I thought the "blogging" comment was supposed to be a jab at the idea that some random blog bost has merit as a newsworthy article. Most blogs are basically opinions, conjecture and ramblings of a person that is not likely to be an expert on the question at hand.
I never really thought of blogs inherently being semantic web, it doesn't have to be, and that didn't occur to me when I read the grandparent post.
I think the problem is that it's not being done well enough to do something like what you want.
Another problem with the way you want to do is that the sites that have this information want you to go to them. If you visit them, they get ad impressions, possibly ad clicks and some attention/notoriety/fame/etc. If there's no attention and no money to be made because some other service has slurped your information, then it's often not worth puting up the information in a manner that's easily & automatically slurpable so that the user never has to visit the site that has the information.
It's not necessarily implausible. How about better wireless? Wireless-n is faster and has longer range, but is not available to the original Core Duo models. Upgrading the built-in wireless is possible, but not easy. One can consider an add-on.
But the quality of third party device drivers isn't really something you can blame Apple for, at least I don't think so. I don't blame Microsoft or Linus if nVidia fubars a driver, I blame the company whose name is on the driver.
Attempts to deflect the truth is a fairly common with his type. It's always convenient to say "they are the a-holes for doing x, y and z" all the while doing x, y, and z in a greater magnitude. The proverb of plank in your own eye vs. speck in someone else's eye still holds true.
The marginal cost bit is a bit of a strained mantra around some parts of the Internet. The term is a real econ term, but the arguments on the Internet are generally constructed in such a way to ignore the original development cost. "Making money from nothing" is a misnomer because they had to make the original investment of developing the software. Marginal cost doesn't cover that expense.
The bits do mean something, if the initial investment truly didn't matter, then I might as well start selling CDs with randomly written bits.
That's an odd argument, one that's apparently grasping at straws to downplay the statement. A copy sold is a copy sold, it tells nothing of the circumstances of the sale. Who is to say that 1-2-3 wasn't also bundled with computers under the same circumstances?
Maybe because servers aren't computers made for personal use? They are often very different types of computers, even if they might share a few components and share the same underlying architecture. I've tried to use a server as a desktop, it's just not the right tool for the task. Even if some of the parts are exactly the same as on some servers (same chip models, etc.), workstations make much better for desktop use than servers do.
Servers usually aren't a luxury either. Spending $2000 to get a desktop or notebook is usually luxury spending, spending the same on a server is usually necessary.
The last time I saw desktop usage stats, Linux was the only one that showed up, and that was at 1%. I don't think Solaris, BSD and such even made a blip. Where they have their strength is in the server market, which was not measured in by the same means.
The blog entry didn't say that iPod created the hard drive market, it claimed that iPod expanded the market. The blog entry was pretty clear in stating that there were hard drive players before the iPod.
It might vary by device. If you get a device that claimes a/b/g/n, then you will get the 5.something GHz frequency. I know Apple's newest version of the Airport Extreme supports it. Just 'a' will do the job too. Using 'n' on the 2.4GHz band would not be so great, 'n' works by using the entire band, equivalent to channels 1-11, so it would be adding noise to every channel.
When the Dell 690 was first introduced, maxing it out came out to something like $80k, where it accepted dual Quadro, 64GB of RAM, four cores and so on. Now, it's about $50k for eight cores
That works when there's a limited supply. The problem with that is that there are so many competing services that can do the same thing with just a little work. It seems like they are all fad services, once it becomes uncool, people move to the next fad service. I'm surprised that many web sites are given venture capital money and later, bought out. Just no good way to capitalize on a service that other people give away free.
"due" is a relative term, because that assumes that there is a definite periodicity, when we really can't infer that from just three prior events.
A "change of pace", if it's not just a lava flow, has a chance to mean something that's massive enough to make Katrina look like someone's dog pooed in a park. It doesn't have to be, it isn't likely to be, but if it's like the previous major eruptions, then then much of the globe is in for a little trouble. The last major eruption in SE Asia basically caused there to be no summer in Europe, meaning major crop failures just about everywhere.
I wouldn't argue against copyrights, just how they are currently handled. Still, I don't think there is any legal requirement for Gootube to be proactive in protecting copyrights. Even though there isn't one, I think Gootube has been doing more than copyright law requires of them to be safe.
but I do have a problem with how they handle it. I mean, they don't specify a limit, it's basically a nebulous figure, and that they aren't clear at all about this in their marketing. I mean, if they don't mean to say that always-connected is for always maxed, then they shouldn't use weasel words in the fine print. The claimed interpretation of "unlimited" is that the connection is basically always on, as opposed to dial-up of old where you were allowed a certain number of hours. Of course, they know that unlimited also gives an impression of not having a bit limit either, but they never do anything to prevent that impression except in said fine print.
A lot of phones had a very pricey debut, the first RAZR was about the same price, now they can be had for $30 with service sign-up. I don't expect that the iPhone will drop that much, but I sure hope it drops to half its current price pretty quickly. I'm tempted to look at the Moto Q to pass the time until the price gets to something that's realistic.
The carrier doesn't directly have to spend any money or research time to cripple a phone. They just have to demand that the phone maker turn off the features they don't like, and provide them the key information needed to re-enable said features once they've gotten more money from the customer.
That still doesn't address the architecture issue, both software and hardware. I'm almost certain that ARM is the thing to use, but there are so many variations on it that I don't know if testing them all is feasible.
There isn't a good standardization system under Linux to provide anything that looks like the homogenization that you suggest. Every distribution does a lot of things a little differently than the next, and if every carrier makes their own, I can see that the flexibility is a double-edged sword.
That's all nice, but I really don't think that argument would be convincing to the decision makers. You would need to show that there is an existing market of Linux users for Dell's consumer computers that would make it pay off for a big company like Dell (there isn't, really), or have some means of demonstrating that they can create such a market, and that's the part that handwaving arguments on the Internet simply can't do.
I really don't think transportation analogies fit here either.
The article is mistitled ("essential" should be "most interesting) but I think it helps to show how powerful Firefox is, it's basically a platform to itself now.
I don't run many add-ons either because of speed and stability problems that arise with too many add-ons. Adblocking too many things also seems to slow down Firefox too. Flashblock helps too because ads are too CPU hungry, if I have a motion flash ad in a window going, it will generally always take 5% of my CPU, not something I want when trying to conserve battery power.
The consumer arena itself isn't necessarily more profitable, it is just that Apple's computers are more profitable. They tend to add gimmicky features to create in impression of value (remote? (crap) cell camera on a monitor? WTF?). They have very few models to maintain and each model sells a lot more than nearly any model that a competitor sells, and limiting the number of variations allows them to get a better discount on larger quantities of parts, I think.
I'm surprised that Apple doesn't bother so much with businesses, they only offer 3% volume discounts when they can clearly do more in order to land a deal, because a lost deal is no profit, cutting your net profit in half to land a deal is still far better than not having that deal. High-volume business might not have a high per-unit profit, but they often win out just because of economies of scale.
On my network, SAMBA is doing a better job as a server than what I've managed using Microsoft products as a server. I'd hate to cling to something or avoid something just because of a prejudiced notion. Apparently, you're already using it successfully. I suppose the only way to argue with good results is to make emotion-based nitpicks on the methodology.
Isn't that one of the Mac repair myths? Repairing permissions and PRAM resetting are two things that are often recommended even though it usually doesn't fix anything. I haven't heard of anything that was fixed by doing either.
Slashdot Mirror
I thought the "blogging" comment was supposed to be a jab at the idea that some random blog bost has merit as a newsworthy article. Most blogs are basically opinions, conjecture and ramblings of a person that is not likely to be an expert on the question at hand.
I never really thought of blogs inherently being semantic web, it doesn't have to be, and that didn't occur to me when I read the grandparent post.
I think the problem is that it's not being done well enough to do something like what you want.
Another problem with the way you want to do is that the sites that have this information want you to go to them. If you visit them, they get ad impressions, possibly ad clicks and some attention/notoriety/fame/etc. If there's no attention and no money to be made because some other service has slurped your information, then it's often not worth puting up the information in a manner that's easily & automatically slurpable so that the user never has to visit the site that has the information.
It's not necessarily implausible. How about better wireless? Wireless-n is faster and has longer range, but is not available to the original Core Duo models. Upgrading the built-in wireless is possible, but not easy. One can consider an add-on.
But the quality of third party device drivers isn't really something you can blame Apple for, at least I don't think so. I don't blame Microsoft or Linus if nVidia fubars a driver, I blame the company whose name is on the driver.
I think the same can be said about your statement.
Attempts to deflect the truth is a fairly common with his type. It's always convenient to say "they are the a-holes for doing x, y and z" all the while doing x, y, and z in a greater magnitude. The proverb of plank in your own eye vs. speck in someone else's eye still holds true.
The marginal cost bit is a bit of a strained mantra around some parts of the Internet. The term is a real econ term, but the arguments on the Internet are generally constructed in such a way to ignore the original development cost. "Making money from nothing" is a misnomer because they had to make the original investment of developing the software. Marginal cost doesn't cover that expense.
The bits do mean something, if the initial investment truly didn't matter, then I might as well start selling CDs with randomly written bits.
That's an odd argument, one that's apparently grasping at straws to downplay the statement. A copy sold is a copy sold, it tells nothing of the circumstances of the sale. Who is to say that 1-2-3 wasn't also bundled with computers under the same circumstances?
Isn't that the fault of Apple or the dealers for not participating and not selling outside it's own narrow distribution channel?
Maybe because servers aren't computers made for personal use? They are often very different types of computers, even if they might share a few components and share the same underlying architecture. I've tried to use a server as a desktop, it's just not the right tool for the task. Even if some of the parts are exactly the same as on some servers (same chip models, etc.), workstations make much better for desktop use than servers do.
Servers usually aren't a luxury either. Spending $2000 to get a desktop or notebook is usually luxury spending, spending the same on a server is usually necessary.
The last time I saw desktop usage stats, Linux was the only one that showed up, and that was at 1%. I don't think Solaris, BSD and such even made a blip. Where they have their strength is in the server market, which was not measured in by the same means.
The blog entry didn't say that iPod created the hard drive market, it claimed that iPod expanded the market. The blog entry was pretty clear in stating that there were hard drive players before the iPod.
It might vary by device. If you get a device that claimes a/b/g/n, then you will get the 5.something GHz frequency. I know Apple's newest version of the Airport Extreme supports it. Just 'a' will do the job too. Using 'n' on the 2.4GHz band would not be so great, 'n' works by using the entire band, equivalent to channels 1-11, so it would be adding noise to every channel.
When the Dell 690 was first introduced, maxing it out came out to something like $80k, where it accepted dual Quadro, 64GB of RAM, four cores and so on. Now, it's about $50k for eight cores
Get them hooked, then charge. It's like crack.
That works when there's a limited supply. The problem with that is that there are so many competing services that can do the same thing with just a little work. It seems like they are all fad services, once it becomes uncool, people move to the next fad service. I'm surprised that many web sites are given venture capital money and later, bought out. Just no good way to capitalize on a service that other people give away free.
"due" is a relative term, because that assumes that there is a definite periodicity, when we really can't infer that from just three prior events.
A "change of pace", if it's not just a lava flow, has a chance to mean something that's massive enough to make Katrina look like someone's dog pooed in a park. It doesn't have to be, it isn't likely to be, but if it's like the previous major eruptions, then then much of the globe is in for a little trouble. The last major eruption in SE Asia basically caused there to be no summer in Europe, meaning major crop failures just about everywhere.
I think it would be disappointing if Martians were only 2D, and scary if they were 4D.
I wouldn't argue against copyrights, just how they are currently handled. Still, I don't think there is any legal requirement for Gootube to be proactive in protecting copyrights. Even though there isn't one, I think Gootube has been doing more than copyright law requires of them to be safe.
but I do have a problem with how they handle it. I mean, they don't specify a limit, it's basically a nebulous figure, and that they aren't clear at all about this in their marketing. I mean, if they don't mean to say that always-connected is for always maxed, then they shouldn't use weasel words in the fine print. The claimed interpretation of "unlimited" is that the connection is basically always on, as opposed to dial-up of old where you were allowed a certain number of hours. Of course, they know that unlimited also gives an impression of not having a bit limit either, but they never do anything to prevent that impression except in said fine print.
A lot of phones had a very pricey debut, the first RAZR was about the same price, now they can be had for $30 with service sign-up. I don't expect that the iPhone will drop that much, but I sure hope it drops to half its current price pretty quickly. I'm tempted to look at the Moto Q to pass the time until the price gets to something that's realistic.
The carrier doesn't directly have to spend any money or research time to cripple a phone. They just have to demand that the phone maker turn off the features they don't like, and provide them the key information needed to re-enable said features once they've gotten more money from the customer.
That still doesn't address the architecture issue, both software and hardware. I'm almost certain that ARM is the thing to use, but there are so many variations on it that I don't know if testing them all is feasible.
There isn't a good standardization system under Linux to provide anything that looks like the homogenization that you suggest. Every distribution does a lot of things a little differently than the next, and if every carrier makes their own, I can see that the flexibility is a double-edged sword.
That's all nice, but I really don't think that argument would be convincing to the decision makers. You would need to show that there is an existing market of Linux users for Dell's consumer computers that would make it pay off for a big company like Dell (there isn't, really), or have some means of demonstrating that they can create such a market, and that's the part that handwaving arguments on the Internet simply can't do.
I really don't think transportation analogies fit here either.
The article is mistitled ("essential" should be "most interesting) but I think it helps to show how powerful Firefox is, it's basically a platform to itself now.
I don't run many add-ons either because of speed and stability problems that arise with too many add-ons. Adblocking too many things also seems to slow down Firefox too. Flashblock helps too because ads are too CPU hungry, if I have a motion flash ad in a window going, it will generally always take 5% of my CPU, not something I want when trying to conserve battery power.
The consumer arena itself isn't necessarily more profitable, it is just that Apple's computers are more profitable. They tend to add gimmicky features to create in impression of value (remote? (crap) cell camera on a monitor? WTF?). They have very few models to maintain and each model sells a lot more than nearly any model that a competitor sells, and limiting the number of variations allows them to get a better discount on larger quantities of parts, I think.
I'm surprised that Apple doesn't bother so much with businesses, they only offer 3% volume discounts when they can clearly do more in order to land a deal, because a lost deal is no profit, cutting your net profit in half to land a deal is still far better than not having that deal. High-volume business might not have a high per-unit profit, but they often win out just because of economies of scale.
On my network, SAMBA is doing a better job as a server than what I've managed using Microsoft products as a server. I'd hate to cling to something or avoid something just because of a prejudiced notion. Apparently, you're already using it successfully. I suppose the only way to argue with good results is to make emotion-based nitpicks on the methodology.
Isn't that one of the Mac repair myths? Repairing permissions and PRAM resetting are two things that are often recommended even though it usually doesn't fix anything. I haven't heard of anything that was fixed by doing either.