proof that even the underdog can pull dirty marketing tricks
Dirty Marketing tricks?!? Do you think the clock speed of a cpu is an accurate portrayal of the processors power? I think the dirty marketing trick is to tell people what the clock speed is at all! All it does is miss-lead the ignorant consumer (and sometimes even those who should know better).
It seems like everyone wants to move towards something we already have - live action. I think it's the only way people can handle the mental jump. Shrek showed that CGI movies shouldn't always shoot for photo-realistic. They shouldn't be cartoons either. They live in their own world, and have their own advantages.
Shrek had characters with very realistic skin and beard stubble, but were proportioned like a cartoon. This isn't something that could be done before now, so no one knew it would turn out so well.
This new version of Zelda is taking a risk that this new look will be one of those leaps. I think it will be.
I'm sure, sometime soon, we will see a game incorporate these looks into the story of the game (Pagemaster: The Game).
It isn't monopolistic to be proprietary or non supportive of competitors product.
Actually it is. If you have a monopoly in one product, you are not allowed to use your place in that market to influence your foothold in another market. That was the argument for Windows letting IE get a foothold. Now it's the argument for Media Player and.NET getting a foothold based on a browser monopoly.
According to this article, an SUV owner spends an extra $100-$250 per month compared to a regular car in just operating costs on top of the extra cost of the vehicle. It would be better to put this in a retirement fund. Considering that 85% of these vehicles are never used for the conditions they are designed for, that really is a waste. All for ego.
I personally would never buy an SUV. They seem trendy and wasteful. But I do see a very practical reason to buy one: comfort. Many people who buy SUVs claim to enjoy sitting upright and stepping in and out of the vehicle rather than crawling into a compact car. I think car manufactures just haven't stopped to ask why people are buying these things... they just know they sell, and therefore spend their time trying to make the better SUV. What we all need is a line of cars that we can fit in again.
The courts weren't simply requiring contracts to be updated for the new media. The court was forcing the writers to allow the Times to leave the articles in the database. That's the whole point. Even though the contracts were clear, the court was saying "screw the contracts, lets do the right thing for the world".
The editorial was just pointing out that the Supreme Court might do the same for Napster one day. -----
And they're removing Java, meaning that anyone distributing a Java app needs to distribute instructions on how to waste half an hour downloading the latest VM.
FYI, if you try to download a web page which uses a Java applet you get a pop-up telling you you need Java and you can click on a button to automatically download the VM.
And if they use webstart, they can do the same with applications, only they don't have to go back to the web site to use it later.
-----
WebStart lets you run JNLP from a web page.
Neither has any relevance to what I'm talking about.
Read the documentation again. Web start is a download manager for java apps. It WILL put an icon on your desktop for you. It can also load java apps from a web page. -----
This paper seems to center around Linux and Apache as examples of well supported software applications. An open source movement that seems to be growing at a much quicker pace than full blown open source applications is the market for open source development tools. As a Java developer, I simply can't live without open source software. Where would I get a build tool, or a logging api. Some of these products don't even have commercial competition.
Don't get me wrong... I loved the article; but I don't think there are any better numbers than those backing apache's jakarta projects, or the development trends in open source in general. -----
It might prevent you from calling it "KWord" for the same reason you couldn't call it "Word for XWindows" -- it suggests that the product is a Microsoft product. Whereas by contrast software consumers are used to the appellation "Word[blank]" for non-Microsoft word processing software.
What if "K" represented the KDE group rather than the platform (window manager in this case). In that case, KIllustrator or KWord would mean "KDE's Illustration program" or "Word by KDE". Wouldn't this be legal? -----
Microsoft's designation of its flagship word processing program as "Word" does in fact receive trademark protection. "Word" is a generic term to describe units of speech and text, not a generic term to describe word processing software.... but that trademark protection doesn't prevent people from calling their word processor kword or wordpro or wordstar, does it? -----
I challenge you to name an important music performer before the advent of recording, or an important composer before the advent of writing.
I think the quote above shows my point as well as any. You (along with the rest of the world) have gotten used to the idea that performers should be important (and therefore should be paid well).
Before recording there were no famous performers, true. There were also no intellectual property rights. You could not sue people for playing your song. If you could sing or play an instrument, you were encouraged to do so. Usually, you wouldn't get much for it: a meal, a beer, or maybe just some attention. Music was free (as in speech, not cost), and people enjoyed it.
It hasn't been that long. I don't understand why no one wants to go back. Cheap recording costs, and free distribution will make all this possible again. No one seems to want it though... why?
-----
1) We've been spoiled. For example, Napster made music free (to the masses); now people go around saying that all music should be free. Music should not be free, musicians spend long hours trying to perfect their sound, and it's a job for them. Yet, people can't accept that because they've become accustomed to getting free music. (Same goes with software, except it's a little different when the author intentionally releases it freely)
I think your argument can go either way: Musicians just want money for their songs because their used to getting it. The world had music before MTV, CDs and even before radio.
For thousands of years, music existed without profit. It wasn't until technology screwed it up by introducing distribution media (radio, records, etc) that people decided they could be rich by playing music. Now technology is allowing us to put it all back.
Quite frankly, I like the idea. Not just because I'm cheap, but because I want to know without a doubt that Steven Spielberg was trying to challenge himself with Jurassic Park 2, not that he just wanted another pile of money. Breaking down those walls will bring real art back to the world.
-----
Maybe someone should write a program, which suppresses all popups except the ones the user wants. The program wouldn't know which popups were good, so it could just prompt the user with... a dialog. -----
The CLI is much more transparent. You can just call a Python or C# function from your Perl program as you would a Perl function.
I've never worked with other languages in the JVM, but I always assumed you could call methods from any language. Once compiled to JVM byte code, Perl code should look just like Java code.
Someone please correct me if I'm wrong. -----
Agreed. I have read quotes as old as 5 years ago, that Spielberg, Lucas, Ford and Connery all want to do the movie. They have been in reputable magazines, newspapers and trade publications. This one has less meat than all but the reoccuring aintitcoolnews.com news flashes. -----
We are pre-announcing the announcment of a product that does not exist.
Whats worse - the product is a clone of another product that doesn't exist! -----
Lets face it, with few exceptions, OSS and its development model is good at imitating existing stuff, that usually was developed commerically.
I thought your entire post was very interesting, and I agree with most of it. I think the quote above, however, is ignoring an entire class of oss: development tools.
As a java developer, I have to look towards apache for almost all of the cutting edge tools. Commercial software takes months to catch up to such tools as ant, log4j, xerces, xalan and others. Some will be integrated into Sun's J2SE or J2EE (such as a clone of log4j which will be in 1.4), but many will never be chalenged (does anyone really think there will be a commercial improvement on ant?).
The reason this is important, is that outside of the hype about distributed storage and centralized databases for web services,.NET is just a set of frameworks and APIs. Many of which might be really useful outside of the.NET unbrella. We don't have to have open source clones of all of microsofts servers (who would want them?). But it may be helpful to have open source framworks which adapt our current projects to these technologies.
If SOAP were only used in.NET, it would be considered a.NET technology. But I'm using SOAP today.. in Java, and I never even thought about Microsoft while I was working on it. Why can't all of these technologies, framworks, and even APIs work the same way? -----
I had hoped that if.NET was cloned in an open source environment, that it would be sub divided into smaller sections to allow one piece to rise to the top. SOAP, for example, although never exclusive to.NET is expected to take off in other technologies. Web Services are another example. If.NET is reduced to a set of frameworks, rather than a platform, it would be very difficult for Micros~1 to completely control its future. It would also be easier to integrate into existing frameworks (such as J2EE) or products (tuxedo, apache, etc.) -----
Slashdot Mirror
proof that even the underdog can pull dirty marketing tricks
Dirty Marketing tricks?!? Do you think the clock speed of a cpu is an accurate portrayal of the processors power? I think the dirty marketing trick is to tell people what the clock speed is at all! All it does is miss-lead the ignorant consumer (and sometimes even those who should know better).
It seems like everyone wants to move towards something we already have - live action. I think it's the only way people can handle the mental jump. Shrek showed that CGI movies shouldn't always shoot for photo-realistic. They shouldn't be cartoons either. They live in their own world, and have their own advantages.
Shrek had characters with very realistic skin and beard stubble, but were proportioned like a cartoon. This isn't something that could be done before now, so no one knew it would turn out so well.
This new version of Zelda is taking a risk that this new look will be one of those leaps. I think it will be.
I'm sure, sometime soon, we will see a game incorporate these looks into the story of the game (Pagemaster: The Game).
you use a modem, don't you. Charter will have to kill my dog before I trade my cable modem back in for a 56k modem. They seem to know it too.
At least I can still start my java apps using webstart. If Microsoft gets rid of MIME, I just might have to launch it with .NET!
It isn't monopolistic to be proprietary or non supportive of competitors product. Actually it is. If you have a monopoly in one product, you are not allowed to use your place in that market to influence your foothold in another market. That was the argument for Windows letting IE get a foothold. Now it's the argument for Media Player and .NET getting a foothold based on a browser monopoly.
According to this article, an SUV owner spends an extra $100-$250 per month compared to a regular car in just operating costs on top of the extra cost of the vehicle. It would be better to put this in a retirement fund. Considering that 85% of these vehicles are never used for the conditions they are designed for, that really is a waste. All for ego. I personally would never buy an SUV. They seem trendy and wasteful. But I do see a very practical reason to buy one: comfort. Many people who buy SUVs claim to enjoy sitting upright and stepping in and out of the vehicle rather than crawling into a compact car. I think car manufactures just haven't stopped to ask why people are buying these things... they just know they sell, and therefore spend their time trying to make the better SUV. What we all need is a line of cars that we can fit in again.
The courts weren't simply requiring contracts to be updated for the new media. The court was forcing the writers to allow the Times to leave the articles in the database. That's the whole point. Even though the contracts were clear, the court was saying "screw the contracts, lets do the right thing for the world". The editorial was just pointing out that the Supreme Court might do the same for Napster one day.
-----
And they're removing Java, meaning that anyone distributing a Java app needs to distribute instructions on how to waste half an hour downloading the latest VM. FYI, if you try to download a web page which uses a Java applet you get a pop-up telling you you need Java and you can click on a button to automatically download the VM. And if they use webstart, they can do the same with applications, only they don't have to go back to the web site to use it later.
-----
WebStart lets you run JNLP from a web page. Neither has any relevance to what I'm talking about. Read the documentation again. Web start is a download manager for java apps. It WILL put an icon on your desktop for you. It can also load java apps from a web page.
-----
This paper seems to center around Linux and Apache as examples of well supported software applications. An open source movement that seems to be growing at a much quicker pace than full blown open source applications is the market for open source development tools. As a Java developer, I simply can't live without open source software. Where would I get a build tool, or a logging api. Some of these products don't even have commercial competition. Don't get me wrong... I loved the article; but I don't think there are any better numbers than those backing apache's jakarta projects, or the development trends in open source in general.
-----
It might prevent you from calling it "KWord" for the same reason you couldn't call it "Word for XWindows" -- it suggests that the product is a Microsoft product. Whereas by contrast software consumers are used to the appellation "Word[blank]" for non-Microsoft word processing software. What if "K" represented the KDE group rather than the platform (window manager in this case). In that case, KIllustrator or KWord would mean "KDE's Illustration program" or "Word by KDE". Wouldn't this be legal?
-----
Who else wants to hook this thing up to Triple Play 2001?
-----
Microsoft's designation of its flagship word processing program as "Word" does in fact receive trademark protection. "Word" is a generic term to describe units of speech and text, not a generic term to describe word processing software. ... but that trademark protection doesn't prevent people from calling their word processor kword or wordpro or wordstar, does it?
-----
I challenge you to name an important music performer before the advent of recording, or an important composer before the advent of writing. I think the quote above shows my point as well as any. You (along with the rest of the world) have gotten used to the idea that performers should be important (and therefore should be paid well). Before recording there were no famous performers, true. There were also no intellectual property rights. You could not sue people for playing your song. If you could sing or play an instrument, you were encouraged to do so. Usually, you wouldn't get much for it: a meal, a beer, or maybe just some attention. Music was free (as in speech, not cost), and people enjoyed it. It hasn't been that long. I don't understand why no one wants to go back. Cheap recording costs, and free distribution will make all this possible again. No one seems to want it though... why?
-----
1) We've been spoiled. For example, Napster made music free (to the masses); now people go around saying that all music should be free. Music should not be free, musicians spend long hours trying to perfect their sound, and it's a job for them. Yet, people can't accept that because they've become accustomed to getting free music. (Same goes with software, except it's a little different when the author intentionally releases it freely) I think your argument can go either way: Musicians just want money for their songs because their used to getting it. The world had music before MTV, CDs and even before radio. For thousands of years, music existed without profit. It wasn't until technology screwed it up by introducing distribution media (radio, records, etc) that people decided they could be rich by playing music. Now technology is allowing us to put it all back. Quite frankly, I like the idea. Not just because I'm cheap, but because I want to know without a doubt that Steven Spielberg was trying to challenge himself with Jurassic Park 2, not that he just wanted another pile of money. Breaking down those walls will bring real art back to the world.
-----
I was just joking. Konqueror doesn't really pop up a dialog to ask if you want to see another dialog does it?
-----
Maybe someone should write a program, which suppresses all popups except the ones the user wants. The program wouldn't know which popups were good, so it could just prompt the user with... a dialog.
-----
The CLI is much more transparent. You can just call a Python or C# function from your Perl program as you would a Perl function. I've never worked with other languages in the JVM, but I always assumed you could call methods from any language. Once compiled to JVM byte code, Perl code should look just like Java code. Someone please correct me if I'm wrong.
-----
Agreed. I have read quotes as old as 5 years ago, that Spielberg, Lucas, Ford and Connery all want to do the movie. They have been in reputable magazines, newspapers and trade publications. This one has less meat than all but the reoccuring aintitcoolnews.com news flashes.
-----
I hope the explanation of the clone will shed some light on what .NET is.
-----
We are pre-announcing the announcment of a product that does not exist. Whats worse - the product is a clone of another product that doesn't exist!
-----
Sounds to me like they just crossed the streams
-----
Lets face it, with few exceptions, OSS and its development model is good at imitating existing stuff, that usually was developed commerically. I thought your entire post was very interesting, and I agree with most of it. I think the quote above, however, is ignoring an entire class of oss: development tools. As a java developer, I have to look towards apache for almost all of the cutting edge tools. Commercial software takes months to catch up to such tools as ant, log4j, xerces, xalan and others. Some will be integrated into Sun's J2SE or J2EE (such as a clone of log4j which will be in 1.4), but many will never be chalenged (does anyone really think there will be a commercial improvement on ant?). The reason this is important, is that outside of the hype about distributed storage and centralized databases for web services, .NET is just a set of frameworks and APIs. Many of which might be really useful outside of the .NET unbrella. We don't have to have open source clones of all of microsofts servers (who would want them?). But it may be helpful to have open source framworks which adapt our current projects to these technologies.
If SOAP were only used in .NET, it would be considered a .NET technology. But I'm using SOAP today.. in Java, and I never even thought about Microsoft while I was working on it. Why can't all of these technologies, framworks, and even APIs work the same way?
-----
the slashdot affect is part of the test
-----
I had hoped that if .NET was cloned in an open source environment, that it would be sub divided into smaller sections to allow one piece to rise to the top. SOAP, for example, although never exclusive to .NET is expected to take off in other technologies. Web Services are another example. If .NET is reduced to a set of frameworks, rather than a platform, it would be very difficult for Micros~1 to completely control its future. It would also be easier to integrate into existing frameworks (such as J2EE) or products (tuxedo, apache, etc.)
-----