Java used for? Mainly it's a PR vehicle for SUN IMO. Making it OS might actually find some developers out there who can turn it into something special, but right now, it's not something special. But what do I know... I've only been programming for 30 years on everything from basic web apps to commercial software to high-end mission-critical applications. I've NEVER had any application (except perhaps some client-side graphical eye-candy) really scream out to be coded in Java.
A good developer picks the best language for the job. The job usually dictates the language. One thing I notice about Java aficiandos is that it usually ends up being their primary (if not only) language and they're trying to squeeze it to work in a wide variety of environments where it really is not the best choice.
OMG.. That's hilarious... which makes me think that Amazon may have unwittingly become the "American Idol" of comedy writing. You post a really funny review of a book or album, and then the public votes on it and the funniest reviews make it to the top. Brilliant.
When you see a book with reviews of 1,1,2 and then a bunch of 5s with flowery, glowing-yet-ambiguous praise, it's pretty obvious they're shills. That's why I've always made it a practice to prioritize the most realistic reviews by clicking "yes" to "Did you find this review helpful?"
Beyond this, if you're going to write a review of your own book, the least you can do is register anonymously. That's too funny.
Once thing that annoys me about Amazon reviews is that they'll clear the slate for subsequent editions. I spent more than a month compiling notes on some Oracle manuals that really exposed their horribly-documented publications, and then they came out with a new edition that was more of the same crap, but Amazon obsoleted the reviews. I know sometimes new editions are really "new" but most of the time they're not. If there are reviews of previous editions of a book, they should be prominently featured on the latest edition review page.
Ummm, I think you misspelled "Lucas"...
Is there a difference? They're both washed up directors who haven't made a good movie in almost 20 years.
Who wants to look at Windows' obviously bloated, hacked-together code in the first place? Are we not satisfied with the stability of our current OS projects that we might want to see what one of the world's worst development teams ever has come up with?
Yea, it might be enticing to check out the code to identify back doors and subversive code, but you don't need the source code to prove that.
This is about as exciting as finding out the original master tapes from Air Supply's Greatest Hits are making the rounds in Kazaa. OMFG!
What's next? Kevin Mitnick is caught showing his pierced belly button?
DO NOT LOOK AT THE CODE!
Am I the only who now can't get the Indiana Jones theme music out of my head?
Which reminds me.. ..maybe we can put an RFID tag on Spielberg and make sure he never goes near another movie camera again?
Finally an RFID implementation that would truly benefit mankind.
Remember all this stuff come election time. Remember which party *cough* republicans *cough* is primarily responsible for rolling back media regulations and allowing a few select mega-corporations to dominate the marketplace. Remember that when you look at your cable bill. Remember that when you look at the headers of the spam you're getting and see most of the domestic spam is coming from Comcast. I can't wait to see the looks on peoples' faces when they go on vacation to the Magic Kingdom and find out they can't get in because they didn't pay their cable bill. Then again, it would be convenient to have just one company that handles everything right?
I'm currently having problems with Outlook. Still think that'll work?
Well, you have a bigger problem is you're still using Outlook. Nobody can help you there. Have you tried praying?
One problem is that people are becoming more passive-aggressive and non-confrontational. Part of the whole corporate customer-support business model is based around making it as inconvenient as possible to seek help. Gone are the days when a support 800 number was available, much less obvious.
Admittedly, people are getting dumber and have shorter attention spans than ever, and the new customer support business model exploits that by making it very difficult to get help. Customers are treated with apathy and disrespect from the moment they make contact nowadays.
The only way to fight back is to FIGHT BACK.
I hate to say it, but every time I've not censored my opinion on an issue, I get things resolved.
Here are some suggestions:
1. Always ask for the person's name you're speaking with - immediately. This puts them on the defensive and makes them behave a little better.
2. In most cases, you should NEVER deal with tier-one support. Immediately ask to be "escalated" - the first tiers are morons whose main job is to make you feel guilty you called in the first place and get you off the line ASAP.
3. Still having problems? Contact the PRESIDENT of the company or the highest accessible executive. You will be AMAZED how quickly you can get a problem resolved. A friend of mine had a billing problem with a local ISP/telco. He sat outside the president's office -- until he came out and was forced to field my friend's issue. The President assigned a special assistant to my friend to deal with the problem and made it go away fast. I'm sure the President said to his assistant, "Do whatever you have to do, but I don't want to see these people again." - and it worked!
I also like to remind them that hell hath no fury like a pissed off customer, that you'll write letters, put up a web page, or other things. In the past, I got a $17,000 settlement against a company after I put up a web page addressing the problems I had. While some companies don't give a damn, others do, and in several circumstances I've made it clear that if they don't resolve my problem, I'll shout about it from the rooftops and it'll cost them a thousand times my loss in bad PR for them.
Speaking of problems, I recently got ripped off from a company called Big Impressions out of Arkansas. I highly recommend you avoid these sleazebags.
You were obviously too nice. If you let them know how frustrated you are, they'll credit your account $20.00.
The reviewer makes an excellent point. Programming is a *means to an end*. People don't learn how to program just so they can say they program. To not put the art of learning programming into the context of real-world applications is counterproductive.
Then again, pardon me for being cynical, but this seems reflective of the new type of motivation we have these days behind people choosing vocations. People go to law school, not because they have any interest in law, but because they're under the impression they can make money if they're a lawyer. The bottom line is that if you get into any vocation without having any passion or interest, you'll never be any good at it.
This reminds me of the arguments over which programming language is best. It's moot. The application and environment should dictate which tools be used. Likewise, if you want to learn to program, and don't know for what platform or application you're interested, you're on the wrong track... figure that out before you buy any books.
Is all this NASA stuff really science? You people just don't get it.
Space is not the new frontier, creating new technology that can slice onions and potatoes into neat shapes, the ability to organize large quantities of neckties utilizing a single closet hanger, a hard taco wrapped inside a flour tortilla with ranch-flavored "Rio Grande Sauce", a chocolate-covered candy bar that will make you lose weight, a light beer "that doesn't taste like a light beer", now THAT'S science!
Why, why, why? Why do we insist on exploring the heavens when we have so many challenging frontiers upon us here in the real world?
I don't understand why any slashdotters would even be arguing this issue. Shouldn't it be obvious?
If the images we see DON'T have an influence on the way we think, there would be no billboards, or no commercials!
You don't think movies like "2 Fast 2 Furious" influence people? You don't think "Urban Cowboy" motivated a bunch of dweebs to wear cowboy hats, or "Saturday Night Fever" didn't help pump the disco dancing craze? You think those kids in columbine didn't imagine in their minds some video game scenario they'd been playing?
I remember the first time I played "Crusin' USA" on N64. It was a lot of fun. However, the next time I got in my own car, I found myself driving much faster and more reckless. All these images do have an influence. That doesn't mean we're all going to go out and bump somebody off the road or car jack an old lady, but to deny that video games and other imagery desensitize us to many things is foolish.