There's no valid reason that Microsoft couldn't make their OS 99% backwards compatible. Plus if their past versions of Windows had proper security layers then a "fixed" version wouldn't break as many applications. On a new Mac you can still run apps that are written for Mac OS 9, so it makes sense for the head of Apple to take a jab at Microsoft for breaking compatibility. Apple handles it much better with their own competing OS.
What does the openness of the code have to do with the size of the tester base? Closed source applications can be downloaded just as easily as open source apps. Windows has had hundreds of thousands of beta testers.
Like 15 years ago a very large database was 10gb+... Today, a very large database is 100+gb
Nooo. 12 years ago I started my career on a 4TB database (custom supported by Sun and Oracle). Seven years ago that database grew to 20TB. Today I see medium size corporate databases weighing in at 200 to 500 GB. Even some relatively simple web sites I work with have over 50 GB of data.
the island defended is getting smaller. In my experience databases are not growing in a similar speed like hardware is anymore
My experience contradicts this. Companies are analyzing more and more information and using larger data warehouses. Where in the past I'd see a variety of small databases spread throughout financial firms I now see more cosolidation into data warehouses. It aids in analysis, cuts some costs, and increases security. Even many web sites are now growing huge databases.
Yes, that's a very good point. The largest systems I've worked on were based on Solaris anyway. So now that it's cheap and supports commodity hardware it would be a natural expansion.
I've worked on some huge Unix systems (mostly for databases) and never once did anyone mention Windows without laughing. No way are people with truely large-scale critical Unix servers considering switching to Windows. When you already own the hardware, paid for the software, and have huge support contracts, consider expansion with Linux. Windows is only intruding on the smaller scale Unix installations.
Gartner is known for sometimes putting out some fluff but this just sounds silly.
I bet if those same people walked an hour each day they'd lose the same or more weight. But at this point if it takes the games of the wii to motivate them then it's overall a good thing.
Newsweek: With Xbox and Zune, Microsoft has adopted an end-to-end approach, where you write the software, design the hardware and run the services. Will Microsoft now change its mobile-phone strategy and adopt an end-to-end approach, the way Apple has with the iPhone?
Gates: No, I don't think so. People like different styling, media storage, capability [in phones]. The benefit we get from having lots of great hardware partners is pretty phenomenal. And our software can run on any one of those things.
I don't really get why companies like Microsoft need to invade every single market they possibly can
Specifically for Microsoft everyone knows that the OS and Office suite software can't bring in huge revenue forever. If they want to continue to make a profit and keep their stock in respectable territory they have to find other profitable revenue streams. Unfortunately for them they fail in every other department (defining failure as draining profit).
From what I've read they don't expect to make a profit on the xbox until '08 (although maybe this past holiday season changed that and I missed it). And even when they do turn a profit, they've lost so many billions on the project that it will take MANY years of squeezing a profit to make it break even over the long term.
With projects like the xbox and zune, lackluster software, and challenges keeping up revenue, it really puzzles me why people still hold MSFT stock.
These companies don't report half the cases of identity theft to end-consumers, banks and definitely not the police because they don't want to alarm anybody
No one will ever know the exact number of fraudulent transactions, you are correct. But that's because the perfect crime goes unnoticed. The two big credit card companies, plus most big banks, have departments dedicated to fraud. The credit card companies analyze fraud across the industry and help banks reduce it. They all attempt to find unreported fraud through data analysis. They do this partly because if fraud became a significant part of the business it would bring down the industry. But they keep fraud to a relative low and happily announce the industry's analysis so everyone knows they're working on keeping it low. This makes the customers happy and keeps them in business.
What banks typically won't do is report their own individual fraud results. It's accepted in the industry that a certain percent of transactions will be fraud. But by framing it in perspective to the whole industry their own customers don't get upset with them individually.
Almost identical in land size. If you include water NYC is far larger. And I don't know about KC, but NYC's mass transit goes out into the suburbs, covering much more land.
Are you actually arguing that no city should have mass transit? Or are you saying that because it's currently impractical in some cities then it should be ignored completely?
3b - No they do not have less parts and are less complex
Electric engines have less moving parts and use less fluids. Therefore they can also be made smaller and use less raw materials. All else being equal an electric car is less complex.
3c - You ignore the distances again (see K.C.). And, I guess your attitude is screw the folks who cannot physically do that, eh?
See above regarding distances. And you seem to be another one who takes everything all-or-nothing. Why shouldn't those cities that can, do? So if KC can't do something about energy then NYC shouldn't either? Yeah, that makes sense. How would some people switching to bikes screw other people in other places?
3d - Ibid. Until that breakthrough, solar, wind and tide don't cut the mustard in either cost or product.
So let's not proceed. It's not like mass production will lower costs or anything, right?
3.The alternatives are hardly tenable at this point: a. Mass transport: Due to the size, shape, and demographic dispersion it is untenable for the majority of American metropolis'.
Never been to NYC, I guess. Millions of people every day use mass transit. A large percentage of city dwellers have no car. Every American metropolis has some mass trasport. As roads become too crowded they are forced to provide more mass transit for immediately practical purposes. Your argument is simply false.
b. Buy everyone new electric cars. For one, manufacturing all those new cars just uses more energy and produces more emissions. So people proposing that are asinine at best.
Electric cars have less parts and are less complex. On a large scale and as technology progresses we will use far less energy to produce them. Your argument ignores progress over time.
c. Everyone should bike or walk to work. Sorry, American not as small nor as densely populated as you may believe. See 3a
See China. Not everyone needs to bike or walk, but easily half of the population can as they live in dense areas. You assume this argument is black and white. But if just the SUV drivers in metropolitan areas switched to bikes we'd have less traffic and save a lot of energy.
d.Solar power: Great, spend a crapload of cash and maybe make your money back.
First, protecting the environment isn't about making your money back. It's about having a habitable planet for our kids. Second, you ignore technological progress over time. Every year solar is getting more efficient.
e. Windmill farms: Even the Greenies are confused on this one. Build'em but can't run them at full capacity because they chop up birds.
You're way behind on this one. The largest, slowest moving turbines do not kill any birds. Problem solved.
By your logic we shouldn't have telephones because it's a lot of work to put up the wires. And we shouldn't have electricity because the up-front cost to build the initial generators is so high. All of your points are narrow. They ignore the big picture, ignore some very important details, assume everything is all-or-nothing, and ignore technological progress.
Until there is a major security breach, only a thorough security audit will give the organization an idea of how much a security problem can cost. If an audit demonstrates terrible flaws in security it should become obvious money needs to be spent on it. If the audit shows security is already reasonably tight then it's a tough argument to spend a lot more money on improving it.
You know, not to be a troll, but I really don't see what the big deal is.
How about when the BSA enters your property with armed marshals and shuts down your business while you're doing everything you can to be compliant with licenses? At least it converts some to open source.
That's exactly what they're doing. Ebay is by far the biggest lawsuit target for these auctions. Lawsuits over IP can be huge in terms of money and PR. If they felt 100% legally confident they wouldn't have banned the auctions.
Given the nebulous nature of ownership in online games...
Don't game creators and server owners place very explicit copyright ownership clauses into their license agreements with users? People obviously break the rules without much thought, but isn't the exact legal ownership already determined in just about every virtual world? Second Life, for example, makes it very clear what the user does and does not own in their online documentation.
Along with the specialized features that someone above points out, Apple gets some very targeted marketing out of it. They realize that today no one goes to Apple looking for phone service. But they do go straight to providers. So when Cingular markets this phone with their service they'll target many many more customers than if Apple did all the marketing independantly. I imagine they also expect some people on their current Cingular plans to upgrade to these iPhones once it's marketing by Cingular. So Apple gets more customers through more targeting marketing, and Cingular gets more premium customers.
I've said it before, and I'll say it again. Wikipedia is a great place to start your research.
With Wikipedia's intentions of citing sources in as many articles as possible, this is especially true. Often you can find the original source of information more accurately than a google search because it's linked right in the article. Go to the original source, get the details, and cite them.
Slashdot Mirror
There's no valid reason that Microsoft couldn't make their OS 99% backwards compatible. Plus if their past versions of Windows had proper security layers then a "fixed" version wouldn't break as many applications. On a new Mac you can still run apps that are written for Mac OS 9, so it makes sense for the head of Apple to take a jab at Microsoft for breaking compatibility. Apple handles it much better with their own competing OS.
What does the openness of the code have to do with the size of the tester base? Closed source applications can be downloaded just as easily as open source apps. Windows has had hundreds of thousands of beta testers.
Like 15 years ago a very large database was 10gb+ ... Today, a very large database is 100+gb
Nooo. 12 years ago I started my career on a 4TB database (custom supported by Sun and Oracle). Seven years ago that database grew to 20TB. Today I see medium size corporate databases weighing in at 200 to 500 GB. Even some relatively simple web sites I work with have over 50 GB of data.
the island defended is getting smaller. In my experience databases are not growing in a similar speed like hardware is anymore
My experience contradicts this. Companies are analyzing more and more information and using larger data warehouses. Where in the past I'd see a variety of small databases spread throughout financial firms I now see more cosolidation into data warehouses. It aids in analysis, cuts some costs, and increases security. Even many web sites are now growing huge databases.
Yes, that's a very good point. The largest systems I've worked on were based on Solaris anyway. So now that it's cheap and supports commodity hardware it would be a natural expansion.
I've worked on some huge Unix systems (mostly for databases) and never once did anyone mention Windows without laughing. No way are people with truely large-scale critical Unix servers considering switching to Windows. When you already own the hardware, paid for the software, and have huge support contracts, consider expansion with Linux. Windows is only intruding on the smaller scale Unix installations.
Gartner is known for sometimes putting out some fluff but this just sounds silly.
iTunes don't really cost anything to distribute
Would you want to pay for their bandwidth? I'm sure it's a little more than a drop in the bucket.
Other than that I agree with you completely.
I think he's referring to its interference in other people's lives. Meaning those people who are not believers in the religion, such as this critic.
I bet if those same people walked an hour each day they'd lose the same or more weight. But at this point if it takes the games of the wii to motivate them then it's overall a good thing.
Bill. I thought you were an uber-hacker.
He hacked on one machine 30 years ago. On the hacker scale he rates nowhere near uber.
IEEE Seeks For Ethernet To 'Go Green'
That's good because I'm really tired of the white and blue.
Bill Gates speaking to Newsweek: So the answer is: nothing new.
I don't really get why companies like Microsoft need to invade every single market they possibly can
Specifically for Microsoft everyone knows that the OS and Office suite software can't bring in huge revenue forever. If they want to continue to make a profit and keep their stock in respectable territory they have to find other profitable revenue streams. Unfortunately for them they fail in every other department (defining failure as draining profit).
From what I've read they don't expect to make a profit on the xbox until '08 (although maybe this past holiday season changed that and I missed it). And even when they do turn a profit, they've lost so many billions on the project that it will take MANY years of squeezing a profit to make it break even over the long term.
With projects like the xbox and zune, lackluster software, and challenges keeping up revenue, it really puzzles me why people still hold MSFT stock.
These companies don't report half the cases of identity theft to end-consumers, banks and definitely not the police because they don't want to alarm anybody
No one will ever know the exact number of fraudulent transactions, you are correct. But that's because the perfect crime goes unnoticed. The two big credit card companies, plus most big banks, have departments dedicated to fraud. The credit card companies analyze fraud across the industry and help banks reduce it. They all attempt to find unreported fraud through data analysis. They do this partly because if fraud became a significant part of the business it would bring down the industry. But they keep fraud to a relative low and happily announce the industry's analysis so everyone knows they're working on keeping it low. This makes the customers happy and keeps them in business.
What banks typically won't do is report their own individual fraud results. It's accepted in the industry that a certain percent of transactions will be fraud. But by framing it in perspective to the whole industry their own customers don't get upset with them individually.
3a - NYC is not similar to the bulk of US cities. Kansas City, for instance is about fifty miles north and south.
NYC: 303 sq. mi. of land
KC: 313 sq. mi. of land
Almost identical in land size. If you include water NYC is far larger. And I don't know about KC, but NYC's mass transit goes out into the suburbs, covering much more land.
Are you actually arguing that no city should have mass transit? Or are you saying that because it's currently impractical in some cities then it should be ignored completely?
3b - No they do not have less parts and are less complex
Electric engines have less moving parts and use less fluids. Therefore they can also be made smaller and use less raw materials. All else being equal an electric car is less complex.
3c - You ignore the distances again (see K.C.). And, I guess your attitude is screw the folks who cannot physically do that, eh?
See above regarding distances. And you seem to be another one who takes everything all-or-nothing. Why shouldn't those cities that can, do? So if KC can't do something about energy then NYC shouldn't either? Yeah, that makes sense. How would some people switching to bikes screw other people in other places?
3d - Ibid. Until that breakthrough, solar, wind and tide don't cut the mustard in either cost or product.
So let's not proceed. It's not like mass production will lower costs or anything, right?
3.The alternatives are hardly tenable at this point:
a. Mass transport: Due to the size, shape, and demographic dispersion it is untenable for the majority of American metropolis'.
Never been to NYC, I guess. Millions of people every day use mass transit. A large percentage of city dwellers have no car. Every American metropolis has some mass trasport. As roads become too crowded they are forced to provide more mass transit for immediately practical purposes. Your argument is simply false.
b. Buy everyone new electric cars. For one, manufacturing all those new cars just uses more energy and produces more emissions. So people proposing that are asinine at best.
Electric cars have less parts and are less complex. On a large scale and as technology progresses we will use far less energy to produce them. Your argument ignores progress over time.
c. Everyone should bike or walk to work. Sorry, American not as small nor as densely populated as you may believe. See 3a
See China. Not everyone needs to bike or walk, but easily half of the population can as they live in dense areas. You assume this argument is black and white. But if just the SUV drivers in metropolitan areas switched to bikes we'd have less traffic and save a lot of energy.
d.Solar power: Great, spend a crapload of cash and maybe make your money back.
First, protecting the environment isn't about making your money back. It's about having a habitable planet for our kids. Second, you ignore technological progress over time. Every year solar is getting more efficient.
e. Windmill farms: Even the Greenies are confused on this one. Build'em but can't run them at full capacity because they chop up birds.
You're way behind on this one. The largest, slowest moving turbines do not kill any birds. Problem solved.
By your logic we shouldn't have telephones because it's a lot of work to put up the wires. And we shouldn't have electricity because the up-front cost to build the initial generators is so high. All of your points are narrow. They ignore the big picture, ignore some very important details, assume everything is all-or-nothing, and ignore technological progress.
You set a great example as a Republican.
Until there is a major security breach, only a thorough security audit will give the organization an idea of how much a security problem can cost. If an audit demonstrates terrible flaws in security it should become obvious money needs to be spent on it. If the audit shows security is already reasonably tight then it's a tough argument to spend a lot more money on improving it.
You know, not to be a troll, but I really don't see what the big deal is.
How about when the BSA enters your property with armed marshals and shuts down your business while you're doing everything you can to be compliant with licenses? At least it converts some to open source.
Way to serve your investors, ebay.
That's exactly what they're doing. Ebay is by far the biggest lawsuit target for these auctions. Lawsuits over IP can be huge in terms of money and PR. If they felt 100% legally confident they wouldn't have banned the auctions.
Given the nebulous nature of ownership in online games...
Don't game creators and server owners place very explicit copyright ownership clauses into their license agreements with users? People obviously break the rules without much thought, but isn't the exact legal ownership already determined in just about every virtual world? Second Life, for example, makes it very clear what the user does and does not own in their online documentation.
Along with the specialized features that someone above points out, Apple gets some very targeted marketing out of it. They realize that today no one goes to Apple looking for phone service. But they do go straight to providers. So when Cingular markets this phone with their service they'll target many many more customers than if Apple did all the marketing independantly. I imagine they also expect some people on their current Cingular plans to upgrade to these iPhones once it's marketing by Cingular. So Apple gets more customers through more targeting marketing, and Cingular gets more premium customers.
I've said it before, and I'll say it again. Wikipedia is a great place to start your research.
With Wikipedia's intentions of citing sources in as many articles as possible, this is especially true. Often you can find the original source of information more accurately than a google search because it's linked right in the article. Go to the original source, get the details, and cite them.
Come on. I got details from the Democracy Now radio program, but a search is not difficult:
a ri&rls=en&as_qdr=all&q=%222006+election%22+investi gation+OR+stolen&btnG=Search
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&client=saf
Publishing a picture of a real key is an understandable mistake
How? I've never heard of anyone ever intentionally taking a picture of a key. And if it's a master key it's absolutely not an understandable mistake.