Ballmer isn't quoted in that piece and Gates is quoted out of context. Here's what Gates originally said in the Fortune piece:
"It's because they are a software company," he says. "In that sense," he adds later, "they are more like us than anyone else we have ever competed with."
The NY Times piece starts off with an introduction that claims Google is unethical and arrogant and people are comparing it with Microsoft. Oh and by the way Bill Gates agrees - he said in that Fortune interview a few months ago. Sneaky. The reader gets the impression that Gates' opinion of Google is also that it is arrogant and aggressive and has similar business practices to Microsoft.
If you want to know how out of context quotes can a) twist what others mean and b) work to bolster your (somewhat shaky) position, there's a superb example.
If you're like me and downloaded the latest cherrypy to follow along with the article, there's a quick fix that will make version 2.1 work with it. Just change any lines that say:
If you're like me and downloaded the latest cherrypy to follow along with the article, there's a quick fix that will make version 2.1 work with it. Just change any lines that say:
Colloidal silver is an excellent antibacterial and oxidising agent, either as a very dilute solution or in gel form. I had most of the skin ripped off my left forearm by a compound bow string (the last time I'll ever forget my armguard!) and colloidal silver gel healed it up within a couple of days.
And if you're even vaguely interested in Lisp, get a copy of his classic book. Easily the best book on programming I have ever read for any language. Norvig is The Man.
I can recall several but this story is probably the best example of what you want. Here's the telling quote:
"This is the whole problem with Microsoft...it's not so much they're essentially thugs who couldn't innovate their way out of a wet paper bag, but that they salt and sour the software innovation landscape for everyone. It's the innovation that ISN'T happening because the little guys who come up with original ideas have no chance whatsoever against that bullying billionaire, and so they don't publish their work."
I've so far failed to get any of the GUI toolkits to work with SBCL or CLISP under Gentoo.
Me neither. CLX, CLIM, cl-gtk, Lambda-gtk, cl-sdl - none of them worked properly for me. They installed perfectly because the Gentoo maintainer for dev-lisp really knows what he's doing, but I couldn't get any compiled or working.
It's been very disappointing because I'm really enjoying Lisp the language, having worked my way through Practical Common Lisp and now reading the classic PAIP which must be the finest book on programming I have ever read anywhere for any language. Lisp the language has unbelievable power but all the free implementations suffer from immature interfaces to the rest of the world. That's fine if you want to use Lisp as a "glorified Logo" as yet another frustrated person on the Web put it, but for writing GUI apps with SDL, I've now chosen Lush which is a Common Lisp-based variant with a plethora of add-on libraries that actually work out of the box.
I'll keep holding thumbs that CL attracts enough people to make it as trivial to extend as Python and Ruby are now. I just remembered, cl-ltk did work for me - check it out. Peter has also added support for the new Tile widgets which have themes and advanced widgets.
No, MDMA has never been shown to cause brain damage, only an excess of serotonin when it is abused.
I would call the results of blasting the neuron filters in the brain through artificially induced excess serotonin "brain damage" myself but that's just me. Oh, and maybe also a friend who overdosed because he kept wanting that first high and didn't realise that he could never get it back since his neurons were permanently damaged. He might call it brain damage but he's past speech now. Past anything in fact.
Find them here. They'll back up your entire site and then only backup diffs after that if you wish - saves bandwidth and time. And their server reliability is second to none (yeah I know companies are singular:)).
And what is open source? It is interesting in how you define it. Is it in terms of source visibility? Then, OK, in Microsoft's Shared Source program, people can access up to 65 percent of source codes for our core products. And through the government security program around the world, governments can access even more of our source codes, if they choose to. So we're not an open-source company, and yet people can do that.
Hey Martin, here's the definition of Open Source. Notice in the first paragraph it says Open Source doesn't just mean access to the source code. I doubt if you'd like it if people went around redefining your company's EULAs to suit themselves.
Or does it mean that you have technology licensed under the GPL (GNU Public License)? If that's the only definition, then I see a lot of companies that people call open source but aren't, because they're not licensed under the GPL.
No it isn't the only definition so your answer is irrelevant. The GPL may qualify as Open Source but it is Free Software - big difference. Don't you even know the difference?
Taylor: The GPL is a very complex licensing agreement, and they are working on different aspects of it.
It's an incredibly simple licensing agreement actually. Complex for Microsoft to understand perhaps, but simple for anyone else.
I don't know enough to even hypothesize how I would author it, but I would say that in any approach to licensing technology, the following things are important.
First, companies need to have some level of indemnification and protection from the technology deployed. When you license technology as a consumer or business, you should be comfortable that you're protected from patent (or) copyright...claims from anyone. That should be a core fundamental principle of licensing software.
Well, thanks for leading the way there. I'm so glad I'm indemnified when I use Microsoft software. Oh wait, I'm not?
Second, people should have the ability to monetize that and build on top of it. So if I'm an ISV (independent software vendor), I should be able to take the technology that I've licensed, build something on top of it, and sell it.
I do that with GPLed software now and have done for years. So have many other people.
If I'm a reseller or distributor of this technology, I should have a way that I can build and monetize things around that. I think that's what helps you build a very vibrant ecosystem. It also allows you in some ways to protect the intellectual property in different ways.
The GPL already allows this - and my "intellectual property" (whatever that means) is already protected by copyright law.
So this ability to patent your technology and have some level of protection against it, and in the course be able to build on top of that and innovate on top of that, is exciting.
Wait, so it's about patents now? Perhaps you can show me some genuine innovation in software that has been patented by Microsoft? You can't? Oh.
So what kind of innovation are you doing in your area for Microsoft? Taylor: There are things we're excited about, and there are things that are just the basics. We spend close to $6.8 billion in research and development; it really comes in a variety of areas.
One area is just some fit-and-finish, and taking basic simple processes and doing it better. We have a feature called Configure Your Server Wizard, which allows you to go in and choose a server role so you can take a file server and (rebuild it as a) media server. That takes four to five clicks of a GUI (graphic user interface)
Reconfiguring a server using the mouse? Goodness me, what will they think of next!
Taylor: You have to understand why we have security problems today. In some ways, it's because a lot more things are connected today than they
From the Author's Advertisement from Three Men in a Boat:
In Chicago, I was assured by an enterprising pirate now retired, that the sales throughout the United States had exceeded a million; and although, in consequence of its having been published before the Copyright Convention, this has brought me no material advantage, the fame and popularity it has won for me among the American public is an asset not to be despised.
Don't forget part 2: it then asks Boeing engineers to prepare a dangerously misleading slide which has something to do with the damage and the models used, and which may or may not be relevant to what really happened.
If there's a more striking ancodote than this about the difference between a competent engineer's view of the world and Microsoft's, I've yet to read it.
It's all here. Mr AC, obvously a thoughtful and experienced engineer, thinks about good design from the ground up, making sure the subsystems are modular and robust and that the entire device is practical. The Microsoft interviewer doesn't give a toss about whether it's stable or not - just whether it has connectivity enough to sync with Outlook.
Slashdot Mirror
Ballmer isn't quoted in that piece and Gates is quoted out of context. Here's what Gates originally said in the Fortune piece:
"It's because they are a software company," he says. "In that sense," he adds later, "they are more like us than anyone else we have ever competed with."
The NY Times piece starts off with an introduction that claims Google is unethical and arrogant and people are comparing it with Microsoft. Oh and by the way Bill Gates agrees - he said in that Fortune interview a few months ago. Sneaky. The reader gets the impression that Gates' opinion of Google is also that it is arrogant and aggressive and has similar business practices to Microsoft.
If you want to know how out of context quotes can a) twist what others mean and b) work to bolster your (somewhat shaky) position, there's a superb example.
I mean, could the journalist have chosen a more biased sample?
Hmmmm. Obviously not content with duping stories, the editors are now duping posts as well! No idea why this got submitted twice...
If you're like me and downloaded the latest cherrypy to follow along with the article, there's a quick fix that will make version 2.1 work with it. Just change any lines that say:
from cherrypy import cpg
to:
import cherrypy as cpg
More info here.
If you're like me and downloaded the latest cherrypy to follow along with the article, there's a quick fix that will make version 2.1 work with it. Just change any lines that say:
from cherrypy import cpg
to:
import cherrypy as cpg
More info here.
Colloidal silver is an excellent antibacterial and oxidising agent, either as a very dilute solution or in gel form. I had most of the skin ripped off my left forearm by a compound bow string (the last time I'll ever forget my armguard!) and colloidal silver gel healed it up within a couple of days.
Looxury...
And if you're even vaguely interested in Lisp, get a copy of his classic book. Easily the best book on programming I have ever read for any language. Norvig is The Man.
I can recall several but this story is probably the best example of what you want. Here's the telling quote:
"This is the whole problem with Microsoft...it's not so much they're essentially thugs who couldn't innovate their way out of a wet paper bag, but that they salt and sour the software innovation landscape for everyone. It's the innovation that ISN'T happening because the little guys who come up with original ideas have no chance whatsoever against that bullying billionaire, and so they don't publish their work."
I've so far failed to get any of the GUI toolkits to work with SBCL or CLISP under Gentoo.
Me neither. CLX, CLIM, cl-gtk, Lambda-gtk, cl-sdl - none of them worked properly for me. They installed perfectly because the Gentoo maintainer for dev-lisp really knows what he's doing, but I couldn't get any compiled or working.
It's been very disappointing because I'm really enjoying Lisp the language, having worked my way through Practical Common Lisp and now reading the classic PAIP which must be the finest book on programming I have ever read anywhere for any language. Lisp the language has unbelievable power but all the free implementations suffer from immature interfaces to the rest of the world. That's fine if you want to use Lisp as a "glorified Logo" as yet another frustrated person on the Web put it, but for writing GUI apps with SDL, I've now chosen Lush which is a Common Lisp-based variant with a plethora of add-on libraries that actually work out of the box.
I'll keep holding thumbs that CL attracts enough people to make it as trivial to extend as Python and Ruby are now. I just remembered, cl-ltk did work for me - check it out. Peter has also added support for the new Tile widgets which have themes and advanced widgets.
Louis Armstrong?
I see skies of black
Black rocks tooooo
Tons of moon dust
and I see youuuuuuu
And I think to myself
What a wonderful weld...
I think Lex Luthor might just be ahead of you there :)
No, MDMA has never been shown to cause brain damage, only an excess of serotonin when it is abused.
I would call the results of blasting the neuron filters in the brain through artificially induced excess serotonin "brain damage" myself but that's just me. Oh, and maybe also a friend who overdosed because he kept wanting that first high and didn't realise that he could never get it back since his neurons were permanently damaged. He might call it brain damage but he's past speech now. Past anything in fact.
Find them here. They'll back up your entire site and then only backup diffs after that if you wish - saves bandwidth and time. And their server reliability is second to none (yeah I know companies are singular :)).
From the article:
And what is open source? It is interesting in how you define it. Is it in terms of source visibility? Then, OK, in Microsoft's Shared Source program, people can access up to 65 percent of source codes for our core products. And through the government security program around the world, governments can access even more of our source codes, if they choose to. So we're not an open-source company, and yet people can do that.
Hey Martin, here's the definition of Open Source. Notice in the first paragraph it says Open Source doesn't just mean access to the source code. I doubt if you'd like it if people went around redefining your company's EULAs to suit themselves.
Or does it mean that you have technology licensed under the GPL (GNU Public License)? If that's the only definition, then I see a lot of companies that people call open source but aren't, because they're not licensed under the GPL.
No it isn't the only definition so your answer is irrelevant. The GPL may qualify as Open Source but it is Free Software - big difference. Don't you even know the difference?
Taylor: The GPL is a very complex licensing agreement, and they are working on different aspects of it.
It's an incredibly simple licensing agreement actually. Complex for Microsoft to understand perhaps, but simple for anyone else.
I don't know enough to even hypothesize how I would author it, but I would say that in any approach to licensing technology, the following things are important.
First, companies need to have some level of indemnification and protection from the technology deployed. When you license technology as a consumer or business, you should be comfortable that you're protected from patent (or) copyright...claims from anyone. That should be a core fundamental principle of licensing software.
Well, thanks for leading the way there. I'm so glad I'm indemnified when I use Microsoft software. Oh wait, I'm not?
Second, people should have the ability to monetize that and build on top of it. So if I'm an ISV (independent software vendor), I should be able to take the technology that I've licensed, build something on top of it, and sell it.
I do that with GPLed software now and have done for years. So have many other people.
If I'm a reseller or distributor of this technology, I should have a way that I can build and monetize things around that. I think that's what helps you build a very vibrant ecosystem. It also allows you in some ways to protect the intellectual property in different ways.
The GPL already allows this - and my "intellectual property" (whatever that means) is already protected by copyright law.
So this ability to patent your technology and have some level of protection against it, and in the course be able to build on top of that and innovate on top of that, is exciting.
Wait, so it's about patents now? Perhaps you can show me some genuine innovation in software that has been patented by Microsoft? You can't? Oh.
So what kind of innovation are you doing in your area for Microsoft?
Taylor: There are things we're excited about, and there are things that are just the basics. We spend close to $6.8 billion in research and development; it really comes in a variety of areas.
One area is just some fit-and-finish, and taking basic simple processes and doing it better. We have a feature called Configure Your Server Wizard, which allows you to go in and choose a server role so you can take a file server and (rebuild it as a) media server. That takes four to five clicks of a GUI (graphic user interface)
Reconfiguring a server using the mouse? Goodness me, what will they think of next!
Taylor: You have to understand why we have security problems today. In some ways, it's because a lot more things are connected today than they
Not to mention slashing Microsoft's own R&D budget by half...
From the Author's Advertisement from Three Men in a Boat:
:)
In Chicago, I was assured by an enterprising pirate now retired, that the sales throughout the United States had exceeded a million; and although, in consequence of its having been published before the Copyright Convention, this has brought me no material advantage, the fame and popularity it has won for me among the American public is an asset not to be despised.
US publishers stealing foreign IP? Never!
..the BOFH excuse server. The random answer it gave me was singularly appropriate although unhelpfully honest:
your excuse: because of network lag due to too many people playing deathmatch
Not much to see here, please move along.
Don't forget part 2: it then asks Boeing engineers to prepare a dangerously misleading slide which has something to do with the damage and the models used, and which may or may not be relevant to what really happened.
Zero is not the absence of a numerical quantity. Zero is a numerical quantity.
Alex, is that you?
No wonder why theses Microsoft guys are so uncharismatic - people have a distaste for bullshit-slinging horn tooters.
That's Longhorn tooters.
Minor nitpick: tremolo is slightly varying the amplitude of the note, not the pitch. The latter would be vibrato.
If there's a more striking ancodote than this about the difference between a competent engineer's view of the world and Microsoft's, I've yet to read it.
It's all here. Mr AC, obvously a thoughtful and experienced engineer, thinks about good design from the ground up, making sure the subsystems are modular and robust and that the entire device is practical. The Microsoft interviewer doesn't give a toss about whether it's stable or not - just whether it has connectivity enough to sync with Outlook.
I am Jack's complete lack of surprise.
Could be an Al Qaeda member with modpoints today. They are famous for their patience in selecting the right target at the right moment...