I would have to say you're mostly right about similarily on the VB.Net and C# tip -- they are so similar we use them interchangably or by preference, I prefer C# so if I start developing something it becomes C#, otherwise it's VB.
They have to be a bit "like java," because they are Object Oriented languages that run in a virtual machine and therefore have similar needs. They also call the same core APIs. Similarly, all the languages that run in a Java VM (like Jython and Ruby) have similarities to Java.
Other languages that run in.NET (like the new FoxPro and Managed C) are certainly NOT that way. They maintain much of their old styles, in fact if I'm not mistaken Managed C is still an unchecked, unsafe language out of the can. They're like this, because unlike VB.Net or C# (which were designed to be used for new development), Managed C and FoxPro are basically there to support OLD code without changine much, if anything.
None of this means that a COBOL language won't work. For one thing, when you convert a VB 6 app to.NET, all of the differences between the two are in calling syntaxes or the API. There is no difference in logic or execution, so unless you were relying on some ugly side effects (like parsing connection strings by length, that kind of idiocy), the code works the same way. Since most COBOL code is heavily procedural (being written as it was way before the shift to an OOP paradigm), it should be similarly untouched...and the interaction APIs will no doubt be written to closely resemble those used on the host systems.
The point here is that COBOL.NET will be designed as a way to shift programs to hardware that's easier to support, not to shift developers to a new paradigm. Since there will be little call to use the language for new applications, there's no reason to update the syntax. Microsoft isn't stupid -- not all the time, anyway -- they've got some great minds working on their developer tools. Shit, some of these ACTUALLY made BASIC useful...a kid's tool used by millions of businesses worldwide.
It's always funny to me how much most managers in our field consider LANGUAGE to be the barrier to most tasks, when my experience it's really more a matter of knowledge of the type of code you're interfacing.
If you've written procedural code to process transactions in any language, from C to FoxPro to bleedin' VB Script, you should be able to manage COBOL code to process them with a good book and about a week's worth of "high error hacking." The language isn't the problem...it's the type of business logic employed, the type of parsing, the tricks used in that type of programming that really hold you up. The language is just a red herring.
And yet, the first thing people ask you is, "Do you know XxXxX language?" What they should be asking is, "Do you know a language LIKE XxXxX and have you experience in the field of YyYyY?"
Hiring based on task and not on "langauge" is something the industry is just now coming around to, and I think it's due to years of C programmers forced to sit on their thumbs because they knew how to write printer drivers but had never opened a window in their life.
Oh, more stuff for you. This is just looking at the specification BEHIND the dumb features that have you floored (proprietary transfers over FM...only a true geek would get impressed by that)
128 meg Neuros: $230 2.5" x 4.3" x 1.3" x 5.9 oz Res: 128x128 Input: USB 1.1 max 12 Mb/s Time to full charge: 8 hours
The backpack adds a further 7.6 oz to a pleasant 13.5 oz, or 3/4 of a pound en total. And the unit size becomes 3.1"x5.3x1.3"
20 GB iPod: $399 2.4" x 4.1" x.62" x 5.1 oz Res: 160x128 Input: USB 2.0 / Firewire, max 400+ Mb/s Time to full charge: 3 hours (at 80% after an hour and 20 minutes on the charger is usually enough for my hour and a half workout)
So what you have here is a unit which is, i admit, check full of neat ideas and features for $170 less. But it also takes twice as long to charge, up to 40 times as long to copy files (USB 1.1 is absolutely unacceptable for a hard drive and you KNOW this), is nearly three times heavier, twice as thick, an inch taller, has 20% fewer pixels, the headphone jack is on the bottom (which is just wierd)...the buttons aren't inlaid, the hand interface just looks unwieldy (with buttons on either side of the face, how do you GRAB it without pushing them in all the time? Even with a lock they'll jam up pretty quick).
All in all, it looks like an iPod knock off that tried really hard and nearly succeeded in being a better unit. You're right, integrated FM and microphone are neato...and these are two features Belkin and others are trying their damnedest to shove into the iPod...but they're also features most people will never use.
There's a design rule I like to follow, one that I think always makes devices easier to use: make common things simple, and complex things possible. I think Apple has done that -- common things, like selecting songs, copying songs, and walking around with the thing -- are easier. I think the Neuros has taken the opposite approach...laden the device with features, tried to keep it smallish (and yeah, 13 oz is still pretty small, smaller than those 2 lb Archos machines) and succeeded in making a device that I would probably buy if the iPod hadn't been invented.
Except when the walkman was in its heyday, models from Phillips and Aiwa and others were kicking its ass all over the field.
iPod has the brand recognition but it also has more power.
OGG is bullshit anyway. Not that it isn't a good idea, not that it doesn't sound good, but the only people that will ever use it are ON slashdot. AAC is the way of the future, because it sounds good at a small size, is embraced by several dozen big folks in the industry, is an MPEG standard but doesn't have the licensing issues of shit like MPEG PRO and others. It's certainly WAY better than WMV.
Try this one: http://www6.tomshardware.com/mobile/20030829/neuro s-05.html
Tom likes it, but says it's clunky...the interface looks messy too. Won't i be pushing those buttons while i move unless they're locked, at which point i can't advance? The iPod has recessed buttons (further recessed by my super sticky iSkin EXO) which means I can toss it in my pocket and never have to worry about pausing or playing when i don't want to.
Some of the features look neat, but you can't play your itunes music store stuff on it, either. Definitely a neat idea, and if you don't care about such nonsense it'd be worthwhile. I do care about such nonsense...so I'll stick with the iPod.
Yeah. I liked this article...it reminded me of one of those Kung Fu movies, where each of the five members of a gang has a speciality area in which they can beat the protagonist. Maybe one is an axe wielder, one is tough as nails, one is very fast, etc. Each one of them has an area of expertise in which they are the master.
Of course, in those films, all the protagonist has to do is step outside of that area of expertise and he easily kicks their asses. Which I think is exactly what the iPod does overall, kicks ass.
Yes, it could have more battery life but then it would be larger (like the model they show). Since its small size and weight are what make it perfect for sitting in pockets or running with without getting sore hands, that wouldn't be that useful to me.
Yes, it could be solid state -- i did have mine skip at the gym yesterday and have decided from now on I shall have to run a mile in under 6:39 and I'll just run along to Metallica's Blackened -- but then it would also have a TINY capacity, the biggest player they listed was 512 meg and there's no way i could deal with that after overflowing 27.4 gig.
Sure, it could be cheaper...and a total piece of shit like those CDR units they showed (can't run with it, no interface, no battery life, have to carry a supply of discs with you, unwieldy). I traded in a stack of similar devices when I bought my iPod, which was the easiest $538.92 I have ever spent.
Sure, voice recording would be nice, and it's coming...that was the point of adding the dock connector.
And as for "choice in music services"...well, I choose iTunes because AAC ounds so damn good and I have both Macs and PCs. WMA is not an option for me, so I don't have a choice.
Aw, brave iPod. How easily you have destroyed the warriors of the C-net. The spirit of the Wu-tang Clan flows within you -- in fact, the complete DISCOGRAPHY of the Wu-tang Clan flows within you.
Actually, I meant those baked potato things that Lays calls "chips." They ain't chips...chips are fried in oil, while these are essentially cooked dehydrated potatoes and have a completely different mouthfeel because of it. Everybody else except for Lays calls said product a "crisp." We call them that when we make them in our house...I figure in a post on "how to save cash and eat healthy in one easy slashdot lesson" I should avoid the higher fat option.
And don't give me your Atkins bullshit. The guys I know on Atkins never eat or drink what they like and are often hungry. You don't have to sacrifice FOOD when eating healthy. Oh, and swapping greasy fries for greasy meatwads won't stop your heart from imploding...
What a terrible fucking argument. All media, throughout history, has made itself by taking what's popular and copying it. From movements in composition and painting to today's bland pop, it's all repetition. Bubblegum pop, the British Invasion, Dadaism, even painting on caves in a certain style.
Blaming the industry for this is like blaming the Beatles for ripping off Elvis, or the Who for ripping off the Beatles, or Mozart for ripping off Beethoven.
"Some old man" is not making 90% profit. I won't contend that the industry isn't making a ton of money off of record sales and unfairly pushing their costs onto the artists. But the majority of this money is going towards the promotion of records, a tiresome process that a lot of artists aren't good at. It takes easily a million dollars to produce and promote an album following the RIAA's standard methodology which includes EVERYTHING. Indies pay the artist more money but may do little more than press the record, some don't even have a distribution system. It's sobering that a band that sells 100,000 indie records makes about the same as a band that goes double platinum...but realize that the indie act isn't avaialable at your mall record store, isn't on the radio, and had to work five times harder to sell those 100k, while a signed band could sell 100k farting in a can.
And still, there's good music coming out of the most commercial segments of the industry. I count at least six bands from the big five in my last mix...most of it's older stuff, but I think it shows that it's not all britney clones out there.
Besides, as much as you may not want them to, the Britney clones sell records. In these uncertain times, people like the simplicity of artists who sing about being a complete slut.
Was it not for copyright's ability to build fences around intangible goods such as lyrics and melodies, a performer like Loretta Lynn would not have been able to leave Butcher Holler, Kentucky, and share her gifts with the world.
A statement so stupid, you had to say it twice.
As we all know, music was born along with copyright. Before this stroke of genius, there was no such thing as sound. There were no famous works created by entities known as "composers." There were no operas or ditties or jingles or even instruments. Talent? Non-existant. No, nobody ever PAID MUSICIANS until copyright came around to force them to.
You, sir, have never seen FOX news. The Fair and Balanced channel, whose most successful host, William O'reilly, spent a half hour last night grilling the ACLU (a private organization aimed at providing legal assistance for the underprivliged whose civil rights are violated) for not helping EVERY case where civil rights come into question. He then reported that a campaign to eliminate superstition from beaurocracy is in fact a deadly plot to eliminate the holiday of christmas because the "secularists" (you know, because all agnostics, atheists and non-christians are ORGANIZED into a GROUP with TENETS) were afraid of their freedom of religion.
He had a few notoriously stupid, handsome and conservative experts to help prove his point. The Balanced part was a segment during which his guest was a representative of the ACLU was not allowed to answer questions or talk about his organization.
Later, they showed a fine program where a man who is quite possibly the Anti-christ was paired with a passive, sycophantic fresh faced "liberal" named Combs or something.
If Neo was asleep, it would make the whole thing better (although still lame for using the most tired plot device in history)...because dreams don't explain themselves well, they don't follow a convenient plot, they lose sight of their goals as they evolve...
I am working on my masters in English Lit. I liked the first Matrix film for being a colorful, understated film that didn't know what it was about. I thought the Matrix: Reloaded was boorish pap, "Philosophy for Dummies" mixed with Swordsman style kung fu. I'm sure there's room for interpretation of it, but why bother? A digital rehash of Descartes does nothing for me when I can just READ Descartes.
My advisor has a saying: avoid bad art. Art can be avante garde and bizarre and still be exciting, but if it's also poorly thought out and blandly executed it's worthless. There was a Robert Wilson piece at Mass MoCA a few months ago, it was HUGE and garish and wierd but it completely failed to convey its message to me because the symbols he used were so obscure and researched that you basically had to be a biblical scholar, eastern european sociologist, architectural historian and WWII nut to figure them all out.
I'll stick my Rubick's cube for puzzles, thanks. For nouveau philosophy mixed with sci fi, I'll stick with Heinlein, Bradbury, Dick and Robert ANTON Wilson.
What to learn in Windows: Left click to do things. Left quick twice to do important things. Right click to get a menu of things to do wherever the cursor is. X closes. _ makes it smaller. If you lost it, you can get it back by clicking in the task bar. My Computer has a list of places to store information. It's organized in folders. To install something, just put the disk in, or click twice on the program. To install hardware, put in the CD and follow the instructions
What to learn in Linux: Eh, I'd never make it through the lameness filter. Start here and don't stop. Ever.
The majority of small businesses do not have an IT staff. They do not have the ability to "fix it themselves," so the loss of this option is not a problem. What is a "typical" application? And what do you do when a project is no longer "active?"
These are big decisions to make if you're the owner of a chain of flower shops trying to get your order processing system in place. You don't know shit from programs, and as such you want something that's cheap to support, not just free up front. It is not as simple as "Open Source is cheaper/better/etc"...for small business, TCO is evrything.
And smart proprietary source vendors do not leave their customers high and dry as you are suggesting. That would be pure lunacy, to shake down your clients in their hour of need...in fact, the companies that have done this (Iomega's the only one I can think of) often do so at the sake of their market dominance. A lot of companies ask for money to fix problems immediately, but will fix them for free if you're willing to wait a little while. Because a short term cash grab that comes at the expense of customers who don't have the cash equals eventual failure, and if you're dealing with such myopic companies you're making a bad decision to begin with.
And to be honest, most of the software licenses I've seen are very well balanaced. I'm talking about agreements between your company and theirs...not the silly, unenforcable EULAs nobody reads. Usually, the license is a small part of a larger contract including terms for support, what's covered by the support warranty, and what kinds of support you can get. And the attitude of the proprietary company towards this contract should be everything. Microsoft, for as much as you people shit on them, has GREAT on call support and in my experience can fix more problems in an hour call (three of which come with our developer's dealy) than a team of third party consultants can all day. Our warranty with Sybase doesn't include support, and yet their developers have bent over backwards answering "support-like" emails and phone calls. They want our business so they can keep theres. Believe it or not, community's the key to proprietary software as much as it is for Open Source...there's just more on the line.
Stop your FUD, it's ugly coming out of Bill & friends but it's positively hideous from his supposedly progressive alternatives. Open Source is a viable option, but claiming it's best for every market is inviting failure. A lot of people are better served by the ubiquity of the windows world, monopoly or no, and denying this fact just makes the movement look silly.
Um. As far as I know, ALL open source code comes as is with no warranty stated or implied. As such, there is no LEGAL accountability, which when you're planning a business is the only thing that matters. You could post your phone number and address and still have the ability to say "Nuh uh, not gonna help you" when somebody calls.
Try getting funding from a bank. Tell them the core applications you're working with come with no warranty and no support. See how much they increase your line of credit!
Does he really think that proprietary software companies are willing to employ best practices at the expense of their bottom line?
Uh, ours does. In fact, we test every piece of code that goes to a customer on a dozen different hardware pieces, we have a unit of each model of printer that we've okayed for use (some 30 or 40 units) and for big releases we deal with several large beta customers before release.
And our company only employs 20 people. Every minute spent testing is a minute we could be making a new product...but supporting the old stuff is what makes us so popular with the customers we have, and it's why they pay support costs every year and buy our new stuff when it comes out.
In fact, now that I think about it, every company I've worked with since I started my professional career had a very serious and very adept quality team on our side. Most of the time they were structured in such a way that QA was working actively AGAINST the release of any software...playing a sort of programmatic Spy vs. Spy with the developers. The result is stronger software faster, which contributes to the bottom line.
I *LIKE* open source, but the existing mechanisms for testing are really terrible, even if the bug repair response can be great. And since there's no accountability, there's little enforcement for responsibility...we KNOW that the developers of applciation X will probably fix that big hole in the security layer, but there's always the chance that they'll say "screw it, we want to work on the new stuff, fix it yourself." This is not the news you want to hear when a bug is holding up your business...that you will either have to hire an expensive programmer who knows the code, or a cheap programmer who will take weeks to get it done.
A lot of companies aren't willing to take the chance. To them, the security of having a responsible company behind their software is worth the money "wasted" by not going with an OSS project.
Not that this guy isn't a complete prick. Just playing Devil's Advocate, and reminding ya'll that like all drugs, OSS isn't right for everyone. There are side effects.
Slashdot Mirror
I would have to say you're mostly right about similarily on the VB.Net and C# tip -- they are so similar we use them interchangably or by preference, I prefer C# so if I start developing something it becomes C#, otherwise it's VB.
.NET (like the new FoxPro and Managed C) are certainly NOT that way. They maintain much of their old styles, in fact if I'm not mistaken Managed C is still an unchecked, unsafe language out of the can. They're like this, because unlike VB.Net or C# (which were designed to be used for new development), Managed C and FoxPro are basically there to support OLD code without changine much, if anything.
.NET, all of the differences between the two are in calling syntaxes or the API. There is no difference in logic or execution, so unless you were relying on some ugly side effects (like parsing connection strings by length, that kind of idiocy), the code works the same way. Since most COBOL code is heavily procedural (being written as it was way before the shift to an OOP paradigm), it should be similarly untouched...and the interaction APIs will no doubt be written to closely resemble those used on the host systems.
They have to be a bit "like java," because they are Object Oriented languages that run in a virtual machine and therefore have similar needs. They also call the same core APIs. Similarly, all the languages that run in a Java VM (like Jython and Ruby) have similarities to Java.
Other languages that run in
None of this means that a COBOL language won't work. For one thing, when you convert a VB 6 app to
The point here is that COBOL.NET will be designed as a way to shift programs to hardware that's easier to support, not to shift developers to a new paradigm. Since there will be little call to use the language for new applications, there's no reason to update the syntax. Microsoft isn't stupid -- not all the time, anyway -- they've got some great minds working on their developer tools. Shit, some of these ACTUALLY made BASIC useful...a kid's tool used by millions of businesses worldwide.
But since the whole idea of a virtual machine like the one all .NET run on is to emulate environments, it sounds like MS is all set.
Makes you wonder if you could do something similar with a beefy Java library...
It's always funny to me how much most managers in our field consider LANGUAGE to be the barrier to most tasks, when my experience it's really more a matter of knowledge of the type of code you're interfacing.
If you've written procedural code to process transactions in any language, from C to FoxPro to bleedin' VB Script, you should be able to manage COBOL code to process them with a good book and about a week's worth of "high error hacking." The language isn't the problem...it's the type of business logic employed, the type of parsing, the tricks used in that type of programming that really hold you up. The language is just a red herring.
And yet, the first thing people ask you is, "Do you know XxXxX language?" What they should be asking is, "Do you know a language LIKE XxXxX and have you experience in the field of YyYyY?"
Hiring based on task and not on "langauge" is something the industry is just now coming around to, and I think it's due to years of C programmers forced to sit on their thumbs because they knew how to write printer drivers but had never opened a window in their life.
As long as we have Silence! The Musical," we're goint to be OK.
I agree. All true Sci-FI fans know that it is the Star Trek fans who have difficulty dating.
Oh, more stuff for you. This is just looking at the specification BEHIND the dumb features that have you floored (proprietary transfers over FM...only a true geek would get impressed by that)
128 meg Neuros: $230
2.5" x 4.3" x 1.3" x 5.9 oz
Res: 128x128
Input: USB 1.1 max 12 Mb/s
Time to full charge: 8 hours
The backpack adds a further 7.6 oz to a pleasant 13.5 oz, or 3/4 of a pound en total. And the unit size becomes 3.1"x5.3x1.3"
20 GB iPod: $399
2.4" x 4.1" x.62" x 5.1 oz
Res: 160x128
Input: USB 2.0 / Firewire, max 400+ Mb/s
Time to full charge: 3 hours (at 80% after an hour and 20 minutes on the charger is usually enough for my hour and a half workout)
So what you have here is a unit which is, i admit, check full of neat ideas and features for $170 less. But it also takes twice as long to charge, up to 40 times as long to copy files (USB 1.1 is absolutely unacceptable for a hard drive and you KNOW this), is nearly three times heavier, twice as thick, an inch taller, has 20% fewer pixels, the headphone jack is on the bottom (which is just wierd)...the buttons aren't inlaid, the hand interface just looks unwieldy (with buttons on either side of the face, how do you GRAB it without pushing them in all the time? Even with a lock they'll jam up pretty quick).
All in all, it looks like an iPod knock off that tried really hard and nearly succeeded in being a better unit. You're right, integrated FM and microphone are neato...and these are two features Belkin and others are trying their damnedest to shove into the iPod...but they're also features most people will never use.
There's a design rule I like to follow, one that I think always makes devices easier to use: make common things simple, and complex things possible. I think Apple has done that -- common things, like selecting songs, copying songs, and walking around with the thing -- are easier. I think the Neuros has taken the opposite approach...laden the device with features, tried to keep it smallish (and yeah, 13 oz is still pretty small, smaller than those 2 lb Archos machines) and succeeded in making a device that I would probably buy if the iPod hadn't been invented.
Except when the walkman was in its heyday, models from Phillips and Aiwa and others were kicking its ass all over the field.
iPod has the brand recognition but it also has more power.
OGG is bullshit anyway. Not that it isn't a good idea, not that it doesn't sound good, but the only people that will ever use it are ON slashdot. AAC is the way of the future, because it sounds good at a small size, is embraced by several dozen big folks in the industry, is an MPEG standard but doesn't have the licensing issues of shit like MPEG PRO and others. It's certainly WAY better than WMV.
Try this one: http://www6.tomshardware.com/mobile/20030829/neuro s-05.html
Tom likes it, but says it's clunky...the interface looks messy too. Won't i be pushing those buttons while i move unless they're locked, at which point i can't advance? The iPod has recessed buttons (further recessed by my super sticky iSkin EXO) which means I can toss it in my pocket and never have to worry about pausing or playing when i don't want to.
Some of the features look neat, but you can't play your itunes music store stuff on it, either. Definitely a neat idea, and if you don't care about such nonsense it'd be worthwhile. I do care about such nonsense...so I'll stick with the iPod.
Uh, I have the ORIGINAL bondi blue mac. It is running 10.3. No offense, but if your imac wouldn't run OSX, it's probably user error.
Of course, in those films, all the protagonist has to do is step outside of that area of expertise and he easily kicks their asses. Which I think is exactly what the iPod does overall, kicks ass.
Aw, brave iPod. How easily you have destroyed the warriors of the C-net. The spirit of the Wu-tang Clan flows within you -- in fact, the complete DISCOGRAPHY of the Wu-tang Clan flows within you.
Eh, I'm not classically trained. But I can afford a slashdot account. They're practically giving them away!
Actually, I meant those baked potato things that Lays calls "chips." They ain't chips...chips are fried in oil, while these are essentially cooked dehydrated potatoes and have a completely different mouthfeel because of it. Everybody else except for Lays calls said product a "crisp." We call them that when we make them in our house...I figure in a post on "how to save cash and eat healthy in one easy slashdot lesson" I should avoid the higher fat option.
And don't give me your Atkins bullshit. The guys I know on Atkins never eat or drink what they like and are often hungry. You don't have to sacrifice FOOD when eating healthy. Oh, and swapping greasy fries for greasy meatwads won't stop your heart from imploding...
What a terrible fucking argument. All media, throughout history, has made itself by taking what's popular and copying it. From movements in composition and painting to today's bland pop, it's all repetition. Bubblegum pop, the British Invasion, Dadaism, even painting on caves in a certain style.
Blaming the industry for this is like blaming the Beatles for ripping off Elvis, or the Who for ripping off the Beatles, or Mozart for ripping off Beethoven.
"Some old man" is not making 90% profit. I won't contend that the industry isn't making a ton of money off of record sales and unfairly pushing their costs onto the artists. But the majority of this money is going towards the promotion of records, a tiresome process that a lot of artists aren't good at. It takes easily a million dollars to produce and promote an album following the RIAA's standard methodology which includes EVERYTHING. Indies pay the artist more money but may do little more than press the record, some don't even have a distribution system. It's sobering that a band that sells 100,000 indie records makes about the same as a band that goes double platinum...but realize that the indie act isn't avaialable at your mall record store, isn't on the radio, and had to work five times harder to sell those 100k, while a signed band could sell 100k farting in a can.
And still, there's good music coming out of the most commercial segments of the industry. I count at least six bands from the big five in my last mix...most of it's older stuff, but I think it shows that it's not all britney clones out there.
Besides, as much as you may not want them to, the Britney clones sell records. In these uncertain times, people like the simplicity of artists who sing about being a complete slut.
Was it not for copyright's ability to build fences around intangible goods such as lyrics and melodies, a performer like Loretta Lynn would not have been able to leave Butcher Holler, Kentucky, and share her gifts with the world.
A statement so stupid, you had to say it twice.
As we all know, music was born along with copyright. Before this stroke of genius, there was no such thing as sound. There were no famous works created by entities known as "composers." There were no operas or ditties or jingles or even instruments. Talent? Non-existant. No, nobody ever PAID MUSICIANS until copyright came around to force them to.
Fucking lunacy.
A McDonalds EVM is about $5...make a sandwich for $2.50, get a $.50 packet of crisps and you'll get $2 toward Best Buy.
I've been doing this for years. I use the money for cigarettes, but you can't be smart every step of the way...
CNN: The Least Trusted Name In News.
You, sir, have never seen FOX news. The Fair and Balanced channel, whose most successful host, William O'reilly, spent a half hour last night grilling the ACLU (a private organization aimed at providing legal assistance for the underprivliged whose civil rights are violated) for not helping EVERY case where civil rights come into question. He then reported that a campaign to eliminate superstition from beaurocracy is in fact a deadly plot to eliminate the holiday of christmas because the "secularists" (you know, because all agnostics, atheists and non-christians are ORGANIZED into a GROUP with TENETS) were afraid of their freedom of religion.
He had a few notoriously stupid, handsome and conservative experts to help prove his point. The Balanced part was a segment during which his guest was a representative of the ACLU was not allowed to answer questions or talk about his organization.
Later, they showed a fine program where a man who is quite possibly the Anti-christ was paired with a passive, sycophantic fresh faced "liberal" named Combs or something.
OnStar is easily defeated.
Don't pay your bill.
Easy. They'll just control the trucks using Windows (way too easy)...
If Neo was asleep, it would make the whole thing better (although still lame for using the most tired plot device in history)...because dreams don't explain themselves well, they don't follow a convenient plot, they lose sight of their goals as they evolve...
I am working on my masters in English Lit. I liked the first Matrix film for being a colorful, understated film that didn't know what it was about. I thought the Matrix: Reloaded was boorish pap, "Philosophy for Dummies" mixed with Swordsman style kung fu. I'm sure there's room for interpretation of it, but why bother? A digital rehash of Descartes does nothing for me when I can just READ Descartes.
My advisor has a saying: avoid bad art. Art can be avante garde and bizarre and still be exciting, but if it's also poorly thought out and blandly executed it's worthless. There was a Robert Wilson piece at Mass MoCA a few months ago, it was HUGE and garish and wierd but it completely failed to convey its message to me because the symbols he used were so obscure and researched that you basically had to be a biblical scholar, eastern european sociologist, architectural historian and WWII nut to figure them all out.
I'll stick my Rubick's cube for puzzles, thanks. For nouveau philosophy mixed with sci fi, I'll stick with Heinlein, Bradbury, Dick and Robert ANTON Wilson.
Hey, that's a good idea. My wife's outta town and you know...Jennifer Connelly...
What to learn in Windows:
Left click to do things. Left quick twice to do important things. Right click to get a menu of things to do wherever the cursor is. X closes. _ makes it smaller. If you lost it, you can get it back by clicking in the task bar. My Computer has a list of places to store information. It's organized in folders. To install something, just put the disk in, or click twice on the program. To install hardware, put in the CD and follow the instructions
What to learn in Linux:
Eh, I'd never make it through the lameness filter. Start here and don't stop. Ever.
The majority of small businesses do not have an IT staff. They do not have the ability to "fix it themselves," so the loss of this option is not a problem. What is a "typical" application? And what do you do when a project is no longer "active?"
These are big decisions to make if you're the owner of a chain of flower shops trying to get your order processing system in place. You don't know shit from programs, and as such you want something that's cheap to support, not just free up front. It is not as simple as "Open Source is cheaper/better/etc"...for small business, TCO is evrything.
And smart proprietary source vendors do not leave their customers high and dry as you are suggesting. That would be pure lunacy, to shake down your clients in their hour of need...in fact, the companies that have done this (Iomega's the only one I can think of) often do so at the sake of their market dominance. A lot of companies ask for money to fix problems immediately, but will fix them for free if you're willing to wait a little while. Because a short term cash grab that comes at the expense of customers who don't have the cash equals eventual failure, and if you're dealing with such myopic companies you're making a bad decision to begin with.
And to be honest, most of the software licenses I've seen are very well balanaced. I'm talking about agreements between your company and theirs...not the silly, unenforcable EULAs nobody reads. Usually, the license is a small part of a larger contract including terms for support, what's covered by the support warranty, and what kinds of support you can get. And the attitude of the proprietary company towards this contract should be everything. Microsoft, for as much as you people shit on them, has GREAT on call support and in my experience can fix more problems in an hour call (three of which come with our developer's dealy) than a team of third party consultants can all day. Our warranty with Sybase doesn't include support, and yet their developers have bent over backwards answering "support-like" emails and phone calls. They want our business so they can keep theres. Believe it or not, community's the key to proprietary software as much as it is for Open Source...there's just more on the line.
Stop your FUD, it's ugly coming out of Bill & friends but it's positively hideous from his supposedly progressive alternatives. Open Source is a viable option, but claiming it's best for every market is inviting failure. A lot of people are better served by the ubiquity of the windows world, monopoly or no, and denying this fact just makes the movement look silly.
Um. As far as I know, ALL open source code comes as is with no warranty stated or implied. As such, there is no LEGAL accountability, which when you're planning a business is the only thing that matters. You could post your phone number and address and still have the ability to say "Nuh uh, not gonna help you" when somebody calls.
Try getting funding from a bank. Tell them the core applications you're working with come with no warranty and no support. See how much they increase your line of credit!
Does he really think that proprietary software companies are willing to employ best practices at the expense of their bottom line?
Uh, ours does. In fact, we test every piece of code that goes to a customer on a dozen different hardware pieces, we have a unit of each model of printer that we've okayed for use (some 30 or 40 units) and for big releases we deal with several large beta customers before release.
And our company only employs 20 people. Every minute spent testing is a minute we could be making a new product...but supporting the old stuff is what makes us so popular with the customers we have, and it's why they pay support costs every year and buy our new stuff when it comes out.
In fact, now that I think about it, every company I've worked with since I started my professional career had a very serious and very adept quality team on our side. Most of the time they were structured in such a way that QA was working actively AGAINST the release of any software...playing a sort of programmatic Spy vs. Spy with the developers. The result is stronger software faster, which contributes to the bottom line.
I *LIKE* open source, but the existing mechanisms for testing are really terrible, even if the bug repair response can be great. And since there's no accountability, there's little enforcement for responsibility...we KNOW that the developers of applciation X will probably fix that big hole in the security layer, but there's always the chance that they'll say "screw it, we want to work on the new stuff, fix it yourself." This is not the news you want to hear when a bug is holding up your business...that you will either have to hire an expensive programmer who knows the code, or a cheap programmer who will take weeks to get it done.
A lot of companies aren't willing to take the chance. To them, the security of having a responsible company behind their software is worth the money "wasted" by not going with an OSS project.
Not that this guy isn't a complete prick. Just playing Devil's Advocate, and reminding ya'll that like all drugs, OSS isn't right for everyone. There are side effects.