My immediate thought is, fire all the Slate staff, keep the 4.8 million visitors + 4.5 million existing visitors = 9.3 million visitors for the same price as one site alone!
Consolidation is the key to democracy. It's why the Muslims hate our freedom.
Well, I've seen some nice systems. When I see some nice fully systems and some quality fully self- systems, I'll be ready for the advent of fully self-healing systems. I expect we will get there one step at a time.
Yeah, get that drunken fighter in there. He was sweet.
It will be easy to pull off with Capcom's impressive 3D-to-2D scanline converter technology. After that, Nintendo will buy Capcom to form a new company called Eighties-4-EVA, with their first release, MegaMan -1.0z featuring such boss characters as MarioMan, MushroomMan, GanonMan, and BionicCommandoMan. After beating all four, you will receive a weapon called "$5 Rebate towards MegaMan -0.9z" that you can use when those clever Capcom dudes think up names for the other four bosses.
After that, it's off to beat the evil Dr. Zwiley. Of course, I haven't played MegaMan 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, I, II, III, IV, V, X2, X3, X4, X5, X6, X7, X8, Bass, Zero, Zero 2, Zero 3, Xtreme, Xtreme2, or The Wily Wars so maybe Zwiley's been defeated already.
It's kind of obvious. The phone companies got usurped big time when cable's latent end-user infrastructure turned out to be perfect for today's needs. And of course the cell phone companies took over half the market by building infrastructure as well.
He's going to have a hard time beating ClearChannel. Their interpetation of "statistically perfect" includes healthy doses of Jessica Simpson and American Idol.
Yeah, but not before the author bashes two elected bodies, denies voting problems in the 2004 election, and throws around Microsoft's slogan "trustworthy computing."
Whether or not Google has launched a new desktop product is a minor star in their new for-profit constellation. Maybe I haven't been reading enough blogs, but I have yet to see anyone point out the obvious conflict between Google's motto "don't be evil" and their status as a public corporation, which is to be evil.
Why are public corporations "evil"? This is not a moral argument. Public corporations are bound by law to make as much profit as possible. They have a responsibility to their shareholders to maximize profit. For tobacco execs to admit that cigarettes are deadly would be against the law. It would mean giving up on their business.
Private companies do not have this problem. They can do whatever they want. Google is no longer a private company.
On top of this, you have the sheer informational largesse of the Google search engine. It's not a huge stretch to say that Google knows what everyone is thinking, all of the time. Like Microsoft, IBM, and other tech giants before it, Google's new goal will be to amass even more information (code, data) so they can leverage themselves into more markets and "stay competitive." Since the definition of a market is rather slippery in the IT world, Google will tend towards monopoly as easily as Microsoft did.
The ultimate goal of any IT company is to amass all of the information in the world. After all, information costs barely nothing to store and transfer, and, like the number of nodes in a network (Metcalfe's law), having access to more information grows your influence exponentially. Make no mistake, Google is in a position to become the next Microsoft. The only thing holding them back is their illegal motto.
It's neoconservative hype. If you've read Mythical Man Month (or done any programming) you know that having one author greatly simplifies things. To extend Sun's analogy, the problem with 1970's filmmaking was too many Great Dictators (Coppola, Kubrick, Lucas, etc.) whereas modern Hollywood's movie-by-committee method is much better. Really now.
To say that committee = bazaar is simply mangling the terms.
Traffic jams are caused by a lack of communication between cars about speed. When someone in front slows down, that message is propagated through a column of cars, causing a compression wave that results in a traffic jam. If everyone could drive exactly the same speed, all of the time, cars could move arbitrarily fast with just inches between them.
Of course, if cars could do that, it would be called a train.
Just read the whole article over the dinner table. It conspicuously leaves out any discussion of the merits of armor until the final paragraph. Far more interesting was a retired corporal on C-SPAN last night. He pointed out that if your enemy is coming at you with AK-47s and improvised bombs, putting on LESS armor is pretty much the stupidest thing you can do.
The TR article does mention hours-long downloads and network outages for soldiers in the field, making it sound like our info-warfare is not yet ready for demo, let alone rollout.
I think a better name for the article would be The Extinction of High-Performance Applications. If you want software to run fast and bug-free, you still need a programmer.
>POTS persisted for business reasons associated with monopolization of telecom and not technology or sound quality.
The guy who wrote this article is failing to appreciate some of the technology goals of plain ol' telephone service (POTS). For example, reliability of telephone switches is in the multiple-nines percent uptime. Analog lines provide streaming without packet-loss, and the entire network is self-powered. All run over plain copper wire.
In other words, the phone network has opted for simplicity and reliability over innovation. It is no surprise then, that digital land-line service has made few inroads in ten years of widespread internet use. Sitting in front of a bulky computer praying for the software to work is simply too much overhead for most people to bear.
While digital may become the dominante media for voice in the near future, there will remain a market for direct voice connections. Just look at the popularity of Nextel cell phones and you will see that direct connections have big market appeal.
"Money can be gotten anywhere" is a very revealing statement. Only a dork would say something like this. For most people, money is very difficult, labor-intensive thing to accumulate.
The idea that you can make hundreds of thousands of dollars sitting in front of a monitor and pressing buttons is a fairly intangible ideal. Programmers deserve a high salary for their skills, but if you go out into the real world, you will find that ordinary people are struggling - including a lot of ex-programmers.
I disagree with the idea that hiring a bunch of nerds who love their job does, in fact, produce a better product. Because I've been part of nerd-herds before, and they are chaotic.
"The New York Times' Juliet Chung writes about the latest technology trend: the growing popularity of analog technology with a generation that has grown up digital.
YUP YUP. I couldn't agree more.
There's easily a hundred-billion dollar market for products designed to take the coldness out of technology, and reinvigorate them with the humanity of the pre-information era. For example, analog joysticks for console game systems were a stunning and much needed improvement.
People are rapidly figuring out that digital is NOT superior to analog in terms of density and resolution. With analog, you get more.
Personally, my whole audio system is analog (well, except for a tube amp, which would sound great). I have a CD player, but I don't use it much.
>There was no "corporate" bias besides giving people "what they want." > >And that's bullshit.
You hit the nail RIGHT ON THE HEAD my friend.
Capitalism is built on the idea of giving people what they want. And if you work any type of retail operation (I work at a deli myself), you realize that giving people what they want = selling them garbage.
So, reporters giving people what they want = lying to them.
Imagine if a customer walked into my deli asking for Boar's Head Ham and I said, "You know, I can't imagine why you would eat that stuff. It's pumped full of water and preservatives, has a funny purple color and a weird consistency, and at six dollars a pound, you could boil your own ham three times over."
That's journalism. The customer is humiliated, and I get fired. Tough job.
>The press isn't there to tell us what is True and Right
Wrong. Journalists are supposed to be trustworthy. They are supposed to be able to make the Right judgement, even if it conflicts with their personal allegiances.
That's why you can open the newspaper and see a photo of an Iraqi guy waiting for his chance to fire a rocket at an American tank. There's nothing patriotic or comforting about that photo, but it is unabashedly True.
No, the driving ethic of journalism is to make the right judgement. In other words, to investigate the Abu Ghraib prison scandal, discover that Rumsfeld jerks off to prisoner abuse photos, and then come out and say, "This sucks. We looked into this, and trust us, its awful."
Instead, what Fox et. al. do these days is to make no judgement at all. "What do you think, liberal commentator? It sucks? What do you think, conservative pundit? It's awesome? Oh well, that's that. Time for commercial."
Slashdot Mirror
And in a departure from nothing, Disney has adapted Miyazaki for a new feature titled Lion King III: Simba-san's Romantic Adventure.
BMW is involved because they have a plan to drive your car with a keyboard while you navigate the internet with a wheel.
My immediate thought is, fire all the Slate staff, keep the 4.8 million visitors + 4.5 million existing visitors = 9.3 million visitors for the same price as one site alone!
Consolidation is the key to democracy. It's why the Muslims hate our freedom.
Well, I've seen some nice systems. When I see some nice fully systems and some quality fully self- systems, I'll be ready for the advent of fully self-healing systems. I expect we will get there one step at a time.
Yeah, get that drunken fighter in there. He was sweet.
It will be easy to pull off with Capcom's impressive 3D-to-2D scanline converter technology. After that, Nintendo will buy Capcom to form a new company called Eighties-4-EVA, with their first release, MegaMan -1.0z featuring such boss characters as MarioMan, MushroomMan, GanonMan, and BionicCommandoMan. After beating all four, you will receive a weapon called "$5 Rebate towards MegaMan -0.9z" that you can use when those clever Capcom dudes think up names for the other four bosses.
After that, it's off to beat the evil Dr. Zwiley. Of course, I haven't played MegaMan 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, I, II, III, IV, V, X2, X3, X4, X5, X6, X7, X8, Bass, Zero, Zero 2, Zero 3, Xtreme, Xtreme2, or The Wily Wars so maybe Zwiley's been defeated already.
It's kind of obvious. The phone companies got usurped big time when cable's latent end-user infrastructure turned out to be perfect for today's needs. And of course the cell phone companies took over half the market by building infrastructure as well.
Time to lay wire? You bet.
They're watering down crystal meth now....what, full strength had some side effects?
He's going to have a hard time beating ClearChannel. Their interpetation of "statistically perfect" includes healthy doses of Jessica Simpson and American Idol.
Considering that I wouldn't work at AOL (or any tech company) for longer than four months anyway, getting four months free is basically a free job.
Maybe this is corruption? I wonder if those un-reported contractors are getting free money too.
Still, it's great to see Times contributor Sarah Glazer being far more receptive to e-books than are many journalists.
Yeah, it's because she works for the Man. You know the NY Times supported the war too, right?
I don't understand why we need this. What's wrong with AZT (besides the fact that it kills everyone who takes it?)
And will the new HIV vaccine also kill everyone who takes it? Just curious.
azt on trial
Looks like just a game card (joystick support) plus MAME software. The joysticks are extra. So is the PC and monitor. And the cabinet.
Yeah, but not before the author bashes two elected bodies, denies voting problems in the 2004 election, and throws around Microsoft's slogan "trustworthy computing."
After all that, then we make sense.
Whether or not Google has launched a new desktop product is a minor star in their new for-profit constellation. Maybe I haven't been reading enough blogs, but I have yet to see anyone point out the obvious conflict between Google's motto "don't be evil" and their status as a public corporation, which is to be evil.
Why are public corporations "evil"? This is not a moral argument. Public corporations are bound by law to make as much profit as possible. They have a responsibility to their shareholders to maximize profit. For tobacco execs to admit that cigarettes are deadly would be against the law. It would mean giving up on their business.
Private companies do not have this problem. They can do whatever they want. Google is no longer a private company.
On top of this, you have the sheer informational largesse of the Google search engine. It's not a huge stretch to say that Google knows what everyone is thinking, all of the time. Like Microsoft, IBM, and other tech giants before it, Google's new goal will be to amass even more information (code, data) so they can leverage themselves into more markets and "stay competitive." Since the definition of a market is rather slippery in the IT world, Google will tend towards monopoly as easily as Microsoft did.
The ultimate goal of any IT company is to amass all of the information in the world. After all, information costs barely nothing to store and transfer, and, like the number of nodes in a network (Metcalfe's law), having access to more information grows your influence exponentially. Make no mistake, Google is in a position to become the next Microsoft. The only thing holding them back is their illegal motto.
It's neoconservative hype. If you've read Mythical Man Month (or done any programming) you know that having one author greatly simplifies things. To extend Sun's analogy, the problem with 1970's filmmaking was too many Great Dictators (Coppola, Kubrick, Lucas, etc.) whereas modern Hollywood's movie-by-committee method is much better. Really now.
To say that committee = bazaar is simply mangling the terms.
So let me get this straight: You write a piece of software, Microsoft steals it, patents it, then sues you for inventing it? Nice world we live in.
Traffic jams are caused by a lack of communication between cars about speed. When someone in front slows down, that message is propagated through a column of cars, causing a compression wave that results in a traffic jam. If everyone could drive exactly the same speed, all of the time, cars could move arbitrarily fast with just inches between them.
Of course, if cars could do that, it would be called a train.
Just read the whole article over the dinner table. It conspicuously leaves out any discussion of the merits of armor until the final paragraph. Far more interesting was a retired corporal on C-SPAN last night. He pointed out that if your enemy is coming at you with AK-47s and improvised bombs, putting on LESS armor is pretty much the stupidest thing you can do.
The TR article does mention hours-long downloads and network outages for soldiers in the field, making it sound like our info-warfare is not yet ready for demo, let alone rollout.
I think a better name for the article would be The Extinction of High-Performance Applications. If you want software to run fast and bug-free, you still need a programmer.
>POTS persisted for business reasons associated with monopolization of telecom and not technology or sound quality.
The guy who wrote this article is failing to appreciate some of the technology goals of plain ol' telephone service (POTS). For example, reliability of telephone switches is in the multiple-nines percent uptime. Analog lines provide streaming without packet-loss, and the entire network is self-powered. All run over plain copper wire.
In other words, the phone network has opted for simplicity and reliability over innovation. It is no surprise then, that digital land-line service has made few inroads in ten years of widespread internet use. Sitting in front of a bulky computer praying for the software to work is simply too much overhead for most people to bear.
While digital may become the dominante media for voice in the near future, there will remain a market for direct voice connections. Just look at the popularity of Nextel cell phones and you will see that direct connections have big market appeal.
"Money can be gotten anywhere" is a very revealing statement. Only a dork would say something like this. For most people, money is very difficult, labor-intensive thing to accumulate.
The idea that you can make hundreds of thousands of dollars sitting in front of a monitor and pressing buttons is a fairly intangible ideal. Programmers deserve a high salary for their skills, but if you go out into the real world, you will find that ordinary people are struggling - including a lot of ex-programmers.
I disagree with the idea that hiring a bunch of nerds who love their job does, in fact, produce a better product. Because I've been part of nerd-herds before, and they are chaotic.
"The New York Times' Juliet Chung writes about the latest technology trend: the growing popularity of analog technology with a generation that has grown up digital.
YUP YUP. I couldn't agree more.
There's easily a hundred-billion dollar market for products designed to take the coldness out of technology, and reinvigorate them with the humanity of the pre-information era. For example, analog joysticks for console game systems were a stunning and much needed improvement.
People are rapidly figuring out that digital is NOT superior to analog in terms of density and resolution. With analog, you get more.
Personally, my whole audio system is analog (well, except for a tube amp, which would sound great). I have a CD player, but I don't use it much.
>There was no "corporate" bias besides giving people "what they want."
>
>And that's bullshit.
You hit the nail RIGHT ON THE HEAD my friend.
Capitalism is built on the idea of giving people what they want. And if you work any type of retail operation (I work at a deli myself), you realize that giving people what they want = selling them garbage.
So, reporters giving people what they want = lying to them.
Imagine if a customer walked into my deli asking for Boar's Head Ham and I said, "You know, I can't imagine why you would eat that stuff. It's pumped full of water and preservatives, has a funny purple color and a weird consistency, and at six dollars a pound, you could boil your own ham three times over."
That's journalism. The customer is humiliated, and I get fired. Tough job.
>The press isn't there to tell us what is True and Right
Wrong. Journalists are supposed to be trustworthy. They are supposed to be able to make the Right judgement, even if it conflicts with their personal allegiances.
That's why you can open the newspaper and see a photo of an Iraqi guy waiting for his chance to fire a rocket at an American tank. There's nothing patriotic or comforting about that photo, but it is unabashedly True.
No, the driving ethic of journalism is to make the right judgement. In other words, to investigate the Abu Ghraib prison scandal, discover that Rumsfeld jerks off to prisoner abuse photos, and then come out and say, "This sucks. We looked into this, and trust us, its awful."
Instead, what Fox et. al. do these days is to make no judgement at all. "What do you think, liberal commentator? It sucks? What do you think, conservative pundit? It's awesome? Oh well, that's that. Time for commercial."