Daycare costs are different everywhere. Lots of people pay hourly daycare rates.
Even many centers that have "plans" will work with you based on how many hours your child will attend a day. A child that is there half time does not pay the same rate as a child there full time.
Only certain high end centers that cater only to full-time daycare charge the same rate to everyone. Everyone else makes do.
Yes, and after they destroyed netscape, they raised the price of Internet explorer and IIS. Right?
More than a decade later and all that stuff is still included in the OS at no extra cost. That would seem to indicate that there is no market for browsers or web servers. Otherwise, they would have started charging for them by now.
I mean, come off it. Regardless of what people say "in the heat of battle", it doesn't change the fact that there was no opportunity to make money anyways.
"Incompatible" is at the whim of Oracle. I guarantee you no compiler is 100% compatible with the specifications, not even Oracles. Oracle doesn't see a value in sueing IBM (yet), that's all..
Regardless of Microsft's intentions, it doesn't change the fact that they were litigated out of the market. That is not a misrepresentation, it is what happened in fact. Sun, and now Oracle owns Java and can say what anyone can do with it. With a standarized language, that simply doesn't exist. If i want to create my own version of C++ I can, and it doesn't have to conform to the standard if I don't want it to.
My point is that this kind of freedom is what allows standardized languages to gain marketshare. Wholy owned languages, where someon controsl what you can and can't do eventually die from over-control.
Then I would hate to work for you. Not because I feel that certifications have any value in defining my skill as a programmer, but because there are legitimate business reasons to obtain such certifications, and if you discard resumes because someone had legitimate reasons to obtain certification, then you're somone who places more value on ideology than substance.
As an example of a legitimate reason. Many companies are microsoft partners, and Microsoft requires that they have a certain number of certified developers on their staff. Being a microsoft partner means that microsoft will refer business to you, and help you advertise and many other benefits (cheap licenses as well).
The fact that you look down your nose at someone just because they have certiciations makes you kind of a douche.
Also, before anyone climbs down my throat about the gnu d compiler and the.net d compiler, these are really just ports of the main D code, not entirely new implemenations. That's what I meant by only one real implementation.
D is not as popular because it largely only appeals to C++ developers who want a better C++. However, unlike C++, D is not standardized by any standards body, so the language can change on a whim by the author. There is also only one real implementation of D, as opposed by having support by multiple vendors (most likely, this is a function of its lack of standardization. Corporations don't want to take on writing compilers for non-standard languages).
Certainly, lack of standardization hasn't prevented other languages, such as Java in the past, but look what happened there. Microsoft was litigated out of the market, and now Oracle is sueing Google and possibly others. This is not very commercial compiler friendly.
There would likely be questions of intellectual property that need to be answered, and grants or licenses of such IP to ensure that third party vendors won't get sued. Yes, I know they say it's open source, but i doubt it has had a full audit and due dilligence done on whether or not it violates any IP.
Don't get me wrong, what they've done with D has been fantastic. I think Walter needs to seriously consider submitting it to a standards body if he wants to go anywhere with it.
Actually, no. You don't understand why they want it.
The reason MS doesn't release patches early is because, if they did, it would give malicious attackers time to reverse engineer the patches and create new malware, and then the corporate types would be forced to apply the patches when they came out anyways. By delaying all patches (other than very critical ones), that means everyone is on a level playing field when patches are released.
The GPL requires that whoever you give the code to - in source or binary form - is just as free to use the code as you were.
That's a false argument. If i got the code from the author, then you're free to get the code from the author. If I make changes to the code, then those changes are MY code, not the original authors. You're free to get the original code from the original author and make your own changes, just as I was.
In this day of the internet, the "distribute code with binary" argument is really lame.
All the viral part of the GPL does is extract a form of reciprocation. It's not about freedom, it's about payback.
Which is precisely what Apple is doing. But then GPL advocates throw their arms up and complain when Apple follows the terms of the GPL. You can't win with GPL advocates. When Microsoft said "We don't allow GPL because we don't want to be liable for the terms of the license", GPL advocates accused them of discrimination. Yet, there's always someone that says "If you don't like the license, don't use it", which is in direct conflict.
The problem with the GPL is the so-called "viral" nature (a term that, contrary to popular belief was not invented by Microsoft, but rather by BSD license advocates).
Not only does the GPL require that you distribute code that was licensed under the GPL, but it requires you to distribute all other code it touches as well. Of course, there are lots of philisophical arguments why this should be so... but it does make the license distasteful to a lot of people who do not share the same philosophy.
I think most people are fine with software like the LGPL that only requires you to redistribute the LGPL'd code and changes to it.
I had an n810 for a while, and i hated it. No apps to speak of, weak GPS, and the keyboard was hard to use (hard to hit the top row of buttons because of how close they were to top plate). And the screen was hard to read in anything but dim light.
First, a tablet is designed to be compact and solid. I've yet to see a netbook that can toss around like you can an ipad and expect it to hold together. The screen of a netbook tends to be contained in a flimsy plastic shell while the ipad is in a metal alloy shell, securely put together (in fact, it's extremely hard to take apart if you're trying to). It takes a lot of abuse and if you have a simple case around it, it won't even get scratched up.
Second, it's more compact than netbook. The keybaord, and hinged screen add a lot of space. It's designed to give the maximum screen size you can get, but be as small as possible in all other ways.
Third, at 600g's, it's twice as light as a typical netbook, and it's got a 10 hour battery so it lasts as long as the best netbooks with oversized batteries (which make them heavier than average).
I'm no apple fanboy, but i do love my ipad. It's not about it's technical specs... it's about how you use it. You don't use a netbook in the same way you use an ipad. If you treat it like a netbook without a keyboard, then you're going to be disappointed.
I'm not sure what you're looking at. Microsoft's stock price hasn't really changed in the last 10 years, other than some fluctuation back and forth. The reason for that is because they're no longer a "growth" stock but are a dividend stock.
Ethics are, by definition, subjective. For instance, some people might say that it's unethnical for a man to ever strike a woman, for any reason. Other people would say that there are reasons where one might do that, such as when being attacked by said woman and the only way to restrain her might involve striking back. And yeah, some assholes think it's just fine to hit a woman.
So, ethics are subjective, and many people consider it ethical to compete the same way your competition does. Do unto others as they do untu you. Ask Anonymous.
So, is it unethnical that General Motors doesn't release the specifications for the 2011 engine until they ship the 2011 model and are already working on the 2012 model?
That's simply a fact of life.. Until the product ships, the spec is in transition. Locking it down means you're committing to implementing it as specified, and often times software changes even in the last days before release. Software just isn't a mature science yet.
And you do realize that it's been 4 years since the OOXML standardization process, right?
And you don't think companies like IBM, Oracle, and Red Hat don't have their own FUD campaigns? Rob Weir is a FUD engine.
#2 Setting up contracts with vendors that required them to buy Windows licenses for every machine they sell even if the machine did not come with Windows.
That hasn't happened since 1993.
#4 Using a fabricated video during the anti-trust trial to make it look like IE could not be removed from the OS.
That was from the 1998 anti-trust trial, and without knowing whether it was intentional or not it's hard to say it was "unethical" (it was claimed that the video production team had merely used standard video production techniques and did not consider the legal ramifications).
#7 'Donating' $100,000 to the George W. Bush inaugural party which was followed up with a generous settlement offer after the DOJ had already won their case.
Since when in the last year did George W. Bush get inaugurated?
Most of the list is silly, since companies like Google and Red Hat also contribute to political funds.
And "lying" to IBM? Is it lying to say sell someone a product you don't have in inventory and then drop-shipping it from the manufacturer? He said he could provide and OS, and he did. That's not lying.
Wow. Wow. Wow. I cannot believe how wrong a person can be in a single post. Apart from the fact that most of what you refer to is merely opinion, and bad opinion at that.. You have real facts wrong. The term FUD was created to refer to IBM's tactics in th 70's and 80's. Microsoft did not "inspire" the term. Hell, even your signature shows your bias. Hint: You can't be ethical and biased at the same time...
Wouldn't you say it's unethical to accuse someone of things that are false? Demonstrably false? The fact that you will discount your own biases in your arguments will merely prove my point.
By the way, ActiveX is no more evil than Plug-ins for other browsers. Suppose someone write a website that depended on a particular firefox plug-in (not that anyone would be that stupid, given firefoxes market share). The fact that others depend on that doesn't make firefox plugins evil or unethical.
ActiveX grew out of the fact that HTML was an infantile standard, that did not allow website authors to do everything they wanted to. As web standards have matured, the need for ActiveX has lessened substantially.
It's truly amazing to me how you guys can turn normal, everyday crap into evil plots to enslave humanity.
I'd be awfully cautious of that. I had two drives mirrored in a RAID1 and thought i was safe. Then, my power supply exploded and fried both drives at the same time (several chips on the circuit boards were literally smoking).
Always a good idea to keep external backups of some kind that are not connected to the PC. Even using an external drive can be damaged.
By all means, criticize the format. I'd love to see real, valid criticism, but I used the word "whine" because that's what you're doing when you comlain that Office doesn't implment it, or that it's an unimplementable format (It's not).
It's also whining to complain about things that aren't valid. Whining that deprecated features of decades old versions aren't specified (because they are deprecated) is just that, whining. Whining because the format understands a buggy date format that is there for compatibility purposes is also whining.
I have yet to see any valid criticism of OOXML as a format. Meanwhile, ODF had gaping holes in its implementation. Lack of a spreadsheet formula syntax should have prevented it from be adopted in the first place. Lack of accessibility was another major defect. Not saying ODF is bad, but in reality OOXML was a FAR more complete format that ODF was.
I have no real horse in this race, which allows me to be a bit more objective than most others. I don't care what the format is, as long it doesn't restrict vendors to a lowest common denominator. What I don't like is the way that IBM and Sun politicized this, and i find it embarassing to geekdom that so many geeks were so easilyi manipulated by them. The amount of disinformation is staggering.
Slashdot Mirror
So... cutting costs increases productivity by your formula. Unless costs are 0, in which case we throw an exception.
Daycare costs are different everywhere. Lots of people pay hourly daycare rates.
Even many centers that have "plans" will work with you based on how many hours your child will attend a day. A child that is there half time does not pay the same rate as a child there full time.
Only certain high end centers that cater only to full-time daycare charge the same rate to everyone. Everyone else makes do.
So you're saying I could move to india after starting to telecommute? Sweet.
I disagree, they're not designed to destroy productivity. They're designed to cut costs. Destroying productivity is just a happy side-effect.
If you spend an hour commuting each way, that's 2 hours less daycare you have to pay for if you work the same hours.
Yes, and after they destroyed netscape, they raised the price of Internet explorer and IIS. Right?
More than a decade later and all that stuff is still included in the OS at no extra cost. That would seem to indicate that there is no market for browsers or web servers. Otherwise, they would have started charging for them by now.
I mean, come off it. Regardless of what people say "in the heat of battle", it doesn't change the fact that there was no opportunity to make money anyways.
"Incompatible" is at the whim of Oracle. I guarantee you no compiler is 100% compatible with the specifications, not even Oracles. Oracle doesn't see a value in sueing IBM (yet), that's all..
Regardless of Microsft's intentions, it doesn't change the fact that they were litigated out of the market. That is not a misrepresentation, it is what happened in fact. Sun, and now Oracle owns Java and can say what anyone can do with it. With a standarized language, that simply doesn't exist. If i want to create my own version of C++ I can, and it doesn't have to conform to the standard if I don't want it to.
My point is that this kind of freedom is what allows standardized languages to gain marketshare. Wholy owned languages, where someon controsl what you can and can't do eventually die from over-control.
Then I would hate to work for you. Not because I feel that certifications have any value in defining my skill as a programmer, but because there are legitimate business reasons to obtain such certifications, and if you discard resumes because someone had legitimate reasons to obtain certification, then you're somone who places more value on ideology than substance.
As an example of a legitimate reason. Many companies are microsoft partners, and Microsoft requires that they have a certain number of certified developers on their staff. Being a microsoft partner means that microsoft will refer business to you, and help you advertise and many other benefits (cheap licenses as well).
The fact that you look down your nose at someone just because they have certiciations makes you kind of a douche.
Also, before anyone climbs down my throat about the gnu d compiler and the .net d compiler, these are really just ports of the main D code, not entirely new implemenations. That's what I meant by only one real implementation.
D is not as popular because it largely only appeals to C++ developers who want a better C++. However, unlike C++, D is not standardized by any standards body, so the language can change on a whim by the author. There is also only one real implementation of D, as opposed by having support by multiple vendors (most likely, this is a function of its lack of standardization. Corporations don't want to take on writing compilers for non-standard languages).
Certainly, lack of standardization hasn't prevented other languages, such as Java in the past, but look what happened there. Microsoft was litigated out of the market, and now Oracle is sueing Google and possibly others. This is not very commercial compiler friendly.
There would likely be questions of intellectual property that need to be answered, and grants or licenses of such IP to ensure that third party vendors won't get sued. Yes, I know they say it's open source, but i doubt it has had a full audit and due dilligence done on whether or not it violates any IP.
Don't get me wrong, what they've done with D has been fantastic. I think Walter needs to seriously consider submitting it to a standards body if he wants to go anywhere with it.
Actually, no. You don't understand why they want it.
The reason MS doesn't release patches early is because, if they did, it would give malicious attackers time to reverse engineer the patches and create new malware, and then the corporate types would be forced to apply the patches when they came out anyways. By delaying all patches (other than very critical ones), that means everyone is on a level playing field when patches are released.
That's a false argument. If i got the code from the author, then you're free to get the code from the author. If I make changes to the code, then those changes are MY code, not the original authors. You're free to get the original code from the original author and make your own changes, just as I was.
In this day of the internet, the "distribute code with binary" argument is really lame.
All the viral part of the GPL does is extract a form of reciprocation. It's not about freedom, it's about payback.
Which is precisely what Apple is doing. But then GPL advocates throw their arms up and complain when Apple follows the terms of the GPL. You can't win with GPL advocates. When Microsoft said "We don't allow GPL because we don't want to be liable for the terms of the license", GPL advocates accused them of discrimination. Yet, there's always someone that says "If you don't like the license, don't use it", which is in direct conflict.
The problem with the GPL is the so-called "viral" nature (a term that, contrary to popular belief was not invented by Microsoft, but rather by BSD license advocates).
Not only does the GPL require that you distribute code that was licensed under the GPL, but it requires you to distribute all other code it touches as well. Of course, there are lots of philisophical arguments why this should be so... but it does make the license distasteful to a lot of people who do not share the same philosophy.
I think most people are fine with software like the LGPL that only requires you to redistribute the LGPL'd code and changes to it.
I had an n810 for a while, and i hated it. No apps to speak of, weak GPS, and the keyboard was hard to use (hard to hit the top row of buttons because of how close they were to top plate). And the screen was hard to read in anything but dim light.
First, a tablet is designed to be compact and solid. I've yet to see a netbook that can toss around like you can an ipad and expect it to hold together. The screen of a netbook tends to be contained in a flimsy plastic shell while the ipad is in a metal alloy shell, securely put together (in fact, it's extremely hard to take apart if you're trying to). It takes a lot of abuse and if you have a simple case around it, it won't even get scratched up.
Second, it's more compact than netbook. The keybaord, and hinged screen add a lot of space. It's designed to give the maximum screen size you can get, but be as small as possible in all other ways.
Third, at 600g's, it's twice as light as a typical netbook, and it's got a 10 hour battery so it lasts as long as the best netbooks with oversized batteries (which make them heavier than average).
I'm no apple fanboy, but i do love my ipad. It's not about it's technical specs... it's about how you use it. You don't use a netbook in the same way you use an ipad. If you treat it like a netbook without a keyboard, then you're going to be disappointed.
I use a $10 stylus with a rubber tip for most things, and it keeps the screen nice and clean.
I'm not sure what you're looking at. Microsoft's stock price hasn't really changed in the last 10 years, other than some fluctuation back and forth. The reason for that is because they're no longer a "growth" stock but are a dividend stock.
Ethics are, by definition, subjective. For instance, some people might say that it's unethnical for a man to ever strike a woman, for any reason. Other people would say that there are reasons where one might do that, such as when being attacked by said woman and the only way to restrain her might involve striking back. And yeah, some assholes think it's just fine to hit a woman.
So, ethics are subjective, and many people consider it ethical to compete the same way your competition does. Do unto others as they do untu you. Ask Anonymous.
So, is it unethnical that General Motors doesn't release the specifications for the 2011 engine until they ship the 2011 model and are already working on the 2012 model?
That's simply a fact of life.. Until the product ships, the spec is in transition. Locking it down means you're committing to implementing it as specified, and often times software changes even in the last days before release. Software just isn't a mature science yet.
And you do realize that it's been 4 years since the OOXML standardization process, right?
And you don't think companies like IBM, Oracle, and Red Hat don't have their own FUD campaigns? Rob Weir is a FUD engine.
Uh.. what?
#2 Setting up contracts with vendors that required them to buy Windows licenses for every machine they sell even if the machine did not come with Windows.
That hasn't happened since 1993.
#4 Using a fabricated video during the anti-trust trial to make it look like IE could not be removed from the OS.
That was from the 1998 anti-trust trial, and without knowing whether it was intentional or not it's hard to say it was "unethical" (it was claimed that the video production team had merely used standard video production techniques and did not consider the legal ramifications).
#7 'Donating' $100,000 to the George W. Bush inaugural party which was followed up with a generous settlement offer after the DOJ had already won their case.
Since when in the last year did George W. Bush get inaugurated?
Most of the list is silly, since companies like Google and Red Hat also contribute to political funds.
And "lying" to IBM? Is it lying to say sell someone a product you don't have in inventory and then drop-shipping it from the manufacturer? He said he could provide and OS, and he did. That's not lying.
Wow. Wow. Wow. I cannot believe how wrong a person can be in a single post. Apart from the fact that most of what you refer to is merely opinion, and bad opinion at that.. You have real facts wrong. The term FUD was created to refer to IBM's tactics in th 70's and 80's. Microsoft did not "inspire" the term. Hell, even your signature shows your bias. Hint: You can't be ethical and biased at the same time...
Wouldn't you say it's unethical to accuse someone of things that are false? Demonstrably false? The fact that you will discount your own biases in your arguments will merely prove my point.
By the way, ActiveX is no more evil than Plug-ins for other browsers. Suppose someone write a website that depended on a particular firefox plug-in (not that anyone would be that stupid, given firefoxes market share). The fact that others depend on that doesn't make firefox plugins evil or unethical.
ActiveX grew out of the fact that HTML was an infantile standard, that did not allow website authors to do everything they wanted to. As web standards have matured, the need for ActiveX has lessened substantially.
It's truly amazing to me how you guys can turn normal, everyday crap into evil plots to enslave humanity.
I'd be awfully cautious of that. I had two drives mirrored in a RAID1 and thought i was safe. Then, my power supply exploded and fried both drives at the same time (several chips on the circuit boards were literally smoking).
Always a good idea to keep external backups of some kind that are not connected to the PC. Even using an external drive can be damaged.
By all means, criticize the format. I'd love to see real, valid criticism, but I used the word "whine" because that's what you're doing when you comlain that Office doesn't implment it, or that it's an unimplementable format (It's not).
It's also whining to complain about things that aren't valid. Whining that deprecated features of decades old versions aren't specified (because they are deprecated) is just that, whining. Whining because the format understands a buggy date format that is there for compatibility purposes is also whining.
I have yet to see any valid criticism of OOXML as a format. Meanwhile, ODF had gaping holes in its implementation. Lack of a spreadsheet formula syntax should have prevented it from be adopted in the first place. Lack of accessibility was another major defect. Not saying ODF is bad, but in reality OOXML was a FAR more complete format that ODF was.
I have no real horse in this race, which allows me to be a bit more objective than most others. I don't care what the format is, as long it doesn't restrict vendors to a lowest common denominator. What I don't like is the way that IBM and Sun politicized this, and i find it embarassing to geekdom that so many geeks were so easilyi manipulated by them. The amount of disinformation is staggering.