It's a sign of how backwards we are in non-technological matters that our society considers it right and proper for everyone to be able to carry a device designed to kill other people.
Close, but not quite. Our society considers it right and proper for everyone to carry a device designed to defend against other people killing us.
To stop pretending that every country that we don't know much about must be corrupt and crime-ridden.
The first step to that is to not pretend that the countries in question are just rough diamonds waiting to be polished by the all-knowing-and-wise rich Western world driven primarily by White Guilt.
if you wish to dispute this, please show how doing nothing is better than doing anything. Preferably with diagrams.
Doing useless things is worse than doing nothing at all, because it creates the illusion of doing "something". And the very worst part of it is the smugness of the people who do the useless things, who only do it to make themselves feel better.
Call me crazy, but when I do something, I want it to actually help.
OK, Mr. Talker. Here's what can't be done: We can't get rid of the corrupt governments that steal all the resources coming into the country. We can't get rid of local crime bosses that steal what's left of that. We can't get rid of the roving gangs that steal the last of it because of the lawlessness.
So what is your solution?
Sorry, I'm sure you sincerely care about this, but it's just annoying when people in rich countries do some hand-waving about "well, just 'do what cannot be done'", as though if we just cared enough, these problems will go away.
How long before "Once a criminal, always a criminal" becomes the slogan of law enforcement?
The "slippery slope" is not an argument, it's sophistry. No one claims that "once a criminal, always a criminal."
However, once a child molestor*, always a child molestor is quite accurate in the vast majority of cases. There are a lot of reasons someone might steal (hungry, etc), but there's only one reason you become a child molestor: because a child fits your sexual arousal profile AND you lack the ability to control yourself. If someone does it once, we know they will always be tempted. And if they did it once, we know their self-control broke down at least once, and it's possible for it to happen again.
*And no, I'm not talking about teenage sex, I'm talking about child molestation.
I could correct other things that are wrong in your post, but I grow weary. I'll just correct this last thing:
It was a fine aerial photography viewer website
No, it was an Earth image viewer ("Terra"-server) that dynamically created satellite views of the earth based on longitude, latitude and altitude. You seem to be under the odd notion that it was a slide show, which is just absurd.
You're saying all Google cares about is profit. Leading the way isn't the best way to profit - it's risky and idealistic. Microsoft doesn't play risky and idealistic.
I didn't say all that Google cares about is profit. But they wouldn't be scanning books if they didn't think there was a way to make a profit. And one could argue whether leading the way is the "best way" to profit, but it's silly to argue that it's a bad way to profit.
they could afford to engage in their business model because they didn't have the R&D costs associated with the first mover advantage.
Are you kidding? Windows was MUCH MUCH harder to develop than MacOS. They had to preserve compatability with DOS applications, which is why it was a success.
TerraServer was neat but it wasn't interactive. Oh, you could load up a new webpage by clicking up/down/left/right, but that's not what I meant by interactive - it's a webpage.
It was far more than a "web page". You said, "online-interactive globe explorer software", which is exactly what it was. It built dynamic maps based on your latitude/longitude position, and allowed you to move around, zoom, etc. What else do you expect? Sure, it wasn't as slick as apps today, but what was in 1997? That's like arguing MacOS in 1984 wasn't innovative because it wasn't as slick as OS/X.
If TerraServer == Google Earth, then Microsoft wouldn't be beta-ing its' Visual Earth 3D, they'd be saying "hey, we have TerraServer USA".
*sigh* I didn't say TerraServer == Google Earth, I said TerraServer came long before Google Earth, and I wouldn't be surprised if that was what inspired Keyhole to develop their application. That Microsoft is developing newer technologies doesn't mean that TerraServer wasn't innovative in its day.
Tell me then, who was the company that first engaged libraries around the world about scanning their contents' for online searching?
Google, but I never said they weren't first.
Which company was it that decided to bring a GUI OS to the masses?
Interesting phrasing there... the answer to THAT question is Microsoft. Apple was the first to bring an extremely expensive, proprietary GUI to those that could afford it. Microsoft was the one (ironically) that fulfilled the promise of a GUI "for the rest of us"... putting it on inexpensive, non-proprietary hardware.
Which company was it that decided that everyone should have an online-interactive globe explorer software?
Microsoft, with TerraServer in 1997 (and note that Google had NOTHING to do with Google Earth. They bought Keyhole).
I'd count both PageRank and WIMP as major inventions.
Google didn't invent page ranking (though, came up with better algorithms), and Apple didn't invent WIMP (though, they refined certain things about it).
Google is scanning books because it is trying to make all the world's information searchable. Amazon is scanning books because it is trying to make all the worlds' books portable (electronic). Microsoft is scanning all of the worlds books because _____ (fill in the blank).
Google is scanning books because they want to make money. Amazon is scanning books because they want to make money. Microsoft is scanning books because they want to make money.
Uh, what? Did you even read my comment?
Yes, I did, and you're holding Microsoft to a standard that you don't hold other companies to.
Please Microsoft, do something new that's not copying Apple and Google.
Wait, Google isn't based on copying something someone else was doing? (Alta Vista, HotBot, etc, etc).
Wait, Apple isn't based on copying something someone else was doing? (Xerox GUI, MP3 players, plus numerous other examples).
Both those companies invent almost nothing. You can argue that do better versions of what came before, but as far as basic inventions, no. If Microsoft (or Amazon, or AOL, or...) can do book scanning better, then let them. What's the big deal?
Oh wait, this is Microsoft we're talking about. They're not allowed to try different things.
I guess if you want to consider that a standard, that's your business. It is no standard as far as I am concerned.
It's not a question of our opinion, it's reality. Look at the software section of your local computer store. Nearly all of them are written to the Windows API standard. That there's only one operating system that implements that entire standard doesn't mean it's not a standard.
How long have you been at this? I have been fairly deep in it since sometime around 79 to 80 iirc. Latest 81.
Depends on how you measure these things, of course, but I built my first 256-byte-RAM, CDP1802 homebrew computer in 1976 (age 13).
I will leave it to others to point out some of the famous sayings in relation to MS and compatibility.
"A witty saying proves nothing." - Voltaire.
The fact of the matter is that Microsoft spends an enormous amount of money making compatibility work. Why do you think Windows was able to gain traction in the first place? It's because of the DOS compatibility, which was better than anyone else's (including OS/2, lest you name that one). They gave people an upgrade path.
Contrast that with, say, Linux. I have a program that I use to access an SSL accelerator device. It worked fine on an older version of Red Hat, then I upgraded my operating system a year ago or so, then I had to update my SSL certificate. Surprise! Library version errors up the ying-yang. That's just one example, but I don't think it's a big secret that running old binaries on Linux isn't exactly a problem-free process.
No, just a student of marketing and cognitive psychology, with family in the production industry and a partner who has worked with television focus groups. Sorry, I didn't realize I was conversing with someone silly enough to think that anything I've been saying is some kind of secret known only to "high level television executives," since any marketing intern at a major network could explain these things (and would be more likely to.)
The problem is that what you're saying is crap. Of course they use focus groups -- but you seem to think this means it's some sort of programming of people, rather than (duh!) figuring out what shows people like and what they don't. That you can reduce human behavior to such simplistic concepts tells me that you know zip about cognitive psychology. Either that, or you have some idiot professors putting nonsense into your head.
What an asinine thing to assume about a 26-year-old military vet.
Oh, well, if you're TWENTY-SIX... sheesh. Normally an arrogant personality like yours doesn't lose their youthful arrogance at 26. Maybe by 36, but we'll see.
I want to be so old that I feel inclined to write off anything I don't understand as the product of inexperience whenvever it seems to run counter to my well-established worldview, and with a "simple answer," something really uninformed like "I thought it was just a fun show." It seems to work for you.
I'm always willing to modify my understanding of things, but so far, you haven't given me any rational arguments, only paranoid rantings. Sorry, but cynicism is not a replacement for logical thinking.
Really? Then why does it cost more to get more channels? If your assertion is true, then it should cost the same no matter how many channels your cable box is authorized to decrypt.
Because 1) some amount of your cable bill does go to the stations (as I already said), and 2) because they can.
There's the same quantity of ads on cable as there is on broadcast TV.
Actually, no, there isn't. There are lots of channels that are commercial free -- mostly the ones that have very low production costs (for example, the Boomerang channel just runs old cartoons). How many broadcast channels are completely commercial free? That would be zero. (And no, PBS isn't commercial free -- they just call their commercials "pleas for donations", along with their corporate sponsorships).
That's understandable, seeing as you obviously have no experience with the television industry, nor even the faintest idea of how it functions.
Sorry, I didn't realize I was conversing with a high-level television executive, clearly responsible for ground-breaking productions.::rolls eyes::
When you graduate from college and actually live in the real world for some amount of time, maybe you'll have more than the faintest clue about how the world works. Ah, to be young again and live in absolute certainty that all of life has simple answers... I remember those days.
Gee, and I thought it was just a funny show that people tuned in so they could laugh for half-an-hour. Little did I realize that all the viewers had been programmed into just thinking they were being entertained! Everyone were mere automatons, except for you who realized the insidious truth!
That's why friends episodes cost nearly $10 million each to make. 6 Actors each getting $1.5 million to produce 20 minutes of content. Without these sponsors paying for garbage ads, maybe we get some decent content that doesn't cost 8-digts for 20 minutes.
The program makes that much money because a LOT of people like the show. Who cares that you don't like it? The point is that money is there, so who should make it? The producers? Quite often it's the actors that people tune into see. Personally, I don't begrudge people making a lot of money. I've never quite understood the attitude of people like you.
If you don't like it, why are you worrying about how much money it makes? How does it affect your life at all?
And here I thought I was actually PAYING for cable. What WAS I thinking.
You're not thinking, that's the problem. Your cable bill is paying for ACCESS, not for the production of all the content. Do you think your ISP bill pays for production of all web sites on the Internet? Now, some channels can survive on the puny amount of money they're paid, but it certainly is not going to pay for everything.
The part of the world that Linux sucks at compatibility with is the part of the world that is actively non-compatible.
Windows is the world standard desktop application API, period.
In that world, non-compatible is seen as a weapon. A way to lock-in and profits.
This argument has always been really bizarre to me. Microsoft built its empire on compatability!! That's why you can run software BINARIES designed for 3.1 on XP (try that with Linux, which absolutely SUCKS SUCKS SUCKS at binary compatability, which I've been bitten with more than once). Where does this idea come from that Microsoft can just change their APIs whenever they want to? They have to maintain compatability with their software base.
What consumer cares at all about ads? We don't, it's the sellers that care about ads not the buyers.
I care about ads. There's a reason they used to say (and sometimes still do), "and now an ad from our sponsor". The ads are SPONSORING the program! Somebody has to pay the bills. I'm not saying I never skip ads, but I definitely don't feel intruded upon.
Ladies and Gentlemen, I present exhibit A of why Linux will never succeed. This sort of arrogant stupidity, where everything is the user's fault. If something doesn't work, it's not that Linux sucks at compatibility with the world, it's that the user sucks for not investing all their time into making it work.
These kind of articles are just dumb. Of course, you're not going to see issues in the first half-hour, if people are just using a browser. The issue comes when the kids wants to load on some Windows software that all their friends are using, then suddenly the operating system matters dramatically. "I put in the CD that came with my iPod, but the computer isn't working." "I got this cool game for my birthday, but it's not working."
Re:One fix to XML I'd like to have...
on
Tim Bray Says RELAX
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
Damn! I mean, add </>...
(Argh, the "wait between comments" thing is infuriating...)
Slashdot Mirror
It's a sign of how backwards we are in non-technological matters that our society considers it right and proper for everyone to be able to carry a device designed to kill other people.
Close, but not quite. Our society considers it right and proper for everyone to carry a device designed to defend against other people killing us.
This is a great subject for debate on Slashdot. I look forward to getting this issue settled, once and for all!
To stop pretending that every country that we don't know much about must be corrupt and crime-ridden.
The first step to that is to not pretend that the countries in question are just rough diamonds waiting to be polished by the all-knowing-and-wise rich Western world driven primarily by White Guilt.
if you wish to dispute this, please show how doing nothing is better than doing anything. Preferably with diagrams.
Doing useless things is worse than doing nothing at all, because it creates the illusion of doing "something". And the very worst part of it is the smugness of the people who do the useless things, who only do it to make themselves feel better.
Call me crazy, but when I do something, I want it to actually help.
OK, Mr. Talker. Here's what can't be done: We can't get rid of the corrupt governments that steal all the resources coming into the country. We can't get rid of local crime bosses that steal what's left of that. We can't get rid of the roving gangs that steal the last of it because of the lawlessness.
So what is your solution?
Sorry, I'm sure you sincerely care about this, but it's just annoying when people in rich countries do some hand-waving about "well, just 'do what cannot be done'", as though if we just cared enough, these problems will go away.
How long before "Once a criminal, always a criminal" becomes the slogan of law enforcement?
The "slippery slope" is not an argument, it's sophistry. No one claims that "once a criminal, always a criminal."
However, once a child molestor*, always a child molestor is quite accurate in the vast majority of cases. There are a lot of reasons someone might steal (hungry, etc), but there's only one reason you become a child molestor: because a child fits your sexual arousal profile AND you lack the ability to control yourself. If someone does it once, we know they will always be tempted. And if they did it once, we know their self-control broke down at least once, and it's possible for it to happen again.
*And no, I'm not talking about teenage sex, I'm talking about child molestation.
I could correct other things that are wrong in your post, but I grow weary. I'll just correct this last thing:
It was a fine aerial photography viewer website
No, it was an Earth image viewer ("Terra"-server) that dynamically created satellite views of the earth based on longitude, latitude and altitude. You seem to be under the odd notion that it was a slide show, which is just absurd.
You're saying all Google cares about is profit. Leading the way isn't the best way to profit - it's risky and idealistic. Microsoft doesn't play risky and idealistic.
I didn't say all that Google cares about is profit. But they wouldn't be scanning books if they didn't think there was a way to make a profit. And one could argue whether leading the way is the "best way" to profit, but it's silly to argue that it's a bad way to profit.
they could afford to engage in their business model because they didn't have the R&D costs associated with the first mover advantage.
Are you kidding? Windows was MUCH MUCH harder to develop than MacOS. They had to preserve compatability with DOS applications, which is why it was a success.
TerraServer was neat but it wasn't interactive. Oh, you could load up a new webpage by clicking up/down/left/right, but that's not what I meant by interactive - it's a webpage.
It was far more than a "web page". You said, "online-interactive globe explorer software", which is exactly what it was. It built dynamic maps based on your latitude/longitude position, and allowed you to move around, zoom, etc. What else do you expect? Sure, it wasn't as slick as apps today, but what was in 1997? That's like arguing MacOS in 1984 wasn't innovative because it wasn't as slick as OS/X.
If TerraServer == Google Earth, then Microsoft wouldn't be beta-ing its' Visual Earth 3D, they'd be saying "hey, we have TerraServer USA".
*sigh* I didn't say TerraServer == Google Earth, I said TerraServer came long before Google Earth, and I wouldn't be surprised if that was what inspired Keyhole to develop their application. That Microsoft is developing newer technologies doesn't mean that TerraServer wasn't innovative in its day.
Tell me then, who was the company that first engaged libraries around the world about scanning their contents' for online searching?
Google, but I never said they weren't first.
Which company was it that decided to bring a GUI OS to the masses?
Interesting phrasing there... the answer to THAT question is Microsoft. Apple was the first to bring an extremely expensive, proprietary GUI to those that could afford it. Microsoft was the one (ironically) that fulfilled the promise of a GUI "for the rest of us"... putting it on inexpensive, non-proprietary hardware.
Which company was it that decided that everyone should have an online-interactive globe explorer software?
Microsoft, with TerraServer in 1997 (and note that Google had NOTHING to do with Google Earth. They bought Keyhole).
I'd count both PageRank and WIMP as major inventions.
Google didn't invent page ranking (though, came up with better algorithms), and Apple didn't invent WIMP (though, they refined certain things about it).
Google is scanning books because it is trying to make all the world's information searchable. Amazon is scanning books because it is trying to make all the worlds' books portable (electronic). Microsoft is scanning all of the worlds books because _____ (fill in the blank).
Google is scanning books because they want to make money. Amazon is scanning books because they want to make money. Microsoft is scanning books because they want to make money.
Uh, what? Did you even read my comment?
Yes, I did, and you're holding Microsoft to a standard that you don't hold other companies to.
You mean the software application developed by Keyhole, that Google bought and released as their own product?
Then let's note that Microsoft had versions of TerraServer in 1997 (and obviously the project predates that).
Also note that Virtual Earth offers bird-eye views that Google does not.
Never mind, I forgot that this is Slashdot and I shouldn't let mere facts get in the way of good Microsoft rants.
Please Microsoft, do something new that's not copying Apple and Google.
Wait, Google isn't based on copying something someone else was doing? (Alta Vista, HotBot, etc, etc).
Wait, Apple isn't based on copying something someone else was doing? (Xerox GUI, MP3 players, plus numerous other examples).
Both those companies invent almost nothing. You can argue that do better versions of what came before, but as far as basic inventions, no. If Microsoft (or Amazon, or AOL, or...) can do book scanning better, then let them. What's the big deal?
Oh wait, this is Microsoft we're talking about. They're not allowed to try different things.
I guess if you want to consider that a standard, that's your business. It is no standard as far as I am concerned.
It's not a question of our opinion, it's reality. Look at the software section of your local computer store. Nearly all of them are written to the Windows API standard. That there's only one operating system that implements that entire standard doesn't mean it's not a standard.
How long have you been at this? I have been fairly deep in it since sometime around 79 to 80 iirc. Latest 81.
Depends on how you measure these things, of course, but I built my first 256-byte-RAM, CDP1802 homebrew computer in 1976 (age 13).
I will leave it to others to point out some of the famous sayings in relation to MS and compatibility.
"A witty saying proves nothing." - Voltaire.
The fact of the matter is that Microsoft spends an enormous amount of money making compatibility work. Why do you think Windows was able to gain traction in the first place? It's because of the DOS compatibility, which was better than anyone else's (including OS/2, lest you name that one). They gave people an upgrade path.
Contrast that with, say, Linux. I have a program that I use to access an SSL accelerator device. It worked fine on an older version of Red Hat, then I upgraded my operating system a year ago or so, then I had to update my SSL certificate. Surprise! Library version errors up the ying-yang. That's just one example, but I don't think it's a big secret that running old binaries on Linux isn't exactly a problem-free process.
No, just a student of marketing and cognitive psychology, with family in the production industry and a partner who has worked with television focus groups. Sorry, I didn't realize I was conversing with someone silly enough to think that anything I've been saying is some kind of secret known only to "high level television executives," since any marketing intern at a major network could explain these things (and would be more likely to.)
The problem is that what you're saying is crap. Of course they use focus groups -- but you seem to think this means it's some sort of programming of people, rather than (duh!) figuring out what shows people like and what they don't. That you can reduce human behavior to such simplistic concepts tells me that you know zip about cognitive psychology. Either that, or you have some idiot professors putting nonsense into your head.
What an asinine thing to assume about a 26-year-old military vet.
Oh, well, if you're TWENTY-SIX... sheesh. Normally an arrogant personality like yours doesn't lose their youthful arrogance at 26. Maybe by 36, but we'll see.
I want to be so old that I feel inclined to write off anything I don't understand as the product of inexperience whenvever it seems to run counter to my well-established worldview, and with a "simple answer," something really uninformed like "I thought it was just a fun show." It seems to work for you.
I'm always willing to modify my understanding of things, but so far, you haven't given me any rational arguments, only paranoid rantings. Sorry, but cynicism is not a replacement for logical thinking.
Really? Then why does it cost more to get more channels? If your assertion is true, then it should cost the same no matter how many channels your cable box is authorized to decrypt.
Because 1) some amount of your cable bill does go to the stations (as I already said), and 2) because they can.
There's the same quantity of ads on cable as there is on broadcast TV.
Actually, no, there isn't. There are lots of channels that are commercial free -- mostly the ones that have very low production costs (for example, the Boomerang channel just runs old cartoons). How many broadcast channels are completely commercial free? That would be zero. (And no, PBS isn't commercial free -- they just call their commercials "pleas for donations", along with their corporate sponsorships).
That's understandable, seeing as you obviously have no experience with the television industry, nor even the faintest idea of how it functions.
Sorry, I didn't realize I was conversing with a high-level television executive, clearly responsible for ground-breaking productions. ::rolls eyes::
When you graduate from college and actually live in the real world for some amount of time, maybe you'll have more than the faintest clue about how the world works. Ah, to be young again and live in absolute certainty that all of life has simple answers... I remember those days.
Gee, and I thought it was just a funny show that people tuned in so they could laugh for half-an-hour. Little did I realize that all the viewers had been programmed into just thinking they were being entertained! Everyone were mere automatons, except for you who realized the insidious truth!
That's why friends episodes cost nearly $10 million each to make. 6 Actors each getting $1.5 million to produce 20 minutes of content. Without these sponsors paying for garbage ads, maybe we get some decent content that doesn't cost 8-digts for 20 minutes.
The program makes that much money because a LOT of people like the show. Who cares that you don't like it? The point is that money is there, so who should make it? The producers? Quite often it's the actors that people tune into see. Personally, I don't begrudge people making a lot of money. I've never quite understood the attitude of people like you.
If you don't like it, why are you worrying about how much money it makes? How does it affect your life at all?
And here I thought I was actually PAYING for cable. What WAS I thinking.
You're not thinking, that's the problem. Your cable bill is paying for ACCESS, not for the production of all the content. Do you think your ISP bill pays for production of all web sites on the Internet? Now, some channels can survive on the puny amount of money they're paid, but it certainly is not going to pay for everything.
The part of the world that Linux sucks at compatibility with is the part of the world that is actively non-compatible.
Windows is the world standard desktop application API, period.
In that world, non-compatible is seen as a weapon. A way to lock-in and profits.
This argument has always been really bizarre to me. Microsoft built its empire on compatability!! That's why you can run software BINARIES designed for 3.1 on XP (try that with Linux, which absolutely SUCKS SUCKS SUCKS at binary compatability, which I've been bitten with more than once). Where does this idea come from that Microsoft can just change their APIs whenever they want to? They have to maintain compatability with their software base.
What consumer cares at all about ads? We don't, it's the sellers that care about ads not the buyers.
I care about ads. There's a reason they used to say (and sometimes still do), "and now an ad from our sponsor". The ads are SPONSORING the program! Somebody has to pay the bills. I'm not saying I never skip ads, but I definitely don't feel intruded upon.
Ladies and Gentlemen, I present exhibit A of why Linux will never succeed. This sort of arrogant stupidity, where everything is the user's fault. If something doesn't work, it's not that Linux sucks at compatibility with the world, it's that the user sucks for not investing all their time into making it work.
These kind of articles are just dumb. Of course, you're not going to see issues in the first half-hour, if people are just using a browser. The issue comes when the kids wants to load on some Windows software that all their friends are using, then suddenly the operating system matters dramatically. "I put in the CD that came with my iPod, but the computer isn't working." "I got this cool game for my birthday, but it's not working."
Damn! I mean, add </>...
(Argh, the "wait between comments" thing is infuriating...)
Speaking of XML, how much smaller would XML files be if they made one minor simple change...
Add to mean "close the matching element".
*sigh* I wish I'd been on the committee when they specified the standard.