The Majors generally act like they still have clue about what people want.
I know everybody here likes to bitch and moan about popular music, but the fact is that the recording industry at large probably does have a pretty good handle on what "most people" want.
These guys sink millions upon millions of dollars into focus groups and various other forms of research to determine what music is going to be the most popular. Obviously you're going to have bands (e.g. Barenaked Ladies) that blindside these studies and turn into mega superstars. But for better or worse, the major labels have gotten pretty good at spoon-feeding the public just exactly what they want. It may be insipid, it may be uninspired, but chances are it's what most people want to hear.
Look at it this way - you and I may not be buying Britney Spears albums, but there's a hell of a lot of somebody out there paying for them.
You realise [sic] that you can install Sun's own JVM in Windows and it will work just fine
Right, but Microsoft included it's own JVM that was "broken" in an attempt to overtake Sun's implementation. Had they been permitted to do so, you wouldn't be deluged with.NET and C# marketing crap right now - you'd be hearing about how wonderful (Microsoft's) Java is.
It was Sun's responsiblity to make Java an important, dominating technology, NOT Microsoft. [...] You want to "beat" Microsoft? Do it with better software.
You're missing the point. Microsoft, because of their desktop OS monopoly, was/is in a position to make or break anybody's desktop software. No matter how excellent Java (on the desktop) could have been, Microsoft could (and arguably did) keep it from becoming a success.
When the operating system you distribute gets put on 95% of the computers out there, if you don't want something to exist on it - it won't. Microsoft wasn't allowed to embrace-and-extend Java, so they dropped it completely. And since most computer users haven't the slightest idea about how to install it, Java on the desktop has died a pathetic, twitching death.
Re:Possible, but unlikely. Abilation is key.
on
Meteorite Hits Girl
·
· Score: 2
The ablation theory sounds cool, but how did they determine that is what actually happens? Certainly nobody's sitting out in a field somewhere with a chisel and a thermometer waiting for meteorites to crash down around them.
Don't put too much stock into any institute's report. James Ostrowski opinion is no more valid than your own.
heroin and cocaine have lower death rates than alcohol and tobacco
They have lower death rates because of the difficulty (economically and legally) in obtaining them. Besides, that sounds like bullshit anyway. How do you get accurate numbers on illegal substances?
Also making narcotics legal wouldn't really even cut down on distribution-related crimes. Because of their dangerous nature (and hence necessary regulation) they'll still be as incredibly expensive as prescription drugs. Also consider that there's already an established distribution infrastructure. Where do you think a crack addict is going to buy his crack? From his known dealer or through a legal avenue that costs 10 times as much?
Bottom line is most people aren't smart enough to use addictive substances in a sane and non-destructive manner, and they'll pay anyone to get as much as they "need". So you're either going to fight to keep people from using them or you're going to fight the consequences of a drugged society.
Make the drugs legal, and the drug dealers are instantly obsolete. Then sit back and watch the crime rate fall by 30%.
Wrong - making narcotics legal wouldn't even cut down on distribution-related crimes. Because of their dangerous nature (and hence necessary regulation) they'll still be as incredibly expensive as prescription drugs. Besides, there's already an established distribution infrastructure. Where do you think a crack addict is going to buy his crack? From his known dealer or through a legal avenue that costs 10 times as much?
Bottom line is most people aren't smart enough to use addictive substances in a sane and non-destructive manner. So you're either going to fight to keep people from using them or you're going to fight the consequences of a drugged society.
Do you think that drug dealers would break into your home if drugs were legal?
No, but would drug usage be tremendously higher? Yes. It boils down to whether or not you think that is a bad thing.
The only alternative to a "war on drugs" is to give up and legalize them. Do you want a society with an even greater dependence on welfare and disability because half of the population is so blazed they can't even get to work?
Like I said, the lighter stuff (weed, etc.) isn't the problem. But what are you going to do about heroin, crack, and the hundreds of other drugs that will seriously fuck up a person's life? They may be safer manufactured by pharmaceutical company, but many are still extremely addictive and intoxicating. A problem you usually don't have with alcohol or tobacco.
In the end, you have to choose your evils. Would you rather crusade against drugs or deal with a society crippled by their effects?
Suppose someone framed you for drug possession. How would you like to be treated by the US police and criminal justice system?
Okay, so what you propose is lighter treatment on suspected drug dealers because of a latent paranoia that you'll be framed as one.
Here's another way to look at it: smart people play the odds. Statistically, I'm much more likely to be negatively affected by a drug dealer's actions than I am likely to be framed by the police as a drug dealer. Like I said, these guys are scum of the earth. They lie, they steal, a disproportionately large number of them even kill. I would know - I had one break into my home.
You're right, obviously I would be regretting tough drug laws if I was under suspicion of illegal narcotics activity. But I'm not, and it's a safe wager that I never will be. Do you know anyone that was framed by the police? I didn't think so. Do you know anyone who has had their life affected by the actions of a drug dealer? Probably, and if not - you do now.
Let's be clear. I don't think dopers and shroom users should be locked up or punished harshly. Marijuana is likely no more dangerous than tobacco or alcohol. But, beyond that things start to get a little scarier, and it's those drugs that need to be controlled. Ultimately the user is, if nothing else, a victim. The dealers are the source of the problem. If the cost of dealing drugs is made to be sufficiently high the reward no longer seems worth it, and no one is willing to do it. No dealers - no drugs. So when I see tough, proactive treatment on drug dealers, it makes me glad.
Yet another example of how absolutely disgusting the "war on drugs" has become in this country. They're paying a group of policemen to spy on ordinary citizens because they might smoke pot some day, or try a handful of mushrooms.
Oh bullshit. The article clearly states that the photos are taken by a squad created to arrest drug dealers. These people are scum of the earth. Just wait until a few dealers move into your neighborhood and bring with them a rash of burglaries. There's nothing like coming home from work to find your door kicked in and your belongings strewn everywhere.
But whatever, I'm sure this is just a bunch of racist whiteys keepin' minorities and poor people down. Feh.
Does anyone actually support the war on drugs anymore?
Yes - I do. But don't worry - when you grow up, you'll support the arrest of drug dealers too.
The reason that Exchange/Outlook are #1, is because they do the most things that people want done, more OFTEN and naturally than its competition.
Bullshit. Exchange is #1 because Office (and hence Outlook) is #1. Nothing else.
The only thing difficult about making an Exchange replacement is the technical (and legal) difficulty of deciphering MS' proprietary protocols. If the Justice Department made MS disclose that interface you'd see Exchange's marketshare drop overnight.
Hell, I remember when Lotus Notes installs had to cross their fingers every time they sent an attachment.
Hmmm, I remember when MS shops had to reboot their Exchange servers nightly to avoid lockups. Oh wait, people still have to do that.
Don't laugh just yet. The 'Ask Slashdot' question was how to network multiple buildings - not how to get Internet access. DSL is still very much an option for this situation.
Take a look at this. What you do is call the phone company and order a "dry pair" (or "alarm circuit") between the buildings you wish to connect. This should cost about $20/month. Then you get on eBay and find two DSL modems - one for each location. Finally, make the appropriate sacrifice to the networking gods. And tada - you've got cheap point-to-point DSL.
Now I don't think this is what the original poster had in mind, as the VPN suggestion implies an untrusted network (the Internet). But just because you live in the boonies doesn't mean you can't have DSL.
The phrase "let sleeping dogs lie" implies that the dog is sleeping. And in such a case you'd be correct or at least have a arguable point. Leaving a powerful, yet benign, menace alone isn't necessarily a bad idea.
However, what we're talking about here is a company that is actively trying to destroy certain open source communities (the GPL movement). MS is by no one's account a "sleeping dog". Hence, not destroying your enemy for fear of what might replace it is most definately a poor idea.
Now, whether or not you consider MS an enemy is another issue altogether. I don't - yet. But I'm getting closer every day.
If Microsoft were to vanish tomorrow (or partially vanish, say from the office software market), how sure are you that what would rise up to take its place would be better than the status quo?
There's nothing wrong with not preaching the same anti-MS rhetoric that everyone else here dribbles. In fact, it's kind of refreshing. But the idea of refusing to remove a menace for fear of what might replace it is pretty asinine logic.
MS Office, for all its market penetration, is pretty dreadful software. [...] I frequently find myself struggling to get work done in spite of it.
I'd say Office is probably one of the few things that MS has actually done right. Sure, it's not perfect, but it's a hell of a lot better than any other comparably featured office suite out there. Why else is MS able to charge whatever price they want for it? Hint: it's not the file formats anymore. There are open source file converters for Word and Excel, yet the world still chooses to run Office.
I have an idea. Rather than support a company that has for several years avoided Linux just to keep MS happy - why don't we buy computers from companies that DO have the balls to piss off MS?
Sure, calling Dell and asking for Linux is a good thing. But buying pre-installed Linux machines from another company would be an even more effective incentive for Dell to quit kissing Microsoft's ass. If they can look at sales data and say, "Hey, we're losing $XXXX dollars because we're not offering Linux workstations." Maybe then they'd feel like telling MS to shove it.
Well, I for one am glad to see this happening. I am sick and tired of the utter confusion that ensues while trying to figure out the difference between my web browser and the giant, destructive, dinosaur-like monster that attacked all those poor Japanese people.
Sounds great and all - but 15 years? Yeah right. I'm still waiting on flying cars, jetpacks, and robotic sex slaves. (Oh wait - I don't think that last one was on the Jetsons.)
I don't wanna seem like a dick, but I think I've got a good idea for the next 'Ask Slashdot' question:
How the fuck do you guys pick the 'Ask Slashdot' questions?
Seriously, I've submitted at least two questions that were so much more worthwhile than this one it's not even funny. I've asked questions about the anti-virus industry and whatnot, and some nutball wanting to warn us that he's figured out how to cast spells gets the front page. Sheesh.
Slashdot Mirror
I haven't an executive bone in my body. All my managerial skills are delegated.
;-)
Of course, he doesn't do the delegating himself - that's hard work. He's got a guy that delegates for him.
[Props to The Daily Show.]
The Majors generally act like they still have clue about what people want.
I know everybody here likes to bitch and moan about popular music, but the fact is that the recording industry at large probably does have a pretty good handle on what "most people" want.
These guys sink millions upon millions of dollars into focus groups and various other forms of research to determine what music is going to be the most popular. Obviously you're going to have bands (e.g. Barenaked Ladies) that blindside these studies and turn into mega superstars. But for better or worse, the major labels have gotten pretty good at spoon-feeding the public just exactly what they want. It may be insipid, it may be uninspired, but chances are it's what most people want to hear.
Look at it this way - you and I may not be buying Britney Spears albums, but there's a hell of a lot of somebody out there paying for them.
I bought a 100GB drive last spring and it's not even half full yet!
Ha ha - I laugh at your puny porn-gathering skills.
WinForms blows AWT and Swing out of the water, it feels faster (when compared to JDK 1.4)
Getting the client side right is easy when you're only going to do it for one platform.
You realise [sic] that you can install Sun's own JVM in Windows and it will work just fine
.NET and C# marketing crap right now - you'd be hearing about how wonderful (Microsoft's) Java is.
Right, but Microsoft included it's own JVM that was "broken" in an attempt to overtake Sun's implementation. Had they been permitted to do so, you wouldn't be deluged with
It was Sun's responsiblity to make Java an important, dominating technology, NOT Microsoft. [...] You want to "beat" Microsoft? Do it with better software.
You're missing the point. Microsoft, because of their desktop OS monopoly, was/is in a position to make or break anybody's desktop software. No matter how excellent Java (on the desktop) could have been, Microsoft could (and arguably did) keep it from becoming a success.
When the operating system you distribute gets put on 95% of the computers out there, if you don't want something to exist on it - it won't. Microsoft wasn't allowed to embrace-and-extend Java, so they dropped it completely. And since most computer users haven't the slightest idea about how to install it, Java on the desktop has died a pathetic, twitching death.
The ablation theory sounds cool, but how did they determine that is what actually happens? Certainly nobody's sitting out in a field somewhere with a chisel and a thermometer waiting for meteorites to crash down around them.
Don't put too much stock into any institute's report. James Ostrowski opinion is no more valid than your own.
heroin and cocaine have lower death rates than alcohol and tobacco
They have lower death rates because of the difficulty (economically and legally) in obtaining them. Besides, that sounds like bullshit anyway. How do you get accurate numbers on illegal substances?
Also making narcotics legal wouldn't really even cut down on distribution-related crimes. Because of their dangerous nature (and hence necessary regulation) they'll still be as incredibly expensive as prescription drugs. Also consider that there's already an established distribution infrastructure. Where do you think a crack addict is going to buy his crack? From his known dealer or through a legal avenue that costs 10 times as much?
Bottom line is most people aren't smart enough to use addictive substances in a sane and non-destructive manner, and they'll pay anyone to get as much as they "need". So you're either going to fight to keep people from using them or you're going to fight the consequences of a drugged society.
Make the drugs legal, and the drug dealers are instantly obsolete. Then sit back and watch the crime rate fall by 30%.
Wrong - making narcotics legal wouldn't even cut down on distribution-related crimes. Because of their dangerous nature (and hence necessary regulation) they'll still be as incredibly expensive as prescription drugs. Besides, there's already an established distribution infrastructure. Where do you think a crack addict is going to buy his crack? From his known dealer or through a legal avenue that costs 10 times as much?
Bottom line is most people aren't smart enough to use addictive substances in a sane and non-destructive manner. So you're either going to fight to keep people from using them or you're going to fight the consequences of a drugged society.
Do you think that drug dealers would break into your home if drugs were legal?
No, but would drug usage be tremendously higher? Yes. It boils down to whether or not you think that is a bad thing.
The only alternative to a "war on drugs" is to give up and legalize them. Do you want a society with an even greater dependence on welfare and disability because half of the population is so blazed they can't even get to work?
Like I said, the lighter stuff (weed, etc.) isn't the problem. But what are you going to do about heroin, crack, and the hundreds of other drugs that will seriously fuck up a person's life? They may be safer manufactured by pharmaceutical company, but many are still extremely addictive and intoxicating. A problem you usually don't have with alcohol or tobacco.
In the end, you have to choose your evils. Would you rather crusade against drugs or deal with a society crippled by their effects?
Suppose someone framed you for drug possession. How would you like to be treated by the US police and criminal justice system?
Okay, so what you propose is lighter treatment on suspected drug dealers because of a latent paranoia that you'll be framed as one.
Here's another way to look at it: smart people play the odds. Statistically, I'm much more likely to be negatively affected by a drug dealer's actions than I am likely to be framed by the police as a drug dealer. Like I said, these guys are scum of the earth. They lie, they steal, a disproportionately large number of them even kill. I would know - I had one break into my home.
You're right, obviously I would be regretting tough drug laws if I was under suspicion of illegal narcotics activity. But I'm not, and it's a safe wager that I never will be. Do you know anyone that was framed by the police? I didn't think so. Do you know anyone who has had their life affected by the actions of a drug dealer? Probably, and if not - you do now.
Let's be clear. I don't think dopers and shroom users should be locked up or punished harshly. Marijuana is likely no more dangerous than tobacco or alcohol. But, beyond that things start to get a little scarier, and it's those drugs that need to be controlled. Ultimately the user is, if nothing else, a victim. The dealers are the source of the problem. If the cost of dealing drugs is made to be sufficiently high the reward no longer seems worth it, and no one is willing to do it. No dealers - no drugs. So when I see tough, proactive treatment on drug dealers, it makes me glad.
Wow - you called me a troll. So inciteful, so witty.
Let me ask you, is everyone you don't agree with a 'troll'? Nevermind, you're too fucking stupid for me to even care about your response.
Nice response. Somehow I'm not surprised.
[...] from watching Barney and Friends to the most hardcore of hardcore porn.
Whew. For a minute there I though that said: do
Yet another example of how absolutely disgusting the "war on drugs" has become in this country. They're paying a group of policemen to spy on ordinary citizens because they might smoke pot some day, or try a handful of mushrooms.
Oh bullshit. The article clearly states that the photos are taken by a squad created to arrest drug dealers. These people are scum of the earth. Just wait until a few dealers move into your neighborhood and bring with them a rash of burglaries. There's nothing like coming home from work to find your door kicked in and your belongings strewn everywhere.
But whatever, I'm sure this is just a bunch of racist whiteys keepin' minorities and poor people down. Feh.
Does anyone actually support the war on drugs anymore?
Yes - I do. But don't worry - when you grow up, you'll support the arrest of drug dealers too.
The reason that Exchange/Outlook are #1, is because they do the most things that people want done, more OFTEN and naturally than its competition.
Bullshit. Exchange is #1 because Office (and hence Outlook) is #1. Nothing else.
The only thing difficult about making an Exchange replacement is the technical (and legal) difficulty of deciphering MS' proprietary protocols. If the Justice Department made MS disclose that interface you'd see Exchange's marketshare drop overnight.
Hell, I remember when Lotus Notes installs had to cross their fingers every time they sent an attachment.
Hmmm, I remember when MS shops had to reboot their Exchange servers nightly to avoid lockups. Oh wait, people still have to do that.
DSL in Lincolnshire? You MUST be kidding right.
Don't laugh just yet. The 'Ask Slashdot' question was how to network multiple buildings - not how to get Internet access. DSL is still very much an option for this situation.
Take a look at this. What you do is call the phone company and order a "dry pair" (or "alarm circuit") between the buildings you wish to connect. This should cost about $20/month. Then you get on eBay and find two DSL modems - one for each location. Finally, make the appropriate sacrifice to the networking gods. And tada - you've got cheap point-to-point DSL.
Now I don't think this is what the original poster had in mind, as the VPN suggestion implies an untrusted network (the Internet). But just because you live in the boonies doesn't mean you can't have DSL.
unfortunately, the links to the research group and list of projects appear to be broken.
Yeah, apparently something cut the fiber line to their ISP.
The phrase "let sleeping dogs lie" implies that the dog is sleeping. And in such a case you'd be correct or at least have a arguable point. Leaving a powerful, yet benign, menace alone isn't necessarily a bad idea.
However, what we're talking about here is a company that is actively trying to destroy certain open source communities (the GPL movement). MS is by no one's account a "sleeping dog". Hence, not destroying your enemy for fear of what might replace it is most definately a poor idea.
Now, whether or not you consider MS an enemy is another issue altogether. I don't - yet. But I'm getting closer every day.
If Microsoft were to vanish tomorrow (or partially vanish, say from the office software market), how sure are you that what would rise up to take its place would be better than the status quo?
There's nothing wrong with not preaching the same anti-MS rhetoric that everyone else here dribbles. In fact, it's kind of refreshing. But the idea of refusing to remove a menace for fear of what might replace it is pretty asinine logic.
MS Office, for all its market penetration, is pretty dreadful software. [...] I frequently find myself struggling to get work done in spite of it.
I'd say Office is probably one of the few things that MS has actually done right. Sure, it's not perfect, but it's a hell of a lot better than any other comparably featured office suite out there. Why else is MS able to charge whatever price they want for it? Hint: it's not the file formats anymore. There are open source file converters for Word and Excel, yet the world still chooses to run Office.
I have an idea. Rather than support a company that has for several years avoided Linux just to keep MS happy - why don't we buy computers from companies that DO have the balls to piss off MS?
Sure, calling Dell and asking for Linux is a good thing. But buying pre-installed Linux machines from another company would be an even more effective incentive for Dell to quit kissing Microsoft's ass. If they can look at sales data and say, "Hey, we're losing $XXXX dollars because we're not offering Linux workstations." Maybe then they'd feel like telling MS to shove it.
Well, I for one am glad to see this happening. I am sick and tired of the utter confusion that ensues while trying to figure out the difference between my web browser and the giant, destructive, dinosaur-like monster that attacked all those poor Japanese people.
Sounds great and all - but 15 years? Yeah right. I'm still waiting on flying cars, jetpacks, and robotic sex slaves. (Oh wait - I don't think that last one was on the Jetsons.)
I don't wanna seem like a dick, but I think I've got a good idea for the next 'Ask Slashdot' question:
How the fuck do you guys pick the 'Ask Slashdot' questions?
Seriously, I've submitted at least two questions that were so much more worthwhile than this one it's not even funny. I've asked questions about the anti-virus industry and whatnot, and some nutball wanting to warn us that he's figured out how to cast spells gets the front page. Sheesh.
Apple rated the best for tech support. I guess this is where they think different (TM).
;-)
No, they think different on price too.