Blah blah blah....Gates is Bad....Blah blah blah....>....Blah blah blah....Go BSD....I want one person to show me one piece of software from one company that relies strictly on open source, GPL concepts to pay indviduals money to work, code, create software that has been incredibly successful on the Linux platform. Nautilis...Corel...Red Hat (whoop $600,000, scary)...show me one successful package from one company that has used total GPL and made a lot of money./me hears silence. That it is the problem. GPL Open Source is great for sharing, but sharing is not a viable business. This is what Gates is saying. Look at Napster, sharing incarneate. There are a lot of people there, but nobody is making money only losing it when people are sharing their MP3s. Personally, I loved Napster back in the day, but I also understand that GPL Open Source can only go so far. As I have stated in previous posts, GPL and Open Source greatest asset sharing and community is its own worst enemy when it comes to the business community. While Apache, Linux, KDE, GNOME will continue with success their no commercially viable business based in open source and with that little business interest in the "consumer-side" read desktop applications and server-side Open Source GPL based applications. There will however continue to be interest in server-side application closed development because Linux has become to important in web-based systems.
What a surprise the article that says "my 5 open source developers beats your 5 MS developers" gets a 5. Bah is what I say! Listen, I don't care if you use Assembly, I would rather have people that understand the code from the inside-out then program on whatever OS. The key here is not finding MS vs. non-MS. Its good vs. bad programmers. Microsoft currently owns about 80 - 85% of the total marketshare. Therefore, the individuals programming for the MS platform are going to be directly proportional to the amount of users on the platform. Linux is a developer/admin platform, therefore, there are a disproportiante amount of developers to platform users. This means that your users are going to be of a higher caliber then those of the general Microsoft OS. Also it means that developers are going to be more often be users.
Where am I going with this? Here's where I am going, if Linux had as many users as MS then Linux would have a less disproportiate amount of developers to users. As you move along a standard curve of population, the developers will be weaker. So higher the number of users, higher the developers, lower the skilled developers in proportion to the overall user population. Second, MS has many more users, admins, hackers, crackers, etc banging on its stuff then Linux. Check yourself, am I saying the code of either one is better or worse...no I am not. John Carmack and the fine folks at id software had some of the best testers come in to bang on Quake 3 before they shipped it. However, it was not until wide dissemination to users that bugs started coming out. Let a proportionaly large group of regular users bang on a RedHat, SuSE, Caldera installation and they will find a great deal of problems. You can say, Linux users are some of the most technically skilled in the world and yes I would agree. However, Linux has been developed for developers and you let an idiot user bang on an installation and I guarantee you will have problems. "But we will restrict their access, no ROOT for them!" Right? Now you have restricted what the user can do, and you wanna play that game; I can restrict all sorts of access in an NT/2000 workstation and bring about the same result. Heck, I can control it in the hardware so that they only save to a network drive and there entire harddrive remains the same; no fuss, no muss.
As for managers buying the "MS marketing line" as you so eloquently put it. Let's see there are approximately 6 MS users to 1 Linux user. MS users have at least show a propensity to purchase software (some of them anyway); show me one successful Linux package that has been brought to the table like Quicken that isn't immediately immitated by an open-source project. The problem is what makes Linux/Open Source great, is what's contributing to its being held back. Do I want to invest the time and energy to develop for a platform when no one wants to pay me for my software and there are six times as many users in another OS (notice six times; I'm not going installations Im going by users), of course not! There are exceptions such as Oracle, which cannot be duplicated piece for piece by a bunch of free-time developers. Im talking about small software packages.
So what have we learned children.
1. The more users = more developers you have working on a platform thus the weaker your average developer will be.
2. Open-Source imitation has hindered small software package development on the Linux platform.
3. Its not about the platform, its about the developers, agreed their are a great deal of crappy developers for MS, but given the same installed base of users so would Linux.
Extremely interesting and informative stuff today fellas. Just when I think this place is going to hell, you pull one out with an extremely informative interview.
Oh Lord no we have another. I bet we are all products of our environment, can do nothing to better ourselves without a generous handout, and have no chance for a change in our lives for the better without some sort of help. Listen mac if money attracts money, then I am one damn analomy. My grandparents grew up farming and had farmed a good deal of their lives till about 10 years ago. My Mom has toiled inside an office for shit pay for a long time in the hopes I would have a better life. Guess what, on the train of life I had to boostrap my own ticket. There are plenty of examples of individuals who have gone out and change the world and bootstraped their way into a better position in life. By your estimation: NO ONE should be able to get of the projects, NO ONE can leave the farm, NO ONE can go anywhere without the handout of someone else. Look at your communitity leaders, Im sure more then a few started out with nothing when they started their own business and have become successful since then. Maybe in some places in the world that is the case, in India, China, Tajikistan, but I like to think here the good old USA that we have grown past that class hierarchy of you are stuck where you parents were when you were born.
Yes it enables you to in your own words "make shit"; what does making shit do? Making shit gives people jobs, in creates wealth for not just the big corporation but the guy who is employed by said corporation. Making shit allows me to not have to work as hard, toil outside to grow crops, in the end, making shit creates efficiencies which in turn gives more time to go pursue what are the truly important things in life, which I agree with you on. You may not find happiness in the mall, but you will sure as hell not find it as easily breaking your back for the rest of your life and dying of Mercury poisoning like the squatting miners in Indonesia.
What do you consider REAL wealth. I consider real wealth when the point that no person will want of food, shelter, medical care. REAL wealth is making sure NO person suffers. But this wealth cannot be generated by dividing and reparsing it to everyone. TRUE REAL wealth will only be created when we can bring those at the end of the curve up to that point where NO person wants of food, shelter, and medical care. THERE WILL ALWAYS BE A BELL CURVE with the distribution of wealth. That is a fact.
On a more personal note, I fucking hate when individuals think their existence is totally defined by another entity. You can think that way, but I choose not too. I believe in the power of the individual, I believe I can create a better life for others, I believe I can help others by helping myself, I believe there is not a finite amount of wealth in the world and we can generate enough wealth as a society to bring everyone up, and I believe that when we work in our own self-interest within reason we will end up acting as a servant to others.
Here is a little clue for you buddy. Quite frankly I have been fighting this board for the past few hours and I should be sleeping so you get the brunt.
First: Your right we sell our labor. Very good Toto here's a bisquit. Now for the bad news. I do not consider myself slave labor. I own equity in my company, get paid very well, and sit in a nice cushy chair and talk to users each day. Much better then $8.00 running CAT 5 behind a ventilation shaft with 1 inch thick dust that hasn't moved since the Ford administration. You are only slave labor if you choose to be, or you have a chain around your neck. Myself I choose my work environment by the education and the continuing education I have.
Second: Just because you saw the trailer for AI, does not mean that will happen. On the contrary, young children have been the most adept and acutally "predicting" what the future might hold, not a 50-year old director who has made some fine films but has spent his entire adult life in Hollywood. Things do not happen in a vaccuum. There are thousands who events happening in parrallel that shape the future in untold ways. No one predicted the impact of the telephone, the Internet, commerical airline travel, EDI, fiber, etc, etc, etc.
Third: Listen, I do not want everyone to have equal things. You know why, BECAUSE I WORK MY BUTT OFF! It pisses me off when individuals think that we should all have the same thing and we would be free from want and desire. Guess what buddy, want and desire drive innovation, change, invention, discovery, mass production, commidization, so you can go down to Signature Kroger and buy your imported Tofu!
If you wanna stop all that, make us all equal. Nothing good, new, or exciting will happen ever again because there is no way to increase my position in life. I am working my butt off while the jack ass next to me is sitting on his butt reading, if that happens I won't work anymore.
Go out and farm the land, I grew up on a farm. See what happens when you sweat all your days and nights to have your crop get blown away by a storm or suffer during a drought. Make your life as an HTML jockey sitting in your Aeron chair, bitching about the republicans, and wondering if Webvan will deliver all my order on time a dream.
This smacks of Nadererism/leftist. I myself fall under the libertarian/republican persuasion. You know where most of the deforestation, strip-mining, and your "brutality" of the earth is happening? I will tell you where its happening. Its happening in Brazil where a farmer is stripping the rainforest bare so he can grow a crop and graze cattle. Are you going down there to help "save" him and show him that what he is doing to the environment is wrong. NO. Your sitting here on a messageboard trying to run his life. Guess what, they damn rainforest isn't going to feed his family tomorrow. Let's talk about mining.
Case in point: Indonesia.
Right now many Austrailian, Canadian, and US based firms are pulling out of the country. Why? Well these firms had big plans considering Indonesia is a haven for a great deal of minerals. These firms were bringing in advanced mining technology that did minimal damage (mining will always do some damage) to the surrounding environment, but instead squatters have taken over their mineral rights. Instead now, these firms are pulling out their investment while the locals are using 120 year-old technology to extract far less while polluting the surrounding lands with Mercury. (All of this is avaliable in a WSJ article within the past four weeks BTW). Until you can address those needs by getting them some better way of life then they will resort to these methods. We do not kill the Earth, we only endanger our habitat. If you do not look towards the future and help others by making a sacrifice. Your well meaning will be translated into a polluted Earth that will have nothing left because everyone wants to bring themselves up.
Your sitting here writing on a computer right now, an older Indonesian man is using Mercury that WILL kill him because he wants a better life.
I have respected one environmental organization in my entire life. I received a brochure from them, so I read it. The company wasn't looking for donations for a feel good campaign or to raise awareness with politicians; it had one purpose. That purpose was to take your donation, go down to the Amazon, and purchase the land. That's it. That's something I can get behind and you should realize unless you can appeal to those individuals BASIC (food, water, shelter, medical care) needs in other countries; you and I have both lost this earth. Because friend, if my family isn't eating; I can give a rat's ass less about the beautiful and majestic forest on my land.
Your trying to equate the ENTIRE energy pool when you should be looking at the OPTION pool. Markets look at the variability and differences between the previous years not the total sum. The change price concerned because dumbasses in California have had rapid growth over the past 20 years and have decided they want to keep their environment clean instead. I have no problem with that. If you want to put windmills in the San Fernando Valley and catch the Santa Ana's for your power needs be my guest. But do not come crying to the rest of the country when the state of California has CONSISTENTLY imported energy from THROUGHOUT the western US during peak times, but now they have to pay for it. Lets look at pieces of the puzzle.
California has not built any new power generation within the past 20 years.
California's power generation needs have grown over that time.
California created a spot market for energy where no long-term hedging of prices could take place.
California concentrated the buying of power into one entities hands instead of relying on the consumer to create deregulation. To achieve this the electric companies in the state had to get rid of their one hedge, their own production.(Here in Texas, we started dereg on June 1 and I got companies falling over themselves to give me cheap power at my house).
With the resulting sell of generation asssets, the need to recoup investment, and the use of older equipment. The generating assets in California have had to work non-stop to meet the state's needs. Would you run a 10 year old HD singly or would you want some redundancy. This equipment generating power is for the most part 30 years old and guarantee you brother MTBF is a HELLUVA alot higher at that age.
California has one of the most f*cked power grids IN THE COUNTRY. I should know I work for a power/oil/gas trading and my Uncle works in the transmission area of one of the major utilities. You can't move power fast enough through that state.
So lets add it all up, no power, stiff environmental standards, no long-term price hedging, setup bottle neck for consumption, older generation equipment. Hmmmm, I would never guess that would have happened. All of this energy buying is option-buying NOT whole buying. I buy the right to purchase power, wanna see what that will do? Go out to Yahoo and click on the Options link for a company that just recently has news either good or bad, guess what will happen to the options? They will FLUCTUATE TREMENDOUSLY!
Im sorry folks, but if I were to characterize most posts here they would fall into the Archimedes Ides of Wealth.
What is the Archimedes Idea of Wealth you ask?
Well it begin and ends like this. There is a finite about of money in this world. From that corporations, individuals, governments all grab for that finite amount and anytime you make money; your taking it from the pockets or in so many cases the food out of others mouths.
Why is this a fallacy?
I'm glad you asked. Is there more money or less wealth in the world then say 15 years ago? If you said, well it depends; you would be lucridiously wrong. A few examples, the rise of the Internet and Silicon Valley. Say all you want but the rise of the Internet (and subsequent fall), while may have been dramatic has created a great deal of new wealth. Cisco, Sun Micro, Lucent, Alcatel, headhunters for technical talent in great bulk, increased efficiency in procurement, finding individuals over the Internet, shopping 24/7. All of this was never around or limitied before the Internet. Did it take money from traditional industries. Perhaps but the telegraph put the Pony Express out of business. Are we better off because of both of them, yes we are. Was new wealth created? Yes it was!
So you see friends, just because you make money it does mean you are taking money. Making money is business, taking money is stealing. Know the difference, and this isn't stealing.
I leave you with this last point. Can the pie get bigger then it is right now disportionate to the rise in population. Can we create more wealth then proportion to the world population now? If do not believe we can, then I feel sorry for you and your world. Because if we cannot then for every happy American, Britian, Swiss, Japanese, or French there is a correspondingly unhappy and poverty-ridden Lebaneese, Angolian, North Korean, or Vietanemse.
I choose not to except that my happiness and success takes away from others, I choose to believe that when I bring myself up; I can help someone else as well. If you believe like me; we can make the world a better place because we can all help one another by doing out best and doing our part in this big cog we call the Earth. From the CEO to the house wife, to the brick layer to the programmer, to the woman working line trying to make a better life for her kids to the kid just out of college trying to make his Mom proud, we all have a choice to expand the pie.
BREAK THIS ARCHIMEDES IDEA OF WEALTH AND SET US ALL FREE!!
! Wal-Mart Workers
A full 5 percent of the Top 200s' combined workforce is comprised of Wal-Mart employees. The
discount retail giant's workforce has skyrocketed from 62,000 in 1983 to 1,140,000 in 1999, making
it the largest private employer in the world. The next-largest, DaimlerChrysler, has a workforce
of 466,938--less than half the size of Wal-Mart's. Although Wal-Mart is indeed providing many
new jobs, the company is notorious for its strategy of employing armies of workers on a part-time
basis to avoid paying benefits. The firm is also adamantly anti-union. In March, Wal-Mart announced
it was closing the meat department in 180 stores two weeks after the meat cutters at one
Texas store voted to form a union -- the first successful organizing drive at an American Wal-Mart.
First off, I have friend who works for Wal-Mart in Bentonville and does VERY well for himself. Hint: Its REAL dirt cheap to live there. He programs Java and databases. He has marketable skills. Wal-Mart keeps him around and pays him handsomely in bonus money. Do some Wal-Mart store employees have very marketable skills, Im sure they do. However, outside of management I would doubt most have beyond a high school diploma. Therefore, if I can find the same talent for less, why should I pay more? Out of the goodness of my heart? Tell that to my stockholders when I get creamed on The Street. BTW, those closed up butcher shops, Texas is a "Right to Work" state meaning that individuals do not have to join a union shop if they choose not too, Wal-Mart chose not to deal with it. And yes Wal-Mart can show it can do the same thing for less from other vendors.
Excerpt:
According to ITEP,
companies use a variety of means to lower their federal income taxes, including tax credits for
activities like research and oil drilling and accelerated depreciation write-offs.
Lord No! Let's not give tax breaks to oil drilling, lets drive up California utility prices a little higher. Hell no, I want my money from Pfizer who invest $5 Billion dollars in research so they can find cures for the incredibly nasty diseases like AIDS and cancer.
Wanna encourage a behavior? Then give tax breaks towards it. We have done this and we should not be surprised that companies eagerly take those rebates. Personally, I would rather have some company drilling for oil to help California, then see it flow back to the government in the form of taxes so it can be pork barrel for Tom Daschle's South Dakota or Trent Lott's Mississippi.
All this article tells me is that if have skills to offer you will do extremely well:
While the sales of the Top 200 are the equivalent of 27.5% of world economic activity, these firms
employ only a tiny fraction of the world's workers. In 1999, they employed a combined total of
22,682,166 workers, which is 0.78% of the world's workforce.
If you don't have an education then your pretty much screwed.
So very very often on Slashdot I see these sorts of questions and answers and I just want take everyone into a room on Slashdot and talk about customer and end-user dilenmias created by all knowing IT folks. Now that I am working as a Business Analyst my job is to sit between the End-Users and IT personnel. It pains me to here stories like the one described above about dumb technology and vendors, but it also pains me to see good people get dumped because they were not looking at what the customer wanted but rather the most technically sound solution.
If the customer wants pretty buttons, give them pretty buttons but make sure your still sound. While I was in school I saw some of the most interesting things done with Filemaker Pro by some of the most non-techies I had ever seen. Would I trust it in an enterprise setting running mission-critical data, HELL NO, but on the desktop its the most user friendly program database software there is. My school had an enterprise license for Access, but everyone used Filemaker Pro because it was easier.
Know when to balance the Yin and the Yang the technical soundness to the customer wants and needs. You can have the most technically superior product out there but if the client wants something neat to look at, easy to use, and donen't have to use a 700 page manual to figure out THEN DO IT! If you were bidding out against this other company, those sorts of things should have come out in a JAD or client consultations with end-users. Did yall do any of that before putting in your bid? Not being critical just curious.
I do commend you for going back and taking the right approach because in the end you did add value to the situation for both the client and yourself. Now the client can't feel like they were cheated because they knew what they were getting. Remember my brothers and sisters on the other side of the aisle, (Im still an Win2K user) if you want to make Linux pervasive you must come off your technical high horse and not make Grandma compile her own code, but give Grandma what she really wants, just to check her email and see pictures of her grandkids.
To the original poster of the question:
BTW, I so agree with one of the previous posts about the survey suggestion. After that you can gain a sense for what the client was really looking for and can tailor your response next time accordingly. And if it does turn out they were thinking about security more then you appreciated, then ABSOLUTELY FABULOUS, you can go in next time and create the game. Have benchmarks and rules set up before the bidding process begins. Maybe you could even "consult" the company on putting together a framework for measuring vendor security awareness. NOW you would be sitting in the catbird seat.
Whales tend to live in deep waters preferring them to coastlines mainly because of the greater abundance of life to feed on the bottom. As to earthquakes and volcanoes underneath the ocean, earthquakes rarely if ever occur along spreading centers (plates that are moving apart) when looked at in the proportion of convergent and transform fault earthquakes. This is due to the plates moving away from one another not towards each other, so not much stress is involved. Second, volcanoes under the water are not clastic or viscous. In fact, underwater volcanoes are always basaltic meaning they have very little silicon oxide (about 50%). The silicon oxide contributes to the viscousness (resistance to flow) and why Mt. Saint Helens blew really high and really loud. Volcanoes underneath the water are not viscouses at all meaning that magma flows out readily, and cools quickly looking like a mushroom. Since their is no pressure built up by resistance to flow (Mount St. Helens) their is no tremendous release of pressure and therefore no BOOM. On a side note, these areas of divergent zones are home to some of the most interesting life in the sea and full of rich mineral deposits. Class dismissed.
With the recent price wars for consumer PCs, most of the OEMs have taken a bath in red ink thanks to Dell. Well well well what's the best thing that can happen, an all out OS war between two large titans with DEEP pockets.
In the next three years look for AOL to release its own OS based upon Linux or BeOS. While there wouldn't be any applications avaliable for it, for those individuals like my Grandmother who use AOL and thats all, its all they would need. Now consider you have two giants trying to get their product on the desktop. The AOL camp knows that its average user cannot reformat and reinstall an operating system so they leaves one place they can turn, the OEMs. Now you have a battle of who wants to pay the most to be on the desktop which would be something a kin to a slotting fee for supermarkets.
Ahh, now lightbulbs start coming on at Dell, Gateway, etc. If there willing to pay us to get in the box, what can we do with this power. In the AOL case, Dell says OK will make it an option, but we want some real estate to sell. AOL knowing that if they don't get into OEMs says sure why not. Now the OEM starts pimping out real estate on the desktop and everywhere else in the OS. Bill and the boys say "why the heck are you doing that", Michael Dell responds "Because Steve Case just dropped a few hundred million to do it". Bill and the boys go back to Redmond and match AOL. Suddenly, the OEM is getting paid for its marketshare and PC prices begin dropping again because its how many operating systems can you install, not how many boxes you can build.
If AOL creates its own OS that runs only its programs
1. There will be a lot of systems bought with just AOL, I will sign my Grandmother up for one
2. The battle will be on to get the "newest" consumer gadgets ported to it read "digital cameras, Palms, anything that is making its way into the mainstream, and is cool"
3. All holy hell is gonna break loose and make that Mac vs. MS, OS/Warp vs. MS, look like pansy ass loser stuff
One man's vision of what's to come.
I would use Linux, but Office, Panorama Factory, Acrobat (want a little more functionality in my PDF creation), my Nikon 880, my Palm, Outlook, Nero Burning ROM, a stable browser and Lynx doesn't count, Quicken, Photoshop 6.0 (the GIMP is pretty cool though) and Goldmine do not come with, run, or will be ported to Linux. Until that time I am a very happy Windows 2000 user and don't need to change.
Oh and the best part? They did mention Doom and how it would be like Doom, but paid exactly as much attention to the game as it should be paid. Exactly 45 seconds. Bradley got it right, it wasn't a large deal as everyone makes it out to be.
Last week, Ed Bradley did an hour-long piece on Columbine. In fact, I would say it was the most even-handed, well-researched piece on Columbine I had ever seen. They talked about the times beforehand that the two had gotten in trouble and threatened others. They spoke about what was happening at the school and its failure to address things going on. They talked about the parents themselves and never going into their rooms. Catch the link out to the 60 Minutes II site here . This is a link to the first part of the story, but the second part on warning signs is at the bottom of the page but the link is here .
Here is why Cringley thinks whoopass will cometh
on
Mario's Revenge?
·
· Score: 1
Sony, market leader with new product that has had supply problems and setbacks on initial shipments of consoles, games, and perpherials. The reason Sony did so well was they promoted and they made it easy and cheap (realatively) to produce games for the PSX. The marketplace has in-turn responded to this competitive advantage by producing in kind. Enter now a company with a rich history of gaming and a focus on its fanatical core market 6-12 year olds. Enter the second company, an absolute giant who thinks this is a pretty good industry to get into with the cash reserves and wherewithall to make it happen and you spell trouble N-I-N-T-E-N-D-O-M-I-C-R-O-S-O-F-T. Both companies will enter the market with the same competitive advantage Sony has, but with newer systems and the same developers. (Side note: have a some friends who work in Austin and Dallas for vidgame companies and while they say it won't be easy to port there games from PC to X-Box it will be worth there trouble to do so.) Personally, I think Sony's gonna get creamed by two companies eating both ends of their market. Nintendo, Mom and Daddy may not like Pinkachu but damn if there gonna buy there 8 year old a copy of Metal Gear Solid. Microsoft, I get to play kick ass games, Microsoft selling below costs, and coming with $500 million ad campaign behind it. Sorry to me I do think the whoopass cometh.
Growing up in elementary school, I remember taking my Nintendo games and trading them with my friends. I could take Ninja Gaiden and swap it for Bases Loaded or Jackal or something else for a week then give it back to my friend afterwards. I got to play something new and not pay $45, likewise for my friends. Sadly that's not going to be possible anymore (in the near future). The days of little kids learning to share and trust one another will be replaced by exchanging cracks for the PS2. Some of the most fun I had was with games I just borrowed for a week or the ultimate "trade the game permanently". *Sigh*. Sometimes I yearn for the days when we weren't as well connected as we are today./me ends my remininece
For those amongest us who know of Wal-Mart and the power of the buyer here's a lesson. Wal-Mart while early on prospered by use of its IT division to drive down costs has since then used its buying power muscle to squeeze its suppliers and keep prices down for the consumer. Is this bad? You tell me...I go there all the time because its the cheapest and people still willingly sell to them and there is jet service into Fayetteville full of sales reps trying to get into there stores. Point Im making is this. Wal-Mart accounts for 13% of the total record sales. The market for music was $14.4 billion dollars last year that means Wal-Mart kicked in about over a billion. The talk is Napster with its fee will kick in the equivalent of 5.4 billion dollars of CDs sold over those five years. This would make Napster the equivalent of Wal-Mart to the industry. Two entities controling over 20% of the distribution channel. Are bells and whistles going off yet? Not a good thing if the only thing you bring to the value chain is some promotional goodies and a bunch of CD presses. In the RIAA won't take the deal, but may be forced through public and political pressure to do so. Who knows maybe Wal-Mart buys Napster and I can find my Techno, Trance, and Progressive House mixes at Wal-Mart here in the buttass middle of Texas. FYI, I got into the stuff listening to Radio One Essential Mixes of older Paul Oakenfold stuff off Napster (thank you my fine British friends =) )and my musical tastes have come to encompass many forms of electronica since then. Thank you Napster and I have the bought Global Underground CDs (current fav Dave Seaman Buenos Aires) to prove it. If this seems scatterbrained, its because it is.
When did $50,000 there offering for the person who can crack the system not be worth it. Truth be known, I would probably be working on it I had those kind of schools. (Sorry boys and girls, I do data analysis). What's a security cost anyway? And if your a part of a company how much do you think you would actually make from it. (Independent contractors would also be helpful.) But still, its $50K! Seems like a lot of folks stock options would be so far underwater that it would be worth it.
I subscribe to the Dennis Miller view on Racism
on
Racism At Microsoft?
·
· Score: 1
Why hate someone because of the color of their skin, when you get to know them and find so much more to hate about them!
Alright I will weigh in because I think this is an interesting idea and it needs the right business model.
First, this project would not cost $60 billion, in fact, I would peg it at $180 before $60 because people tend to TOTALLY underestimate these types of projects. Since I'm not doing this study we will peg the total costs at $120 billion.
Second, economics. It must be cheaper for consumers of natural resources to build this tunnel rather then import oil, natural gas, and coal from this region rather then from traditional sources. Honestly, I would say there is an extremely good chance this could happen within the next 20 years. (Think LONG timetable to complete something like this and Alaska isnt too damn forgiving and neither is Siberia). With the uppidtyness of OPEC, deregulation of the power industry in the US and abroad, the instability of the MidEast and South America and increased enviormental conciousness in the US towards offshore drilling getting oil out of the ground in Siberia cheap to the US could stablize energy prices not just in the US but worldwide. Also, international oil and energy concerns (Shell, Texaco, ExxonMobil, Enron, Williams) would be more apt to develop the Siberian oil fields if they had an easier way of transporting oil out of the region.
Side note: I really wouldn't worry about terroist, reactionary, enviormental concerns on the Russian side of the line because quite frankly this thing would be generating so much hard currency for Mother Russia anyone would be shot dead if they looked at the tunnel crosseyed. Can you say Spentaz --sp commandos patrolling the tunnel.
Food for thought - PG&E, the California Electric company has taken out $4 billion worth of debt THIS YEAR to cover the spread between consumer prices and actual prices of energy. PG&E could be bankrupt just because of the destablizing nature of the commodity market when it comes to outside forces such as OPEC.
Finally, this is only the pipe that would run along with the tunnel itself. Trade in coal, manufactured goods (previous post talking about a Tokyo bridge), and a host of other materials could make this a viable project. However, the governmental (US-Russo relations), enviormental (what happens if earthquake), political (OPEC, budgetcutting), human (Who the hell wants to work in Alaska in -60F), and technical (permafrost, LONG tunnel, harsh conditions) are much tougher to overcome then the economic ever thought about being.
I grew up like the child you describe in that I was extremely gifted (probably not to the extent this child is) and have worked with gifted and talented children as well. With that in mind, I can relate a few things I enjoyed and how they might help you.
1. Begin with projects not just book learning. Make things into games and challenges not just straight out of the book. This is a child emotionally and they like to learn when it's fun. If you're studying something, put it in the form of game, challenge, or neat project.
2. Remember that this is a 9 year old no matter how intelligent he or she is. Unless the child has an incredibly high emotional age your still dealing with someone who is undergoing the rigors of pre-adolescence and is subject to things such as loss of attention, boredom, hyperactivity, among other things. Just do not forget child's age and be patient.
3. Take the advice of some of the early posters and make sure the child is adjusting and can interact with the rest of the children. Even though this may not be your job, it will help the child develop.
4. Have one-on-one and group time.
This is where I differ from the rest of the posters here. I went down both paths in two different schools. One, I was in class with rest of the children and the other I was brought together with other children at my own intellectual capacity. I can tell you flat out, I learned more and had more fun when I was with others that could think on my level but were still my age. So if he or she does have friends and they are gifted as well, try to get them all together and do things with one another intellectually stimulating. You don't need to dump massive amounts of knowledge just give them the right tools to problem solve. The kids will have a better time and learn more when they are all working together. Think about it, weren't projects more fun with a great group!
5. Care. Do not take on this challenge unless your 100% committed to the child. Dealing with a child who is gifted requires at least as much effort as one who has a disability. Where a child with a disability will challenge you emotionally and physically, the gifted child will challenge you intellectually and emotionally. Do not get frustrated with them if they do not perform to their intellectual capacity. Keep positive and urging then to explore the world around them. The child will progress at their own pace they feel comfortable and you are but a guide.
I am very happy you have chosen to work with a gifted and talented child and I wish you all the best. However, don't feel as though you have to cram every major new breakthrough into their brain, just show them the wonders that are out there and they will take care of the rest.
Alright Im not going to bitch at oneside or the other but I going to speak from the entrepreneur in me. Whether or not you think this is evil, this could be a good thing for a small business that doesnt plan on being around that long, dont wont to pay the additional cost of licensing a whole version, or need the cash right now. Software subscription licensing is not much different then leasing a computer. Don't pay your bills they repo your computer, dont pay for your software it doesnt work. The people who will be paying for subscription-based software will know exactly what their buying and why. Its called Buy vs. Lease look into it.
Is that all that goes on here anymore. Let's all take potshots at MS anytime they do anything! I can think of a couple of good things about this.
Tracking internal document consumption - If you can place a cookie, you can track who and how many time something is read.
Changing document data to reflect different visitations. If a user has already read the document and it hasn't changed it doesnt download the Word document.
I am reminded of a Shakespeare when I hear this: (approximation) Nothing is neither good nor evil but thinking makes it so. Of course somebody can do something malicious, but somebody can also do something positive. If your that worried about it, download the document, open up your favorite text editor (insert here), open the Word document, strip out the header and footer information, and read it. Very simple. And for the joker who will point out what it if has pictures or some really brutal formatting that doesnt show up; well tell the folks that put it up on the website to save their document as HTML or a TXT file. Laters
/me gets off my soapbox
Hangtime
If you continue to think what you have always thought, you will continue to get what you have always got.
-Anonymous
To hornerj: Just because OSS moves into the enterprises doesnt mean business people are replaced. Contrary to popular opinion, other people with different skills must be used inside the business to make it work. When is the last time someone audited the books for their company and it wasn't their job or they owned the company. *Wind blows, tumbleweed blows by*
To all: I have seen this argument about OSS converting companies into service-driven enterprises and getting rid of software products all together. I think this is a fruitless cause. Yes, some organizations may make it by selling support and services, but most will not. Here is why:
Support is human capital intensive First and most important, good people are tough to find and even more expensive to hire and retain. If your trying to hire both support/consulting personnel and programmers, your doubling your workforce when only half of your workforce, the support/consulting personnel, is contributing to your bottom line.
Support has traditionally been an added feature I will concede this feature at the enterprise-level has been one that's paid for, but I will address that in a minute. Support/consulting for general consumer applications will never be a large money-maker and the product must be sold. Their is simply no way a company will keep itself in the black selling support for an email application.
Fight against the channel and traditional service-based firms Ahhh, the channel. It was your friend for a number of years picking up where you left off by integrating applications and providing support, while getting closer to your customers. Now you won't to horn on there turf? Even if the company and application are new, the channel will go after it. Why? Because their is money to be made there. Your moving into territory where you have few friends and three strikes against you, no customers, a stronger competitor, and its not your core business.
Competitive advantages pursuing a support based model Kinda same with the channel. If your building applications, your core business is not service-based. Trying to run outside of your core-business is not impossible (look at IBM Global Services), but its much more difficult.
Profit doesn't show up Will the OSS and service-based business model work. Well it hasn't yet but that doesn't mean it won't though. Support/consulting has been a small money-maker for some traditional product selling software companies. However, those companies had two advantages, they knew the source code and it was a sideline business. None of the Linux crowd has turned profits yet and business models are not yet fully developed.
Tech heads still don't buy support Who here has bought support as a consumer and not for or as a business? Not too many I would imagine. In the case of Linux applications and distros, its tough to support a business model when you eliminate 40% of your customers because either they're smart enough to figure out or can find the answers easily.
/me gets off his soapbox
Hangtime "If you continue to think the way you have always thought, you will continue to get what you have always got." - Anonymous
Slashdot Mirror
Blah blah blah....Gates is Bad....Blah blah blah....>....Blah blah blah....Go BSD....I want one person to show me one piece of software from one company that relies strictly on open source, GPL concepts to pay indviduals money to work, code, create software that has been incredibly successful on the Linux platform. Nautilis...Corel...Red Hat (whoop $600,000, scary)...show me one successful package from one company that has used total GPL and made a lot of money. /me hears silence. That it is the problem. GPL Open Source is great for sharing, but sharing is not a viable business. This is what Gates is saying. Look at Napster, sharing incarneate. There are a lot of people there, but nobody is making money only losing it when people are sharing their MP3s. Personally, I loved Napster back in the day, but I also understand that GPL Open Source can only go so far. As I have stated in previous posts, GPL and Open Source greatest asset sharing and community is its own worst enemy when it comes to the business community. While Apache, Linux, KDE, GNOME will continue with success their no commercially viable business based in open source and with that little business interest in the "consumer-side" read desktop applications and server-side Open Source GPL based applications. There will however continue to be interest in server-side application closed development because Linux has become to important in web-based systems.
What a surprise the article that says "my 5 open source developers beats your 5 MS developers" gets a 5. Bah is what I say! Listen, I don't care if you use Assembly, I would rather have people that understand the code from the inside-out then program on whatever OS. The key here is not finding MS vs. non-MS. Its good vs. bad programmers. Microsoft currently owns about 80 - 85% of the total marketshare. Therefore, the individuals programming for the MS platform are going to be directly proportional to the amount of users on the platform. Linux is a developer/admin platform, therefore, there are a disproportiante amount of developers to platform users. This means that your users are going to be of a higher caliber then those of the general Microsoft OS. Also it means that developers are going to be more often be users.
Where am I going with this? Here's where I am going, if Linux had as many users as MS then Linux would have a less disproportiate amount of developers to users. As you move along a standard curve of population, the developers will be weaker. So higher the number of users, higher the developers, lower the skilled developers in proportion to the overall user population. Second, MS has many more users, admins, hackers, crackers, etc banging on its stuff then Linux. Check yourself, am I saying the code of either one is better or worse...no I am not. John Carmack and the fine folks at id software had some of the best testers come in to bang on Quake 3 before they shipped it. However, it was not until wide dissemination to users that bugs started coming out. Let a proportionaly large group of regular users bang on a RedHat, SuSE, Caldera installation and they will find a great deal of problems. You can say, Linux users are some of the most technically skilled in the world and yes I would agree. However, Linux has been developed for developers and you let an idiot user bang on an installation and I guarantee you will have problems. "But we will restrict their access, no ROOT for them!" Right? Now you have restricted what the user can do, and you wanna play that game; I can restrict all sorts of access in an NT/2000 workstation and bring about the same result. Heck, I can control it in the hardware so that they only save to a network drive and there entire harddrive remains the same; no fuss, no muss.
As for managers buying the "MS marketing line" as you so eloquently put it. Let's see there are approximately 6 MS users to 1 Linux user. MS users have at least show a propensity to purchase software (some of them anyway); show me one successful Linux package that has been brought to the table like Quicken that isn't immediately immitated by an open-source project. The problem is what makes Linux/Open Source great, is what's contributing to its being held back. Do I want to invest the time and energy to develop for a platform when no one wants to pay me for my software and there are six times as many users in another OS (notice six times; I'm not going installations Im going by users), of course not! There are exceptions such as Oracle, which cannot be duplicated piece for piece by a bunch of free-time developers. Im talking about small software packages.
So what have we learned children.
1. The more users = more developers you have working on a platform thus the weaker your average developer will be.
2. Open-Source imitation has hindered small software package development on the Linux platform.
3. Its not about the platform, its about the developers, agreed their are a great deal of crappy developers for MS, but given the same installed base of users so would Linux.
Extremely interesting and informative stuff today fellas. Just when I think this place is going to hell, you pull one out with an extremely informative interview.
Kudos to Dan for a great bunch of responses
HT
Oh Lord no we have another. I bet we are all products of our environment, can do nothing to better ourselves without a generous handout, and have no chance for a change in our lives for the better without some sort of help. Listen mac if money attracts money, then I am one damn analomy. My grandparents grew up farming and had farmed a good deal of their lives till about 10 years ago. My Mom has toiled inside an office for shit pay for a long time in the hopes I would have a better life. Guess what, on the train of life I had to boostrap my own ticket. There are plenty of examples of individuals who have gone out and change the world and bootstraped their way into a better position in life. By your estimation: NO ONE should be able to get of the projects, NO ONE can leave the farm, NO ONE can go anywhere without the handout of someone else. Look at your communitity leaders, Im sure more then a few started out with nothing when they started their own business and have become successful since then. Maybe in some places in the world that is the case, in India, China, Tajikistan, but I like to think here the good old USA that we have grown past that class hierarchy of you are stuck where you parents were when you were born.
Yes it enables you to in your own words "make shit"; what does making shit do? Making shit gives people jobs, in creates wealth for not just the big corporation but the guy who is employed by said corporation. Making shit allows me to not have to work as hard, toil outside to grow crops, in the end, making shit creates efficiencies which in turn gives more time to go pursue what are the truly important things in life, which I agree with you on. You may not find happiness in the mall, but you will sure as hell not find it as easily breaking your back for the rest of your life and dying of Mercury poisoning like the squatting miners in Indonesia.
What do you consider REAL wealth. I consider real wealth when the point that no person will want of food, shelter, medical care. REAL wealth is making sure NO person suffers. But this wealth cannot be generated by dividing and reparsing it to everyone. TRUE REAL wealth will only be created when we can bring those at the end of the curve up to that point where NO person wants of food, shelter, and medical care. THERE WILL ALWAYS BE A BELL CURVE with the distribution of wealth. That is a fact.
On a more personal note, I fucking hate when individuals think their existence is totally defined by another entity. You can think that way, but I choose not too. I believe in the power of the individual, I believe I can create a better life for others, I believe I can help others by helping myself, I believe there is not a finite amount of wealth in the world and we can generate enough wealth as a society to bring everyone up, and I believe that when we work in our own self-interest within reason we will end up acting as a servant to others.
/me ends rant last time.
Here is a little clue for you buddy. Quite frankly I have been fighting this board for the past few hours and I should be sleeping so you get the brunt.
First: Your right we sell our labor. Very good Toto here's a bisquit. Now for the bad news. I do not consider myself slave labor. I own equity in my company, get paid very well, and sit in a nice cushy chair and talk to users each day. Much better then $8.00 running CAT 5 behind a ventilation shaft with 1 inch thick dust that hasn't moved since the Ford administration. You are only slave labor if you choose to be, or you have a chain around your neck. Myself I choose my work environment by the education and the continuing education I have.
Second: Just because you saw the trailer for AI, does not mean that will happen. On the contrary, young children have been the most adept and acutally "predicting" what the future might hold, not a 50-year old director who has made some fine films but has spent his entire adult life in Hollywood. Things do not happen in a vaccuum. There are thousands who events happening in parrallel that shape the future in untold ways. No one predicted the impact of the telephone, the Internet, commerical airline travel, EDI, fiber, etc, etc, etc.
Third: Listen, I do not want everyone to have equal things. You know why, BECAUSE I WORK MY BUTT OFF! It pisses me off when individuals think that we should all have the same thing and we would be free from want and desire. Guess what buddy, want and desire drive innovation, change, invention, discovery, mass production, commidization, so you can go down to Signature Kroger and buy your imported Tofu!
If you wanna stop all that, make us all equal. Nothing good, new, or exciting will happen ever again because there is no way to increase my position in life. I am working my butt off while the jack ass next to me is sitting on his butt reading, if that happens I won't work anymore.
Go out and farm the land, I grew up on a farm. See what happens when you sweat all your days and nights to have your crop get blown away by a storm or suffer during a drought. Make your life as an HTML jockey sitting in your Aeron chair, bitching about the republicans, and wondering if Webvan will deliver all my order on time a dream.
Light me up I got Karma to BURN!
This smacks of Nadererism/leftist. I myself fall under the libertarian/republican persuasion. You know where most of the deforestation, strip-mining, and your "brutality" of the earth is happening? I will tell you where its happening. Its happening in Brazil where a farmer is stripping the rainforest bare so he can grow a crop and graze cattle. Are you going down there to help "save" him and show him that what he is doing to the environment is wrong. NO. Your sitting here on a messageboard trying to run his life. Guess what, they damn rainforest isn't going to feed his family tomorrow. Let's talk about mining.
Case in point: Indonesia.
Right now many Austrailian, Canadian, and US based firms are pulling out of the country. Why? Well these firms had big plans considering Indonesia is a haven for a great deal of minerals. These firms were bringing in advanced mining technology that did minimal damage (mining will always do some damage) to the surrounding environment, but instead squatters have taken over their mineral rights. Instead now, these firms are pulling out their investment while the locals are using 120 year-old technology to extract far less while polluting the surrounding lands with Mercury. (All of this is avaliable in a WSJ article within the past four weeks BTW). Until you can address those needs by getting them some better way of life then they will resort to these methods. We do not kill the Earth, we only endanger our habitat. If you do not look towards the future and help others by making a sacrifice. Your well meaning will be translated into a polluted Earth that will have nothing left because everyone wants to bring themselves up.
Your sitting here writing on a computer right now, an older Indonesian man is using Mercury that WILL kill him because he wants a better life.
I have respected one environmental organization in my entire life. I received a brochure from them, so I read it. The company wasn't looking for donations for a feel good campaign or to raise awareness with politicians; it had one purpose. That purpose was to take your donation, go down to the Amazon, and purchase the land. That's it. That's something I can get behind and you should realize unless you can appeal to those individuals BASIC (food, water, shelter, medical care) needs in other countries; you and I have both lost this earth. Because friend, if my family isn't eating; I can give a rat's ass less about the beautiful and majestic forest on my land.
Your trying to equate the ENTIRE energy pool when you should be looking at the OPTION pool. Markets look at the variability and differences between the previous years not the total sum. The change price concerned because dumbasses in California have had rapid growth over the past 20 years and have decided they want to keep their environment clean instead. I have no problem with that. If you want to put windmills in the San Fernando Valley and catch the Santa Ana's for your power needs be my guest. But do not come crying to the rest of the country when the state of California has CONSISTENTLY imported energy from THROUGHOUT the western US during peak times, but now they have to pay for it. Lets look at pieces of the puzzle.
California has not built any new power generation within the past 20 years.
California's power generation needs have grown over that time.
California created a spot market for energy where no long-term hedging of prices could take place.
California concentrated the buying of power into one entities hands instead of relying on the consumer to create deregulation. To achieve this the electric companies in the state had to get rid of their one hedge, their own production.(Here in Texas, we started dereg on June 1 and I got companies falling over themselves to give me cheap power at my house).
With the resulting sell of generation asssets, the need to recoup investment, and the use of older equipment. The generating assets in California have had to work non-stop to meet the state's needs. Would you run a 10 year old HD singly or would you want some redundancy. This equipment generating power is for the most part 30 years old and guarantee you brother MTBF is a HELLUVA alot higher at that age.
California has one of the most f*cked power grids IN THE COUNTRY. I should know I work for a power/oil/gas trading and my Uncle works in the transmission area of one of the major utilities. You can't move power fast enough through that state.
So lets add it all up, no power, stiff environmental standards, no long-term price hedging, setup bottle neck for consumption, older generation equipment. Hmmmm, I would never guess that would have happened. All of this energy buying is option-buying NOT whole buying. I buy the right to purchase power, wanna see what that will do? Go out to Yahoo and click on the Options link for a company that just recently has news either good or bad, guess what will happen to the options? They will FLUCTUATE TREMENDOUSLY!
/me ends rant
Im sorry folks, but if I were to characterize most posts here they would fall into the Archimedes Ides of Wealth.
What is the Archimedes Idea of Wealth you ask?
Well it begin and ends like this. There is a finite about of money in this world. From that corporations, individuals, governments all grab for that finite amount and anytime you make money; your taking it from the pockets or in so many cases the food out of others mouths.
Why is this a fallacy?
I'm glad you asked. Is there more money or less wealth in the world then say 15 years ago? If you said, well it depends; you would be lucridiously wrong. A few examples, the rise of the Internet and Silicon Valley. Say all you want but the rise of the Internet (and subsequent fall), while may have been dramatic has created a great deal of new wealth. Cisco, Sun Micro, Lucent, Alcatel, headhunters for technical talent in great bulk, increased efficiency in procurement, finding individuals over the Internet, shopping 24/7. All of this was never around or limitied before the Internet. Did it take money from traditional industries. Perhaps but the telegraph put the Pony Express out of business. Are we better off because of both of them, yes we are. Was new wealth created? Yes it was!
So you see friends, just because you make money it does mean you are taking money. Making money is business, taking money is stealing. Know the difference, and this isn't stealing.
I leave you with this last point. Can the pie get bigger then it is right now disportionate to the rise in population. Can we create more wealth then proportion to the world population now? If do not believe we can, then I feel sorry for you and your world. Because if we cannot then for every happy American, Britian, Swiss, Japanese, or French there is a correspondingly unhappy and poverty-ridden Lebaneese, Angolian, North Korean, or Vietanemse.
I choose not to except that my happiness and success takes away from others, I choose to believe that when I bring myself up; I can help someone else as well. If you believe like me; we can make the world a better place because we can all help one another by doing out best and doing our part in this big cog we call the Earth. From the CEO to the house wife, to the brick layer to the programmer, to the woman working line trying to make a better life for her kids to the kid just out of college trying to make his Mom proud, we all have a choice to expand the pie.
BREAK THIS ARCHIMEDES IDEA OF WEALTH AND SET US ALL FREE!!
I especially love the following quote
! Wal-Mart Workers
A full 5 percent of the Top 200s' combined workforce is comprised of Wal-Mart employees. The
discount retail giant's workforce has skyrocketed from 62,000 in 1983 to 1,140,000 in 1999, making
it the largest private employer in the world. The next-largest, DaimlerChrysler, has a workforce
of 466,938--less than half the size of Wal-Mart's. Although Wal-Mart is indeed providing many
new jobs, the company is notorious for its strategy of employing armies of workers on a part-time
basis to avoid paying benefits. The firm is also adamantly anti-union. In March, Wal-Mart announced
it was closing the meat department in 180 stores two weeks after the meat cutters at one
Texas store voted to form a union -- the first successful organizing drive at an American Wal-Mart.
First off, I have friend who works for Wal-Mart in Bentonville and does VERY well for himself. Hint: Its REAL dirt cheap to live there. He programs Java and databases. He has marketable skills. Wal-Mart keeps him around and pays him handsomely in bonus money. Do some Wal-Mart store employees have very marketable skills, Im sure they do. However, outside of management I would doubt most have beyond a high school diploma. Therefore, if I can find the same talent for less, why should I pay more? Out of the goodness of my heart? Tell that to my stockholders when I get creamed on The Street. BTW, those closed up butcher shops, Texas is a "Right to Work" state meaning that individuals do not have to join a union shop if they choose not too, Wal-Mart chose not to deal with it. And yes Wal-Mart can show it can do the same thing for less from other vendors.
Excerpt:
According to ITEP,
companies use a variety of means to lower their federal income taxes, including tax credits for
activities like research and oil drilling and accelerated depreciation write-offs.
Lord No! Let's not give tax breaks to oil drilling, lets drive up California utility prices a little higher. Hell no, I want my money from Pfizer who invest $5 Billion dollars in research so they can find cures for the incredibly nasty diseases like AIDS and cancer.
Wanna encourage a behavior? Then give tax breaks towards it. We have done this and we should not be surprised that companies eagerly take those rebates. Personally, I would rather have some company drilling for oil to help California, then see it flow back to the government in the form of taxes so it can be pork barrel for Tom Daschle's South Dakota or Trent Lott's Mississippi.
All this article tells me is that if have skills to offer you will do extremely well:
While the sales of the Top 200 are the equivalent of 27.5% of world economic activity, these firms
employ only a tiny fraction of the world's workers. In 1999, they employed a combined total of
22,682,166 workers, which is 0.78% of the world's workforce.
If you don't have an education then your pretty much screwed.
Damn these allergies
So very very often on Slashdot I see these sorts of questions and answers and I just want take everyone into a room on Slashdot and talk about customer and end-user dilenmias created by all knowing IT folks. Now that I am working as a Business Analyst my job is to sit between the End-Users and IT personnel. It pains me to here stories like the one described above about dumb technology and vendors, but it also pains me to see good people get dumped because they were not looking at what the customer wanted but rather the most technically sound solution.
If the customer wants pretty buttons, give them pretty buttons but make sure your still sound. While I was in school I saw some of the most interesting things done with Filemaker Pro by some of the most non-techies I had ever seen. Would I trust it in an enterprise setting running mission-critical data, HELL NO, but on the desktop its the most user friendly program database software there is. My school had an enterprise license for Access, but everyone used Filemaker Pro because it was easier.
Know when to balance the Yin and the Yang the technical soundness to the customer wants and needs. You can have the most technically superior product out there but if the client wants something neat to look at, easy to use, and donen't have to use a 700 page manual to figure out THEN DO IT! If you were bidding out against this other company, those sorts of things should have come out in a JAD or client consultations with end-users. Did yall do any of that before putting in your bid? Not being critical just curious.
I do commend you for going back and taking the right approach because in the end you did add value to the situation for both the client and yourself. Now the client can't feel like they were cheated because they knew what they were getting. Remember my brothers and sisters on the other side of the aisle, (Im still an Win2K user) if you want to make Linux pervasive you must come off your technical high horse and not make Grandma compile her own code, but give Grandma what she really wants, just to check her email and see pictures of her grandkids.
To the original poster of the question:
BTW, I so agree with one of the previous posts about the survey suggestion. After that you can gain a sense for what the client was really looking for and can tailor your response next time accordingly. And if it does turn out they were thinking about security more then you appreciated, then ABSOLUTELY FABULOUS, you can go in next time and create the game. Have benchmarks and rules set up before the bidding process begins. Maybe you could even "consult" the company on putting together a framework for measuring vendor security awareness. NOW you would be sitting in the catbird seat.
Laters,
Hangtime
Whales tend to live in deep waters preferring them to coastlines mainly because of the greater abundance of life to feed on the bottom. As to earthquakes and volcanoes underneath the ocean, earthquakes rarely if ever occur along spreading centers (plates that are moving apart) when looked at in the proportion of convergent and transform fault earthquakes. This is due to the plates moving away from one another not towards each other, so not much stress is involved. Second, volcanoes under the water are not clastic or viscous. In fact, underwater volcanoes are always basaltic meaning they have very little silicon oxide (about 50%). The silicon oxide contributes to the viscousness (resistance to flow) and why Mt. Saint Helens blew really high and really loud. Volcanoes underneath the water are not viscouses at all meaning that magma flows out readily, and cools quickly looking like a mushroom. Since their is no pressure built up by resistance to flow (Mount St. Helens) their is no tremendous release of pressure and therefore no BOOM. On a side note, these areas of divergent zones are home to some of the most interesting life in the sea and full of rich mineral deposits. Class dismissed.
Hangtime
With the recent price wars for consumer PCs, most of the OEMs have taken a bath in red ink thanks to Dell. Well well well what's the best thing that can happen, an all out OS war between two large titans with DEEP pockets.
In the next three years look for AOL to release its own OS based upon Linux or BeOS. While there wouldn't be any applications avaliable for it, for those individuals like my Grandmother who use AOL and thats all, its all they would need. Now consider you have two giants trying to get their product on the desktop. The AOL camp knows that its average user cannot reformat and reinstall an operating system so they leaves one place they can turn, the OEMs. Now you have a battle of who wants to pay the most to be on the desktop which would be something a kin to a slotting fee for supermarkets.
Ahh, now lightbulbs start coming on at Dell, Gateway, etc. If there willing to pay us to get in the box, what can we do with this power. In the AOL case, Dell says OK will make it an option, but we want some real estate to sell. AOL knowing that if they don't get into OEMs says sure why not. Now the OEM starts pimping out real estate on the desktop and everywhere else in the OS. Bill and the boys say "why the heck are you doing that", Michael Dell responds "Because Steve Case just dropped a few hundred million to do it". Bill and the boys go back to Redmond and match AOL. Suddenly, the OEM is getting paid for its marketshare and PC prices begin dropping again because its how many operating systems can you install, not how many boxes you can build.
If AOL creates its own OS that runs only its programs
1. There will be a lot of systems bought with just AOL, I will sign my Grandmother up for one
2. The battle will be on to get the "newest" consumer gadgets ported to it read "digital cameras, Palms, anything that is making its way into the mainstream, and is cool"
3. All holy hell is gonna break loose and make that Mac vs. MS, OS/Warp vs. MS, look like pansy ass loser stuff
One man's vision of what's to come.
I would use Linux, but Office, Panorama Factory, Acrobat (want a little more functionality in my PDF creation), my Nikon 880, my Palm, Outlook, Nero Burning ROM, a stable browser and Lynx doesn't count, Quicken, Photoshop 6.0 (the GIMP is pretty cool though) and Goldmine do not come with, run, or will be ported to Linux. Until that time I am a very happy Windows 2000 user and don't need to change.
Hangtime
Oh and the best part? They did mention Doom and how it would be like Doom, but paid exactly as much attention to the game as it should be paid. Exactly 45 seconds. Bradley got it right, it wasn't a large deal as everyone makes it out to be.
Last week, Ed Bradley did an hour-long piece on Columbine. In fact, I would say it was the most even-handed, well-researched piece on Columbine I had ever seen. They talked about the times beforehand that the two had gotten in trouble and threatened others. They spoke about what was happening at the school and its failure to address things going on. They talked about the parents themselves and never going into their rooms. Catch the link out to the 60 Minutes II site here . This is a link to the first part of the story, but the second part on warning signs is at the bottom of the page but the link is here .
Sony, market leader with new product that has had supply problems and setbacks on initial shipments of consoles, games, and perpherials. The reason Sony did so well was they promoted and they made it easy and cheap (realatively) to produce games for the PSX. The marketplace has in-turn responded to this competitive advantage by producing in kind. Enter now a company with a rich history of gaming and a focus on its fanatical core market 6-12 year olds. Enter the second company, an absolute giant who thinks this is a pretty good industry to get into with the cash reserves and wherewithall to make it happen and you spell trouble N-I-N-T-E-N-D-O-M-I-C-R-O-S-O-F-T. Both companies will enter the market with the same competitive advantage Sony has, but with newer systems and the same developers. (Side note: have a some friends who work in Austin and Dallas for vidgame companies and while they say it won't be easy to port there games from PC to X-Box it will be worth there trouble to do so.) Personally, I think Sony's gonna get creamed by two companies eating both ends of their market. Nintendo, Mom and Daddy may not like Pinkachu but damn if there gonna buy there 8 year old a copy of Metal Gear Solid. Microsoft, I get to play kick ass games, Microsoft selling below costs, and coming with $500 million ad campaign behind it. Sorry to me I do think the whoopass cometh.
Growing up in elementary school, I remember taking my Nintendo games and trading them with my friends. I could take Ninja Gaiden and swap it for Bases Loaded or Jackal or something else for a week then give it back to my friend afterwards. I got to play something new and not pay $45, likewise for my friends. Sadly that's not going to be possible anymore (in the near future). The days of little kids learning to share and trust one another will be replaced by exchanging cracks for the PS2. Some of the most fun I had was with games I just borrowed for a week or the ultimate "trade the game permanently". *Sigh*. Sometimes I yearn for the days when we weren't as well connected as we are today. /me ends my remininece
For those amongest us who know of Wal-Mart and the power of the buyer here's a lesson. Wal-Mart while early on prospered by use of its IT division to drive down costs has since then used its buying power muscle to squeeze its suppliers and keep prices down for the consumer. Is this bad? You tell me...I go there all the time because its the cheapest and people still willingly sell to them and there is jet service into Fayetteville full of sales reps trying to get into there stores. Point Im making is this. Wal-Mart accounts for 13% of the total record sales. The market for music was $14.4 billion dollars last year that means Wal-Mart kicked in about over a billion. The talk is Napster with its fee will kick in the equivalent of 5.4 billion dollars of CDs sold over those five years. This would make Napster the equivalent of Wal-Mart to the industry. Two entities controling over 20% of the distribution channel. Are bells and whistles going off yet? Not a good thing if the only thing you bring to the value chain is some promotional goodies and a bunch of CD presses. In the RIAA won't take the deal, but may be forced through public and political pressure to do so. Who knows maybe Wal-Mart buys Napster and I can find my Techno, Trance, and Progressive House mixes at Wal-Mart here in the buttass middle of Texas. FYI, I got into the stuff listening to Radio One Essential Mixes of older Paul Oakenfold stuff off Napster (thank you my fine British friends =) )and my musical tastes have come to encompass many forms of electronica since then. Thank you Napster and I have the bought Global Underground CDs (current fav Dave Seaman Buenos Aires) to prove it. If this seems scatterbrained, its because it is.
HT
/me raises my hand
When did $50,000 there offering for the person who can crack the system not be worth it. Truth be known, I would probably be working on it I had those kind of schools. (Sorry boys and girls, I do data analysis). What's a security cost anyway? And if your a part of a company how much do you think you would actually make from it. (Independent contractors would also be helpful.) But still, its $50K! Seems like a lot of folks stock options would be so far underwater that it would be worth it.
Why hate someone because of the color of their skin, when you get to know them and find so much more to hate about them!
Alright I will weigh in because I think this is an interesting idea and it needs the right business model.
First, this project would not cost $60 billion, in fact, I would peg it at $180 before $60 because people tend to TOTALLY underestimate these types of projects. Since I'm not doing this study we will peg the total costs at $120 billion.
Second, economics. It must be cheaper for consumers of natural resources to build this tunnel rather then import oil, natural gas, and coal from this region rather then from traditional sources. Honestly, I would say there is an extremely good chance this could happen within the next 20 years. (Think LONG timetable to complete something like this and Alaska isnt too damn forgiving and neither is Siberia). With the uppidtyness of OPEC, deregulation of the power industry in the US and abroad, the instability of the MidEast and South America and increased enviormental conciousness in the US towards offshore drilling getting oil out of the ground in Siberia cheap to the US could stablize energy prices not just in the US but worldwide. Also, international oil and energy concerns (Shell, Texaco, ExxonMobil, Enron, Williams) would be more apt to develop the Siberian oil fields if they had an easier way of transporting oil out of the region.
Side note: I really wouldn't worry about terroist, reactionary, enviormental concerns on the Russian side of the line because quite frankly this thing would be generating so much hard currency for Mother Russia anyone would be shot dead if they looked at the tunnel crosseyed. Can you say Spentaz --sp commandos patrolling the tunnel.
Food for thought - PG&E, the California Electric company has taken out $4 billion worth of debt THIS YEAR to cover the spread between consumer prices and actual prices of energy. PG&E could be bankrupt just because of the destablizing nature of the commodity market when it comes to outside forces such as OPEC.
Finally, this is only the pipe that would run along with the tunnel itself. Trade in coal, manufactured goods (previous post talking about a Tokyo bridge), and a host of other materials could make this a viable project. However, the governmental (US-Russo relations), enviormental (what happens if earthquake), political (OPEC, budgetcutting), human (Who the hell wants to work in Alaska in -60F), and technical (permafrost, LONG tunnel, harsh conditions) are much tougher to overcome then the economic ever thought about being.
I grew up like the child you describe in that I was extremely gifted (probably not to the extent this child is) and have worked with gifted and talented children as well. With that in mind, I can relate a few things I enjoyed and how they might help you.
1. Begin with projects not just book learning. Make things into games and challenges not just straight out of the book. This is a child emotionally and they like to learn when it's fun. If you're studying something, put it in the form of game, challenge, or neat project.
2. Remember that this is a 9 year old no matter how intelligent he or she is. Unless the child has an incredibly high emotional age your still dealing with someone who is undergoing the rigors of pre-adolescence and is subject to things such as loss of attention, boredom, hyperactivity, among other things. Just do not forget child's age and be patient.
3. Take the advice of some of the early posters and make sure the child is adjusting and can interact with the rest of the children. Even though this may not be your job, it will help the child develop.
4. Have one-on-one and group time.
This is where I differ from the rest of the posters here. I went down both paths in two different schools. One, I was in class with rest of the children and the other I was brought together with other children at my own intellectual capacity. I can tell you flat out, I learned more and had more fun when I was with others that could think on my level but were still my age. So if he or she does have friends and they are gifted as well, try to get them all together and do things with one another intellectually stimulating. You don't need to dump massive amounts of knowledge just give them the right tools to problem solve. The kids will have a better time and learn more when they are all working together. Think about it, weren't projects more fun with a great group!
5. Care. Do not take on this challenge unless your 100% committed to the child. Dealing with a child who is gifted requires at least as much effort as one who has a disability. Where a child with a disability will challenge you emotionally and physically, the gifted child will challenge you intellectually and emotionally. Do not get frustrated with them if they do not perform to their intellectual capacity. Keep positive and urging then to explore the world around them. The child will progress at their own pace they feel comfortable and you are but a guide.
I am very happy you have chosen to work with a gifted and talented child and I wish you all the best. However, don't feel as though you have to cram every major new breakthrough into their brain, just show them the wonders that are out there and they will take care of the rest.
Alright Im not going to bitch at oneside or the other but I going to speak from the entrepreneur in me. Whether or not you think this is evil, this could be a good thing for a small business that doesnt plan on being around that long, dont wont to pay the additional cost of licensing a whole version, or need the cash right now. Software subscription licensing is not much different then leasing a computer. Don't pay your bills they repo your computer, dont pay for your software it doesnt work. The people who will be paying for subscription-based software will know exactly what their buying and why. Its called Buy vs. Lease look into it.
Hangtime
Is that all that goes on here anymore. Let's all take potshots at MS anytime they do anything! I can think of a couple of good things about this.
Tracking internal document consumption - If you can place a cookie, you can track who and how many time something is read.
Changing document data to reflect different visitations. If a user has already read the document and it hasn't changed it doesnt download the Word document.
I am reminded of a Shakespeare when I hear this: (approximation) Nothing is neither good nor evil but thinking makes it so. Of course somebody can do something malicious, but somebody can also do something positive. If your that worried about it, download the document, open up your favorite text editor (insert here), open the Word document, strip out the header and footer information, and read it. Very simple. And for the joker who will point out what it if has pictures or some really brutal formatting that doesnt show up; well tell the folks that put it up on the website to save their document as HTML or a TXT file. Laters
/me gets off my soapbox
Hangtime
If you continue to think what you have always thought, you will continue to get what you have always got.
-Anonymous
To hornerj:
Just because OSS moves into the enterprises doesnt mean business people are replaced. Contrary to popular opinion, other people with different skills must be used inside the business to make it work. When is the last time someone audited the books for their company and it wasn't their job or they owned the company. *Wind blows, tumbleweed blows by*
To all:
I have seen this argument about OSS converting companies into service-driven enterprises and getting rid of software products all together. I think this is a fruitless cause. Yes, some organizations may make it by selling support and services, but most will not. Here is why:
First and most important, good people are tough to find and even more expensive to hire and retain. If your trying to hire both support/consulting personnel and programmers, your doubling your workforce when only half of your workforce, the support/consulting personnel, is contributing to your bottom line.
I will concede this feature at the enterprise-level has been one that's paid for, but I will address that in a minute. Support/consulting for general consumer applications will never be a large money-maker and the product must be sold. Their is simply no way a company will keep itself in the black selling support for an email application.
Ahhh, the channel. It was your friend for a number of years picking up where you left off by integrating applications and providing support, while getting closer to your customers. Now you won't to horn on there turf? Even if the company and application are new, the channel will go after it. Why? Because their is money to be made there. Your moving into territory where you have few friends and three strikes against you, no customers, a stronger competitor, and its not your core business.
Kinda same with the channel. If your building applications, your core business is not service-based. Trying to run outside of your core-business is not impossible (look at IBM Global Services), but its much more difficult.
Will the OSS and service-based business model work. Well it hasn't yet but that doesn't mean it won't though. Support/consulting has been a small money-maker for some traditional product selling software companies. However, those companies had two advantages, they knew the source code and it was a sideline business. None of the Linux crowd has turned profits yet and business models are not yet fully developed.
Who here has bought support as a consumer and not for or as a business? Not too many I would imagine. In the case of Linux applications and distros, its tough to support a business model when you eliminate 40% of your customers because either they're smart enough to figure out or can find the answers easily.
/me gets off his soapbox
Hangtime
"If you continue to think the way you have always thought, you will continue to get what you have always got." - Anonymous