And yet it still requires users who have perfectly serviceable hardware running XP to upgrade to new hardware to run Win7 + XP, and if you buy new hardware, well, you'll probably have Win7, and corporate users are just going to upgrade and leave XP. Really, what's the point again -- I need to buy new hardware to continue to use XP? Treadmill, anyone?
Perfect solution for the two 800lb gorillas of the Wintel partnership. Microsoft gets another lever to force people still using XP to pay for an upgrade, and Intel gets a lever to force corporate buyers who prefer to hold on to machines until they die to upgrade. Dell and HP benefit, too, because of the force hardware/OS upgrade.
Hmm, reminds me of the joke about why the standard railway gauge is 4'8.5" -- going back to the width of ancient roman roads. There's also the (urban legend?) that legal size paper (In the US) is 8.5"x14" because that's the largest sheet that could fit into a pony express bag without folding.
I did go to Google review the App Engine Java documentation, what there is of it. It's not clear if a class like java.lang.System (which is whitelisted, btw) locked through security policy or simply re-implemented in some crippling way. A bit of a failure to provide clear guidelines on Google's part, but becomes a real development problem because they've already stated their Java doesn't conform. Programmers are left guessing or having to find out through failure what the actual behavior is.
Sounds like they should have specified a security model that would forbid certain classes and method rather than simply removing classes. Or was that too hard for Google's engineers? As a developer, would you rather have you application fail to run, or throw a completely bizzare ClassNotFoundException: java.lang.System, or run but throw an informative SecurityException when it tried to call System.exit()?
What Google should have done was engage in the JCP to define a new profile for supported "device", along the lines of the CDC/CLDC and MIDP. At least that way it would have been within the framework of practice understood and used by Java developers. Instead, Google just said "here's what's available", without tying into any of the already available accepted ways of defining a subset of Java.
This actually looks a lot like what Microsoft got in trouble for with their MS Java.
Can someone explain to me why I'd want to make a phone call over a crappy VOIP system from a cell phone that I bought to be able to uh.. make phone calls?
Not quite correct. The ET is connected to the shuttle until just after main engine cutoff. At that point the shuttle is in orbit, but one with a low point that drags the tank back down. The shuttle itself uses the OMS to raise the lowpoint of its orbit, but the tank reenters. So yes, it does make it into space.
Again the execs with million-dollar buyout packages and short-term traders will scrape a few more crumbs into their fat mouths off the already nearly-empty plates of the ordinary folks who actually make the company go.
The real problem is that CER, while a useful instrument, is threatening to become the quant copula function of the insurance industry: non-technical people trying to turn a useful tool they don't really understand into a simple calculation that can be done in Excel. This is already happening, and yes it does end up being used for simple cost-benefit analysis, because that's what actuaries know. Of course they will plug whatever CER results they can find to reduce costs into their rates and payments schedules. This happens regardless of who provides the coverage, because that's the nature of the folks who make the money decisions.
The article really ought to be titled, "How Insurers Use Science They Don't Understand".
Actually a difficult question which NASA has produced a very large body of research on. The short answer is "grounded to the plasma that makes up the LEO environment" but obviously it's more complicated than that.
Folks who are saying "spam isn't a problem because I don't see it in my inbox" aren't exactly wrong, in the same sense that the OTHER Bill, Clinton, was not wrong when he said "I did not have sex with that woman".
Certainly spinmeisters could argue that this means Bill Gates was right -- for the average user, who doesn't know jack about computers, spam is largely a solved problem.
Anyone who runs a network or data center of course, would strongly disagree. The cost in technician and programmer time "solving" spam this way, and the cost of maintaining bandwidth that is 90% wasted needs to be quantified so people who have the money understand in concrete terms the value of actually making a major dent in the volume of spam sent.
To use a possibly-irrelevant comparison: Power transmission and distribution losses in the US hover around 7-8%. What do you think our national electric grid would look like if losses were 90%? Would we even have one?
The billion dollar bailouts, bankruptcies, Bernie Madoff scandal, and our current economic situation: they all demonstrate just how valuable, exacting, and intelligent these "trained to run a business" folks are.
Slashdot Mirror
typedef UNSIGNED_JOHNHOLMES
Another victory for outsourcing your core competency.
Using it to change this string in command.com
"Abort, Retry, Fail?"
to
"Abhor, Retch, Fume!"
Note that it fits in exactly the same number of bytes. That's important.
And yet it still requires users who have perfectly serviceable hardware running XP to upgrade to new hardware to run Win7 + XP, and if you buy new hardware, well, you'll probably have Win7, and corporate users are just going to upgrade and leave XP. Really, what's the point again -- I need to buy new hardware to continue to use XP? Treadmill, anyone?
Perfect solution for the two 800lb gorillas of the Wintel partnership. Microsoft gets another lever to force people still using XP to pay for an upgrade, and Intel gets a lever to force corporate buyers who prefer to hold on to machines until they die to upgrade. Dell and HP benefit, too, because of the force hardware/OS upgrade.
This is how a monopoly operates.
Hmm, reminds me of the joke about why the standard railway gauge is 4'8.5" -- going back to the width of ancient roman roads. There's also the (urban legend?) that legal size paper (In the US) is 8.5"x14" because that's the largest sheet that could fit into a pony express bag without folding.
I did go to Google review the App Engine Java documentation, what there is of it. It's not clear if a class like java.lang.System (which is whitelisted, btw) locked through security policy or simply re-implemented in some crippling way. A bit of a failure to provide clear guidelines on Google's part, but becomes a real development problem because they've already stated their Java doesn't conform. Programmers are left guessing or having to find out through failure what the actual behavior is.
Sounds like they should have specified a security model that would forbid certain classes and method rather than simply removing classes. Or was that too hard for Google's engineers? As a developer, would you rather have you application fail to run, or throw a completely bizzare ClassNotFoundException: java.lang.System, or run but throw an informative SecurityException when it tried to call System.exit()?
What Google should have done was engage in the JCP to define a new profile for supported "device", along the lines of the CDC/CLDC and MIDP. At least that way it would have been within the framework of practice understood and used by Java developers. Instead, Google just said "here's what's available", without tying into any of the already available accepted ways of defining a subset of Java.
This actually looks a lot like what Microsoft got in trouble for with their MS Java.
I'm surprised no one has mentioned that this has actually been implemented as a Facebook application. When will /. support IPoSN?
MOD PARENT UP. /. got rolled.
Can someone explain to me why I'd want to make a phone call over a crappy VOIP system from a cell phone that I bought to be able to uh .. make phone calls?
There was a great TED talk apropos this recently: Barry Schwartz: The real crisis? We stopped being wise.
Mod this +1 Insightful.
Brian has a Facebook group in his memory now.
Not quite correct. The ET is connected to the shuttle until just after main engine cutoff. At that point the shuttle is in orbit, but one with a low point that drags the tank back down. The shuttle itself uses the OMS to raise the lowpoint of its orbit, but the tank reenters. So yes, it does make it into space.
Again the execs with million-dollar buyout packages and short-term traders will scrape a few more crumbs into their fat mouths off the already nearly-empty plates of the ordinary folks who actually make the company go.
s
The real problem is that CER, while a useful instrument, is threatening to become the quant copula function of the insurance industry: non-technical people trying to turn a useful tool they don't really understand into a simple calculation that can be done in Excel. This is already happening, and yes it does end up being used for simple cost-benefit analysis, because that's what actuaries know. Of course they will plug whatever CER results they can find to reduce costs into their rates and payments schedules. This happens regardless of who provides the coverage, because that's the nature of the folks who make the money decisions.
The article really ought to be titled, "How Insurers Use Science They Don't Understand".
Mod parent up.
Actually a difficult question which NASA has produced a very large body of research on. The short answer is "grounded to the plasma that makes up the LEO environment" but obviously it's more complicated than that.
They'll just go deaf and blind. Now that's really getting into the fetishes.
New book title coming soon: Mars is from Earth, Mercury is from Venus.
Folks who are saying "spam isn't a problem because I don't see it in my inbox" aren't exactly wrong, in the same sense that the OTHER Bill, Clinton, was not wrong when he said "I did not have sex with that woman".
Certainly spinmeisters could argue that this means Bill Gates was right -- for the average user, who doesn't know jack about computers, spam is largely a solved problem.
Anyone who runs a network or data center of course, would strongly disagree. The cost in technician and programmer time "solving" spam this way, and the cost of maintaining bandwidth that is 90% wasted needs to be quantified so people who have the money understand in concrete terms the value of actually making a major dent in the volume of spam sent.
To use a possibly-irrelevant comparison: Power transmission and distribution losses in the US hover around 7-8%. What do you think our national electric grid would look like if losses were 90%? Would we even have one?
Yep. He's not a geek, he's a suit. A suit who happens to be involved in money-making geek-ish business, but a suit.
The billion dollar bailouts, bankruptcies, Bernie Madoff scandal, and our current economic situation: they all demonstrate just how valuable, exacting, and intelligent these "trained to run a business" folks are.