When academics and computer scientists create "standards" as a result of substantive research, MSFT chooses to ignore them. If MSFT hasn't come up with something themselves, or hasn't had a key role in financing/advising the development, then they don't use the standard. If they don't use the standard, then it never actually becomes a de facto standard, due to their monopolistic hold in the computing world.
Who wants to produce research that is dead before it's ever published? Especially for those who see research as a way of improving the world in some (even small) way, it seems that CS research in many directions may not be the way to go...
I can understand OSS having potentially high operating costs from failures and training, but how can you justify high initial costs for something that is free?
When you have a bunch of people in your IT department who are used to clicking on the start button to get anywhere, it's actually going to cost something to retrain them or to hire people who actually have some technical intuition.
Additionally, remember that just because it's open-source doesn't mean it's free of cost. Red Hat's enterprise-level distros certainly cost serious money, perhaps in the same league as comparable MS systems, depending on whom you ask.
If a company decides to actually go a open-source and cost-free OS route, their software may be free, but there are often additional costs to actually get the system up, running, and supported. On the other hand, it's obviously the case that the long run costs would be lower on the software end, as the upgrades would be far closer to free than a comparable MS upgrade.
I'll install a vanilla copy of XP Pro onto a system, and within minutes of hooking the machine up to the network, it has become infected with a virus, basically requiring a reinstallation immediately.
My normal mode of installation is:
- Install XP - Two IE windows open:
- One downloads Firefox
- The other goes to Windows Update and starts downloading patches. - Download everything else using firefox, including drivers, etc.
But apparently Windows Update isn't a fast enough method to get the machine patched, and the machine is compromised before the appropriate patches are finished being applied.
I've made a "XP Install Disc 2" for myself, which has the full SP2 installer file, Firefox, Avast, Spybot, and Adaware on it, that I then install while the box is still offline. It seems that SP2 does well enough at plugging exploits that the system then has enough time to download the other patches normally without becoming compromised.
Yes, and this is clearly why they have such a long release cycle... they have very few names left to use, so they have no choice but to make them count.
An ugly chick and dude who seems to join her in the club for people with shit for brains... I guess it's all just about the name recognition.
I bought a domain from GoDaddy a few years ago, and then have been determined to transfer it elsewhere since I saw those ads, as it made me see the company as rather pathetic.
typically, when companies merge or are bought out, the larger company or the buyer sees their stock price fall, while the smaller company or one that was sold sees an increase in their stock price.
All of these publications make their bank by overpricing their products to make even ripoff prices sound like a great deal. After all, why would any magazine give you a year's subscription for eighty or ninety percent below the cover price? Jack up the price on the cover so people think they're getting an amazing deal on a subscription while you still bring in large profits.
This is just the next extension. You think you're getting a great deal with your print subscription? How about an online subscription for even MORE savings?
I think that these online publications and their pricing schemes are only as successful as they are because they have such precedent as being a pricey product. It's why CD's are still $15, why purchasing digital music is around a buck a track, and why people buy books on amazon thinking that their 10% discount is amazing.
Not true. I don't know about illegal aliens specifically, but international students at all of the schools with which I'm familiar are cared for quite generously.
Obviously many components of extra-institutional aid may or may not be restricted to citizens, as determined by the overseeing organization. However, the funds operated by the colleges themselves are fully able to give large amounts of financial aid.
I'm personally familiar with two cases, one a citizen of Bulgaria and the other a citizen of [South] Korea, and both get far more aid than do I, a US citizen.
Well, I suppose this starts to become circular, but the colleges that don't need to boost their rankings are the "top-tier" ones I was eluding to. If a school is #4 or #5 on one of the two national lists (universities and liberal arts colleges), while they do want to improve their ranking, they aren't going to drastically alter their principles to do so.
Most of these top tier schools consider themselves as "taking the high road" with their financial aid procedures. As I go to present at an Admissions Information Session at 2:30 today, this will be one of the biggest points I make-- if you want to come to Bowdoin, and you are smart and talented enough to come, we will make sure that you are able to do so to the best of our abilities.
In fact, Bowdoin (my college, if you haven't picked that up) is currently in a $250 million endowment campaign, and almost all of that has been earmarked as being beneficial toward financial aid. Figure in a good year, with an 8% return, that's $20 Million per year, or enough to subsidize $40,000 per year to 500 students.
It should also be pointed out that even if you're a student paying full tuition, you're still heavily subsidized at most schools. Again, I can use Bowdoin as my authoritative example. Bowdoin spends about $70,000 per student per year, but full tuition is around $40,000. Everyone, no matter who you are, essentially receives a $120,000 grant upon matriculation.
If my school, with about 1,600 students, and a rather small alumni base, can manage to give an average of $28,000 in actual grants to about half of the student body, then the larger universities should be able to do far more than that.
Apparently you haven't heard about how top schools handle their financial aid nowadays. The top tier of schools in the country have what is called "need-blind" admissions, where they will accept anyone who is qualified to attend, regardless of their ability to pay the full tuition. Once someone is accepted, their full financial need is met completely, and in a way that doesn't put them in debt up to their eyebrows.
At MIT in particular, more than 75% of students receive financial aid, and ALL of it is based on their financial need. Scholarships, in the merit-based sense, do not substantially exist at MIT--or most top schools. The barrier for attending these schools, at least for those who have managed to overcome barriers they have faced before the admissions process, is a merit-based barrier, and not a financial one.
What schools, such as MIT as well as the college I attend, figure is that anyone who has demonstrated that they should be accepted to the institution has demonstrated that they deserve a "scholarship," so the funds go to those who need it most. It's not like at a large state school, where there is a tier of smart kids, and a tier of not-so-smart kids. If you can get into MIT, you're smart, and choosing scholarship recipients based on merit would involve splitting hairs.
Yeah, I know what you meant, but I don't see why it matters. OS X is based on free software, plays well with other free software (x11, etc), is relatively easy to use and has fewer "gotchas" than do Linux and *BSD.
This isn't like someone put a bash shell in windows and is calling it "Winix" or something... This is an OS that claims to have the best of both worlds--the availability of using open source and open standards while being accessible to even the newest of users. If you're a nerd who cares the way you seem to, you're still going to use Linux/*BSD, but I don't see how it hurts the community if you switch to OS X.
If I were someone who was a strong BSD proponent, I, for one, would welcome our rich, talented, and innovative overlords.
You just disagreed citing the fact that people don't have a Mac for their iPod, and that's precisely the reason why Apple made this.
If people wanted a hip music player that works with their computer, why wouldn't they want a hip computer as well? That's what this is, and it doesn't break the bank.
Slashdot Mirror
When academics and computer scientists create "standards" as a result of substantive research, MSFT chooses to ignore them. If MSFT hasn't come up with something themselves, or hasn't had a key role in financing/advising the development, then they don't use the standard. If they don't use the standard, then it never actually becomes a de facto standard, due to their monopolistic hold in the computing world.
Who wants to produce research that is dead before it's ever published? Especially for those who see research as a way of improving the world in some (even small) way, it seems that CS research in many directions may not be the way to go...
Don't you want to try his "product?"
notice that as of july 2005, these statistics reflect page views, not just visits.
I noticed that the link you referenced tried to produce a popup. IE would be registering a page view for that popup, and Firefox wouldn't.
Hence IE would have an advantage for page views, and should have its percentages rise with the change.
Searching it brings up the fact that he was not only detained, but arrested and forbidden to return to Russia for 6 months.
yeah, so he was detained.
...all with no non-reusable energy.
wow.
no need to worry about that.
I can understand OSS having potentially high operating costs from failures and training, but how can you justify high initial costs for something that is free?
When you have a bunch of people in your IT department who are used to clicking on the start button to get anywhere, it's actually going to cost something to retrain them or to hire people who actually have some technical intuition.
Additionally, remember that just because it's open-source doesn't mean it's free of cost. Red Hat's enterprise-level distros certainly cost serious money, perhaps in the same league as comparable MS systems, depending on whom you ask.
If a company decides to actually go a open-source and cost-free OS route, their software may be free, but there are often additional costs to actually get the system up, running, and supported. On the other hand, it's obviously the case that the long run costs would be lower on the software end, as the upgrades would be far closer to free than a comparable MS upgrade.
Why is my beowulf of Mac Mini's not in the list?
...Of course, it was because you used an apostrophe to pluralize "Minis." That's one of TOP500's pet peeves.
It's happened to me twice now...
I'll install a vanilla copy of XP Pro onto a system, and within minutes of hooking the machine up to the network, it has become infected with a virus, basically requiring a reinstallation immediately.
My normal mode of installation is:
- Install XP
- Two IE windows open:
- One downloads Firefox
- The other goes to Windows Update and starts downloading patches.
- Download everything else using firefox, including drivers, etc.
But apparently Windows Update isn't a fast enough method to get the machine patched, and the machine is compromised before the appropriate patches are finished being applied.
I've made a "XP Install Disc 2" for myself, which has the full SP2 installer file, Firefox, Avast, Spybot, and Adaware on it, that I then install while the box is still offline. It seems that SP2 does well enough at plugging exploits that the system then has enough time to download the other patches normally without becoming compromised.
Does anyone have a better solution?
actually, they're about... 3932 km apart. So your initial conclusion was correct. Slow ears.
Yes, and this is clearly why they have such a long release cycle... they have very few names left to use, so they have no choice but to make them count.
not so much serving up pages anymore, is it?
I was talking about the ad I see on television all the time, and haven't even visited their homepage in months.
An ugly chick and dude who seems to join her in the club for people with shit for brains... I guess it's all just about the name recognition.
I bought a domain from GoDaddy a few years ago, and then have been determined to transfer it elsewhere since I saw those ads, as it made me see the company as rather pathetic.
typically, when companies merge or are bought out, the larger company or the buyer sees their stock price fall, while the smaller company or one that was sold sees an increase in their stock price.
this isn't abnormal.
All of these publications make their bank by overpricing their products to make even ripoff prices sound like a great deal. After all, why would any magazine give you a year's subscription for eighty or ninety percent below the cover price? Jack up the price on the cover so people think they're getting an amazing deal on a subscription while you still bring in large profits.
This is just the next extension. You think you're getting a great deal with your print subscription? How about an online subscription for even MORE savings?
I think that these online publications and their pricing schemes are only as successful as they are because they have such precedent as being a pricey product. It's why CD's are still $15, why purchasing digital music is around a buck a track, and why people buy books on amazon thinking that their 10% discount is amazing.
can we stop calling them vocal cords? they resemble nothing like cords. they are vocal folds, and we should think of them that way.
Not true. I don't know about illegal aliens specifically, but international students at all of the schools with which I'm familiar are cared for quite generously.
Obviously many components of extra-institutional aid may or may not be restricted to citizens, as determined by the overseeing organization. However, the funds operated by the colleges themselves are fully able to give large amounts of financial aid.
I'm personally familiar with two cases, one a citizen of Bulgaria and the other a citizen of [South] Korea, and both get far more aid than do I, a US citizen.
Well, I suppose this starts to become circular, but the colleges that don't need to boost their rankings are the "top-tier" ones I was eluding to. If a school is #4 or #5 on one of the two national lists (universities and liberal arts colleges), while they do want to improve their ranking, they aren't going to drastically alter their principles to do so.
Most of these top tier schools consider themselves as "taking the high road" with their financial aid procedures. As I go to present at an Admissions Information Session at 2:30 today, this will be one of the biggest points I make-- if you want to come to Bowdoin, and you are smart and talented enough to come, we will make sure that you are able to do so to the best of our abilities.
In fact, Bowdoin (my college, if you haven't picked that up) is currently in a $250 million endowment campaign, and almost all of that has been earmarked as being beneficial toward financial aid. Figure in a good year, with an 8% return, that's $20 Million per year, or enough to subsidize $40,000 per year to 500 students.
It should also be pointed out that even if you're a student paying full tuition, you're still heavily subsidized at most schools. Again, I can use Bowdoin as my authoritative example. Bowdoin spends about $70,000 per student per year, but full tuition is around $40,000. Everyone, no matter who you are, essentially receives a $120,000 grant upon matriculation.
If my school, with about 1,600 students, and a rather small alumni base, can manage to give an average of $28,000 in actual grants to about half of the student body, then the larger universities should be able to do far more than that.
Apparently you haven't heard about how top schools handle their financial aid nowadays. The top tier of schools in the country have what is called "need-blind" admissions, where they will accept anyone who is qualified to attend, regardless of their ability to pay the full tuition. Once someone is accepted, their full financial need is met completely, and in a way that doesn't put them in debt up to their eyebrows.
At MIT in particular, more than 75% of students receive financial aid, and ALL of it is based on their financial need. Scholarships, in the merit-based sense, do not substantially exist at MIT--or most top schools. The barrier for attending these schools, at least for those who have managed to overcome barriers they have faced before the admissions process, is a merit-based barrier, and not a financial one.
What schools, such as MIT as well as the college I attend, figure is that anyone who has demonstrated that they should be accepted to the institution has demonstrated that they deserve a "scholarship," so the funds go to those who need it most. It's not like at a large state school, where there is a tier of smart kids, and a tier of not-so-smart kids. If you can get into MIT, you're smart, and choosing scholarship recipients based on merit would involve splitting hairs.
I'd heard farhenheit wanted 100 to be body temperature, but he had a fever when he made the initial measurement *shrugs*
hah, I wish I had mod points for this...
ya know, I think it's really great, but I'm gonna wait a little while for the price to drop... that'll show all you smug early adopters...
Yeah, I know what you meant, but I don't see why it matters. OS X is based on free software, plays well with other free software (x11, etc), is relatively easy to use and has fewer "gotchas" than do Linux and *BSD.
This isn't like someone put a bash shell in windows and is calling it "Winix" or something... This is an OS that claims to have the best of both worlds--the availability of using open source and open standards while being accessible to even the newest of users. If you're a nerd who cares the way you seem to, you're still going to use Linux/*BSD, but I don't see how it hurts the community if you switch to OS X.
If I were someone who was a strong BSD proponent, I, for one, would welcome our rich, talented, and innovative overlords.
You just disagreed citing the fact that people don't have a Mac for their iPod, and that's precisely the reason why Apple made this.
If people wanted a hip music player that works with their computer, why wouldn't they want a hip computer as well? That's what this is, and it doesn't break the bank.