I don't mean to excuse what is definitely not excusable behavior, but in the business world my experience would be that 15.3 percent of the business people I have dealt with are ethical! And politicians? Probably less ethical than scientists. And priests, ministers, etc? What do you really think? Probably a close run. Scientists seem surprizingly ethical!
I was going to post, redundantly, on the same topic. I ride the bus to work and back everyday and I am constantly trapped for 45 minutes with people carrying on their very loud conversations. The best was the time the woman sitting next to me was trying to get her girlfriend to join her and her boyfriend for a threesome. Which was hilarious. But still annoying as hell. Or the time the guy was whining to his daughter that she liked mommy more than she liked him. From four rows back and it was like he was shouting in my ear. And we want to do this on airlines? Why?
Sony lost the consumer market for Betamax, but they made their investment back developing it into the professional video format for image capture and video editing. Where it ruled until Digital and HD began to replace it a few years ago. Most people, especially the B-schoolers, don't really know the whole tale, and they draw the wrong inferences, because they believe the theory of Natural Monopoly. That theory is wrong, there is pressure toward monopoly and pressure to fragmentation (differentiation), and a lot of factors determine the outcome. The best rule is 'the conventional wisdom is usually wrong'.
It becomes more obvious what the correct answer should be if you consider that making the responsibility for the ultimate disposal of the product the responsibility of the manufacturer. Only in this case will the product be designed for the most effective end of life, less waste for the landfill, more recyclable materials. The consumer can't design it in, and often can't accurately judge its environmental impact. The manufacturer can.
From the Information Week article:
In addition IT or author will be able to designate whether an executable file embedded in that document will be able to run or not, Numoto said.
A document designated with a.docx suffix, for example, will neuter embedded.exe files while one with a.docm suffix will allow them to run.
Which means: do not open attachments in.docm format
Really huge mergers like this usually fail to deliver, and sometimes fail out-right. Storage needs are increasing, as you rightly point out, but storage is also being turned into a commodity, which means in the next 3 - 5 years margins are going to shrink. This is not the environment SUN, in particular, has success with. You are right about the useless roadmap for storage that SUN has had. I guess they are looking to buy the expertise they lack, but again, this seldom pays off.
who finds it disturbing that "anti-globalization hackers" are the new boogey man here? Since when were they engaged in terrorism? Street fighting, maybe, but terrorist cells?
So at first it will just be low res jpegs from Encarta maps, and it will be very clunky. It's just designed to scare people out of the market. Wait for version 3.0
A couple of years ago one of my credit card companies sent a mailing with a blank check, good for up to $ 26,000, for any reason - 0% interest for the first 3 months! Take that Dream Vacation!! Deposit it into your account !!! Which the person who actually received the letter did. Trouble was, it wasn't me. I've received other stupid, insecure mailings from other stupid, insecure companies. Half the people I know have had their identity stolen ( this is New York) at least once. None of them were at fault for the disclosure. It was always the merchant or the credit issuer with the problem. Wow. You are right, somehow these companies need real sanctions.
The interesting question, to me, has always been what will happen when we can extend life semi-indefinetly. How does society determine who gets to live? If he is correct that money will be the determinant, how long can that society last? I don't see roughly 6 billion people docily going to their death when real alternatives exist.
In addition to this, which is quite correct, trying to predict what will be in demand over the course of an entire career is futile. If you look at the prognostications of the past, they are almost always lame or banal. ( Predicting that Health care will continue to be in demand is not very hard).
I wouldn't ever be accused of being rabid in my espousal of open- source, but I am consistent. As Sys Admin of a small company I have been able to steer the company to adopt Mozilla early on (After Netscape 4.7), and to look at, though not always adopt OSS for all our needs. We use Adobe extensively, and Windows and Mac OS X (which is only partly OSS and increasingly badly behaved), but we also run Sendmail, and open source pop and imap servers, openLDAP, etc for core network services. Everyone here knows what GIMP is - though no one uses it - yet. So. Why?
Because every time you choose one software package over another you are voting on the future of computing. Because OSS is the best future. It probably doesn't seem as important to all of the casual users ( though it does to some), people who do the Home/office, or work on spread sheets and office apps for a living, because they work in an area of relatively inexpensive applications in relatively well explored areas of software. I"ve seen the dark side. We've had a $ 350,000 equipment purchase made mind-bogglingly inefficient and painful when the software to drive it (propietary, of course) was only supported under Windows 3.11 - through 2004, when they finally stopped support for it altogether. We've just retired MS DOS for the same reason - and tossed close to $ 750,000 dollars worth of equipment ( that $350,00 machine was part of this) not because the equipment didn't work, it worked beautifully - in fact it worked even better than what replaced it - but because the software that drove all of it was languishing in the past, on old computers, old operating systems and old file formats. They became too much effort ( and hence too costly ) to keep running. OSS Solves some of these problems. Possibly all of these problems.
Software and Hardware companies want to sell you something. They use support termination and file format incompatibilities to force migration, and extra expense. It isn't evil, it's just bad business sense. It is bad business sense because it breeds user resentment. OSS allows me to keep what I want. If the software drivers were open and the file formats were open I could hire a couple of people to write new code, or recompile for a new OS, whatever. It wouldn't be free, but it would be a couple of jobs for a month. And I would have the printers. If Photoshop. or some of the closed source CAD systems we run were OSS then there would be a way ( eventually everyone would demand it, or some bright spark would add it) to load new format translators in to the app - no more lock-in, no more forced upgrades. The sheer volume of money that is WASTED on useless upgrades is phenomenal. And I don't even have it bad. Think of all the companies that each spent HUGE amounts of money on SOX compliance, and how much is locked away in proprietary solutions. Computer Science is a science. Science is open, it has to be. Eventually Open Source software will arrive at the most robust, secure and effiecient way of solving problems. Proprietary software never will. It isn't the GOAL of proprietary software.
I guess I'm warped. The heart of this matter seems to be that an arbitrary software project ( closed or open) was being maintained with a closed source software product. And then the owner of the closed source software took actions that threatened the rights of the writers of the arbitrary software project. All closed software always EXPLICITY threatens the rights of its users. All proprietary file formats EXPLICITLY transfer some ownership rights from the owner of the file to the owner of the file format. The format author cannot republish the work, but CAN DENY ACCESS. RMS has consistently made this point. Free, as in source code, ends this relationship. It is the ONLY guaranteed way to end this relationship
It isn't forcing it on anyone. You don't HAVE to apply for a Government subsidy. From the citizen's perspective, however, it is important to ask whether Land stewardship is a desirable goal or not. If a vibrant rural economy is a desirable goal or not. If cheap food is desirable goal or not. We once thought these desirable goals. Now, increasingly, we do not. When we did value these things we adopted policies to achieve them. You can achieve the goals through incentives or penalties. We chose incentives. In the 60's and 70's we began to rethink the strategies in the U.S. because we thought that the chemical fertilizers and pesticides could deliver Item 3 ( Ceap Food) without the hassle of Items 1 and 2. Hence the long slide of the U.S. rural economy. Despite the fact that the U.S. is one of the largest producers and exporters of a large number of agricultural products the largest percentage of welfare recipients are actually the rural poor. Now land degradation, soil compaction, and loss of arable land are becoming more prominent in the American MidWest. Survival of the fittest is a complete misunderstanding of Darwin ( who was speaking of survival through sexual reproduction and specialization, not individual death) and is not applicable to political economies in any event. If survival of the fittest was the proper guage of rightness then there would be no moral reason for averting a bloodbath - the ultimate survival of the ultimate fittest.
The notion that there is an implied social contract with advertizers is bogus. The entire notion of a social contract is, in fact dubious. It seems to be an idea promulgated by the "powers that be" to stifle a debate that they don't want to have. It seems to be binding on the powerless, but escapable by the powerful. The current Social Security 'debate' would be a case where the wealthy have decided to reneg on the 'social contract'. There are many other cases.
Yes. You are correct, CNN has allowed the ad several years, which only reinforces the point that ALL the other outlets have refused every year for a long time. The point really isn't one particular group, however, the real issue is that the appearance of an open society, with everyone having access - if they can afford it - isn't even true. A message that conflicts with major advertisers' goals or claims will not be aired, no matter how much money is on offer. The original poster claimed that opponent of the SBC bill could take out their own ads, I don't think they would air them, unless they too were corporations with their own vested interests.
Slashdot Mirror
True. Alien and Sedition Act got a bad label early on, though it get approved initially, too.
I don't mean to excuse what is definitely not excusable behavior, but in the business world my experience would be that 15.3 percent of the business people I have dealt with are ethical! And politicians? Probably less ethical than scientists. And priests, ministers, etc? What do you really think? Probably a close run. Scientists seem surprizingly ethical!
I was going to post, redundantly, on the same topic. I ride the bus to work and back everyday and I am constantly trapped for 45 minutes with people carrying on their very loud conversations. The best was the time the woman sitting next to me was trying to get her girlfriend to join her and her boyfriend for a threesome. Which was hilarious. But still annoying as hell. Or the time the guy was whining to his daughter that she liked mommy more than she liked him. From four rows back and it was like he was shouting in my ear. And we want to do this on airlines? Why?
Sony lost the consumer market for Betamax, but they made their investment back developing it into the professional video format for image capture and video editing. Where it ruled until Digital and HD began to replace it a few years ago. Most people, especially the B-schoolers, don't really know the whole tale, and they draw the wrong inferences, because they believe the theory of Natural Monopoly. That theory is wrong, there is pressure toward monopoly and pressure to fragmentation (differentiation), and a lot of factors determine the outcome. The best rule is 'the conventional wisdom is usually wrong'.
It becomes more obvious what the correct answer should be if you consider that making the responsibility for the ultimate disposal of the product the responsibility of the manufacturer. Only in this case will the product be designed for the most effective end of life, less waste for the landfill, more recyclable materials. The consumer can't design it in, and often can't accurately judge its environmental impact. The manufacturer can.
From the Information Week article: In addition IT or author will be able to designate whether an executable file embedded in that document will be able to run or not, Numoto said. A document designated with a .docx suffix, for example, will neuter embedded .exe files while one with a .docm suffix will allow them to run.
Which means: do not open attachments in .docm format
Really huge mergers like this usually fail to deliver, and sometimes fail out-right. Storage needs are increasing, as you rightly point out, but storage is also being turned into a commodity, which means in the next 3 - 5 years margins are going to shrink. This is not the environment SUN, in particular, has success with. You are right about the useless roadmap for storage that SUN has had. I guess they are looking to buy the expertise they lack, but again, this seldom pays off.
who finds it disturbing that "anti-globalization hackers" are the new boogey man here? Since when were they engaged in terrorism? Street fighting, maybe, but terrorist cells?
So at first it will just be low res jpegs from Encarta maps, and it will be very clunky. It's just designed to scare people out of the market. Wait for version 3.0
H.R. 29 makes it 'unlawful for any person who is not the owner or authorized user of a protected computer to engage in deceptive acts or practices'.
I own my own computer, so I am allowed to engage in deceptive acts or practices?
A couple of years ago one of my credit card companies sent a mailing with a blank check, good for up to $ 26,000, for any reason - 0% interest for the first 3 months! Take that Dream Vacation!! Deposit it into your account !!! Which the person who actually received the letter did. Trouble was, it wasn't me. I've received other stupid, insecure mailings from other stupid, insecure companies. Half the people I know have had their identity stolen ( this is New York) at least once. None of them were at fault for the disclosure. It was always the merchant or the credit issuer with the problem. Wow. You are right, somehow these companies need real sanctions.
The interesting question, to me, has always been what will happen when we can extend life semi-indefinetly. How does society determine who gets to live? If he is correct that money will be the determinant, how long can that society last? I don't see roughly 6 billion people docily going to their death when real alternatives exist.
A roomful of monkeys wrote Windows XP? OK, I'll buy that.
As a legally recognized monopoly Microsoft CAN"T buy a competitor. The laws do not allow it.
And they still export their programmers, talk about a brain-drain
This woman gets paid to write? Does anyone know what language? Some of the words look like English, but it's completely disjointed nonsense.
In addition to this, which is quite correct, trying to predict what will be in demand over the course of an entire career is futile. If you look at the prognostications of the past, they are almost always lame or banal. ( Predicting that Health care will continue to be in demand is not very hard).
I wouldn't ever be accused of being rabid in my espousal of open- source, but I am consistent. As Sys Admin of a small company I have been able to steer the company to adopt Mozilla early on (After Netscape 4.7), and to look at, though not always adopt OSS for all our needs. We use Adobe extensively, and Windows and Mac OS X (which is only partly OSS and increasingly badly behaved), but we also run Sendmail, and open source pop and imap servers, openLDAP, etc for core network services. Everyone here knows what GIMP is - though no one uses it - yet. So. Why?
Because every time you choose one software package over another you are voting on the future of computing. Because OSS is the best future. It probably doesn't seem as important to all of the casual users ( though it does to some), people who do the Home/office, or work on spread sheets and office apps for a living, because they work in an area of relatively inexpensive applications in relatively well explored areas of software. I"ve seen the dark side. We've had a $ 350,000 equipment purchase made mind-bogglingly inefficient and painful when the software to drive it (propietary, of course) was only supported under Windows 3.11 - through 2004, when they finally stopped support for it altogether. We've just retired MS DOS for the same reason - and tossed close to $ 750,000 dollars worth of equipment ( that $350,00 machine was part of this) not because the equipment didn't work, it worked beautifully - in fact it worked even better than what replaced it - but because the software that drove all of it was languishing in the past, on old computers, old operating systems and old file formats. They became too much effort ( and hence too costly ) to keep running. OSS Solves some of these problems. Possibly all of these problems.
Software and Hardware companies want to sell you something. They use support termination and file format incompatibilities to force migration, and extra expense. It isn't evil, it's just bad business sense. It is bad business sense because it breeds user resentment. OSS allows me to keep what I want. If the software drivers were open and the file formats were open I could hire a couple of people to write new code, or recompile for a new OS, whatever. It wouldn't be free, but it would be a couple of jobs for a month. And I would have the printers. If Photoshop. or some of the closed source CAD systems we run were OSS then there would be a way ( eventually everyone would demand it, or some bright spark would add it) to load new format translators in to the app - no more lock-in, no more forced upgrades. The sheer volume of money that is WASTED on useless upgrades is phenomenal. And I don't even have it bad. Think of all the companies that each spent HUGE amounts of money on SOX compliance, and how much is locked away in proprietary solutions. Computer Science is a science. Science is open, it has to be. Eventually Open Source software will arrive at the most robust, secure and effiecient way of solving problems. Proprietary software never will. It isn't the GOAL of proprietary software.
Maybe these are all the AIX files that found their way into OpenServer?
I guess I'm warped. The heart of this matter seems to be that an arbitrary software project ( closed or open) was being maintained with a closed source software product. And then the owner of the closed source software took actions that threatened the rights of the writers of the arbitrary software project. All closed software always EXPLICITY threatens the rights of its users. All proprietary file formats EXPLICITLY transfer some ownership rights from the owner of the file to the owner of the file format. The format author cannot republish the work, but CAN DENY ACCESS. RMS has consistently made this point. Free, as in source code, ends this relationship. It is the ONLY guaranteed way to end this relationship
It isn't forcing it on anyone. You don't HAVE to apply for a Government subsidy. From the citizen's perspective, however, it is important to ask whether Land stewardship is a desirable goal or not. If a vibrant rural economy is a desirable goal or not. If cheap food is desirable goal or not. We once thought these desirable goals. Now, increasingly, we do not. When we did value these things we adopted policies to achieve them. You can achieve the goals through incentives or penalties. We chose incentives. In the 60's and 70's we began to rethink the strategies in the U.S. because we thought that the chemical fertilizers and pesticides could deliver Item 3 ( Ceap Food) without the hassle of Items 1 and 2. Hence the long slide of the U.S. rural economy. Despite the fact that the U.S. is one of the largest producers and exporters of a large number of agricultural products the largest percentage of welfare recipients are actually the rural poor. Now land degradation, soil compaction, and loss of arable land are becoming more prominent in the American MidWest. Survival of the fittest is a complete misunderstanding of Darwin ( who was speaking of survival through sexual reproduction and specialization, not individual death) and is not applicable to political economies in any event. If survival of the fittest was the proper guage of rightness then there would be no moral reason for averting a bloodbath - the ultimate survival of the ultimate fittest.
Dude, you call that decent? It looks like a dead elephant butt :)
Nice composition, though.
The notion that there is an implied social contract with advertizers is bogus. The entire notion of a social contract is, in fact dubious. It seems to be an idea promulgated by the "powers that be" to stifle a debate that they don't want to have. It seems to be binding on the powerless, but escapable by the powerful. The current Social Security 'debate' would be a case where the wealthy have decided to reneg on the 'social contract'. There are many other cases.
Yes. You are correct, CNN has allowed the ad several years, which only reinforces the point that ALL the other outlets have refused every year for a long time. The point really isn't one particular group, however, the real issue is that the appearance of an open society, with everyone having access - if they can afford it - isn't even true. A message that conflicts with major advertisers' goals or claims will not be aired, no matter how much money is on offer. The original poster claimed that opponent of the SBC bill could take out their own ads, I don't think they would air them, unless they too were corporations with their own vested interests.
Hasn't Wikipedia patented a " method of creating and maintaining a self-organizing and self-correcting information resource with open network access"?