I only use Google Docs at work to share priority lists with clients. There's no interesting or critical information shared. I agree the PATRIOT act is a liability for anything else.
There's a rivalry? I need to share spreadsheets with many various clients and they always suggest Google Docs. Never once have I heard a person ask to share a document with Microsoft Office Live. And my clients are each in very different industries.
Is there any real competition yet between the two in terms of user base?
Your app is definitely a notable difference. I guess it'll be up to the 3rd party developers to promote AIR because browsing Adobe's site I don't see many things that really stand out. Their "Staff Picks" should be filled with more apps like yours that are very different than Dashboard and Gadgets.
I just took a look at the "Adobe AIR Marketplace" and all I see are apps that are just like OS X Dashboard and Microsoft / Yahoo Gadgets. From the end user's perspective, I don't see any benefit to AIR over the others. From the developer's perspective the only advantage I see is cross-platform support, except the user must also download another runtime environment. Without some significant differentiating factors I don't understand how AIR is expected to become popular.
A post on ZDNet and/. threads from anonymous internet users "clearly demonstrates" Apple's internal corporate policies and intentions? Are you serious? I would say this article "clearly demonstrates" the exact opposite. In other words, no one really knows if Apple is pleased with the situation or not.
Personally, I think they are pleased, yet cautious. If they damage their relationship with AT&T they will not have future relationships with any carriers, and the iPhone will die. Yet the iPhone's popularity appears to be viral partly from unlocking. So they have to walk a fine line for now.
You're correct about iPods and iPhones, but completely wrong about OS X. If there were no third parties developing software for OS X there would be no Apple computers. OS X has very thorough developer documentation and free tools. Apple sells 3rd party OS X software on their web site and stores, so to say they don't want 3rd party development is obviously false.
You're also combining the lack of customizable hardware with a lack of customizable software. What they want to retain control of is the hardware and the software platforms. 3rd parties can easily build on top of that. The intent is to manage the user experience. Otherwise they feel users will end up with a mess, like on the Windows platform.
Laptops, phones, and portable audio players are niches created by Apple?
As for software, they use plenty of open source and contribute back to the community. What they don't want outside involvement with is their core hardware.
My personal favorite is this simple buffer overflow that existed in the Windows help system for 7 years (all the way back to NT 4). By browsing to a web page the Windows Help system could be exploited to take control of a user's computer. It took them 5 months to release a patch.
His argument is that 0-day patch response rate is only one factor. This information has little value when it's impossible to know how many vulnerabilities actually exist.
No, I'm simply rebutting the argument that experience == good. Having experience does not make someone better for office. Good intent and follow through, from a good leader, means the right decisions are made and the correct actions done. Experience does nothing to change this but make it slightly easier.
Why do you see experience as such a positive? Almost no one was more experienced than Dick Cheney and members of the cabinet. Where did that get us?
Intent is far more important than experience. A good leader will bring people into his or her circle who are more knowledgeable and more experienced. They are then leveraged to make intelligent choices. Obama's lack of experience in the Senate has almost nothing to do with how well he will run the office of the President.
No, we send soldiers to kill and die because they are fighting an enemy that has been the historic bane of the existence of western civilization for 1500 years. You really need to brush up on your history. You are clearly being misguided by politicians, religion, and/or TV. Try reading historical facts instead of opinion.
Most of the rest of your tirade attacks Doc Ruby for things he never claimed. You've gone completely off-topic by labeling him(?) and attacking the group to which you assume he's an extremist member. That's why you can't possibly sway anyone with your argument.
Not really. Robertson and Falwell seem to have a lot of sway with many high ranking Republicans. And they actively and successfully affect policy. Farrakhan and Wright have had little or no affect on policy. They also hold no influence within the Democratic party. At worst Wright might affect one Democrat, while the religious right affects the entire Republican party.
I was thinking the exact same thing. The only problem is, what is everyone else's reaction?
Personally I think nothing has changed. Almost everyone who liked Obama before they heard the preacher still likes him. And everyone who didn't like Obama before still don't like him. I doubt a huge segment of the population has changed their minds about any of the candidates.
I see the information flowing in the opposite direction. Instead of just the general public using the internet as a source, as they do today, it may be just as powerful for the government to use the internet to get information. And I don't mean googling for citizen information. I'm thinking forums and wikis where the public can propose bills. Or a social network of representatives linked to their constituents. Or a site where anyone can provide feedback to every proposed bill.
If the government were to leverage the internet correctly as a tool, a lot more people would become tech savvy enough to use it.
Whoever thought that it would be Wal-Mart to break the industry. I thought they might. Wal-Mart is notorious for leveraging their size to influence manufacturers. I happen to know someone who works for a small company that produces items sold at Wal-Mart. Wal-Mart dictates the terms of every agreement by simply threatening to drop the products. And their primary focus is always lowering cost.
but then OSX got so bloated and Macs so expensive that Apple went the Intel route. What does OSX bloat or computer price have to do with the switch to Intel? The computers are still roughly the same price and OS X performance is similar (the only major difference I know of is higher ram requirements with Intel). I thought the switch to Intel was mostly due to laptop power consumption and increased production volume. Am I missing something?
It would probably be more profitable, and better for PR, if Seagate held private meetings with the other manufacturers to discuss patents and licensing terms. Explaining the issue and offering reasonable terms would bring them serious cash. Weak threats in a public forum seems a lot less productive, unless of course they don't actually have any patents to stand on.
These are all very valid arguments. Except they can all be accomplished through individual bills. This is still not a valid argument for adding pork to unrelated bills.
With earmarks the government doesn't distinguish between economic stability and bridges to nowhere. With individual bills the good ideas can stay while the bad ones get dropped.
You really want a separate floor vote every time a federal building needs a new elevator or a post office parking lot need repaving?
Yes.
They would never have time for important stuff.
Right now they spend more time fundraising for campaigns than voting or writing legislation. Ideally they should spend more time doing their job than campaigning for it. Legislation should be hard to pass and take lots of votes so only "good" legislation gets through.
A lot of Americans live out in the boondoggles where there is no work and industry has no reason to build. It takes public works programs and bribing industry to relocate to keep these people from starving to death.
Move. Welfare through earmarks or welfare through the official welfare system is still welfare. If you live where all the jobs have dried up then move to where you can have a decent job. Lots of people do it.
And before someone responds with the typical, "Oh, you don't know what it's like," I've had family and friends move to other states for better housing and jobs. They're all much better off now.
If you don't like the way your Senator or Congressman does earmarks, don't vote for him or her.
Many (most?) congressmen run unopposed when running for re-election. Plus it's done by just about everyone, so there's almost no one to vote for who won't do it. The only option is not to vote, which won't change anything.
Earmarks are comparatively small part of the federal budget and generally go towards pet district projects that generally do benefit the community from that district.
We're still talking about billions of dollars annually. And much of that goes to large industry instead of local communities.
Slashdot Mirror
I only use Google Docs at work to share priority lists with clients. There's no interesting or critical information shared. I agree the PATRIOT act is a liability for anything else.
There's a rivalry? I need to share spreadsheets with many various clients and they always suggest Google Docs. Never once have I heard a person ask to share a document with Microsoft Office Live. And my clients are each in very different industries.
Is there any real competition yet between the two in terms of user base?
Your app is definitely a notable difference. I guess it'll be up to the 3rd party developers to promote AIR because browsing Adobe's site I don't see many things that really stand out. Their "Staff Picks" should be filled with more apps like yours that are very different than Dashboard and Gadgets.
I just took a look at the "Adobe AIR Marketplace" and all I see are apps that are just like OS X Dashboard and Microsoft / Yahoo Gadgets. From the end user's perspective, I don't see any benefit to AIR over the others. From the developer's perspective the only advantage I see is cross-platform support, except the user must also download another runtime environment. Without some significant differentiating factors I don't understand how AIR is expected to become popular.
A post on ZDNet and /. threads from anonymous internet users "clearly demonstrates" Apple's internal corporate policies and intentions? Are you serious? I would say this article "clearly demonstrates" the exact opposite. In other words, no one really knows if Apple is pleased with the situation or not.
Personally, I think they are pleased, yet cautious. If they damage their relationship with AT&T they will not have future relationships with any carriers, and the iPhone will die. Yet the iPhone's popularity appears to be viral partly from unlocking. So they have to walk a fine line for now.
You're correct about iPods and iPhones, but completely wrong about OS X. If there were no third parties developing software for OS X there would be no Apple computers. OS X has very thorough developer documentation and free tools. Apple sells 3rd party OS X software on their web site and stores, so to say they don't want 3rd party development is obviously false.
You're also combining the lack of customizable hardware with a lack of customizable software. What they want to retain control of is the hardware and the software platforms. 3rd parties can easily build on top of that. The intent is to manage the user experience. Otherwise they feel users will end up with a mess, like on the Windows platform.
Laptops, phones, and portable audio players are niches created by Apple?
As for software, they use plenty of open source and contribute back to the community. What they don't want outside involvement with is their core hardware.
My personal favorite is this simple buffer overflow that existed in the Windows help system for 7 years (all the way back to NT 4). By browsing to a web page the Windows Help system could be exploited to take control of a user's computer. It took them 5 months to release a patch.
His argument is that 0-day patch response rate is only one factor. This information has little value when it's impossible to know how many vulnerabilities actually exist.
Apple tells you what's fixed with every security update. Here's the document for the most recent: http://support.apple.com/kb/HT1249.
It's specific enough for me, listing every application / library, impact, and description.
So Edison is no longer the father of recorded sound, but still the father of playback, right?
No, I'm simply rebutting the argument that experience == good. Having experience does not make someone better for office. Good intent and follow through, from a good leader, means the right decisions are made and the correct actions done. Experience does nothing to change this but make it slightly easier.
Why do you see experience as such a positive? Almost no one was more experienced than Dick Cheney and members of the cabinet. Where did that get us?
Intent is far more important than experience. A good leader will bring people into his or her circle who are more knowledgeable and more experienced. They are then leveraged to make intelligent choices. Obama's lack of experience in the Senate has almost nothing to do with how well he will run the office of the President.
Most of the rest of your tirade attacks Doc Ruby for things he never claimed. You've gone completely off-topic by labeling him(?) and attacking the group to which you assume he's an extremist member. That's why you can't possibly sway anyone with your argument.
Not really. Robertson and Falwell seem to have a lot of sway with many high ranking Republicans. And they actively and successfully affect policy. Farrakhan and Wright have had little or no affect on policy. They also hold no influence within the Democratic party. At worst Wright might affect one Democrat, while the religious right affects the entire Republican party.
I was thinking the exact same thing. The only problem is, what is everyone else's reaction?
Personally I think nothing has changed. Almost everyone who liked Obama before they heard the preacher still likes him. And everyone who didn't like Obama before still don't like him. I doubt a huge segment of the population has changed their minds about any of the candidates.
I see the information flowing in the opposite direction. Instead of just the general public using the internet as a source, as they do today, it may be just as powerful for the government to use the internet to get information. And I don't mean googling for citizen information. I'm thinking forums and wikis where the public can propose bills. Or a social network of representatives linked to their constituents. Or a site where anyone can provide feedback to every proposed bill.
If the government were to leverage the internet correctly as a tool, a lot more people would become tech savvy enough to use it.
Not to be "that guy", but OS X has had this feature for years: mdfind.
It would probably be more profitable, and better for PR, if Seagate held private meetings with the other manufacturers to discuss patents and licensing terms. Explaining the issue and offering reasonable terms would bring them serious cash. Weak threats in a public forum seems a lot less productive, unless of course they don't actually have any patents to stand on.
Shove a dump trunk down the tubes. That should unclog the poker chips and horses.
These are all very valid arguments. Except they can all be accomplished through individual bills. This is still not a valid argument for adding pork to unrelated bills.
With earmarks the government doesn't distinguish between economic stability and bridges to nowhere. With individual bills the good ideas can stay while the bad ones get dropped.
You really want a separate floor vote every time a federal building needs a new elevator or a post office parking lot need repaving?
Yes.
They would never have time for important stuff.
Right now they spend more time fundraising for campaigns than voting or writing legislation. Ideally they should spend more time doing their job than campaigning for it. Legislation should be hard to pass and take lots of votes so only "good" legislation gets through.
A lot of Americans live out in the boondoggles where there is no work and industry has no reason to build. It takes public works programs and bribing industry to relocate to keep these people from starving to death.
Move. Welfare through earmarks or welfare through the official welfare system is still welfare. If you live where all the jobs have dried up then move to where you can have a decent job. Lots of people do it.
And before someone responds with the typical, "Oh, you don't know what it's like," I've had family and friends move to other states for better housing and jobs. They're all much better off now.
If you don't like the way your Senator or Congressman does earmarks, don't vote for him or her.
Many (most?) congressmen run unopposed when running for re-election. Plus it's done by just about everyone, so there's almost no one to vote for who won't do it. The only option is not to vote, which won't change anything.
Earmarks are comparatively small part of the federal budget and generally go towards pet district projects that generally do benefit the community from that district.
We're still talking about billions of dollars annually. And much of that goes to large industry instead of local communities.