There's a pretty good argument to be made that you can't just sign away your fair use rights, anymore than Bill Gates can cause you to become his indentured servant via the terms of a shrinkwrapped EULA (Dilbert notwithstanding).
Sure, he ended up winning the case, but I think it says a lot about the pressures of US law and ideals (or the corporations buying them, anyway) that he was raided and hauled into court over the matter in the first place.
They don't own Mac OS, yet Office for Mac dominates the Mac office productivity software market. I don't see that not running Office over Windows has hurt them any there.
I think you are rather making Carr's argument here, or at least half of it. He, nor anyone else, is denying that great advances have been made in technology over the past thirty years. That is what was driving the market. But he's not comparing 1980 to 2004... he's comparing, say, 2000 to 2004. And, by extension, 2000 to 2020 or 2030. He's saying the market has reached a point of maturity. And the argument is, they aren't changing nearly as much as they used to, and most of the changes are irrelevant to the needs of the average user. I think he's right. If you want to talk about high-end cars and high-end databases (most people neither pay 20K for a car or run Oracle) then certainly there will continue to be meaningful advances in those specialty markets and software there will probably never be a commodity. But that's not descriptive of the larger part of the market.
Now, the auto market has matured, as well. There's not too much difference--and none striking--between my '88 Toyota and the ones coming out this model year. If I'm looking to buy, it's because the mileage is getting up there. The reason you're going to see different behavior than in the auto market (one reason, anyway) is that your operating system isn't going to wear out and start making funny noises on you at some point. Code is code, and it's going to keep working like it was written every single time. Even PC hardware is in good shape to last far longer than most automobiles, with the advantages of mostly solid-state, non-moving parts and relatively controlled operating environments.
At any rate, I think that thing that primarily keeps cars from being a simple commodity isn't safety standards or technological advances, but simply marketing. People see their cars, at least in the Western world, more as personal accessories than simple transportation. Except for a very limited subset, I don't think people look at computers and software in the same way. They view them more as oversized staplers, just another piece of machinery for getting something else done that they want. We're at a stage, or close to it, where just about any computer and software at just about any price point can get those things done. When people began to realize that, that's when software becomes a commodity.
Someone will inherit the contract, is the point, smartass, just as Russia inherited the agreements of the USSR. You really think no one is going to come after you for what you owe Citi if they go out of business?
I think he's referring to the fact (often witnessed on WebFlow) that during peak commute hours, 405 North is frequently moving well-below nominal freeway speeds through Renton and the S-curves, whereas the I-5/I-90 route is usually less congested and faster, even if a bit more mileage.
Depends on when each of you are driving the route, of course--but straight mileage measurements are rarely the deciding factor in optimal routes around here.
The Marines were using a special Doom mod some time ago (maybe they still are--article I remember was from several years ago, though) but it wasn't for teaching marksmanship; it was for teaching teamwork and small unit tactics. So... the guy probably didn't mean "shooters" in the sense of "marksmen" but simply in the sense of footsoldiers. But they were using the game as a training aid in some units.
I think the physics are the least useful part of PC based flight sims--X Plane may well be awesome (I've heard nothing but good things about the physics model) but it's never going to get the same seat-of-the-pants feeling that real pilots use and rely on.
Rather, it's the knob-twirling and button-punching that get practiced, and Flight Sim seems to do an excellent job of modeling the navigation management issues that are the REAL bane of most pilots. It's not so much a failure to appreciate the physics of flight as forgetting to adjust the flaps properly, or not monitoring engine guages closely enough, or flying into a mountain in the fog, that cause most accidents (at least, from a cursory review of NTSB data, it appears to be flight management issues more than the flight itself).
Spending time in a simulator that does a good job of modeling real-life navigation, communication, and aircraft management is far more useful than spending time in one that does a good job with the physics of flight. Because, ultimately, computers are good at simulating other electronic systems, and aren't ever going to be that great at physics (at least not anything you can afford to have in your home!)
Another point worth mentioning (and one of the best kept secrets of the game, IMHO) is a fairly revolutionary update system which virtually eliminates lag differences due to bandwidth constraints. I've played this on 56K and DSL, and there is absolutely no difference between the two. Although there is still lag, of course, it's not dependent on your own connection speed, but rather the more even latency rates across the Net. It's a huge equalizer for HPBs who are typically pwned in most online FPS contests.
Same story here, multiple times. Moved about a year ago, had almost an identical experience--requested that they transfer DSL service at the same time as the phone service, they say, "Sure, no problem, it should be up and running when you move in!" And I can still use my existing equipment? "Yes, just take everything with you and plug it in, it will work just the same!"
I move, the phones are up, but no DSL. I call back--"Oh, sorry, DSL service was never ordered for that line! Would you like to order it now?"
#$(@#*$!
Takes another week, and another phone call, to actually get it activated... and then, it STILL doesn't work. More futzing about with it reveals that in fact, my old equipment would NOT work... they'd changed the encoding, I needed a new router, and gosh, they'd be happy to sell me one at an exorbitant price!
Right now, my company is in the process of opening a remote site, and again, Qwest mucked up the ordering process. There is DSL service to the site, we have the right equipment, but it's going to take them up to two weeks just to get the freaking account activated. This is just someone punching a few buttons in their accounting system somewhere--two weeks! And after they already went to the trouble of turning the service up on that line, so it's not as if no one knew about it.
In the poetic justice category, though, they accidently sent two DSL routers to us for the one line... thinking back to the extra one I had to buy that they first told me I didn't, I don't think they'll be getting the second of these back again.:)
Qwest sucks ass, but their support people are nice enough, which makes it hard to really take anything out on them.
Dude, what are you even worrying about? You've got three other wireless networks that already cover your apartment? I call that free Internet access, with none of the configuration hassles!
Trust me, they wouldn't be broadcasting into your apartment if they didn't want you to take advantage of it.;)
WTH? You think there is no such thing as poorly written, unresponsive software? I'd say it's a poor craftsman that can't pick his tools... but most of us don't really get the option to choose the right tool for the job in most of our positions.
The idea that all software simply has strengths and weaknesses is overly accepting... certainly, it may have strengths or weaknesses compared to another package, but it may just also be a steaming pile of crap, unless you consider the ability to consume disk space a 'strength'.
Speaking of thieved equipment at the SeaTac Exodus co-loc...
I had a few boxes out there once; I had the opposite problem, had to put the keyboard down low, so I ended up sitting on the floor and typing, which wasn't probably as bad.
Anyway, I go in one day to make some changes on one of the systems, and when I enter the cage, I notice that my monitor is on. Could have sworn I turned it off when I left last. Then I see that not only is it on, it's logged in! Holy crap! I left it logged in? There's no way! I would never do that... wait... if I didn't do it, someone else must have--I've been hacked!
I scurry over to the box, aghast, and anxious to assess the damage. I move the mouse--and it doesn't move. Those bastards locked up my box! Exodus is going to hear about this!
But then it occured to me that the box, a webserver, had still be serving pages when I'd left the office downtown, and I hadn't gotten any pages from my monitoring software to suggest that it wasn't now. WTF? I get down on my hands and knees and take another look. Box is fine--disks are accessing, everything looks okay. I get a gnawning feeling in the back of my gut, and start tracing cables.
The guy with the rack next to me, who hadn't installed a monitor, had jacked my cord into his box! And not bothered to put it back! I was hot. But then... wait, wasn't I just panicking because I thought I'd left my box logged in? But it wasn't my box, was it? I grinned evilly.
In the end, I was nice--I just dumped his registry to an FTP site in case I decided to break in later and modified his desktop wallpaper to read:
"If you're going to borrow my monitor without asking, you might at least have the common decency to plug it back in where you found it so I don't find out."
I think that although in theory you are correct, in practice, that would never work. For one, there would be little support for funding it, even if the funding requirements were less. For another, and this is the root problem with the idea, models are just that: models. Reality has a way of imposing practicalities on technology that modeling will never and can never catch, and simply building iterative generations of theoretical spacecraft will inevitably build layered unfound flaws and assumptions into the technology.
Conceptual does not become practical without actually getting out and trying it. Building concepts on concepts without actually going out and discovering the hard won 'ground truth' of engineering is putting up a house built of cards rather than of steel. There are myriad examples of this in the world of engineering, from the Titanic up through TWA Flight 800. It takes reality to find the fatal flaws, unfortunately, and those have to be uncovered before any technology can be mature.
That's interesting, I heard almost exactly the same quote from a developer of an MMOG at a get-together in Virginia last year. Weird. Must be a truism in the industry... or you and I were both there, and your definition of 'largest' is a lot different from mine.;)
Even in 1000 years we'll likely have technology that makes whatever we learn now pretty irrelevant.
Er... how exactly do you think we're going to get that technology without funding and researching it? Time does not magically make new ideas and technologies appear. The Wright brothers could not have just kicked their legs up on their desk and called it an afternoon because they figured that, what the heck, in another hundred years or so there will be 777s flitting about anyway. We got the 777s because they put time and energy into making that first flight.
Similarly, if we want that cool technology in 1000 years, then we have to put the money and the time into researching its foundations now. If we want that cool technology to be space-travel oriented, then we should probably put the time and money into the space program. Will things get more advanced and render our current development irrelevant? You bet! But not without making that current development in the first place!
Insightful? Isn't she the one who was claiming that information security is overhyped? I would say it is still closer to ignored than overhyped. It's being hyped by vendors who have it, sure, but that's true of any feature. When we stop seeing major news stories about the latest Outlook worm, then she can tell me it's overhyped. But security means stability, and without stability, IT is basically worthless. Tough to overhype something that critical, IMHO.
Although I agree with you in some ways, I think that the real problem is with the "best tool for the job" approach to things. The issue with this is that "the job" is usually defined very narrowly and does not take other practical factors into account. It's true that there are zealots of every stripe out there who will simply choose a tool because it is what they love best or all that they are really familiar with, but simply looking at a narrow range of capabilities without taking into account the larger impacts is often a recipe for problems. In other words, even if the tool performs the job perfectly, it doesn't usually do so in a complete vacuum... there are other effects, and any proponent of any system who ignores these is doing a disservice to his project.
In this case, I think the guy is actually doing a pretty good job of making that larger assessment, because although you are correct and probably the best tool for the job would be Windows, it's not delivering the bang for buck that makes sense in the larger picture.
Slashdot Mirror
There's a pretty good argument to be made that you can't just sign away your fair use rights, anymore than Bill Gates can cause you to become his indentured servant via the terms of a shrinkwrapped EULA (Dilbert notwithstanding).
Oh, really?
Sure, he ended up winning the case, but I think it says a lot about the pressures of US law and ideals (or the corporations buying them, anyway) that he was raided and hauled into court over the matter in the first place.
They don't own Mac OS, yet Office for Mac dominates the Mac office productivity software market. I don't see that not running Office over Windows has hurt them any there.
I think you are rather making Carr's argument here, or at least half of it. He, nor anyone else, is denying that great advances have been made in technology over the past thirty years. That is what was driving the market. But he's not comparing 1980 to 2004... he's comparing, say, 2000 to 2004. And, by extension, 2000 to 2020 or 2030. He's saying the market has reached a point of maturity. And the argument is, they aren't changing nearly as much as they used to, and most of the changes are irrelevant to the needs of the average user. I think he's right. If you want to talk about high-end cars and high-end databases (most people neither pay 20K for a car or run Oracle) then certainly there will continue to be meaningful advances in those specialty markets and software there will probably never be a commodity. But that's not descriptive of the larger part of the market.
Now, the auto market has matured, as well. There's not too much difference--and none striking--between my '88 Toyota and the ones coming out this model year. If I'm looking to buy, it's because the mileage is getting up there. The reason you're going to see different behavior than in the auto market (one reason, anyway) is that your operating system isn't going to wear out and start making funny noises on you at some point. Code is code, and it's going to keep working like it was written every single time. Even PC hardware is in good shape to last far longer than most automobiles, with the advantages of mostly solid-state, non-moving parts and relatively controlled operating environments.
At any rate, I think that thing that primarily keeps cars from being a simple commodity isn't safety standards or technological advances, but simply marketing. People see their cars, at least in the Western world, more as personal accessories than simple transportation. Except for a very limited subset, I don't think people look at computers and software in the same way. They view them more as oversized staplers, just another piece of machinery for getting something else done that they want. We're at a stage, or close to it, where just about any computer and software at just about any price point can get those things done. When people began to realize that, that's when software becomes a commodity.
You're already being forced to jump through hoops... I think he's just suggesting you install ramps. :)
Having met Jim Mccarthy, what I thought was: "Hmm... if this guy embodies how Microsoft makes software, that sure explains a lot."
Flaming asshole. You can quote me.
His wife is nicer about being clueless, but, well, still clueless.
...which will really suck if you are Michael A. Smith of New York, New York. :)
Someone will inherit the contract, is the point, smartass, just as Russia inherited the agreements of the USSR. You really think no one is going to come after you for what you owe Citi if they go out of business?
Yes, I'm sure we'd buy that argument if they were the ones making it...
"Sorry, comrades, those SALT treaties were signed by some country that doesn't exist anymore!"
Or, in a more realistic example...
"Pardon us, senores, but the government that committed those troops to fight with you in Iraq? It's no longer here... we're bringing them home!"
Of course, no one is suggesting they can't do it... but it's seen as a pretty shoddy excuse (which it is).
I think he's referring to the fact (often witnessed on WebFlow) that during peak commute hours, 405 North is frequently moving well-below nominal freeway speeds through Renton and the S-curves, whereas the I-5/I-90 route is usually less congested and faster, even if a bit more mileage.
Depends on when each of you are driving the route, of course--but straight mileage measurements are rarely the deciding factor in optimal routes around here.
The Marines were using a special Doom mod some time ago (maybe they still are--article I remember was from several years ago, though) but it wasn't for teaching marksmanship; it was for teaching teamwork and small unit tactics. So... the guy probably didn't mean "shooters" in the sense of "marksmen" but simply in the sense of footsoldiers. But they were using the game as a training aid in some units.
I think the physics are the least useful part of PC based flight sims--X Plane may well be awesome (I've heard nothing but good things about the physics model) but it's never going to get the same seat-of-the-pants feeling that real pilots use and rely on.
Rather, it's the knob-twirling and button-punching that get practiced, and Flight Sim seems to do an excellent job of modeling the navigation management issues that are the REAL bane of most pilots. It's not so much a failure to appreciate the physics of flight as forgetting to adjust the flaps properly, or not monitoring engine guages closely enough, or flying into a mountain in the fog, that cause most accidents (at least, from a cursory review of NTSB data, it appears to be flight management issues more than the flight itself).
Spending time in a simulator that does a good job of modeling real-life navigation, communication, and aircraft management is far more useful than spending time in one that does a good job with the physics of flight. Because, ultimately, computers are good at simulating other electronic systems, and aren't ever going to be that great at physics (at least not anything you can afford to have in your home!)
Another point worth mentioning (and one of the best kept secrets of the game, IMHO) is a fairly revolutionary update system which virtually eliminates lag differences due to bandwidth constraints. I've played this on 56K and DSL, and there is absolutely no difference between the two. Although there is still lag, of course, it's not dependent on your own connection speed, but rather the more even latency rates across the Net. It's a huge equalizer for HPBs who are typically pwned in most online FPS contests.
Same story here, multiple times. Moved about a year ago, had almost an identical experience--requested that they transfer DSL service at the same time as the phone service, they say, "Sure, no problem, it should be up and running when you move in!" And I can still use my existing equipment? "Yes, just take everything with you and plug it in, it will work just the same!"
:)
I move, the phones are up, but no DSL. I call back--"Oh, sorry, DSL service was never ordered for that line! Would you like to order it now?"
#$(@#*$!
Takes another week, and another phone call, to actually get it activated... and then, it STILL doesn't work. More futzing about with it reveals that in fact, my old equipment would NOT work... they'd changed the encoding, I needed a new router, and gosh, they'd be happy to sell me one at an exorbitant price!
Right now, my company is in the process of opening a remote site, and again, Qwest mucked up the ordering process. There is DSL service to the site, we have the right equipment, but it's going to take them up to two weeks just to get the freaking account activated. This is just someone punching a few buttons in their accounting system somewhere--two weeks! And after they already went to the trouble of turning the service up on that line, so it's not as if no one knew about it.
In the poetic justice category, though, they accidently sent two DSL routers to us for the one line... thinking back to the extra one I had to buy that they first told me I didn't, I don't think they'll be getting the second of these back again.
Qwest sucks ass, but their support people are nice enough, which makes it hard to really take anything out on them.
Dude, what are you even worrying about? You've got three other wireless networks that already cover your apartment? I call that free Internet access, with none of the configuration hassles!
;)
Trust me, they wouldn't be broadcasting into your apartment if they didn't want you to take advantage of it.
It's a poor craftsman that blames his tools.
WTH? You think there is no such thing as poorly written, unresponsive software? I'd say it's a poor craftsman that can't pick his tools... but most of us don't really get the option to choose the right tool for the job in most of our positions.
The idea that all software simply has strengths and weaknesses is overly accepting... certainly, it may have strengths or weaknesses compared to another package, but it may just also be a steaming pile of crap, unless you consider the ability to consume disk space a 'strength'.
Oh, come now, YOU really aren't that bad a guy...
Speaking of thieved equipment at the SeaTac Exodus co-loc...
I had a few boxes out there once; I had the opposite problem, had to put the keyboard down low, so I ended up sitting on the floor and typing, which wasn't probably as bad.
Anyway, I go in one day to make some changes on one of the systems, and when I enter the cage, I notice that my monitor is on. Could have sworn I turned it off when I left last. Then I see that not only is it on, it's logged in! Holy crap! I left it logged in? There's no way! I would never do that... wait... if I didn't do it, someone else must have--I've been hacked!
I scurry over to the box, aghast, and anxious to assess the damage. I move the mouse--and it doesn't move. Those bastards locked up my box! Exodus is going to hear about this!
But then it occured to me that the box, a webserver, had still be serving pages when I'd left the office downtown, and I hadn't gotten any pages from my monitoring software to suggest that it wasn't now. WTF? I get down on my hands and knees and take another look. Box is fine--disks are accessing, everything looks okay. I get a gnawning feeling in the back of my gut, and start tracing cables.
The guy with the rack next to me, who hadn't installed a monitor, had jacked my cord into his box! And not bothered to put it back! I was hot. But then... wait, wasn't I just panicking because I thought I'd left my box logged in? But it wasn't my box, was it? I grinned evilly.
In the end, I was nice--I just dumped his registry to an FTP site in case I decided to break in later and modified his desktop wallpaper to read:
"If you're going to borrow my monitor without asking, you might at least have the common decency to plug it back in where you found it so I don't find out."
Never happened again.
Er, yes, preview is a valuable and underutilized option
The Seismological Society of America??!? Scandalous! I'm cancelling my membership immediately!
Although it does posit an interesting and previously unsuspected relationship between rocks and rock music.
I think that although in theory you are correct, in practice, that would never work. For one, there would be little support for funding it, even if the funding requirements were less. For another, and this is the root problem with the idea, models are just that: models. Reality has a way of imposing practicalities on technology that modeling will never and can never catch, and simply building iterative generations of theoretical spacecraft will inevitably build layered unfound flaws and assumptions into the technology.
Conceptual does not become practical without actually getting out and trying it. Building concepts on concepts without actually going out and discovering the hard won 'ground truth' of engineering is putting up a house built of cards rather than of steel. There are myriad examples of this in the world of engineering, from the Titanic up through TWA Flight 800. It takes reality to find the fatal flaws, unfortunately, and those have to be uncovered before any technology can be mature.
That's interesting, I heard almost exactly the same quote from a developer of an MMOG at a get-together in Virginia last year. Weird. Must be a truism in the industry... or you and I were both there, and your definition of 'largest' is a lot different from mine. ;)
Even in 1000 years we'll likely have technology that makes whatever we learn now pretty irrelevant.
Er... how exactly do you think we're going to get that technology without funding and researching it? Time does not magically make new ideas and technologies appear. The Wright brothers could not have just kicked their legs up on their desk and called it an afternoon because they figured that, what the heck, in another hundred years or so there will be 777s flitting about anyway. We got the 777s because they put time and energy into making that first flight.
Similarly, if we want that cool technology in 1000 years, then we have to put the money and the time into researching its foundations now. If we want that cool technology to be space-travel oriented, then we should probably put the time and money into the space program. Will things get more advanced and render our current development irrelevant? You bet! But not without making that current development in the first place!
Insightful? Isn't she the one who was claiming that information security is overhyped? I would say it is still closer to ignored than overhyped. It's being hyped by vendors who have it, sure, but that's true of any feature. When we stop seeing major news stories about the latest Outlook worm, then she can tell me it's overhyped. But security means stability, and without stability, IT is basically worthless. Tough to overhype something that critical, IMHO.
Although I agree with you in some ways, I think that the real problem is with the "best tool for the job" approach to things. The issue with this is that "the job" is usually defined very narrowly and does not take other practical factors into account. It's true that there are zealots of every stripe out there who will simply choose a tool because it is what they love best or all that they are really familiar with, but simply looking at a narrow range of capabilities without taking into account the larger impacts is often a recipe for problems. In other words, even if the tool performs the job perfectly, it doesn't usually do so in a complete vacuum... there are other effects, and any proponent of any system who ignores these is doing a disservice to his project.
In this case, I think the guy is actually doing a pretty good job of making that larger assessment, because although you are correct and probably the best tool for the job would be Windows, it's not delivering the bang for buck that makes sense in the larger picture.