But we can make BP wish they'd never been so reckless, and give pause to any company still cutting corners on the safety.
Can we really do that?
Stop driving gas guzzlers. Don't fill up at BP gas stations.
Haven't you heard? BP is now Beyond Petroleum. They, as well as pretty much all the big oil companies, are diversifying. They're now energy companies. If we don't buy their gasoline we'll be buying their electricity, or hydrogen, or whatever else.
Use other means of transport or propulsion.
Where I live, there's no public transportation.
Assuming there was public transportation... It'd still be running off some sort of energy, which would likely wind up lining some irresponsible corporation's pockets.
Fire off angry letters to Congress.
Except that this isn't just a national problem. These are international companies acting irresponsibly all over the world.
It may not sound like much, but enough people doing these things will hit them where they live.
Except that it probably won't.
These guys are hired to make the company money - nothing more. Nobody cares what kind of collateral damage there is. As long as the stockholders make money, they're happy.
And even if somebody actually gets fired over this... They've probably got plenty of money to tide themselves over until they get another job with another giant corporation that'll do exactly the same thing.
Hell... Absolute worst-case scenario they just re-brand themselves and pretend like the old corporation is dead while continuing to do business-as-usual under a new name.
Which puts into the big stuff that is relevant, but we can't do anything about it category.
You could stop contributing to a society which encourages profit over anything - executives get in trouble for failing to meet fiduciary responsibility if they don't do everything in their power to increase value for shareholders. Then maybe next time a well is drilled it won't be hurriedly backfilled around the pipe with cement by Halliburton.
Sounds nice on paper... But I'm skeptical that it would actually be effective in reality.
We aren't talking about problems with a single company, or a single state, or even a single nation here... Pretty much the entire freaking planet operates this way. Even if BP is absolutely crucified for this, it won't do much to all the other folks around the world who operate this way. It'll take a hell of a lot more than a few people boycotting BP to fix this problem.
Or you could just keep ignoring it and keep giving your tacit approval.
I'm not personally ignoring anything.
I'm fairly active in my community. I vote, and try to make informed decisions. I write letters. I purchase as responsibly as possible.
That whole is it any wonder that we've learned to tune all that out and just keep chugging along in our day-to-day lives was aimed at the AC who found modern apathy curious. And it was merely an explanation as to why so many people in the world are, indeed, apathetic.
I find curious how apathetic people are these days.
It's like a toon character:
"Hey! Look! The Earth is being destroyed!" "Yo, man! That sucks!"
Earth may be doomed, but is there hope for us?
We are basically bombarded with completely irrelevant bad news 24/7.
Turn on the TV or radio, fire up a web browser, pick up a newspaper... You'll read about some random person who got kidnapped on the other side of the planet. Or a nasty plane crash somewhere. Or a tsunami.
Yeah, it's sad that somebody is suffering somewhere... But it's really got absolutely no bearing on my life.
And then we're bombarded with big stuff that is relevant, but we can't do anything about it.
Things like the volcano in Iceland, or the oil spill in the gulf. Yeah, it affects me... But there's really nothing I can personally do about it. Maybe throw some money at it in the form of a donation or two... Which might help... But there's absolutely no immediate feedback that I'm doing something to alleviate the problem.
And then we're bombarded with random scary stuff that doesn't even necessarily have a basis in reality.
Somebody, somewhere said that they wanted to kill the President - so now we're at threat level plaid, be afraid! There's some random bowl game coming up and terrorists would love to blow it up, be afraid! Mashed potatoes cause Alzheimers, be afraid! Obamacare is going to destroy Social Security, be afraid!
Is it any wonder that we've learned to tune all that out and just keep chugging along in our day-to-day lives?
I've never heard of this game and neither the summary nor TFA actually told me anything about it. According to Wikipedia, it's a first-person adventure game with a focus on Newtonian physics, improvised weapons, and no firearms. Is it really too much effort for the person writing the summary to bother saying that?
The story isn't really about what kind of game Penumbra is... It's about the fact that the source code was opened up. With the source code now available, the content of the original game is somewhat irrelevant as people will (hopefully) use the code to develop their own games.
Additionally, this is not the first mention of Penumbra or the Indie Bundle here on Slashdot. One of the previous stories is mentioned (and linked-to) right in the summary.
I mean... Sure, they could have included a description of the game... And they could have provided a description of the Indie Bundle as well... And defined what Open Source means... And what github is... And maybe some of that stuff might have been useful... But at some point it just seems kind of excessive.
The story is about the code, and they provided a description of the code.
The point of my post was not to point out the technical shortcomings of modern netbooks. It was to relate an anecdote that I felt was relevant to the discussion.
Namely that I was informed about the product and also understood what my customer wanted, and didn't sell her a product that wouldn't meet her needs.
Too many salespeople are just looking to sell a product. Those salespeople will get crap returned to them because it doesn't meet the needs of their customers.
If your customer actually needs a netbook, they'll be happy with it, regardless of whether it runs Linux or some kind of XP.
If they need a full-blown desktop computer, or a laptop, or whatever... And you sell them a netbook... They're not going to be terribly happy with it.
EEE netbooks used to ship with a Linux distro. You know what killed that? Returns. Joe User booting it up, braying "The hell? Where's my Windows?" and returning it. It got so that retail salesweasels were begging people not to buy them, because they got dinged for all the returns.
The problem wasn't that the things shipped with Linux instead of Windows.
The problem was that the salesweasels either didn't know that, or didn't bother explaining it to the customers.
I had a client at my last job that was absolutely convinced she needed a Dell mini-9. Thought it wold be terrific. Kept imagining all the ways it would be great to carry around a fully functional computer in her purse. Wanted me to put together a quote for one right away.
I happened to have a mini-9 at the time, used it for configuring network equipment and whatnot.
I explained to her that it shipped with a tiny SSD so she wouldn't really be able to store all her pictures on it... Explained that it had no CD-ROM drive... Explained that it was generally too slow to handle streaming Netflix and things like that... Had her try surfing and typing on it...
And she decided she didn't really want one after all.
If I just wanted to make a buck I could have sold her the mini-9. Maybe I would have been stuck with the return... Maybe she would have kept it... But she wouldn't have been happy. And that's what I wanted - a happy customer.
Keep in mind, this thing was running XP - not Linux.
People always say that, but never explain "how it's a mess".
XP x64 never seemed to be a real mainstream product. You never really saw Microsoft advertise it much... Nobody really advertised support for it...
Some of the software I had to support would not run on XP x64. It would run fine on XP x86... It would run fine on 2003 x64... But it was not happy on XP x64. I don't know why that would be, since it was basically 2003 x64 repackaged... But some of the software wasn't happy with it.
Then we had some vendors who flat-out refused to support their software on XP x64. It would run OK... But if we hit a bug and they heard we were running XP x64, they'd tell us to re-install with a supported OS.
Drivers were another issue. I had a hell of a time tracking down drivers for some devices. Generally speaking, you had to use 2003 drivers. Which wasn't necessarily obvious since the OS said XP, not 2003. But sometimes the 2003 drivers wouldn't work either.
The only thing (generically speaking) that it seems to lack vs. Vista as far as an Actual Problem, is direct support for various AHCI drivers
The big benefit I personally saw with Vista wasn't some kind of technological change - it was simply the fact that Vista x64 was a mainstream product. You would see the x64 version advertised prominently along-side the x86 version. Hardware and software both would advertise support for the x64 version. Vendors stopped running away when you mentioned you were running x64.
This currently being written from XP x64, I've never seen what all of the fuss is about.
I guess I'm glad it's working for you.
I personally gave up on XP x64 on my home computer when I had trouble finding working video drivers.
That was a couple years ago... So maybe the problems I experienced no longer exist. Maybe it would be a piece of cake to run XP x64 these days. But I don't really have a reason to anymore.
And so you think it is up to Microsoft to continue support for SP2 because you use some third-party software they have nothing to do with??
When did I say that?
The original question was "What's wrong with SP3?" I indicated one example where SP3 would be a problem.
I think your beef should be with the software company not making their software work with the current patch to the operating system, and not vice-versa.
I never claimed to have a beef with anyone.
I certainly don't have a beef with anyone about this particular piece of software, as I no longer work there. For all I know they may no longer use that software.
And if I was going to have a beef with anyone, it would be with my former boss. He was too cheap to buy the new version of the software, which was why it didn't work with anything newer than SP2.
At one point I was driving a semi to make ends meet
while the IT scene was recovering (circa 2002/03 ish).
I stopped at some fast food joint in Minnesota. It took
me a while to realize that the lady behind the counter
actually was speaking English. She couldn't understand me
either.
Indeed.
I'm from Minnesota originally... We do speak a bit differently there, especially the older folks who still have a strong Scandinavian accent. And I've got family from various parts of Kentucky.
I'm sick to death of calling into some company for support and struggling mightily to understand the person on the other end.
I realize that English is not these folks primary language, and for it being ESL for them, they do a good job. But when I call in for support to a company "based in the US", damnit, I expect to hear a US voice.
Except that a "US voice" doesn't necessarily help.
I've called technical support lines and gotten someone with an impossibly thick southern drawl before. At least that's what I assume it was. Maybe they were drunk. Regardless, it was clear that they were from the southern US, but I couldn't understand half of what they were saying.
Why is a clear speaking voice not a requirement for these positions?
I don't care where you're located geographically, as long as you can speak clearly.
The problem with that approach is that they have no way of knowing if the games on your white Wii have been erased before you download them again to the Black Wii.
Do they really need to?
They can issue a unique license each time you download the game, that invalidates the old one. Or they can only allow you to be signed in from one device at a time.
But at least Nintendo could have resolved this in a more user-friendly manner if they wanted to make it easy and still limit piracy. HASP modules is one solution. Each console equipped with a key allowing the user to move the key to another console in case there is an upgrade or a warranty problem.
You don't really need to make it that complicated though.
You've already purchased those games on-line, through Nintendo's storefront. You've got to have an account or a credit card on file or something. Why not just use that information to authenticate and download the games to new hardware?
It's simple enough to do... It isn't some technical hurdle that Nintendo just can't get over...
The basic problem is that if they let you re-download your games, you don't have to buy new ones.
If you understand programming, picking up any given language is straightforward.
If you don't understand programming, it doesn't really matter what languages you know.
It's been ages since I took a programming class... And the only coding I do these days is simple little utility scripts...
But, looking over the languages they're being asked to use... They're all relatively high-level languages with a lot of goodies built in. Languages that have their own garbage collection, or object model, or whatever...
C is a fairly basic language. I remember writing my own garbage collection routines - not just as a programming exercise for the class, but because they weren't a part of the language. I remember finding out exactly what happens when you do stupid things with pointers - because the language didn't prevent you from making those mistakes.
I'm not saying it's a bad thing to use a language with those features built-in... Even folks writing code in C will make use of libraries rather than writing up a new garbage collection routine from scratch every time... And I'm sure it makes a lot of business sense to use a higher-level language that makes your coders more efficient...
But, from an educational standpoint, you really want your students to be able to make those mistakes. Nothing teaches you that stoves are hot as well as burning your hand.
When I said "genuinely open source software" I did not mean that it necessarily had to be released under the GPL and publicly available on an FTP site somewhere.
I mean that upon delivery of the software to whatever government office, full source code was provided as well.
Maybe the government wouldn't do a thing with it... But at least they'd be able to compile their own binaries and check them against those that were delivered. Or just use them instead of the binaries delivered. And they could easily audit the code whenever they wanted to.
Where do you get this idea? Upgrades are not mandatory. They're often not needed at all.
Obviously it depends on the software...
Nobody is going to force you to upgrade the copy of Microsoft Word installed on your home computer.
But the HIS software we run at work has to be at the latest version if we want to be able to receive support. And support is kind of a big deal for us.
Just mandate genuinely open source software for all government work.
You don't have to rely on your government to analyze code and submit the fixes back to the original author - anyone can look at the code. And you don't have to rely on the original author to incorporate the fixes - anyone can. And you don't have to trust that the binaries you're running actually match the code you're looking at - just compile your own.
The big problem with all of this isn't necessarily that the code is crap or anything like that... It's that the stuff is closed-source. We're basically trusting that the code does what it is supposed to, and we've got very little ability to verify that.
It isn't a matter of making enough software. Nobody is suggesting that the government code up five different word processing packages and sell them to the highest bidder. It's about knowing that the software running our essential government functions is reliable.
At the end of the day software is just yet another export product
No it isn't. It's a tool that lets people get their jobs done.
the country doesn't literally die if it fails, you'll just have to live with it being slightly less prioritized.
Depends on what fails.
If the word processor on some senator's desktop dies, I doubt if anyone is terribly inconvenienced.
If something big and important breaks at the IRS, it may very well be a very big problem.
Software used for essential functions of the federal government probably shouldn't be off-the-shelf. It probably should be somehow verified or authenticated. It might be a very good idea to bring the development of that software in-house, rather than to outsource it. Because if that software fails badly enough, it can render those essential functions essentially disabled.
Why bother flying a plane into a building if you can do as much, if not more, by simply breaking a bit of software?
That comparison is ridiculous. A proper comparison would be "We engineer our own government printing presses and copiers, why don't we engineer our own software?" But of course the government doesn't engineer printing presses...
We do engineer the documents though. We specify what kind of paper, what kind of markings, what kind of anti-forgery devices.
Of course, I was under the impression that we also specified what kind of code to write... Is this no longer true? Is the government just basically buying off-the-shelf software these days?
Does Intuit make some kind of IRS Edition of QuickBooks?
1. Why indeed, Marcus, "coding" and "printing" are so similar.
Sure, the end products are pretty different... But most folks just buy off-the-shelf paper for their needs. Or maybe outsource the custom printing to someone else. Just like most folks buy off-the-shelf software or outsource the custom coding to someone else.
If you move enough paper... Or have unique needs... Or are concerned about the authenticity/security of your printed documents... Then moving it in-house makes a lot of sense.
Similarly, if you use enough code... Or have unique needs... Or are concerned about the authenticity/security of your code... Then moving it in-house may make a lot of sense.
2. And the shelf-life of that software "reserve" is...
Theoretically infinite.
Oh, sure, there'll be new hardware... And new requirements... And new features...
But once you've got a piece of software that actually does what you need it to, you can keep using that pretty much forever - unless something forces you to make changes. If it's your own code, you choose when to make the changes and how significant they're going to be. If it's somebody else's code, you upgrade when they tell you to.
There's plenty of software out there that's been running just fine for the last couple of decades.
I put my money on Palm having a Pre-production (pun intended) version of a WebOS tablet ready to go and just needed a sugar daddy to pay for manufacturing.
HP has probably been playing around with tablet designs... Palm has probably been playing around with tablet designs...
I doubt if it would take too much effort to grab one of those designs, shine it up a bit, and throw it into production. Even if they have to switch to a different CPU.
Slashdot Mirror
But we can make BP wish they'd never been so reckless, and give pause to any company still cutting corners on the safety.
Can we really do that?
Stop driving gas guzzlers. Don't fill up at BP gas stations.
Haven't you heard? BP is now Beyond Petroleum. They, as well as pretty much all the big oil companies, are diversifying. They're now energy companies. If we don't buy their gasoline we'll be buying their electricity, or hydrogen, or whatever else.
Use other means of transport or propulsion.
Where I live, there's no public transportation.
Assuming there was public transportation... It'd still be running off some sort of energy, which would likely wind up lining some irresponsible corporation's pockets.
Fire off angry letters to Congress.
Except that this isn't just a national problem. These are international companies acting irresponsibly all over the world.
It may not sound like much, but enough people doing these things will hit them where they live.
Except that it probably won't.
These guys are hired to make the company money - nothing more. Nobody cares what kind of collateral damage there is. As long as the stockholders make money, they're happy.
And even if somebody actually gets fired over this... They've probably got plenty of money to tide themselves over until they get another job with another giant corporation that'll do exactly the same thing.
Hell... Absolute worst-case scenario they just re-brand themselves and pretend like the old corporation is dead while continuing to do business-as-usual under a new name.
You can't stop this oil spill.
Which puts into the big stuff that is relevant, but we can't do anything about it category.
You could stop contributing to a society which encourages profit over anything - executives get in trouble for failing to meet fiduciary responsibility if they don't do everything in their power to increase value for shareholders. Then maybe next time a well is drilled it won't be hurriedly backfilled around the pipe with cement by Halliburton.
Sounds nice on paper... But I'm skeptical that it would actually be effective in reality.
We aren't talking about problems with a single company, or a single state, or even a single nation here... Pretty much the entire freaking planet operates this way. Even if BP is absolutely crucified for this, it won't do much to all the other folks around the world who operate this way. It'll take a hell of a lot more than a few people boycotting BP to fix this problem.
Or you could just keep ignoring it and keep giving your tacit approval.
I'm not personally ignoring anything.
I'm fairly active in my community. I vote, and try to make informed decisions. I write letters. I purchase as responsibly as possible.
That whole is it any wonder that we've learned to tune all that out and just keep chugging along in our day-to-day lives was aimed at the AC who found modern apathy curious. And it was merely an explanation as to why so many people in the world are, indeed, apathetic.
I find curious how apathetic people are these days.
It's like a toon character:
"Hey! Look! The Earth is being destroyed!"
"Yo, man! That sucks!"
Earth may be doomed, but is there hope for us?
We are basically bombarded with completely irrelevant bad news 24/7.
Turn on the TV or radio, fire up a web browser, pick up a newspaper... You'll read about some random person who got kidnapped on the other side of the planet. Or a nasty plane crash somewhere. Or a tsunami.
Yeah, it's sad that somebody is suffering somewhere... But it's really got absolutely no bearing on my life.
And then we're bombarded with big stuff that is relevant, but we can't do anything about it.
Things like the volcano in Iceland, or the oil spill in the gulf. Yeah, it affects me... But there's really nothing I can personally do about it. Maybe throw some money at it in the form of a donation or two... Which might help... But there's absolutely no immediate feedback that I'm doing something to alleviate the problem.
And then we're bombarded with random scary stuff that doesn't even necessarily have a basis in reality.
Somebody, somewhere said that they wanted to kill the President - so now we're at threat level plaid, be afraid! There's some random bowl game coming up and terrorists would love to blow it up, be afraid! Mashed potatoes cause Alzheimers, be afraid! Obamacare is going to destroy Social Security, be afraid!
Is it any wonder that we've learned to tune all that out and just keep chugging along in our day-to-day lives?
It's either that, or stop functioning entirely.
I've never heard of this game and neither the summary nor TFA actually told me anything about it. According to Wikipedia, it's a first-person adventure game with a focus on Newtonian physics, improvised weapons, and no firearms. Is it really too much effort for the person writing the summary to bother saying that?
The story isn't really about what kind of game Penumbra is... It's about the fact that the source code was opened up. With the source code now available, the content of the original game is somewhat irrelevant as people will (hopefully) use the code to develop their own games.
Additionally, this is not the first mention of Penumbra or the Indie Bundle here on Slashdot. One of the previous stories is mentioned (and linked-to) right in the summary.
I mean... Sure, they could have included a description of the game... And they could have provided a description of the Indie Bundle as well... And defined what Open Source means... And what github is... And maybe some of that stuff might have been useful... But at some point it just seems kind of excessive.
The story is about the code, and they provided a description of the code.
The point of my post was not to point out the technical shortcomings of modern netbooks. It was to relate an anecdote that I felt was relevant to the discussion.
Namely that I was informed about the product and also understood what my customer wanted, and didn't sell her a product that wouldn't meet her needs.
Too many salespeople are just looking to sell a product. Those salespeople will get crap returned to them because it doesn't meet the needs of their customers.
If your customer actually needs a netbook, they'll be happy with it, regardless of whether it runs Linux or some kind of XP.
If they need a full-blown desktop computer, or a laptop, or whatever... And you sell them a netbook... They're not going to be terribly happy with it.
EEE netbooks used to ship with a Linux distro. You know what killed that? Returns. Joe User booting it up, braying "The hell? Where's my Windows?" and returning it. It got so that retail salesweasels were begging people not to buy them, because they got dinged for all the returns.
The problem wasn't that the things shipped with Linux instead of Windows.
The problem was that the salesweasels either didn't know that, or didn't bother explaining it to the customers.
I had a client at my last job that was absolutely convinced she needed a Dell mini-9. Thought it wold be terrific. Kept imagining all the ways it would be great to carry around a fully functional computer in her purse. Wanted me to put together a quote for one right away.
I happened to have a mini-9 at the time, used it for configuring network equipment and whatnot.
I explained to her that it shipped with a tiny SSD so she wouldn't really be able to store all her pictures on it... Explained that it had no CD-ROM drive... Explained that it was generally too slow to handle streaming Netflix and things like that... Had her try surfing and typing on it...
And she decided she didn't really want one after all.
If I just wanted to make a buck I could have sold her the mini-9. Maybe I would have been stuck with the return... Maybe she would have kept it... But she wouldn't have been happy. And that's what I wanted - a happy customer.
Keep in mind, this thing was running XP - not Linux.
I personally gave up on XP x64 on my home computer when I had trouble finding working video drivers.
What's the video card? I'm honestly curious. As a XP64 user myself, I see this canard repeated all the time but never any real evidence to support it.
At the time, it was an nVidia GeForce 5xxx of some sort.
People always say that, but never explain "how it's a mess".
XP x64 never seemed to be a real mainstream product. You never really saw Microsoft advertise it much... Nobody really advertised support for it...
Some of the software I had to support would not run on XP x64. It would run fine on XP x86... It would run fine on 2003 x64... But it was not happy on XP x64. I don't know why that would be, since it was basically 2003 x64 repackaged... But some of the software wasn't happy with it.
Then we had some vendors who flat-out refused to support their software on XP x64. It would run OK... But if we hit a bug and they heard we were running XP x64, they'd tell us to re-install with a supported OS.
Drivers were another issue. I had a hell of a time tracking down drivers for some devices. Generally speaking, you had to use 2003 drivers. Which wasn't necessarily obvious since the OS said XP, not 2003. But sometimes the 2003 drivers wouldn't work either.
The only thing (generically speaking) that it seems to lack vs. Vista as far as an Actual Problem, is direct support for various AHCI drivers
The big benefit I personally saw with Vista wasn't some kind of technological change - it was simply the fact that Vista x64 was a mainstream product. You would see the x64 version advertised prominently along-side the x86 version. Hardware and software both would advertise support for the x64 version. Vendors stopped running away when you mentioned you were running x64.
This currently being written from XP x64, I've never seen what all of the fuss is about.
I guess I'm glad it's working for you.
I personally gave up on XP x64 on my home computer when I had trouble finding working video drivers.
That was a couple years ago... So maybe the problems I experienced no longer exist. Maybe it would be a piece of cake to run XP x64 these days. But I don't really have a reason to anymore.
And so you think it is up to Microsoft to continue support for SP2 because you use some third-party software they have nothing to do with??
When did I say that?
The original question was "What's wrong with SP3?" I indicated one example where SP3 would be a problem.
I think your beef should be with the software company not making their software work with the current patch to the operating system, and not vice-versa.
I never claimed to have a beef with anyone.
I certainly don't have a beef with anyone about this particular piece of software, as I no longer work there. For all I know they may no longer use that software.
And if I was going to have a beef with anyone, it would be with my former boss. He was too cheap to buy the new version of the software, which was why it didn't work with anything newer than SP2.
Anyone using XP 64bit has pretty much been doing that since the day they installed the OS anyway.
Indeed.
XP64 was always a mess. The only reason I liked Vista at all was the mainstream support for 64-bit systems.
What's wrong with SP3?
At my previous job they were still using a piece of software that did not like SP3 - only ran happily on SP2 and older systems.
This wasn't a problem at the time because Microsoft still supported SP2 installs.
At one point I was driving a semi to make ends meet
while the IT scene was recovering (circa 2002/03 ish).
I stopped at some fast food joint in Minnesota. It took
me a while to realize that the lady behind the counter
actually was speaking English. She couldn't understand me
either.
Indeed.
I'm from Minnesota originally... We do speak a bit differently there, especially the older folks who still have a strong Scandinavian accent. And I've got family from various parts of Kentucky.
Family gatherings can be fun.
I'm sick to death of calling into some company for support and struggling mightily to understand the person on the other end.
I realize that English is not these folks primary language, and for it being ESL for them, they do a good job. But when I call in for support to a company "based in the US", damnit, I expect to hear a US voice.
Except that a "US voice" doesn't necessarily help.
I've called technical support lines and gotten someone with an impossibly thick southern drawl before. At least that's what I assume it was. Maybe they were drunk. Regardless, it was clear that they were from the southern US, but I couldn't understand half of what they were saying.
Why is a clear speaking voice not a requirement for these positions?
I don't care where you're located geographically, as long as you can speak clearly.
The problem with that approach is that they have no way of knowing if the games on your white Wii have been erased before you download them again to the Black Wii.
Do they really need to?
They can issue a unique license each time you download the game, that invalidates the old one. Or they can only allow you to be signed in from one device at a time.
But at least Nintendo could have resolved this in a more user-friendly manner if they wanted to make it easy and still limit piracy. HASP modules is one solution. Each console equipped with a key allowing the user to move the key to another console in case there is an upgrade or a warranty problem.
You don't really need to make it that complicated though.
You've already purchased those games on-line, through Nintendo's storefront. You've got to have an account or a credit card on file or something. Why not just use that information to authenticate and download the games to new hardware?
It's simple enough to do... It isn't some technical hurdle that Nintendo just can't get over...
The basic problem is that if they let you re-download your games, you don't have to buy new ones.
But, so what?
If you understand programming, picking up any given language is straightforward.
If you don't understand programming, it doesn't really matter what languages you know.
It's been ages since I took a programming class... And the only coding I do these days is simple little utility scripts...
But, looking over the languages they're being asked to use... They're all relatively high-level languages with a lot of goodies built in. Languages that have their own garbage collection, or object model, or whatever...
C is a fairly basic language. I remember writing my own garbage collection routines - not just as a programming exercise for the class, but because they weren't a part of the language. I remember finding out exactly what happens when you do stupid things with pointers - because the language didn't prevent you from making those mistakes.
I'm not saying it's a bad thing to use a language with those features built-in... Even folks writing code in C will make use of libraries rather than writing up a new garbage collection routine from scratch every time... And I'm sure it makes a lot of business sense to use a higher-level language that makes your coders more efficient...
But, from an educational standpoint, you really want your students to be able to make those mistakes. Nothing teaches you that stoves are hot as well as burning your hand.
And if the government had required open source software, you'd have a copy of the source code to peruse at your leisure.
When I said "genuinely open source software" I did not mean that it necessarily had to be released under the GPL and publicly available on an FTP site somewhere.
I mean that upon delivery of the software to whatever government office, full source code was provided as well.
Maybe the government wouldn't do a thing with it... But at least they'd be able to compile their own binaries and check them against those that were delivered. Or just use them instead of the binaries delivered. And they could easily audit the code whenever they wanted to.
Where do you get this idea? Upgrades are not mandatory. They're often not needed at all.
Obviously it depends on the software...
Nobody is going to force you to upgrade the copy of Microsoft Word installed on your home computer.
But the HIS software we run at work has to be at the latest version if we want to be able to receive support. And support is kind of a big deal for us.
Meh.
Just mandate genuinely open source software for all government work.
You don't have to rely on your government to analyze code and submit the fixes back to the original author - anyone can look at the code. And you don't have to rely on the original author to incorporate the fixes - anyone can. And you don't have to trust that the binaries you're running actually match the code you're looking at - just compile your own.
The big problem with all of this isn't necessarily that the code is crap or anything like that... It's that the stuff is closed-source. We're basically trusting that the code does what it is supposed to, and we've got very little ability to verify that.
we don't make enough software we.......?
It isn't a matter of making enough software. Nobody is suggesting that the government code up five different word processing packages and sell them to the highest bidder. It's about knowing that the software running our essential government functions is reliable.
At the end of the day software is just yet another export product
No it isn't. It's a tool that lets people get their jobs done.
the country doesn't literally die if it fails, you'll just have to live with it being slightly less prioritized.
Depends on what fails.
If the word processor on some senator's desktop dies, I doubt if anyone is terribly inconvenienced.
If something big and important breaks at the IRS, it may very well be a very big problem.
Software used for essential functions of the federal government probably shouldn't be off-the-shelf. It probably should be somehow verified or authenticated. It might be a very good idea to bring the development of that software in-house, rather than to outsource it. Because if that software fails badly enough, it can render those essential functions essentially disabled.
Why bother flying a plane into a building if you can do as much, if not more, by simply breaking a bit of software?
That comparison is ridiculous. A proper comparison would be "We engineer our own government printing presses and copiers, why don't we engineer our own software?" But of course the government doesn't engineer printing presses...
We do engineer the documents though. We specify what kind of paper, what kind of markings, what kind of anti-forgery devices.
Of course, I was under the impression that we also specified what kind of code to write... Is this no longer true? Is the government just basically buying off-the-shelf software these days?
Does Intuit make some kind of IRS Edition of QuickBooks?
1. Why indeed, Marcus, "coding" and "printing" are so similar.
Sure, the end products are pretty different... But most folks just buy off-the-shelf paper for their needs. Or maybe outsource the custom printing to someone else. Just like most folks buy off-the-shelf software or outsource the custom coding to someone else.
If you move enough paper... Or have unique needs... Or are concerned about the authenticity/security of your printed documents... Then moving it in-house makes a lot of sense.
Similarly, if you use enough code... Or have unique needs... Or are concerned about the authenticity/security of your code... Then moving it in-house may make a lot of sense.
2. And the shelf-life of that software "reserve" is...
Theoretically infinite.
Oh, sure, there'll be new hardware... And new requirements... And new features...
But once you've got a piece of software that actually does what you need it to, you can keep using that pretty much forever - unless something forces you to make changes. If it's your own code, you choose when to make the changes and how significant they're going to be. If it's somebody else's code, you upgrade when they tell you to.
There's plenty of software out there that's been running just fine for the last couple of decades.
I put my money on Palm having a Pre-production (pun intended) version of a WebOS tablet ready to go and just needed a sugar daddy to pay for manufacturing.
HP has probably been playing around with tablet designs... Palm has probably been playing around with tablet designs...
I doubt if it would take too much effort to grab one of those designs, shine it up a bit, and throw it into production. Even if they have to switch to a different CPU.
Representing yellow with a mix of green and red is already a hack.
Isn't this exactly what the human eye does?