Please re-read my example. It points out how such a system might be able to identify where someone went off the trail, giving you some idea of where to start a search. It obviously wouldn't give you error free data to work with, but since in many rescues time is a key factor anything that can help you figure out where to start is a good thing.
Say there are 5 checkpoints. 10 hikers pass checkpoints 1-3. 8 hikers pass checkpoints 4-5. Two hikers are potentially missing. I can start searching between 3-4 and may have a better chance at a rescue if needed since I have information that they were at least at checkpoint 3.
I will assume that what you are refering to is MS Visual Basic and or MS Access forms. Sure, they are fast for small database front-end apps, but they do not have the power or functionality for large enterprise grade information systems.
Where does MS have a monopoly??? On the desktop.
Where do VB and MS Access forms improve the ability of folks to get work done? It's the information worker on the desktops. MS lead in this space (desktop - not enterprise server applications) was built because their platform provided the best tools for information workers to get their jobs done.
You're proving the oppositions point that the Win platform was a superior choice for its intended audience - information workers on the desktop.
love Linux as much as the next/.er, but can you honestly say that Linux, or OSX, is a viable replacement for someone who's been using Windows + MS Office for the last 5-10 years? I can't, and I've been using Linux exclusively at home for going on 2 years now. Yes, the transition is possible for almost anyone, but it's far from painless, and as long as everybody else is doing business in.doc MS is going to be necessary for the vast majority of businesses.
If I follow your reasoning for why there isn't any viable alternative for Windows + Office, namely everyone is doing business in.doc, then I might be able to suggest that it was Office that drove Windows to the 90% marketshare that it has now. So, is Windows the issue, or is it that no one has really kept pace with Office from a feature standpoint? Just a question, not trying to push buttons.
There may be choices, but there is decidedly NOT competition. If there was, MS wouldn't own 90+% of the desktop market.
Let's look at some of the competition and see what they've done:
Apple - Wants complete control over the platform. Opened up for a short time in hopes that there would be more price-competitive Apple OS computers in the marketplace. Didn't have the foresight to stick with it - Jobs pulled the plug quickly. This effectively killed the chance that more people would be able to experience Apples products since it kept the price tag high. Cheap hardware helped drive Windows (NT4, 95, 98) in to corporate America - high Mac prices kept Apple out. (And yes, Office for the Mac has been around for a long time - and it's as good if not better than the Win version.)
Linux - Starting to make inroads on the desktop. VARs and VAPs are helping it make gains in the server space. The server space is first, desktops follow. Higher margins help out here. Fragmentation in the market may hurt.
OS/2 - Do I need to say anything here?
So, what have the competition been offering? Not a whole lot of reason to choose their platform for the desktop. Windows hasn't always had a 90% marketshare. MS has had some shady business practices, but "bundling" didn't get them to where they are.
So...who had the easy to use alternative that supported a wide range of hardware, worked on clone platforms, had APIs that made programming easy, had great gaming support, etc., in the earlier days before Windows was a monopoly?
Frankly, I think the competition screwed the pooch big time when personal computing was taking off. Let's spread the blame around a little, eh?
Re:Arguments in favour of manned spaceflight
on
The Wrong Stuff
·
· Score: 1
You couldn't be more wrong. Our space program has drawn a big yawn for the better part of a decade. The whole country no longer tunes in to see a shuttle launch. Nobody around the watercooler is discussing the Mars rover.
Yes, people love books and movies about space craft and aliens. In fact, there have been movies and books about space travel long before we actually tried to accomplish space flight.
The fact you put 'free' and 'opportunity' in quotes says it all.
Re:Arguments in favour of manned spaceflight
on
The Wrong Stuff
·
· Score: 1
Manned deep space missions won't capture, or inspire, the imagination of the people. Let's face it, the Hubble got a lot of attention when it launched. It recevied attention when it sent back its first pictures of deep space. Then it disappeared from the public conscious until NASA decided to pull the plug.
Same thing will happen with the Mars rovers. It will be even worse for longer missions - if I have to wait 20-30 years for something interesting to happen I just don't care.
I think you're making one basic faulty assumption - that Real and Netscape are good products. Instead of punishing MS, why not put the burden on those companies to actually produce a good product.
You have CHOICE, OEMs have CHOICE. They can bundle whatever they want and set those programs as the default.
The whole idea behind anti-trust law is to ensure customers have a choice. It's not meant to add longevity to companies who produce shitty products.
Real produces a shitty product. There is very little decent content I can view using Real that I don't have to pay for. Their interface is horrible. Is propping up Real a good thing for consumers? Why not let the free market force them in to changing their business model?
Quicktime is free.
OEMs are free to bundle whatever the heck they want and set those programs to be the defaults. People have choice, OEMs have choice.
Put your history into a little context. The industries you're pointing out - oil, steel, etc. - have an extremely high cost of entry. Those monopolies essentially shut out any competition and gave them an immense amount of control over the American public. There were no other alternatives.
If you look at Microsoft and the stiff - yes, stiff - competition they face in the marketplace you'll see that there are many good free and commercial alternatives - nobody is locked in to Microsoft. Their falling stock price reflects the real world. IBM and Linux are attacking them strongly in the small business segment.
It's simple. Either you believe there is content that isn't suitable for broadcast over open airwaves or you believe anything goes.
If you believe in the former then the only discussion should be where to draw the line, and you'll probably agree we need some agency to enforce the line.
It's not comparing apples to oranges. Both have to do with what should be, or shouldn't be, considered appropriate material for broadcast.
I understand the other person's logic, and that they really didn't think about the FCC having a valid place in moderating TV content. It's a necessity. The only thing that should be open to debate is where the lines are drawn. The post I replied to basically said "Don't censor my TV!", and they just weren't thinking.
"And as a father who is raising our kids to understand that words are merely words, and that some are extremely offensive to others, and to have both the maturity and restraint to know WHEN such cases apply, allow me to say that the FCC can go fuck themselves.
This is a MAJOR problem in the US. We keep expecting society to "protect" our children from themselves. Whatever happened to parents actually parenting? Bad things on TV? TURN THE DAMN THING OFF! Read a freakin' book! Play a game with them! Take them hiking! And instill in them a BASIC FREAKIN' MORAL COMPASS and the ability to think critically!"
So...basically you believe there should be no censorship whatsoever on what is shown over public airwaves?
If you do believe there should be limits, good for you.
And damn you for censoring my ability to see snuff films on TV. If you don't like it, just "TURN THE DAMN THING OFF".
An extreme example, but I hope you get the fucking point.
I misquoted, but I'm still correct. Most people are not a part of a well regulated militia. Case law supports gun restriction laws. To read up on this check out the following information: http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/am endment02/
The USSR doesn't control Afghanistan because we armed and trained the Mujahideen. Put emphasis on the ARMED. We gave them rocket launchers and a whole bunch of other stuff.
We forget that the reason the founding fathers included it in the Bill of Rights was not to defend your right to shoot a turkey for dinner. It was to protect your right and responsibility to rise up against our government in rebellion when it is necessary. The founding fathers firmly believed that a revolution would be necessary every few generations to keep the government honest. I believe they would feel we are long overdue.
Nice revisionist history... If you actually read the 2nd Amendment it says "A well regulated militia, being necessary for the protection of the STATE, the right..." you know the rest. The intent was for the STATE to be able to protect itself in an armed conflict.
Come on now...did you actually read the article? There is no profit in this for *anyone*. The "payment" is a few CPU cycles for your computer - there is no $$$ exchanging hands. Since the hit on the CPU can happen in the background you aren't really paying with your time either.
>Wrong! Most of the shares are owned by >individuals through: >1. pension funds >2. 401k plans >3. mutual funds
Then why aren't we all benefitting from this in the same way? The gap between the wealthy and the poor is growing. If we're all benefitting in the same way the gap should remain fairly static.
>Most stock owners are way way below the millionaire level.
Garbage logic. I'm a millionaire, I own 500 shares of MEGA stock. 50 other poor people have 1 share each. Most MEGA stock owners are way below the millionaire level - but that doesn't mean stock ownership is spread evenly.
Maybe MS heard from one of their customers that someone from "mikerowesoft" was calling on them.
It's true he put a lot of time and money in to setting up the business - but the kid knew he was playing on Microsoft's name.
If you believe that MS is going after the name just because they're "evil" go ahead and register slash-dot.org and start using it as a "geek" portal and see how long it takes for the OSDN lawyers to give you a call...
Slashdot Mirror
Please re-read my example. It points out how such a system might be able to identify where someone went off the trail, giving you some idea of where to start a search. It obviously wouldn't give you error free data to work with, but since in many rescues time is a key factor anything that can help you figure out where to start is a good thing.
Say there are 5 checkpoints. 10 hikers pass checkpoints 1-3. 8 hikers pass checkpoints 4-5. Two hikers are potentially missing. I can start searching between 3-4 and may have a better chance at a rescue if needed since I have information that they were at least at checkpoint 3.
Get a grip Slashdot sheep - the article on eWeek is an OPINION piece! Don't reply to this as if the article were full of facts - it isnt'.
Where does MS have a monopoly??? On the desktop.
Where do VB and MS Access forms improve the ability of folks to get work done? It's the information worker on the desktops. MS lead in this space (desktop - not enterprise server applications) was built because their platform provided the best tools for information workers to get their jobs done.
You're proving the oppositions point that the Win platform was a superior choice for its intended audience - information workers on the desktop.
Yes - the lumpy, smelly, and hairy girls like you.
love Linux as much as the next /.er, but can you honestly say that Linux, or OSX, is a viable replacement for someone who's been using Windows + MS Office for the last 5-10 years? I can't, and I've been using Linux exclusively at home for going on 2 years now. Yes, the transition is possible for almost anyone, but it's far from painless, and as long as everybody else is doing business in .doc MS is going to be necessary for the vast majority of businesses.
.doc, then I might be able to suggest that it was Office that drove Windows to the 90% marketshare that it has now. So, is Windows the issue, or is it that no one has really kept pace with Office from a feature standpoint? Just a question, not trying to push buttons.
If I follow your reasoning for why there isn't any viable alternative for Windows + Office, namely everyone is doing business in
There may be choices, but there is decidedly NOT competition. If there was, MS wouldn't own 90+% of the desktop market.
Let's look at some of the competition and see what they've done:
Apple - Wants complete control over the platform. Opened up for a short time in hopes that there would be more price-competitive Apple OS computers in the marketplace. Didn't have the foresight to stick with it - Jobs pulled the plug quickly. This effectively killed the chance that more people would be able to experience Apples products since it kept the price tag high. Cheap hardware helped drive Windows (NT4, 95, 98) in to corporate America - high Mac prices kept Apple out. (And yes, Office for the Mac has been around for a long time - and it's as good if not better than the Win version.)
Linux - Starting to make inroads on the desktop. VARs and VAPs are helping it make gains in the server space. The server space is first, desktops follow. Higher margins help out here. Fragmentation in the market may hurt.
OS/2 - Do I need to say anything here?
So, what have the competition been offering? Not a whole lot of reason to choose their platform for the desktop. Windows hasn't always had a 90% marketshare. MS has had some shady business practices, but "bundling" didn't get them to where they are.
So...who had the easy to use alternative that supported a wide range of hardware, worked on clone platforms, had APIs that made programming easy, had great gaming support, etc., in the earlier days before Windows was a monopoly?
Frankly, I think the competition screwed the pooch big time when personal computing was taking off. Let's spread the blame around a little, eh?
You couldn't be more wrong. Our space program has drawn a big yawn for the better part of a decade. The whole country no longer tunes in to see a shuttle launch. Nobody around the watercooler is discussing the Mars rover.
Yes, people love books and movies about space craft and aliens. In fact, there have been movies and books about space travel long before we actually tried to accomplish space flight.
The fact you put 'free' and 'opportunity' in quotes says it all.
Manned deep space missions won't capture, or inspire, the imagination of the people. Let's face it, the Hubble got a lot of attention when it launched. It recevied attention when it sent back its first pictures of deep space. Then it disappeared from the public conscious until NASA decided to pull the plug.
Same thing will happen with the Mars rovers. It will be even worse for longer missions - if I have to wait 20-30 years for something interesting to happen I just don't care.
I think you're making one basic faulty assumption - that Real and Netscape are good products. Instead of punishing MS, why not put the burden on those companies to actually produce a good product.
You have CHOICE, OEMs have CHOICE. They can bundle whatever they want and set those programs as the default.
The whole idea behind anti-trust law is to ensure customers have a choice. It's not meant to add longevity to companies who produce shitty products.
Real produces a shitty product. There is very little decent content I can view using Real that I don't have to pay for. Their interface is horrible. Is propping up Real a good thing for consumers? Why not let the free market force them in to changing their business model?
Quicktime is free.
OEMs are free to bundle whatever the heck they want and set those programs to be the defaults. People have choice, OEMs have choice.
Put your history into a little context. The industries you're pointing out - oil, steel, etc. - have an extremely high cost of entry. Those monopolies essentially shut out any competition and gave them an immense amount of control over the American public. There were no other alternatives.
If you look at Microsoft and the stiff - yes, stiff - competition they face in the marketplace you'll see that there are many good free and commercial alternatives - nobody is locked in to Microsoft. Their falling stock price reflects the real world. IBM and Linux are attacking them strongly in the small business segment.
There is competition, and there are choices.
It's simple. Either you believe there is content that isn't suitable for broadcast over open airwaves or you believe anything goes.
;)
If you believe in the former then the only discussion should be where to draw the line, and you'll probably agree we need some agency to enforce the line.
If you believe the latter, well...you're nuts.
It's not comparing apples to oranges. Both have to do with what should be, or shouldn't be, considered appropriate material for broadcast.
I understand the other person's logic, and that they really didn't think about the FCC having a valid place in moderating TV content. It's a necessity. The only thing that should be open to debate is where the lines are drawn. The post I replied to basically said "Don't censor my TV!", and they just weren't thinking.
So, you're equating a milita with a database of names?
The militias have a more direct connection to today's National Guard.
So...basically you believe there should be no censorship whatsoever on what is shown over public airwaves?
If you do believe there should be limits, good for you.
And damn you for censoring my ability to see snuff films on TV. If you don't like it, just "TURN THE DAMN THING OFF".
An extreme example, but I hope you get the fucking point.
I misquoted, but I'm still correct. Most people are not a part of a well regulated militia. Case law supports gun restriction laws. To read up on this check out the following information: http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/am endment02/
Actually, that's not what it says and that's not what case law supports.
m endment02/
Read: http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/a
The USSR doesn't control Afghanistan because we armed and trained the Mujahideen. Put emphasis on the ARMED. We gave them rocket launchers and a whole bunch of other stuff.
Nice revisionist history... If you actually read the 2nd Amendment it says "A well regulated militia, being necessary for the protection of the STATE, the right..." you know the rest. The intent was for the STATE to be able to protect itself in an armed conflict.
Come on now...did you actually read the article? There is no profit in this for *anyone*. The "payment" is a few CPU cycles for your computer - there is no $$$ exchanging hands. Since the hit on the CPU can happen in the background you aren't really paying with your time either.
How on earth did this get modded insightful?
I just have two words to say about your worries over an electronic system: dangling chad.
>Wrong! Most of the shares are owned by >individuals through:
>1. pension funds
>2. 401k plans
>3. mutual funds
Then why aren't we all benefitting from this in the same way? The gap between the wealthy and the poor is growing. If we're all benefitting in the same way the gap should remain fairly static.
>Most stock owners are way way below the millionaire level.
Garbage logic. I'm a millionaire, I own 500 shares of MEGA stock. 50 other poor people have 1 share each. Most MEGA stock owners are way below the millionaire level - but that doesn't mean stock ownership is spread evenly.
Or maybe he should have named his buisness:
Mike Rowe Software
Mike Rowe Web Design
Mike Rowe Widgets...
It's not a question of him using his name, it's the blatant attempt at making his company name sound like a trademarked name.
Maybe MS heard from one of their customers that someone from "mikerowesoft" was calling on them.
It's true he put a lot of time and money in to setting up the business - but the kid knew he was playing on Microsoft's name.
If you believe that MS is going after the name just because they're "evil" go ahead and register slash-dot.org and start using it as a "geek" portal and see how long it takes for the OSDN lawyers to give you a call...