Peeking at the code? Seriously...there are an insignificant number of software applications where code is the true IP.
Coding is never holy grail...it is a combination of the initial idea and the (often more importantly) the implementation of that idea that make or break a company.
No business that creates an application within the currently published infrastructure of Google Apps Engine is going to have enough rocket science in it to worry about having it stolen by Google (or any competent set of developers).
Because as a business owner you recognize the benefit of not having to invest in IT administration overhead?
Because as a business owner, you recognize that Google is investing in your business by seeding your startup costs?
Because as a software developer you recognize that leveraging the tools Google is offering (and will be adding to over time) will speed your time to delivery?
This problem has arisen because the government is running the school system. Period.
is full of bullocks. There is the possibility (and reality ) of mis-use, corruption, incompetence, mis-guidedness, etc... wherever human beings are involved. The thing is, though you may have more stories about government mess-ups and corruption, I would argue this is because the gov't is inherently more transparent (whether it likes it or not).
Every system I have watched go from a public system to being "saved" by the private sector either results in immediate over-spending/-charging or long-term degradation well below the levels of where the public system had once been.
When it comes to education, the failure of the system has little to do with who is running it vs. those who are attending it. You can blame the system on those who "couldn't afford it", but if you send your kids off to some place "better" now, what does their environment look like when your grandkids are growing up. Suburbia cannot protect you from a failing social net...one that is failing because people with the attitude to "pay for something better" are pulling out, they aren't participating.
Or are you not a member of this society? "Wrong side of the tracks" and all that?
This problem has arisen because the government is running the school system. Period. No, I am definitely not happy about our "free education" system.
So you would hail to the mighty capitalistic system to bail out the ailing US education system?
Maybe by privatizing it you would end up with something as transparent, safe and clean as the US meat industry? Something as efficient as the US auto industry?
I'm betting that all of the Mac and *nix people out there don't really feel that they "must" use an MS platform.
Well, first off my use of "must" is somewhat sarcastic, but also quite practical.
I am a *nix person, however I work in the software industry and so to get a paycheque I work with what my customers use...so my laptop is an XP box. Our corp's apps are either win32-specific (some which only work on 2K, not even on XP) or IE-specific.
So by "must" I mean "monopoly" as in "90-95%".
What Adobe gets out of bundling and price cutting is the same thing that any business gets: market share
Market share is not worth having if you can't make a profit from it. Undercutting your one product does not make any business sense. Where it does make sense is as a loss-leader...where is the gain-trailer if Macradobe undercuts its two main products? We know where MS's trailer s are.
Are you saying that Microsoft is doing something illegal right now, and continues to plan for more?
Yes.
You don't think that the intense scrutiny under which they [...] now operate has changed things in the last few years?
No. Why would it? What penalty are they likely to face? What is the disinsentive to them?
Remember, this is not an Enron we're talking about. This is not about fraudulant accounting, which every publicly held company now operate(s) is avoiding/cleaning up.
This is about contract fulfillment, both written and implied. This is about strong-arm tactics. It is extremely hard to prove that strong-arm tactics are being used against you...and even when proven, MS/GWB has proven that it is even harder to do anything about it.
Do you honestly think that MS is going to change a proven business model? Again, what's the incentive to do that? The only thing they could end up doing is losing market share. They cannot gain any more. So why mess with what (for them) is working? JAIL, no. FINES, no.
do you see anything other than PDFs, in any significant number?
PDF is a published specification. There are many alternative tools for creating and viewing PDFs. Adobe does not hold a monolopoly over PDF.
And what about Photoshop? Essentially the industry standard.
But not a monopoly. And not what I'm talking about. Adobe doesn't gain *anything* by undercutting the product that you claim is the monolopy.
Microsoft however does benefit by undercutting their offering into the space that Adobe is in. The get to push the MS platform even further. MS is pushing its way into all corners of the computing space by leveraging the *platform* on which all others must run. Them undercutting the product means they push into product spaces that no one else could afford to go into at that price. If Adobe undercut its price on its enterprise product...where does it get its revenue from???
Besides, Adobe has not be found guilty of monopolistic practices.
In a completely chaotic free market 3rd world country, try to picture the effect of suddenly putting *that* much demand out on the market for product.
Then phase it in? When is sudden change ever a good idea in an economic system (other than as desperation efforts to stem the tide of other suddent changes)?
But as you point out, lobbyists would wreak Limbough-proportioned havoc over any type of plans making changes to the status quo. I can see the Lou Dobbs new segment title now: "Unfleecing of the American Cotton Industry" or some other such numb-wit'ed thing.
And you don't think this will happen with Acrobat, Flash, and other technologies...
No, because they won't be trying to maintain a monopoly, which is the reason that MS does this. What benefit would Macradobe get by undercutting prices on their products?
There are two main criteria differentiating Geeks and nerds:
Geeks bathe.
Geeks know what they are talking about.
In the nerd world, talking and using "big words" are the mantra. However, when it comes to putting those words into practice, nerds rarely if ever follow through.
Geeks are the ones at the top of the class (or who could be but are too bored). nerds are the one who say they could be at the top of the class, who try to outwit teachers and peers, but in reality often sit with a low-C or D average and could not actually get much above there for a number of reasons, mostly lack of attention and/or intelligence.
Think Will Hunting vs. Steve Erkel.
But I really haven't given the issue much thought...
I guess it was ok for people with unlimited business accounts, but for personal use it was useless.
These are not meant to be personal devices. These are business devices. The fact that ISPs offer them as consumer devices and that people buy them for personal consumption is outside of the original intent.
Take a look at the Blackberry platform. The Blackberry Enterprise Server (BES) is a middleware server designed for the deployment and administration of applications. This is not for Uncle Has-Every-Toy.
There is no money in consumer devices unless done on a Very Large Volume and are tied to usage or rental fees. Business is where the bucks are at.
Things like Google's toolbar that actually rewrites text to give their partners and advantage over my own affiliates, really bothers me
But you can't control it! To waste your time trying to is just folly. You can't possibly keep up with all the variations of web agents. Have you tested your site with 3rd party browsers (AOL, WebTV, ISP-customized IE-based ones, Opera (free and purchased), etc...)
Why bother? HTML/CSS/DHTML is not meant for you to force a look-and-feel on people. HTML solely let's you tell the user/user-agent what the structure of the document is. CSS allows you to hint at its display. But that's it.
What about proxies (corporate proxies, proxomitron, etc...)?
What about user-specified CSS?
What about disabled Javascript?
What about wget/curl/links/lynx?
What about Mac? MacOSX? AmigaOS? BeOS? Linux? Solaris? HP-UX? Irix? AIX?
What about KHTML? HotSpot? LWP? LWP::Mechanize?
Why spend the time and wasted effort trying to force a website to not conform to the HTML standard?
The age of web designers thinking they can control how a site looks down to the pixel is over
Not to sound too "Star Wars"....but I fear it has only just begun. Just look at the number of folks responding here that think just the opposite to you...and these are likely web "designers" themselves.
Using Greasemonkey or ANY OTHER WEB CLIENT other than the one(s) the author is targetting does not make this a derived art. The original is still in its badly conceived format.
The problem here is that a large number of web "developers" believe that they can control the user's experience. The reality is that this is completely contrary to the HTML standard.
HTML is a method for giving structure to a document. CSS is a method of suggesting look-and-feel of the document. However, NOTHING prevents me from using an arbitrary web client (note: a "browser" is just one type of web client) that will display the structured document in some other way.
If you are designing a page/site in such a way that you try to force a given look-and-feel to everyone, you are limiting the usefulness of your site...not improving it.
Slashdot Mirror
Peeking at the code? Seriously...there are an insignificant number of software applications where code is the true IP.
Coding is never holy grail...it is a combination of the initial idea and the (often more importantly) the implementation of that idea that make or break a company.
No business that creates an application within the currently published infrastructure of Google Apps Engine is going to have enough rocket science in it to worry about having it stolen by Google (or any competent set of developers).
Because as a business owner you recognize the benefit of not having to invest in IT administration overhead?
Because as a business owner, you recognize that Google is investing in your business by seeding your startup costs?
Because as a software developer you recognize that leveraging the tools Google is offering (and will be adding to over time) will speed your time to delivery?
Yes, but unfortunately their response is likely to be Google has (yet again) violated the DMCA!!
We're gonna sue your ass!!
In defense of the OP, he's quite certain that the film was made a long-long time ago, well before Cassini's discovery in '75.
Land of the free??
Every system I have watched go from a public system to being "saved" by the private sector either results in immediate over-spending/-charging or long-term degradation well below the levels of where the public system had once been.
When it comes to education, the failure of the system has little to do with who is running it vs. those who are attending it. You can blame the system on those who "couldn't afford it", but if you send your kids off to some place "better" now, what does their environment look like when your grandkids are growing up. Suburbia cannot protect you from a failing social net...one that is failing because people with the attitude to "pay for something better" are pulling out, they aren't participating.
Or are you not a member of this society? "Wrong side of the tracks" and all that?
Maybe by privatizing it you would end up with something as transparent, safe and clean as the US meat industry? Something as efficient as the US auto industry?
Well, first off my use of "must" is somewhat sarcastic, but also quite practical.
I am a *nix person, however I work in the software industry and so to get a paycheque I work with what my customers use...so my laptop is an XP box. Our corp's apps are either win32-specific (some which only work on 2K, not even on XP) or IE-specific.
So by "must" I mean "monopoly" as in "90-95%".
Market share is not worth having if you can't make a profit from it. Undercutting your one product does not make any business sense. Where it does make sense is as a loss-leader...where is the gain-trailer if Macradobe undercuts its two main products? We know where MS's trailer s are.
Yes.
No. Why would it? What penalty are they likely to face? What is the disinsentive to them?
Remember, this is not an Enron we're talking about. This is not about fraudulant accounting, which every publicly held company now operate(s) is avoiding/cleaning up.
This is about contract fulfillment, both written and implied. This is about strong-arm tactics. It is extremely hard to prove that strong-arm tactics are being used against you...and even when proven, MS/GWB has proven that it is even harder to do anything about it.
Do you honestly think that MS is going to change a proven business model? Again, what's the incentive to do that? The only thing they could end up doing is losing market share. They cannot gain any more. So why mess with what (for them) is working? JAIL, no. FINES, no.
Have you looked at Pylon Anywhere ?
Microsoft however does benefit by undercutting their offering into the space that Adobe is in. The get to push the MS platform even further. MS is pushing its way into all corners of the computing space by leveraging the *platform* on which all others must run. Them undercutting the product means they push into product spaces that no one else could afford to go into at that price. If Adobe undercut its price on its enterprise product...where does it get its revenue from???
Besides, Adobe has not be found guilty of monopolistic practices.
But as you point out, lobbyists would wreak Limbough-proportioned havoc over any type of plans making changes to the status quo. I can see the Lou Dobbs new segment title now: "Unfleecing of the American Cotton Industry" or some other such numb-wit'ed thing.
Ah...well, I guess I show my ignorance. I never watched the Erkel show...I just assumed he was a moron :-)
In the nerd world, talking and using "big words" are the mantra. However, when it comes to putting those words into practice, nerds rarely if ever follow through.
Geeks are the ones at the top of the class (or who could be but are too bored). nerds are the one who say they could be at the top of the class, who try to outwit teachers and peers, but in reality often sit with a low-C or D average and could not actually get much above there for a number of reasons, mostly lack of attention and/or intelligence.
Think Will Hunting vs. Steve Erkel.
But I really haven't given the issue much thought...
mobiGeek.
Take a look at the Blackberry platform. The Blackberry Enterprise Server (BES) is a middleware server designed for the deployment and administration of applications. This is not for Uncle Has-Every-Toy.
There is no money in consumer devices unless done on a Very Large Volume and are tied to usage or rental fees. Business is where the bucks are at.
Geeks bathe. And in general, Geeks know what they are talking about.
No, completely wrong yet again. To hell with main stream media.
NERDS ARE NOT IN.
Geeks are. Geeks bathe.
These folks have just predicted that they will be two to six times less effective in the next 5 years? [1/3 vs. 2/3 or $33B vs $200B]
I beg to differ. Based on the number of "thanks for the code" responses in this thread...there are a lot of "brilliant" designers out there...
Google cache of how to drive yourself nuts (see my previous post)
Google cache of how to prove you don't understand what the WWW is...
Google cache of delutions of grandeur
Why bother? HTML/CSS/DHTML is not meant for you to force a look-and-feel on people. HTML solely let's you tell the user/user-agent what the structure of the document is. CSS allows you to hint at its display. But that's it.
Why spend the time and wasted effort trying to force a website to not conform to the HTML standard?
Not to sound too "Star Wars"....but I fear it has only just begun. Just look at the number of folks responding here that think just the opposite to you...and these are likely web "designers" themselves.
Using Greasemonkey or ANY OTHER WEB CLIENT other than the one(s) the author is targetting does not make this a derived art. The original is still in its badly conceived format.
The problem here is that a large number of web "developers" believe that they can control the user's experience. The reality is that this is completely contrary to the HTML standard.
HTML is a method for giving structure to a document. CSS is a method of suggesting look-and-feel of the document. However, NOTHING prevents me from using an arbitrary web client (note: a "browser" is just one type of web client) that will display the structured document in some other way.
If you are designing a page/site in such a way that you try to force a given look-and-feel to everyone, you are limiting the usefulness of your site...not improving it.