I found this on the microsoft page linked in the article above:
WORKAROUND To work around this issue, turn off the Messenger service. To do so, follow these steps:
1. Click Start, and then click Control Panel (or point to Settings, and then click Control Panel).
2. Double-click Administrative Tools.
3. Double-click Services.
4. Double-click Messenger.
5. In the Startup type list, click Disabled.
6. Click Stop, and then click OK.
The more I think about client-side IMAP filtering, the less it makes sense. The whole point of the IMAP protocol was to allow the user to check email from any given client, for example the work computer, the home computer and the travel laptop.
If the client has a whole bunch of filtering built in, then, you have to synchronize across all the clients, which cancels out the original point.
The better solution would be to make a friendly GUI for procmail that any client can launch. Am I right?
I use procmail to handle that stuff. Then I can check my email from whatever IMAP client is handy. Is there an advantage of using client-side filtering vs. server-side?
The advantage of knowing where the same people travel is that you can rule out weird seasonal effects. Otherwise, your data might be skewed by tourists, traveling businesspeople, kids in school, part-time or seasonal workers, etc.
No, you don't need to know that "Joe Smith" travels every day from A to B, but you do need to know that the same people are travelling from A to B regularly over time.
It's understandable that people don't want third parties recording where they're going all the time.
However, it's also very understandable how this data would essential for intelligently planning mass transit. It's not enough just to measure how many people enter and exit and each terminal. It helps to know where a particular rider begins and ends her commute. Knowing where most people start and end their trips allows for express routes.
Instead of ranting about government intrusiveness, put all that energy towards figuring out another solution that satisfies privacy concerns and provides meaningful data.
Now that being geeky is seen a cool trait, marketers are now buslily redefining the label to describe people that spend lots of money on high-fashion electronics.
Why are we letting this happen? Which is more impressive: owning a lot of expensive hardware, or turning outdated junk into useful tools?
The US economy is fat-packed with industries kept above water through government protection and subsidies. The telecom industry is not going to give away their revenue stream without a fight.
You're misthinking of MIT as a for-profit firm.
on
MIT Everyware
·
· Score: 1
Universities were meant to be centers of learning and education for the betterment of the larger society. People started MIT way back in the mists of time because they wanted to educate their kids and because they recognized that education has external benefits to everyone. The open courseware project is a logical extension of those ideals.
It's a shame, but most universities behave as profit-maximizing firms (hoarding IP, seeking TV contracts and endorsements for sports teams, etc) when that's not really what they were founded to do. If they want to behave like profit-maximizing firms, then they shouldn't ask for donations and they shouldn't get tax revenues.
Kids playing Quake may learn how to navigate through a maze and blast enemies, but it's a huge jump to conclude that they're being programmed for the behavior at the same time. Learning involves a completely different set of skills than stimulus-response conditioning, which is what you're talking about.
I like wvdial too. The bigger question is why bother reading the man page, then using vim to edit a bunch/etc/sysconfig/network-* scripts, and then checking for typos later, when you can just fire up the Mandrake Control Center GUI, and be done with it in about 90 seconds?
What's the advantage of manually tweaking all that stuff?
It all depends on a few assumptions. Here's a simple example:
If you're a US stockholder in a firm that writes software, your profits go up when you farm out jobs overseas. So you can go out and spend that extra money on ice cream for the family at home.
If you're a laid-off worker at that same software firm, you might notice that the ice-cream parlor is now hiring due to increased business. So you can get a job there. Will your new wage be greater than your old wage? It depends on lots of factors, like how hard it is to train a new worker, how productive each worker is, how much people are willing to spend on software vs ice-cream, etc. It's uncertain.
Now let's say the software-firm owner tells the ice-cream parlor owner that he too can reduce costs by sponsoring some foreign workers willing to work for much less money, thanks to some changes in laws. Now your new boss comes to you and says you can either quit or accept a much lower wage.
So is society better off? Total GDP has increased, but the median wages has fallen. Ice cream and software is cheaper to buy, but the workers get paid less.
The bottom line: plenty of US workers earn wages way, way above what other people earn in the developing world for doing the exact same thing.
Maybe you like the idea of living in a world where a few owners of capital pay the rest of us just barely enough to justify going to work, but I don't.
Dockworkers have/had an effective union, so they had high wages, and they stopped efforts by management to route around them. They wouldn't have those high wages without the union. Firms are going to find ways to lower costs; unions are the best method of making sure the workers have a decent wage.
loved the post. but it's the american way, isn't it? we sell out the working class because we have this irrational hope that we too can become millionaires.
So we don't want policies like the estate tax, or subsidized health care, or better worker's rights, or anything else that would redistribute money from the upper tier downward, because we're convinced that it's just a matter of time before we hit it big.
i don't see where we disagree about handshake clubs.
if i understand you, you're saying that the value in going to a school like Duke, Stanford, Penn, etc is partially based on getting access to those secret-handshake clubs, and that membership is a big advantage in any career. i totally agree with this statement.
i'm snide because i don't like it. the fact that it is possible to be incompetent and successful if you've got friends in high places is, in economics terms, a market failure, and we're all worse off because of it.
look at our president for example. if he had a different last name, he'd be the night manager at the airport chili's.
here it is, folks: these private-school elitist types think they're smarter than us lowlifes that only went to state schools.
They are getting a B+ at Duke when they could easily goto a top teir national public university and earn an A.
i'd be offended by this comment if i hadn't met so many morons that had paid ten times as much as i did for my degree, and yet hadn't really gotten anything for the expense except for membership into a bunch of secret handshake clubs. you're not any smarter, and you might have been struggling for that same B+ no matter where you took intro to calculus.
finally, this was just confusing:
I am currently a freshman at Duke and can attest to the fact that there is not grade inflation of any type.
and then later:
I will not deny that some professors inflate their grades and some departments inflate their grades.
it's been done before: civ addicts all got together and wrote freeciv. freeciv allows the players to customize every aspect of the game experience; rules, tilesets, etc. it suffers in the graphics department, but it's still a great game. why don't all you everquest addicts all go cold-turkey for six months and write your own game? you may find that working on a real project that you love is a lot more satisfying than daydreaming about your elf earning his new set of magic argyle socks. i'm doing my part: i'm working on an SDL version of the old maxis game robosport.
Or are you saying that customer 1 should pay the full $1M (for a word processor, say) and all the rest should get it for free?
if i was the guy that wrote the ask slashdot, then what you've outlined above would really be the only way i'd agree to giving them access to the source code. otherwise, once he hands over the code, he's going to sweat that the client firm is going to try to cheat him somehow. and the client firm will probably try to cheat him by cosmetically altering the code and then releasing a competing product. giving away source code and charging per-seat licenses are two great tastes that don't taste great together.
Even the most elementary understanding of the software market or economics in general. should enable you to understand why it cannot work like that.
yeah, i agree, but how else can you get the source code to be released and have the author adequately compensated?
it sounds like you do a lot of specialized work for a variety of firms, and they all have different issues that they want your opinion on. distributing your work causes a network effect that increases demand for your service because of the nature of the market.
however, if the market looked different, and if there was only one question to be answered, ever, and then the firms would never want your expertise again, there would be no good economic reason to distribute your answer freely. the most lucrative plan would be to do all the work and find out the answer, and then charge each firm to see your work. that's the model that firms like gartner dataquest use, because of the high fixed-cost of research.
in microeconomics terms, software development is a high fixed-cost, and low-to-nonexistent marginal cost industry. similar industries include pharmaceuticals and the recording industry. the producer spends a lot of capital getting a product ready for the market, and then recompensates itself by virtue of the gap between the low marginal cost and the high market price.
once this guy finishes developing the software, he wants to be able to sell it to other firms, at a market price significantly above the marginal cost. here's the problem: if he gives the source code to the client firm, then he has to worry if the client is going to leak the source code to a third-party or even compete with him when he tries to sell the finished good on the larger market.
here's my two ideas:
the open-source solution: charge the client firm a price equal to the fixed cost + the total expected payout from selling to the larger market. this will be a HUGE price, but then the source can be released in a genuinely open-source manner, and the creator still gets reimbursed, and the client firm gets to do whatever it wants.
the capitalist solution: allow them to view and edit the source code, but not distribute it outside the company. this has been suggested above. i don't like this though: it requires this guy to hire plenty of lawyers and be a code cop, and that's a hassle nobody wants.
what i want to know is why we think we have the right to prevent the asteroid from destroying us. popular opinion believes a similar asteroid wiped out the dinosaurs. now if we assume all that is true, then what's so great about humanity that we get to to extend our existence? perhaps the next race that would evolve would be as cognitively superior to us as we are over the dinosaurs.
we (the human race) would have a hard time justifying our history if we had to. it's been thousands of years of opression and brutality with a few pockets of reason and enlightenment mixed in.
are we really sure we ought to prevent something else from coming along?
right on. the market system is a great way to allocate capital, as long as certain assumptions hold.
the problem is, those assumptions (symmetry of information, fungibility, minimal barriers to entry, etc) don't really stack up well in real-world markets. give me a market and i'll show how it's not perfectly competitive.
so nobody's going to be able to download the relevant.pdf files for a while.
chances are good that we won't hear some news in the mainstream channels for at least several hours.
unless there's a way to request a fax version, i just don't see how anyone will be able to get their hands on the judgement before the market closes today.
am i the only one that imagines an opportunity to capitalize on this in the stock market?
I am not advocating indiscriminate downloading without the artist's permission. Copyright protection is vital.
Janis Ian recognizes that the artist has the right to choose what happens with her output. This often gets overlooked in all the RIAA-bashing around here.
If the artist doesn't want to allow sharing, then that's her choice.
Slashdot Mirror
I found this on the microsoft page linked in the article above:
WORKAROUND
To work around this issue, turn off the Messenger service. To do so, follow these steps:
1. Click Start, and then click Control Panel (or point to Settings, and then click Control Panel).
2. Double-click Administrative Tools.
3. Double-click Services.
4. Double-click Messenger.
5. In the Startup type list, click Disabled.
6. Click Stop, and then click OK.
HTH
The more I think about client-side IMAP filtering, the less it makes sense. The whole point of the IMAP protocol was to allow the user to check email from any given client, for example the work computer, the home computer and the travel laptop.
If the client has a whole bunch of filtering built in, then, you have to synchronize across all the clients, which cancels out the original point.
The better solution would be to make a friendly GUI for procmail that any client can launch. Am I right?
I use procmail to handle that stuff. Then I can check my email from whatever IMAP client is handy. Is there an advantage of using client-side filtering vs. server-side?
The advantage of knowing where the same people travel is that you can rule out weird seasonal effects. Otherwise, your data might be skewed by tourists, traveling businesspeople, kids in school, part-time or seasonal workers, etc.
No, you don't need to know that "Joe Smith" travels every day from A to B, but you do need to know that the same people are travelling from A to B regularly over time.
It's understandable that people don't want third parties recording where they're going all the time.
However, it's also very understandable how this data would essential for intelligently planning mass transit. It's not enough just to measure how many people enter and exit and each terminal. It helps to know where a particular rider begins and ends her commute. Knowing where most people start and end their trips allows for express routes.
Instead of ranting about government intrusiveness, put all that energy towards figuring out another solution that satisfies privacy concerns and provides meaningful data.
Now that being geeky is seen a cool trait, marketers are now buslily redefining the label to describe people that spend lots of money on high-fashion electronics.
Why are we letting this happen? Which is more impressive: owning a lot of expensive hardware, or turning outdated junk into useful tools?
The US economy is fat-packed with industries kept above water through government protection and subsidies. The telecom industry is not going to give away their revenue stream without a fight.
Universities were meant to be centers of learning and education for the betterment of the larger society. People started MIT way back in the mists of time because they wanted to educate their kids and because they recognized that education has external benefits to everyone. The open courseware project is a logical extension of those ideals.
It's a shame, but most universities behave as profit-maximizing firms (hoarding IP, seeking TV contracts and endorsements for sports teams, etc) when that's not really what they were founded to do. If they want to behave like profit-maximizing firms, then they shouldn't ask for donations and they shouldn't get tax revenues.
Well, isn't that the point of having trusted binaries?
Kids playing Quake may learn how to navigate through a maze and blast enemies, but it's a huge jump to conclude that they're being programmed for the behavior at the same time. Learning involves a completely different set of skills than stimulus-response conditioning, which is what you're talking about.
What's the advantage of manually tweaking all that stuff?
It all depends on a few assumptions. Here's a simple example:
If you're a US stockholder in a firm that writes software, your profits go up when you farm out jobs overseas. So you can go out and spend that extra money on ice cream for the family at home.
If you're a laid-off worker at that same software firm, you might notice that the ice-cream parlor is now hiring due to increased business. So you can get a job there. Will your new wage be greater than your old wage? It depends on lots of factors, like how hard it is to train a new worker, how productive each worker is, how much people are willing to spend on software vs ice-cream, etc. It's uncertain.
Now let's say the software-firm owner tells the ice-cream parlor owner that he too can reduce costs by sponsoring some foreign workers willing to work for much less money, thanks to some changes in laws. Now your new boss comes to you and says you can either quit or accept a much lower wage.
So is society better off? Total GDP has increased, but the median wages has fallen. Ice cream and software is cheaper to buy, but the workers get paid less.
The bottom line: plenty of US workers earn wages way, way above what other people earn in the developing world for doing the exact same thing.
Maybe you like the idea of living in a world where a few owners of capital pay the rest of us just barely enough to justify going to work, but I don't.
Dockworkers have/had an effective union, so they had high wages, and they stopped efforts by management to route around them. They wouldn't have those high wages without the union. Firms are going to find ways to lower costs; unions are the best method of making sure the workers have a decent wage.
loved the post. but it's the american way, isn't it? we sell out the working class because we have this irrational hope that we too can become millionaires.
So we don't want policies like the estate tax, or subsidized health care, or better worker's rights, or anything else that would redistribute money from the upper tier downward, because we're convinced that it's just a matter of time before we hit it big.
i don't see where we disagree about handshake clubs.
if i understand you, you're saying that the value in going to a school like Duke, Stanford, Penn, etc is partially based on getting access to those secret-handshake clubs, and that membership is a big advantage in any career. i totally agree with this statement.
i'm snide because i don't like it. the fact that it is possible to be incompetent and successful if you've got friends in high places is, in economics terms, a market failure, and we're all worse off because of it.
look at our president for example. if he had a different last name, he'd be the night manager at the airport chili's.
here it is, folks: these private-school elitist types think they're smarter than us lowlifes that only went to state schools.
i'd be offended by this comment if i hadn't met so many morons that had paid ten times as much as i did for my degree, and yet hadn't really gotten anything for the expense except for membership into a bunch of secret handshake clubs. you're not any smarter, and you might have been struggling for that same B+ no matter where you took intro to calculus.
finally, this was just confusing:
and then later:
well, which is it?
it's been done before: civ addicts all got together and wrote freeciv. freeciv allows the players to customize every aspect of the game experience; rules, tilesets, etc. it suffers in the graphics department, but it's still a great game. why don't all you everquest addicts all go cold-turkey for six months and write your own game? you may find that working on a real project that you love is a lot more satisfying than daydreaming about your elf earning his new set of magic argyle socks. i'm doing my part: i'm working on an SDL version of the old maxis game robosport.
if i was the guy that wrote the ask slashdot, then what you've outlined above would really be the only way i'd agree to giving them access to the source code. otherwise, once he hands over the code, he's going to sweat that the client firm is going to try to cheat him somehow. and the client firm will probably try to cheat him by cosmetically altering the code and then releasing a competing product. giving away source code and charging per-seat licenses are two great tastes that don't taste great together.
Even the most elementary understanding of the software market or economics in general. should enable you to understand why it cannot work like that.
yeah, i agree, but how else can you get the source code to be released and have the author adequately compensated?
it sounds like you do a lot of specialized work for a variety of firms, and they all have different issues that they want your opinion on. distributing your work causes a network effect that increases demand for your service because of the nature of the market.
however, if the market looked different, and if there was only one question to be answered, ever, and then the firms would never want your expertise again, there would be no good economic reason to distribute your answer freely. the most lucrative plan would be to do all the work and find out the answer, and then charge each firm to see your work. that's the model that firms like gartner dataquest use, because of the high fixed-cost of research.
in microeconomics terms, software development is a high fixed-cost, and low-to-nonexistent marginal cost industry. similar industries include pharmaceuticals and the recording industry. the producer spends a lot of capital getting a product ready for the market, and then recompensates itself by virtue of the gap between the low marginal cost and the high market price.
once this guy finishes developing the software, he wants to be able to sell it to other firms, at a market price significantly above the marginal cost. here's the problem: if he gives the source code to the client firm, then he has to worry if the client is going to leak the source code to a third-party or even compete with him when he tries to sell the finished good on the larger market.
here's my two ideas:
somebody modded this informative?
now i know what's responsible for all the garbage in the signal.
what i want to know is why we think we have the right to prevent the asteroid from destroying us. popular opinion believes a similar asteroid wiped out the dinosaurs. now if we assume all that is true, then what's so great about humanity that we get to to extend our existence? perhaps the next race that would evolve would be as cognitively superior to us as we are over the dinosaurs.
we (the human race) would have a hard time justifying our history if we had to. it's been thousands of years of opression and brutality with a few pockets of reason and enlightenment mixed in.
are we really sure we ought to prevent something else from coming along?
right on. the market system is a great way to allocate capital, as long as certain assumptions hold.
the problem is, those assumptions (symmetry of information, fungibility, minimal barriers to entry, etc) don't really stack up well in real-world markets. give me a market and i'll show how it's not perfectly competitive.
so nobody's going to be able to download the relevant .pdf files for a while.
chances are good that we won't hear some news in the mainstream channels for at least several hours.
unless there's a way to request a fax version, i just don't see how anyone will be able to get their hands on the judgement before the market closes today.
am i the only one that imagines an opportunity to capitalize on this in the stock market?
from the article:
I am not advocating indiscriminate downloading without the artist's permission. Copyright protection is vital.
Janis Ian recognizes that the artist has the right to choose what happens with her output. This often gets overlooked in all the RIAA-bashing around here.
If the artist doesn't want to allow sharing, then that's her choice.