I think it means that the box is now inside-out, and that anybody who talks about thinking outside the box is actually talking inside the box, because "outside the box" has becoms PHBSpeak. Therfore, if you are inside the box, then you are thinking outside the box, which puts you back inside the box, and the box must just be inside out at that point because my head just exploded too.
Can't we all just sit on top of the box, or is that still thinking inside the box?
According to Taylor, businesses that tried out Linux or other open-source tools are now realizing that they are putting in more investment into the technology than they had initially thought.
Notice he did not say more investment into the technology than Linux.
But I think now, two to three years into this, we're seeing these issues around cost and reliability coming up such that, we now know we need to go back to the basics on how we evaluate a platform and choose it.
Is he talking about their customers, or Microsoft?
We continue to run our lab where we analyze and look at open-source software to understand and ensure we're still building the right things from a short-term or long-term basis.
Read: If there is some code in Linux that we can use in Windows to make it more competitive, we'll use it.
...customers who have been using Linux or an open-source technology in the last three to four years and had gone into this thinking they're going to save money but they actually applied more people to the challenge than they initially thought.
Apples and oranges: Save money applied more people? Yes, people cost money, but in my experience, there is usually a higher ratio of servers to admins for Windows than Linux. Did these customers use their Windows admins for the Linux boxes?
The systems were running fine until the company had a huge spike in traffic, and there were all kinds of downtime issues. So they did the upgrades, added a few servers, some hardware, some memory and new technologies around the Web site to do more customer relationship database tracking. It was all very complex, and some of the seams of the Linux architecture were beginning to show.
Scratch the word "Linux," since this statement can be applied to any architecture using any OS (Win, HP-UX, Solaris, etc...)
You can build it, design it, and it will work great. The trouble begins when you want to add things to it, add some services and things like that. Because of the brittle nature of the platform, when you do that, other things break. We see that in the labs all the time, and our customers see that as well. So that has a (total) cost of ownership impact on it.
As so many other people have pointed out, this happens with Windows too. I think the big difference here, though, is that an application issue on Linux does not hose the entire OS, whereas on Windows, there is that possibility.
It is also more of a commercial discussion now.
Yes, this whole interview is nothing more than a Microsoft commercial
So we're not an open-source company... we have projects available today that make Microsoft technology open source.
Huh?
When you license technology as a consumer or business, you should be comfortable that you're protected from patent (or) copyright...claims from anyone. That should be a core fundamental principle of licensing software.
Is he aware that SCO lost the lawsuit?
So if I'm an ISV (independent software vendor), I should be able to take the technology that I've licensed, build something on top of it, and sell it.
Hmmmm... sounds kinda like what Apple's doing with BSD.
So this ability to patent your technology and have some level of protection against it, and in the course be able to build on top of that and innovate on top of that, is exciting.
Software patents are exciting for them, I'm sure. Other than that, I have no clue what he means
From a software perspective, we don't think the patent system is perfect. We had put forward some recommended restructuring to patent laws in the United States
Oh yes, more money changing hands in Washington to benefit the "legal" person.
We have a feature called Configure Your Server Wizard, which allows you to go in and choose a server role so you can take a file server and (reb
You (or MS, in this case) can say anything about anything, break out some 'study' or statistics, have some people spread the BS, and there will be a great many people who take it at face value without question.
Unless you are trying to get a Top Secret clearance (which is required for about 80% of the jobs where I live). Then, they take everything into consideration, including arrests (with no conviction). Hell, they even interview your first grade teacher.
I am male, but not a Pro-Lifer. To me, this whole debate boils down to basic human rights. I, for one, do not and will not welcome or support any government that is attempting to tell me what to do with my body or mind. Period. It is not the business of some politician, who is likely to be completely unaware of an individual's personal situation, to determine what anybody does with their own bodies and minds. This also includes euthanasia, and the use of drugs (but these are OT and for another day).
What I cannot understand is the "logic" of some who believe that invading a sovereign nation and terminating thousands or millions of living, breathing people in the name of "democracy" is ok, but terminating one embryo that may or may not be considered a person is not ok. This is not consistent. I also think that - in many cases - the abortion would be more humane than allowing the embryo to come to term. These cases would include situations where the family would not be able to emotionally or financially support the child, as well as others. "But what about adoption?" some may ask... Here are some interesting statistics (unfortunately IE only, and the latest stats are from 2002) that tell me the kid would just end up waiting for someone to adopt them, and who knows for how long.
Women friends of mine tell me that abortion is not a thing they take lightly (i.e. that the decision is a very hard one and the procedure is quite painful). They also tell me that this negates the "abortion used as birth control" argument.
To me, a terrorist is a thug is a thug is a thug, regardless of their ideological bent or their legitimization at law. Whether it's some brainwashed religious zealot blowing themselves up on a bus, some politician deciding to invade a country for no good reason, or if it's some mafia boss. IMHO, they are all thugs, and are driven by nothing but greed.
Ok. Maybe not all citizens, but an ever-increasing number of them.
I still firmly believe that the Chimp did not win the election, but that it was rigged. Just look what happened in Ohio, for example. Also, while voter turnout was higher, it was still not really that high. Therefore, I don't think that the majority of the people actually support this guy. While it may be true to some extent that the individual's vote does not really count, I think that the widely held belief that this is so is more the cause than the result. As I said in the GP, I just hope that it is not too late.
What the hell did that have to do with your point?
Simply that the ESRB is one example of this.
At what point in history has there ever been a situation where a country was not organized as the wealthy ruling over everyone else? Country, mind you, not a tribal group of 1500 people. Extra points if you can describe such a time in US history.
I cannot dispute this. In fact it's a very good point.
And since when are wealthy people not normal people? What weird transformation do they undergo when they gain money?
Perhaps I should have been more clear and not used the word "normal." "Average" would have been better. As for transformation, it could be argued that as people have more money, they want more money, and sacrifice ethics in order to meet that end. Obviously, this is not always the case (in case you are tempted to flame for generalizing).
I don't expect coherent answers to these questions, so feel free to spew vitriolic bile until the end of time if you wish.
That statement is purely subjective, and is also of no relevence to this discussion.
Now I feel better... having satisfied the urge to respond to this pedantic troll (IMHO). Irresistible, somtimes:)
I will not claim that ignorance is innocence. I definitely agree with you that in the US the populace has been "ignorant and/or complacent" in the past. This has largely been due to incessant marketing, desensitization to violence and stupidity, and the belief that "The governmnent is good; they only have your best interests at heart; they can do no evil" which has been pounded into our heads from a very early age. Hell, I even served in the military for four years to "protect my country." Imagine how pissed I was when I came to realize that I was nothing more than a low-paid corporate mercenary! I digress... Access to information that is not always in support of those in power has been rather difficult for the average person; it requires real effort. That, coupled with election rigging, causes me to think before blaming the people of this country.
Now that these policies are starting to affect the average person, people here are starting to wake up. I hope that it's not too late; that the regime is not too entrenched to be replaced without violence.
I really wish that I could argue with you on that point, but alas, I cannot. Because it's true. Which to me is a real bummer.
OTOH, more and more people in the US are finally starting to question the endless stream of propoganda, "war-on-terrorism," flag-waving bullshit, and are starting to realize that it is actually patriotic to question the so-called leadership when they get out of hand. After all, that was the basis for the formation of this country. The citizens no longer buy the "you're either with us or you're with the terrorists" sales pitch.
and is this too harsh, even considering the billions in damage that is sometimes caused?
Death penalty for hacking / writing viruses? Hmmmm... That's a tough one. At the police academy that I attended, there is one question on the written exam that, if answered incorrectly, will result in expulsion from the academy. That question is, "When is the use of deadly force justified?" The Answer: "When your life or the life of another is in imminent danger."
I consider the death penalty a use of deadly force, and in most cases, it would not be justified for the typical hacker|cracker (your preference), especially some dumb script kiddie. Millions or billions worth of damages/losses due to some worm != someome's life in iminent danger.
If, on the other hand, a virus or worm were to, say, screw up the life support systems at a hospital, or somehow mess up the core temperature control system at a nuclear plant (causing a meltdown), then I would say the the death penalty could be justified.
As soon as Sam Walton died Wal-Mart started doing all the immoral things that Sam Walton refused to let them do.
You get to the root of this whole thread with this statement.
Sam Walton died on 04/05/1992. In the 70's and 80's, while Sam was still alive and not letting the company engage in these practices, Wal-Mart stock was increasing at an annual average of about 35%. Since he died and the company started buying from child labor manufacturers, the stock has evened out and even gone down.
From this article "In the 1970s and 1980s, Wal-Mart was the quintessential growth stock. It was profitable, with returns on equity consistently above 20%. Year after year, its revenue and earnings grew by more than 25%, often by more than 30%, as it opened new stores all over the country. As a result of this consistent growth, the annualized return of Wal-Mart's stock from 1970 to 1990 was about 35%. That's an impressive figure, but most of this return came from solid growth in revenue and earnings; Wal-Mart's valuations increased only modestly during this time.
In the early 1990s, this growth began to slow as the retailing giant started running out of places to expand in the United States. The number of new Wal-Mart stores barely inched up in 1994, after routinely increasing by 10% annually, and the following year the company's revenue growth dropped to less than 20% for the first time ever. Suddenly, it began to look as though Wal-Mart had saturated the market, and its days as a growth juggernaut seemed to be over. The company's earnings continued to grow, albeit at a more modest rate of 10% to 15% annually, but its valuation eroded at about the same rate as the market lost confidence in Wal-Mart's future. As a result, its formerly robust stock stayed flat and actually lost a little ground between late 1991 and late 1996."
After that, their stock did again go up, but this was due to vapour (ever-increasing P/E ratio; stock price based on expectations).
To me, this means that a company can be ethical and profitable at the same time. Therefore, I refuse to invest in, and refuse to patronize any company which operates in a clearly unethical manner.
Taking this another step further... IIRC, companies actually have more rights than people, especially given their lobbying power and financial influence over politicians.
Also, from what I understand, France has a law that holds executives personally responsible for the wrongdoings of their companies - this was enacted after the Elf scandal. We should do the same thing here, as well as suspend (or revoke in really egregious cases) the company's privilege to do business.
Waaaahhhhhh!!! The game can be modded to show [very unrealistic] sex!!!!
I could see it if the ESRB was only complaining about the violence (although even that would be debateable, since it is already rated mature), but Sex? If I had children, i would much prefer that they were exposed to sex, and educated about safe sex, rather than having the constant exposure to violence that kids nowadays seem to have.
Unfortunately, in my lifetime, it seems to have always been this way in the US. The media appears to promote violence and repress sex (unless it's violent sex, like rape - which is arguably not even about sex anyway).
This has become a country of minority (wealthy) rule over the majority (normal people).
And if you don't mind using hostfiles (I know, I know - bad word), then you can download some fairly updated ones that direct a lot of Adware related hosts to 127.0.0.1 or 0.0.0.0 from here.
Because the government has spent massive amounts of our money on BS like this. IMHO, this money is just payoffs to their friends, and they've known that it would never work from the beginning. Kind of like the Iraq invasion, occupation, and [un]intended reconstruction.
It's 11:00PM... do you know where your tax dollare are?
Really, when I think: what if all of the money that has been poured into war (cold|on drugs|on terrorism|on every other thing) had been put into improving the lives of people worldwide? While I don't think that we would have a Utopian society, I think that things would be a lot better all around. We would likely have better technological, scientific, and artistic achievement, less poverty, and AIDS would be a non-issue. We would also have a lot less "terrorism," because the whole world wouldn't be pissed off at the US and UK. Therefore, nutcases like Bin Laden would have nobody to recruit.
A tee-shirt I once saw said, "war is so 20th century." I think that about sums it up. We need to evolve now.
That's a really good point. Thank you for causing me to think about this a bit more.
If these people are cracking the systems for this information, then they are likely [at least trying] to do what you said. Actually, I would not be surprised if the level of RL identity theft were reduced a little bit as a result of these arrests.
... you have to realise there is so much crap you pay for as a college student that you probably don't even use it's not even funny... the free condoms
Slashdot Mirror
I think it means that the box is now inside-out, and that anybody who talks about thinking outside the box is actually talking inside the box, because "outside the box" has becoms PHBSpeak. Therfore, if you are inside the box, then you are thinking outside the box, which puts you back inside the box, and the box must just be inside out at that point because my head just exploded too.
Can't we all just sit on top of the box, or is that still thinking inside the box?
Notice he did not say more investment into the technology than Linux.
But I think now, two to three years into this, we're seeing these issues around cost and reliability coming up such that, we now know we need to go back to the basics on how we evaluate a platform and choose it.
Is he talking about their customers, or Microsoft?
We continue to run our lab where we analyze and look at open-source software to understand and ensure we're still building the right things from a short-term or long-term basis.
Read: If there is some code in Linux that we can use in Windows to make it more competitive, we'll use it.
Apples and oranges: Save money applied more people? Yes, people cost money, but in my experience, there is usually a higher ratio of servers to admins for Windows than Linux. Did these customers use their Windows admins for the Linux boxes?
The systems were running fine until the company had a huge spike in traffic, and there were all kinds of downtime issues. So they did the upgrades, added a few servers, some hardware, some memory and new technologies around the Web site to do more customer relationship database tracking. It was all very complex, and some of the seams of the Linux architecture were beginning to show.
Scratch the word "Linux," since this statement can be applied to any architecture using any OS (Win, HP-UX, Solaris, etc...)
You can build it, design it, and it will work great. The trouble begins when you want to add things to it, add some services and things like that. Because of the brittle nature of the platform, when you do that, other things break. We see that in the labs all the time, and our customers see that as well. So that has a (total) cost of ownership impact on it.
As so many other people have pointed out, this happens with Windows too. I think the big difference here, though, is that an application issue on Linux does not hose the entire OS, whereas on Windows, there is that possibility.
It is also more of a commercial discussion now.
Yes, this whole interview is nothing more than a Microsoft commercial
So we're not an open-source company ... we have projects available today that make Microsoft technology open source.
Huh?
When you license technology as a consumer or business, you should be comfortable that you're protected from patent (or) copyright...claims from anyone. That should be a core fundamental principle of licensing software.
Is he aware that SCO lost the lawsuit?
So if I'm an ISV (independent software vendor), I should be able to take the technology that I've licensed, build something on top of it, and sell it.
Hmmmm... sounds kinda like what Apple's doing with BSD.
So this ability to patent your technology and have some level of protection against it, and in the course be able to build on top of that and innovate on top of that, is exciting.
Software patents are exciting for them, I'm sure. Other than that, I have no clue what he means
From a software perspective, we don't think the patent system is perfect. We had put forward some recommended restructuring to patent laws in the United States
Oh yes, more money changing hands in Washington to benefit the "legal" person.
We have a feature called Configure Your Server Wizard, which allows you to go in and choose a server role so you can take a file server and (reb
You (or MS, in this case) can say anything about anything, break out some 'study' or statistics, have some people spread the BS, and there will be a great many people who take it at face value without question.
That's a good point.
Unless you are trying to get a Top Secret clearance (which is required for about 80% of the jobs where I live). Then, they take everything into consideration, including arrests (with no conviction). Hell, they even interview your first grade teacher.
What I cannot understand is the "logic" of some who believe that invading a sovereign nation and terminating thousands or millions of living, breathing people in the name of "democracy" is ok, but terminating one embryo that may or may not be considered a person is not ok. This is not consistent. I also think that - in many cases - the abortion would be more humane than allowing the embryo to come to term. These cases would include situations where the family would not be able to emotionally or financially support the child, as well as others. "But what about adoption?" some may ask... Here are some interesting statistics (unfortunately IE only, and the latest stats are from 2002) that tell me the kid would just end up waiting for someone to adopt them, and who knows for how long.
Women friends of mine tell me that abortion is not a thing they take lightly (i.e. that the decision is a very hard one and the procedure is quite painful). They also tell me that this negates the "abortion used as birth control" argument.
To me, a terrorist is a thug is a thug is a thug, regardless of their ideological bent or their legitimization at law. Whether it's some brainwashed religious zealot blowing themselves up on a bus, some politician deciding to invade a country for no good reason, or if it's some mafia boss. IMHO, they are all thugs, and are driven by nothing but greed.
I still firmly believe that the Chimp did not win the election, but that it was rigged. Just look what happened in Ohio, for example. Also, while voter turnout was higher, it was still not really that high. Therefore, I don't think that the majority of the people actually support this guy. While it may be true to some extent that the individual's vote does not really count, I think that the widely held belief that this is so is more the cause than the result. As I said in the GP, I just hope that it is not too late.
Simply that the ESRB is one example of this.
At what point in history has there ever been a situation where a country was not organized as the wealthy ruling over everyone else? Country, mind you, not a tribal group of 1500 people. Extra points if you can describe such a time in US history.
I cannot dispute this. In fact it's a very good point.
And since when are wealthy people not normal people? What weird transformation do they undergo when they gain money?
Perhaps I should have been more clear and not used the word "normal." "Average" would have been better. As for transformation, it could be argued that as people have more money, they want more money, and sacrifice ethics in order to meet that end. Obviously, this is not always the case (in case you are tempted to flame for generalizing).
I don't expect coherent answers to these questions, so feel free to spew vitriolic bile until the end of time if you wish.
That statement is purely subjective, and is also of no relevence to this discussion.
Now I feel better... having satisfied the urge to respond to this pedantic troll (IMHO). Irresistible, somtimes :)
Now that these policies are starting to affect the average person, people here are starting to wake up. I hope that it's not too late; that the regime is not too entrenched to be replaced without violence.
OTOH, more and more people in the US are finally starting to question the endless stream of propoganda, "war-on-terrorism," flag-waving bullshit, and are starting to realize that it is actually patriotic to question the so-called leadership when they get out of hand. After all, that was the basis for the formation of this country. The citizens no longer buy the "you're either with us or you're with the terrorists" sales pitch.
I just hope it's not too late.
I wouldn't go so far as to say the US is evil. It's just the greedy bastards that run the US that are evil. The American citizens are (mostly) not.
Death penalty for hacking / writing viruses? Hmmmm... That's a tough one. At the police academy that I attended, there is one question on the written exam that, if answered incorrectly, will result in expulsion from the academy. That question is, "When is the use of deadly force justified?" The Answer: "When your life or the life of another is in imminent danger."
I consider the death penalty a use of deadly force, and in most cases, it would not be justified for the typical hacker|cracker (your preference), especially some dumb script kiddie. Millions or billions worth of damages/losses due to some worm != someome's life in iminent danger.
If, on the other hand, a virus or worm were to, say, screw up the life support systems at a hospital, or somehow mess up the core temperature control system at a nuclear plant (causing a meltdown), then I would say the the death penalty could be justified.
You get to the root of this whole thread with this statement.
Sam Walton died on 04/05/1992. In the 70's and 80's, while Sam was still alive and not letting the company engage in these practices, Wal-Mart stock was increasing at an annual average of about 35%. Since he died and the company started buying from child labor manufacturers, the stock has evened out and even gone down.
From this article
"In the 1970s and 1980s, Wal-Mart was the quintessential growth stock. It was profitable, with returns on equity consistently above 20%. Year after year, its revenue and earnings grew by more than 25%, often by more than 30%, as it opened new stores all over the country. As a result of this consistent growth, the annualized return of Wal-Mart's stock from 1970 to 1990 was about 35%. That's an impressive figure, but most of this return came from solid growth in revenue and earnings; Wal-Mart's valuations increased only modestly during this time.
In the early 1990s, this growth began to slow as the retailing giant started running out of places to expand in the United States. The number of new Wal-Mart stores barely inched up in 1994, after routinely increasing by 10% annually, and the following year the company's revenue growth dropped to less than 20% for the first time ever. Suddenly, it began to look as though Wal-Mart had saturated the market, and its days as a growth juggernaut seemed to be over. The company's earnings continued to grow, albeit at a more modest rate of 10% to 15% annually, but its valuation eroded at about the same rate as the market lost confidence in Wal-Mart's future. As a result, its formerly robust stock stayed flat and actually lost a little ground between late 1991 and late 1996."
After that, their stock did again go up, but this was due to vapour (ever-increasing P/E ratio; stock price based on expectations).
To me, this means that a company can be ethical and profitable at the same time. Therefore, I refuse to invest in, and refuse to patronize any company which operates in a clearly unethical manner.
Also, from what I understand, France has a law that holds executives personally responsible for the wrongdoings of their companies - this was enacted after the Elf scandal. We should do the same thing here, as well as suspend (or revoke in really egregious cases) the company's privilege to do business.
-- translates to --
The US Department of Justice is the U.S. law enforcement agency dedicated to serving the business and public affairs needs of the companies
'Nuff said.
I could see it if the ESRB was only complaining about the violence (although even that would be debateable, since it is already rated mature), but Sex? If I had children, i would much prefer that they were exposed to sex, and educated about safe sex, rather than having the constant exposure to violence that kids nowadays seem to have.
Unfortunately, in my lifetime, it seems to have always been this way in the US. The media appears to promote violence and repress sex (unless it's violent sex, like rape - which is arguably not even about sex anyway).
This has become a country of minority (wealthy) rule over the majority (normal people).
And if you don't mind using hostfiles (I know, I know - bad word), then you can download some fairly updated ones that direct a lot of Adware related hosts to 127.0.0.1 or 0.0.0.0 from here.
It's 11:00PM... do you know where your tax dollare are?
Nope. They will say, "All your moonbase are belong to us." :)
Because we know that they do. /Sarcasm
Really, when I think: what if all of the money that has been poured into war (cold|on drugs|on terrorism|on every other thing) had been put into improving the lives of people worldwide? While I don't think that we would have a Utopian society, I think that things would be a lot better all around. We would likely have better technological, scientific, and artistic achievement, less poverty, and AIDS would be a non-issue. We would also have a lot less "terrorism," because the whole world wouldn't be pissed off at the US and UK. Therefore, nutcases like Bin Laden would have nobody to recruit.
A tee-shirt I once saw said, "war is so 20th century." I think that about sums it up. We need to evolve now.
It is not, however, listed in the OED. The closest word in the OED is wonga-wonga, which is some sort of Australian pigeon.
If these people are cracking the systems for this information, then they are likely [at least trying] to do what you said. Actually, I would not be surprised if the level of RL identity theft were reduced a little bit as a result of these arrests.
Hmmm... It seems that the authorities are taking the theft of virtual identities more seriously than the theft of real identities.
'Nuff said :)