Still wrong. We get about 40-46 mpg in city driving too.
The only way to get numbers as low as CR is to limit all your trips to under 10 minutes; the engine takes about 5 minutes to warm up, and during that time you get about 10mpg less than normal.
Consumer Reports is full of crap if they think a Prius gets 35 mpg on highway driving.
See, I *own* a Toyota Prius, and drove from MA to TX with it full of stuff (back seats folded down), air conditioning on, cruise control as much as possible. Average MPG: 46.
It's not true. Toyota have a 10-year warranty on the battery pack in the Prius.
There's a lot of FUD about hybrid cars being spread by certain large corporations in Detroit. You'll see some of it appearing in this Slashdot discussion--"The batteries wear out and need replacing", "They're not as efficient as a normal car at highway driving", "They can't accelerate out of trouble", etc.
If you do mostly highway cruising you really are better off with a normal, fuel efficient gasoline vehicle.
The Prius gets better real-world gas mileage on highway cruising than any other car of its size, including the VW Jetta TDI, so where are these fuel-efficient gasoline vehicles of which you speak?
Yes, because I have no idea what my bank's web site is, so I always go look it up in Google and use whatever looks like it might be the right site. Yeah.
I used to use Yahoo all the time, but at some point they forgot that the reason everyone used them was the search directory. They started getting obstructive towards the people trying to get listed in the directory, and dmoz.org was launched as a result, pulling away a lot of users.
Then the default was changed for the Yahoo home page, so that when you entered a search term, instead of getting a nice useful list of annotated directory entries, you just got a typical search engine response--except not as good as Google's. Away went thousands more users. I gave up too, as it wasn't at all obvious to me how to find the directory that used to be there, but I could easily find dmoz.org.
Now it seems as if they've un-hidden the directory via "tabs" on the home page. Unfortunately, it's still crippled. You enter a term in directory search and it gives you a page of search results you didn't want, and at the top a couple of links saying there are "related" directory entries you might be interested in. Call me picky, but if I request to search X, the site shouldn't respond with Y and say "Oh, and by the way, you can also search X".
So you click the links to go through to the directory, at which point you discover that it's pretty puny compared to dmoz.org (compare and contrast searches for a random topic).
If you try to add a link, you discover why the Yahoo directory now sucks: they basically offer no ability to add links in a timely fashion unless you pay them money. In other words, they want to charge you money for the privilege of helping them improve their product and compete with Google and dmoz.
Google have never forgotten why people go to them. They're picky about what new features they add, and they keep the interface clean so that existing users don't suddenly find themselves lost. They're also careful not to remove functionality simply because it no longer fits the corporate strategy of the month.
Yes. You need something that can write the index files, but there are Perl modules for that. Plenty of people use iPods with Linux. It's just a hard drive. MP3s go in a bunch of folders, with an index file.
In other words: it's a scam to (a) get data about the customer and (b) fiddle the accounts. In all seriousness, it's good of you to come out and say so rather than smokescreen.
Add in (c) the chance to refuse to cough up the cash, and surely you can see why many people see rebates as a shady activity that shouldn't be allowed?
Then there was the theft of QuickTime source code and its incorporation into Video For Windows. That was settled by Microsoft's "investing" a few hundred million in "saving" Apple, if you recall...
Of course, the fact that you can build applications quickly with Notes really pisses off the rip-off consultants who want to charge 6 figure sums for similar functionality... QED.
Right. The thing that people don't appreciate is that with Notes and Domino, I can build a dynamic web application with personalization, workflow, forms, end-to-end encryption for security, session-based authentication with timeout, LDAP integration, import and export via XML, rich text editing, file attachments, full text search--and I can do it all in a day, including the time it takes to set up the server software on a random Linux box.
I don't know of any other tool that lets me do so much, so quickly. Ruby with Rails might be such a tool, but I've only just started writing Ruby. Don't even get me started about how much work J2EE is. Struts is a joke, just look at their "simple" login configuration.
Of course, speed is a tradeoff against cleanliness. That's why you see a lot of ugly Notes applications, and the Notes client is kinda crufty and complicated. But sometimes you don't have two weeks to engineer a J2EE solution.
Groove is entirely dependent upon ActiveX and.NET for its underlying architecture. Microsoft has no ActiveX or.NET implementations for OS X. Therefore, I don't expect to see an OS X version of Groove in the forseeable future.
On the other hand, IBM Workplace is build on Eclipse, and last I heard there were plans for native Mac and Linux clients.
Groove is just another way of locking people into Microsoft platforms.
My guess is you're an MCSE or similar, so obviously nobody ever approaches you about moving from Microsoft technologies.
Exchange to Notes migrations happen all the time. Thing is, Exchange craps out at around 3,000 users per server, whereas with Notes you can run 200,000 simultaneous users on a single IBM server--and they can all keep using the Outlook client they already know, or use web mail, or use their favorite IMAP and SMTP client. They don't even have to know it's a Notes/Domino server on the back end.
I guess if you're a small business, Exchange isn't much work. Try keeping it running when you have 10,000+ employees and you'll think again.
The answer of course is to use standards-based encryption on the client, such as PGP.
Notes is standards-based encryption. It supports S/MIME, which is RFC 2633. It supports it over SMTP and IMAP connections as well as via the Notes client, and interoperates with other mail clients like Thunderbird and Apple Mail even when sending encrypted e-mail across the Internet.
He was already bought out a long time ago. He made Groove totally dependent on Microsoft technologies (ActiveX etc), and stood up on stage and supported Microsoft during the anti-trust trial.
I'm glad someone has mentioned the key problem... it occurred to me reading the last Slashdot article. It's a very common problem with software companies:
The developers are either out of touch with what the users want, or they strongly want different things than the users want.
In this case, the Mozilla developers seem to want to bring back the all-singing all-dancing web browser, mail client, news client, HTML editor, chat client and kitchen sink that was Netscape Communicator. Perhaps they still have dreams of world domination and supplanting desktop applications with web applications.
The users, in contrast, just want a web browser. If they need mail or news, they'll run a mail and/or news client. If they want chat, they'll run a chat program, probably something AIM-compatible.
My theory is that there are two main reasons why users prefer separate apps to monolithic suites: Firstly, Firefox has a cleaner, simpler interface than Mozilla. It's simply easier to switch application contexts in one consistent way, and have UI complexity parceled up neatly into separate bundles. When I'm configuring my web browser, I don't want to see options for accounts and offline news and so on.
The second reason is that unlike developers, users are typically RAM and disk constrained. They don't have shit-hot machines. So the ability to run in far less memory is valuable, even if they don't use that ability all the time.
It's noteworthy that Microsoft haven't turned all their Internet applications into one big suite. They could easily embed IE and Outlook and FrontPage into one package, but they don't. Why not? I'm guessing that they've done their market research, and discovered that almost nobody wants that.
So, what should the Mozilla organization do? It depends what its goals are.
If the goal is to get Mozilla software onto as many desktops as possible, it should dump the Mozilla suite and work on Firefox and Thunderbird.
If the goal is to please the current set of Mozilla developers, then the suite will need to be kept somehow.
If there really aren't enough resources to develop both Firefox/Thunderbird and the Mozilla suite, then someone's going to have to make a tough decision: please the developers or please the users?
Well, that's just Stallman being a dick by sliding between different definitions of the word "free".
I really wish he wouldn't do it, and I really wish the whole thing had started off using a clearer and less ambiguous word, but I've given up arguing with him.
What you say may be true, but it's misleading by omission and largely irrelevant.
Microsoft gave money directly to Ashcroft's campaign, and of course he was the guy who ultimately decided not to bother going forward with anti-trust remedies after the company was convicted.
How much they give to Bush and Cheney and the Democrats is really beside the point.
No, you're missing the point. The "sweet spot" is where profit is maximized, not per-unit price. The point of maximum profit is not the point of maximum per-unit price.
I'm quite sure that the RIAA want to increase the per-unit price; what I'm saying is that they could increase the profits they make from me by a factor of 10x or more by reducing the per-unit price 25%-40%. That they don't take that option should be a concern for the shareholders of the companies in question, frankly.
Of course, it could be that I'm a very atypical consumer. Maybe the RIAA have boatloads of research indicating that CDs at $18 sell more than half as many copies as CDs at $9.99.
For instance, IBM's "product" is the tailor-made services and consultancy it provides. The software is merely a tool they use to provide it.
No, IBM also sells software, and makes a profit doing so. It even sells commercialized versions of open source products (e.g. Eclipse, CloudScape), and makes money on those too. IBM's software is not merely a tool for increasing consultancy fees.
Slashdot Mirror
Still wrong. We get about 40-46 mpg in city driving too.
The only way to get numbers as low as CR is to limit all your trips to under 10 minutes; the engine takes about 5 minutes to warm up, and during that time you get about 10mpg less than normal.
Consumer Reports is full of crap if they think a Prius gets 35 mpg on highway driving.
See, I *own* a Toyota Prius, and drove from MA to TX with it full of stuff (back seats folded down), air conditioning on, cruise control as much as possible. Average MPG: 46.
It's not true. Toyota have a 10-year warranty on the battery pack in the Prius.
There's a lot of FUD about hybrid cars being spread by certain large corporations in Detroit. You'll see some of it appearing in this Slashdot discussion--"The batteries wear out and need replacing", "They're not as efficient as a normal car at highway driving", "They can't accelerate out of trouble", etc.
The Prius gets better real-world gas mileage on highway cruising than any other car of its size, including the VW Jetta TDI, so where are these fuel-efficient gasoline vehicles of which you speak?
Yes, because I have no idea what my bank's web site is, so I always go look it up in Google and use whatever looks like it might be the right site. Yeah.
Call someone at Microsoft, see if they can direct you to the right person.
I agree. That's what drove me away from Yahoo.
I used to use Yahoo all the time, but at some point they forgot that the reason everyone used them was the search directory. They started getting obstructive towards the people trying to get listed in the directory, and dmoz.org was launched as a result, pulling away a lot of users.
Then the default was changed for the Yahoo home page, so that when you entered a search term, instead of getting a nice useful list of annotated directory entries, you just got a typical search engine response--except not as good as Google's. Away went thousands more users. I gave up too, as it wasn't at all obvious to me how to find the directory that used to be there, but I could easily find dmoz.org.
Now it seems as if they've un-hidden the directory via "tabs" on the home page. Unfortunately, it's still crippled. You enter a term in directory search and it gives you a page of search results you didn't want, and at the top a couple of links saying there are "related" directory entries you might be interested in. Call me picky, but if I request to search X, the site shouldn't respond with Y and say "Oh, and by the way, you can also search X".
So you click the links to go through to the directory, at which point you discover that it's pretty puny compared to dmoz.org (compare and contrast searches for a random topic).
If you try to add a link, you discover why the Yahoo directory now sucks: they basically offer no ability to add links in a timely fashion unless you pay them money. In other words, they want to charge you money for the privilege of helping them improve their product and compete with Google and dmoz.
Google have never forgotten why people go to them. They're picky about what new features they add, and they keep the interface clean so that existing users don't suddenly find themselves lost. They're also careful not to remove functionality simply because it no longer fits the corporate strategy of the month.
fraud n. 1. A deception deliberately practiced in order to secure unfair or unlawful gain.
2. A piece of trickery; a trick.
Sounds about right to me.
Yes. You need something that can write the index files, but there are Perl modules for that. Plenty of people use iPods with Linux. It's just a hard drive. MP3s go in a bunch of folders, with an index file.
In other words: it's a scam to (a) get data about the customer and (b) fiddle the accounts. In all seriousness, it's good of you to come out and say so rather than smokescreen.
Add in (c) the chance to refuse to cough up the cash, and surely you can see why many people see rebates as a shady activity that shouldn't be allowed?
Then there was the theft of QuickTime source code and its incorporation into Video For Windows. That was settled by Microsoft's "investing" a few hundred million in "saving" Apple, if you recall...
Of course, the fact that you can build applications quickly with Notes really pisses off the rip-off consultants who want to charge 6 figure sums for similar functionality... QED.
Micropolis hard drives were always very quiet too--they'd go clunk and stop making even the faintest whirring noises...
Right. The thing that people don't appreciate is that with Notes and Domino, I can build a dynamic web application with personalization, workflow, forms, end-to-end encryption for security, session-based authentication with timeout, LDAP integration, import and export via XML, rich text editing, file attachments, full text search--and I can do it all in a day, including the time it takes to set up the server software on a random Linux box.
I don't know of any other tool that lets me do so much, so quickly. Ruby with Rails might be such a tool, but I've only just started writing Ruby. Don't even get me started about how much work J2EE is. Struts is a joke, just look at their "simple" login configuration.
Of course, speed is a tradeoff against cleanliness. That's why you see a lot of ugly Notes applications, and the Notes client is kinda crufty and complicated. But sometimes you don't have two weeks to engineer a J2EE solution.
Groove is entirely dependent upon ActiveX and .NET for its underlying architecture. Microsoft has no ActiveX or .NET implementations for OS X. Therefore, I don't expect to see an OS X version of Groove in the forseeable future.
On the other hand, IBM Workplace is build on Eclipse, and last I heard there were plans for native Mac and Linux clients.
Groove is just another way of locking people into Microsoft platforms.
My guess is you're an MCSE or similar, so obviously nobody ever approaches you about moving from Microsoft technologies.
Exchange to Notes migrations happen all the time. Thing is, Exchange craps out at around 3,000 users per server, whereas with Notes you can run 200,000 simultaneous users on a single IBM server--and they can all keep using the Outlook client they already know, or use web mail, or use their favorite IMAP and SMTP client. They don't even have to know it's a Notes/Domino server on the back end.
I guess if you're a small business, Exchange isn't much work. Try keeping it running when you have 10,000+ employees and you'll think again.
Notes is standards-based encryption. It supports S/MIME, which is RFC 2633. It supports it over SMTP and IMAP connections as well as via the Notes client, and interoperates with other mail clients like Thunderbird and Apple Mail even when sending encrypted e-mail across the Internet.
He was already bought out a long time ago. He made Groove totally dependent on Microsoft technologies (ActiveX etc), and stood up on stage and supported Microsoft during the anti-trust trial.
I'm glad someone has mentioned the key problem... it occurred to me reading the last Slashdot article. It's a very common problem with software companies:
The developers are either out of touch with what the users want, or they strongly want different things than the users want.
In this case, the Mozilla developers seem to want to bring back the all-singing all-dancing web browser, mail client, news client, HTML editor, chat client and kitchen sink that was Netscape Communicator. Perhaps they still have dreams of world domination and supplanting desktop applications with web applications.
The users, in contrast, just want a web browser. If they need mail or news, they'll run a mail and/or news client. If they want chat, they'll run a chat program, probably something AIM-compatible.
My theory is that there are two main reasons why users prefer separate apps to monolithic suites: Firstly, Firefox has a cleaner, simpler interface than Mozilla. It's simply easier to switch application contexts in one consistent way, and have UI complexity parceled up neatly into separate bundles. When I'm configuring my web browser, I don't want to see options for accounts and offline news and so on.
The second reason is that unlike developers, users are typically RAM and disk constrained. They don't have shit-hot machines. So the ability to run in far less memory is valuable, even if they don't use that ability all the time.
It's noteworthy that Microsoft haven't turned all their Internet applications into one big suite. They could easily embed IE and Outlook and FrontPage into one package, but they don't. Why not? I'm guessing that they've done their market research, and discovered that almost nobody wants that.
So, what should the Mozilla organization do? It depends what its goals are.
If the goal is to get Mozilla software onto as many desktops as possible, it should dump the Mozilla suite and work on Firefox and Thunderbird.
If the goal is to please the current set of Mozilla developers, then the suite will need to be kept somehow.
If there really aren't enough resources to develop both Firefox/Thunderbird and the Mozilla suite, then someone's going to have to make a tough decision: please the developers or please the users?
Well, that's just Stallman being a dick by sliding between different definitions of the word "free".
I really wish he wouldn't do it, and I really wish the whole thing had started off using a clearer and less ambiguous word, but I've given up arguing with him.
What you say may be true, but it's misleading by omission and largely irrelevant.
Microsoft gave money directly to Ashcroft's campaign, and of course he was the guy who ultimately decided not to bother going forward with anti-trust remedies after the company was convicted.
How much they give to Bush and Cheney and the Democrats is really beside the point.
No, you're missing the point. The "sweet spot" is where profit is maximized, not per-unit price. The point of maximum profit is not the point of maximum per-unit price.
I'm quite sure that the RIAA want to increase the per-unit price; what I'm saying is that they could increase the profits they make from me by a factor of 10x or more by reducing the per-unit price 25%-40%. That they don't take that option should be a concern for the shareholders of the companies in question, frankly.
Of course, it could be that I'm a very atypical consumer. Maybe the RIAA have boatloads of research indicating that CDs at $18 sell more than half as many copies as CDs at $9.99.
Is creating open source software and then selling proprietary software tied to it a good business model?
...
Well, it works for TrollTech, Sun, RedHat, SuSE, Novell, IBM,
I don't think anyone ever claimed that "software wants to be free", just that some people want the freedom to tinker with it.
No, IBM also sells software, and makes a profit doing so. It even sells commercialized versions of open source products (e.g. Eclipse, CloudScape), and makes money on those too. IBM's software is not merely a tool for increasing consultancy fees.
IBM makes sackloads of money selling tools based on Eclipse, which it developed.