I was going to post anonymously because the company I worked for has sort of regrouped and seems to be doing well, and I don't want my post to reflect negatively on the people involved in any way... but I changed my mind. If you heard the full story about parent companies and mergers and whatnot, you'd understand, but I don't want to go into that. Suffice it to say that the people I considered the "real" company, those I considered my "real" employers and co-workers, I have a great deal of respect for and gratitude toward.
Let me further preface this comment by saying that I do realize the overinflated tech sector actually collapsed (duh), that I understand that jobs are pretty hard to come by at the moment, and that I'm fairly afraid of what would happen if I lost mine somehow.
But (here comes the comment) I had the same fear back before the collapse. I came in at the tail end of the boom, and I was employed at what everyone around me considered an absurdly low wage (and which, really, was pretty low). I took the job because I believed the work was worthwhile and something I could be proud to have participated in (it was, it is). But despite my relatively low wages, I managed to save nearly half of what I made, simply by living within my means. I simply wasn't comfortable with debt or with living on the edge of my bank account.
Sure enough, I lost that job, through no fault of my own. When it happened, I had enough money to live for just under half a year, but I was still scared sick, because there wasn't more coming.
Didn't take long, fortunately, for me to find a new job. I now make twice as much as I was making before... and I'm saving money at about two and a half times the rate, because I haven't increased my expenses much over what they had been (I lost two roommates, so the rent tripled). It will probably be years before I do, and you can be sure I'll have at least one significant raise under my belt beforehand.
I guess my point is that I don't understand how people can suddenly find themselves making twice what they should be making (often more) and respond by spending it all. Think about how much money some of those people could have in the bank, right now... And it's not for the sake of the money itself, it's the security and peace of mind that having something to fall back on -- or someday build a future on -- gives you. I'd rather have that than a Porsche any day.
Re:Can we move on to the next level please?
on
MenuetOS Debuts
·
· Score: 2
Um, I think you can probably divide new OSes into two categories:
Commercial, which obviously have to compete with Microsoft whether they like it or not.
Non-commercial, which don't generally seemed to be targeted at Microsoft at all.
This guy's OS fits into the "because it'd be cool" subcategory of "non-commercial".
You've got a good career ahead of you as a pundit, though. That much is glaringly clear.
Re:If a camel is a horse designed by committee
on
USB 2.0 For Linux
·
· Score: 2
I had trouble singing your song. Of what tune should I sing it to?
Oh, you can sing it to the tune of about 49 billion.
um, because if I look at "licq" I know immediately what it is and what it does. Same with "gaim" and "kmail", only there I get the added benefit of a good solid guess at which toolkit it uses, as added benefit.
I go to my local bookshop and I see authors like Bruce Sterling and Neal Stephenson with maybe 1 book each on the shelf being crowded out by literally hundreds of Star Trek or Terry Pratchett novels.
Okay, be fair. Terry Pratchett is prolific as all hell, but lumping his stuff in with the Star Trek novels just because he's written a lot doesn't really work.
Granted, his books do have a tendency to repeat themselves (Terry, man, if I've already read four Discworld books, you don't have to keep explaining the turtle thing). I can't read 'em back to back (I tried... first five books, knocked 'em right out in a couple of weeks). But they're also pretty decently written satire, sometimes very well-written satire. They're not what I'd call "pap".
Maybe you'd better take a good look at this particular president (if I must use the term).
You're talking about a man who has used and manipulated people his entire career as though it was his birthright, a man who "found God" exactly when it was most expedient for his father, a man who has paid just enough lip service to concepts of right and morality while lining his own pockets by selling away the future of what he claims are his people.
No, it has nothing to do with him being a politician. There are a handful, at least, of politicians I really respect precisely for their conviction, their sense of ethics, and their morality.
If you're open to diversity of opinion, then you must accept ALL types of thinking! Bush (not my favorite president to say the least) was struggling with some legitimate moral issues regarding stem cells from aborted fetus.
Bullshit. Bush was struggling with some political issues regarding stem cells from aborted fetuses. Now, the people who put him in a position of having to care may have real moral objections to stem cell research, but I wouldn't attribute such thoughts to Bush.
Sure there will be. An internet bookseller has an infinately larger selection than a Borders store.
No, it doesn't. They both have roughly the same selection... whatever's in their supply catalogues. Besides, Amazon stands alone, but can you think of another major online bookseller that isn't tied to "brick-and-mortar" shops? One that would actually be a competitor? (Not incidentally, Barnes & Noble owns one of its-- and Amazon's-- biggest distributors now.)
borders.com
bn.com
booksamillion.com
chapters.ca
Even fatbrain.com is owned by Barnes & Noble.
But you're right, I'm sure "the market" will sort all of this out if we just give it time to think about it. After all, laissez-faire economics worked so well for steel, and railroads, and medicines, and meat, and waste disposal, and housing, and... oh, wait.
Good thing most industrialized nations are (at least in theory) democratic. This sort of thing is probably not illegal. It probably should be. Call your reps.
It's one thing for Borders to watch their own stores... if they license the software and maintain their own database, fine. But if a single company is selling access to a central database to multiple clients, we're on dangerous ground. One could reduce this to a weak metaphor involving neighboorhood watches or some such, but the fact remains that we're talking about something entirely new.
This is a snowball, rolling downhill. We're talking about a network effect that's capable of galvanizing a class system that's already largely in effect in the United States. Consider the social costs of commercial ostracization. Imagine an entire class of people who are barred permanently from all major stores.
Think that's a stretch? Have you noticed how hard it is for fugitives to evade detection by police agencies? Consider yourself in the same situation, always watched, an outcast... despite having (A) not committed a crime, or (B) having committed a petty crime sometime in the past, for whatever reason. Would someone who doesn't have such troubles want to spend much time with you, the branded criminal? And remember, this is not a system under public control.
I don't believe the intentions of those deploying this system are sinister-- they just want to protect what's theirs. I don't believe the technology itself can or should be stopped-- as I said before, I'm okay with Borders watching its own doors. It's the network effect, the sharing/selling/distribution of this information, that is dangerous and that we need to prevent.
This is a classic case where the market will decide what degree of difficulty / embarassment / prying consumers will tolerate. If they drive off 1% of their customers but cut shoplifting by 30%, it makes sense for them to do so. More power to 'em.
Just like every other time this is said, this will be a classic case of people not knowing what hit them. They'll tolerate it at one chain, maybe two. People put up with a lot of shit, especially if it isn't affecting them (directly, immediately). By the time every major store jumps on the bandwagon, it'll be too late to stop it and there will be nowhere else to go.
Then, of course, everyone will wonder how this could have happened... shouldn't "the market" have "decided" against it?
Sorry, but people who think "the market", if left to itself, will "decide" on the best course of action for all involved have thoroughly ignored the glaringly obvious in the history of capitalism.
I have a love/hate relationship with the Zelda games. They tend to be very involving, fun games to play. The storyline isn't Dickens, but it's worthwhile (which is more than can be said for most RPGs). The characters are usually pretty cool, and there are "trademarks" that sort of reward the repeat player. (A friend of mine always sings the little tune that plays when you find the Boss Key: "You got the big keeeeeeeey!")
So it's all good, and you're enjoying your little quest, with its puzzles and mini-games and whatnot. That is, until you run into the patented Nintendo Cheap Shot Syndrome, and end up knocked on your ass mainly as a result of the interface. (Anyone who's fought the later bosses in Ocarina of Time knows what I'm talking about). Then, of course, you're thrown just far enough back in the game for it to be a nuisance. But by this time, you've come too far to just pack it in...
I'm on the fence as to whether I'll play another Zelda game or not... after years of gaming, I've come to the conclusion that challenge is good, but I'd rather play a game than fight it.
what backbones? backbones exist because it's cheaper (in terms of connectivity) to sling one wire over a long distance than it is to connect several closer points. Presumably, some people would have stronger antennae than others, and would be able to broadcast farther... and there would probably be weaker versions of the backbones we're familiar with. But there would be lots of them. In all likelihood, commercial repeaters would appear and there would again exist a commercial infrastructure. But unless the owners of said infrastructure can convince the FCC to strictly license the network spectrum (ok, so that's entirely possible) there'd be nothing preventing people from just going around the commercial repeaters with a couple of extra hops, and the infrastructure providers would have to play with the non-commercial net in order to provide any real value.
The real question is whether the same bandwidth levels can be achieved bouncing waves around the sky as can be by pulsing light over a thread of glass.
Then again, maybe it doesn't matter so much. There is always the Good Enough Principle when discussing mass markets.
Yes, you are. You're missing the idea that if enough people do this, well, screw the "real" Internet. You've got all the people you want to communicate with over on the "new Internet".
Theoretically, if you get enough people to do this, the big commercial interests on the "real" Internet would follow, bringing with them the unwashed masses, and you'd have effectively rebuilt the Internet from scratch... without the wires.
Slashdot Mirror
Let me further preface this comment by saying that I do realize the overinflated tech sector actually collapsed (duh), that I understand that jobs are pretty hard to come by at the moment, and that I'm fairly afraid of what would happen if I lost mine somehow.
But (here comes the comment) I had the same fear back before the collapse. I came in at the tail end of the boom, and I was employed at what everyone around me considered an absurdly low wage (and which, really, was pretty low). I took the job because I believed the work was worthwhile and something I could be proud to have participated in (it was, it is). But despite my relatively low wages, I managed to save nearly half of what I made, simply by living within my means. I simply wasn't comfortable with debt or with living on the edge of my bank account.
Sure enough, I lost that job, through no fault of my own. When it happened, I had enough money to live for just under half a year, but I was still scared sick, because there wasn't more coming.
Didn't take long, fortunately, for me to find a new job. I now make twice as much as I was making before... and I'm saving money at about two and a half times the rate, because I haven't increased my expenses much over what they had been (I lost two roommates, so the rent tripled). It will probably be years before I do, and you can be sure I'll have at least one significant raise under my belt beforehand.
I guess my point is that I don't understand how people can suddenly find themselves making twice what they should be making (often more) and respond by spending it all. Think about how much money some of those people could have in the bank, right now... And it's not for the sake of the money itself, it's the security and peace of mind that having something to fall back on -- or someday build a future on -- gives you. I'd rather have that than a Porsche any day.
Um, I think you can probably divide new OSes into two categories:
Commercial, which obviously have to compete with Microsoft whether they like it or not.
Non-commercial, which don't generally seemed to be targeted at Microsoft at all.
This guy's OS fits into the "because it'd be cool" subcategory of "non-commercial".
You've got a good career ahead of you as a pundit, though. That much is glaringly clear.
Oh, you can sing it to the tune of about 49 billion.
I find the fact that you're all bent out of shape over someone else's program names absurd. Way to focus on the important things in life.
um, because if I look at "licq" I know immediately what it is and what it does. Same with "gaim" and "kmail", only there I get the added benefit of a good solid guess at which toolkit it uses, as added benefit.
Funny, I always got the impression that most people have just been waiting for sufficiently powerful legos.
Oh, come on... nobody finished Lord of the Rings by the end of 1954. ;)
Okay, be fair. Terry Pratchett is prolific as all hell, but lumping his stuff in with the Star Trek novels just because he's written a lot doesn't really work.
Granted, his books do have a tendency to repeat themselves (Terry, man, if I've already read four Discworld books, you don't have to keep explaining the turtle thing). I can't read 'em back to back (I tried... first five books, knocked 'em right out in a couple of weeks). But they're also pretty decently written satire, sometimes very well-written satire. They're not what I'd call "pap".
Granted, he's no Sterling... but who else is?
You're talking about a man who has used and manipulated people his entire career as though it was his birthright, a man who "found God" exactly when it was most expedient for his father, a man who has paid just enough lip service to concepts of right and morality while lining his own pockets by selling away the future of what he claims are his people.
No, it has nothing to do with him being a politician. There are a handful, at least, of politicians I really respect precisely for their conviction, their sense of ethics, and their morality.
George W. Bush sure as hell isn't one of them.
Bullshit. Bush was struggling with some political issues regarding stem cells from aborted fetuses. Now, the people who put him in a position of having to care may have real moral objections to stem cell research, but I wouldn't attribute such thoughts to Bush.
Um, what's the point? Why would you bother to go from a language that nobody speaks to another (theoretically "natural") language that nobody speaks?
Found it after registering for the Apple Developer Connection and digging through the downloads that are hidden in there. Downloading it now.
Doesn't that seem a bit much just to get binary packages of the toolchain?
Perhaps I'll rebuild gcc and whatnot and make some tarballs available. For some reason, nobody else seems to have done so.
Still looking...
I got 10.0.3 (upgraded it to 10.0.4) and of course, I have no toolchain. That kinda sucks.
That seems to be the Star Trek equivalent of "turn it off and back on again".
Sure there will be. An internet bookseller has an infinately larger selection than a Borders store.
No, it doesn't. They both have roughly the same selection... whatever's in their supply catalogues. Besides, Amazon stands alone, but can you think of another major online bookseller that isn't tied to "brick-and-mortar" shops? One that would actually be a competitor? (Not incidentally, Barnes & Noble owns one of its-- and Amazon's-- biggest distributors now.)
borders.com
bn.com
booksamillion.com
chapters.ca
Even fatbrain.com is owned by Barnes & Noble.
But you're right, I'm sure "the market" will sort all of this out if we just give it time to think about it. After all, laissez-faire economics worked so well for steel, and railroads, and medicines, and meat, and waste disposal, and housing, and... oh, wait.
It's one thing for Borders to watch their own stores... if they license the software and maintain their own database, fine. But if a single company is selling access to a central database to multiple clients, we're on dangerous ground. One could reduce this to a weak metaphor involving neighboorhood watches or some such, but the fact remains that we're talking about something entirely new.
This is a snowball, rolling downhill. We're talking about a network effect that's capable of galvanizing a class system that's already largely in effect in the United States. Consider the social costs of commercial ostracization. Imagine an entire class of people who are barred permanently from all major stores.
Think that's a stretch? Have you noticed how hard it is for fugitives to evade detection by police agencies? Consider yourself in the same situation, always watched, an outcast... despite having (A) not committed a crime, or (B) having committed a petty crime sometime in the past, for whatever reason. Would someone who doesn't have such troubles want to spend much time with you, the branded criminal? And remember, this is not a system under public control.
I don't believe the intentions of those deploying this system are sinister-- they just want to protect what's theirs. I don't believe the technology itself can or should be stopped-- as I said before, I'm okay with Borders watching its own doors. It's the network effect, the sharing/selling/distribution of this information, that is dangerous and that we need to prevent.
Just like every other time this is said, this will be a classic case of people not knowing what hit them. They'll tolerate it at one chain, maybe two. People put up with a lot of shit, especially if it isn't affecting them (directly, immediately). By the time every major store jumps on the bandwagon, it'll be too late to stop it and there will be nowhere else to go.
Then, of course, everyone will wonder how this could have happened... shouldn't "the market" have "decided" against it?
Sorry, but people who think "the market", if left to itself, will "decide" on the best course of action for all involved have thoroughly ignored the glaringly obvious in the history of capitalism.
So it's all good, and you're enjoying your little quest, with its puzzles and mini-games and whatnot. That is, until you run into the patented Nintendo Cheap Shot Syndrome, and end up knocked on your ass mainly as a result of the interface. (Anyone who's fought the later bosses in Ocarina of Time knows what I'm talking about). Then, of course, you're thrown just far enough back in the game for it to be a nuisance. But by this time, you've come too far to just pack it in...
I'm on the fence as to whether I'll play another Zelda game or not... after years of gaming, I've come to the conclusion that challenge is good, but I'd rather play a game than fight it.
Then how do they eat soup in the Ma-- oh. moon.
There are books written about how doing this fails to help.
The real question is whether the same bandwidth levels can be achieved bouncing waves around the sky as can be by pulsing light over a thread of glass.
Then again, maybe it doesn't matter so much. There is always the Good Enough Principle when discussing mass markets.
Theoretically, if you get enough people to do this, the big commercial interests on the "real" Internet would follow, bringing with them the unwashed masses, and you'd have effectively rebuilt the Internet from scratch... without the wires.
Yeah, that's what they said. "Internet".
There's a difference between leveling the playing field and leveling the players at the lowest common denominator.