Preface: It's very refreshing to engage in a thread where users remember that this is not a black-and-white issue, it's most certainly quite gray and deserves some nontrivial thought and analysis. Bravo to the/.ers found here!
That said, I do worry a little about the merger, but moreso because the cable system is still a closed, government regulated system. This may make life tough for competitors in the same market space. On the other hand, though...
1. On the content side, I think the sheer volume of data and services available on the net is more than any company (or even oligopoly of companies) can control. The only way to achieve that level of control is through govt mandate/regulation. Since the Net is not the domain of any single nation, regulation will always be difficult/ineffective/harmful for the regulating country (witness the encryption fiasco).
2. On the content-delivery side, cable is an attractive option today. If AOLTW wants to make a buck, they'd better keep it competitive with other net access technologies. They do not have anything close to a monopoly in this arena, because the other players are numerous and growing rapidly.
A final note on your comment: But look at the telecom industry, competition is decreasing, not increasing, and the industry is consolidating.
This is not entirely true. I think a major fallacy (seen in countless other posts) is that consolidation == less competition. Consolidation is a natural market phenomenon that fosters competition on larger economies of scale (greater efficiency). Witness the long distance rate wars -- 5 cents a minute is pretty damn good! Now we see the FCC allowing some local carriers to enter the long distance market, and vice versa. All of this is good for consumers.
To wrap up (and to reference the title of my post), the thing that scares me most is the totally one-sided view that Katz presented. I grant that it's editorial, and I'm not asking for objectivity in that space, but I thought Katz was absolutely inflammatory. Was anyone else irked by this?
- jonathan.
your basic average superstar, is singing about justice. and peace. and love. and i'm glaring at the radio, swearing, saying "that's what i was afraid of." - ani difranco
I was facing the exact same problem just last month. In my experience, if you want to develop scalable server-side software, and you're using OO technology, you need a layer of database objects to encapsulate all your data access logic. You then build service-oriented objects on top of those. This is very similar to the EJB model (minus containers/transactions/etc), but you can't afford EJB because a good server is >$10k.
But this object layer can prove to be a high maintenance piece of software. Every time a data structure changes, both the object layer and the database scripts have to incorporate the change.
My software is written to read a single specification file, and from that file it generates:
mySQL DDL statements (CREATE TABLE) script file.
Import scripts to import data from delimited text files (any delimiter).
Java class files that encapsulate database access logic.
Java collection class files to represent arbitrary database queries.
JSP pages are generated to interact with the class files:
Pages to browse database tables
Pages to add and edit records
Pages to search the tables based on any criteria.
So, yes, the specification file you feed the script can be quite complex, but it's nice to maintain your database AND your object layer from one place.
Well, my software is really just a hack I put together, I wouldn't be surprised at all if many other people have done the same thing already. I dunno.
Anyway, if anyone's interested in using my software, it's still not 100% foolproof, so I'd like to give it some nice stress testing in an open source environment.
Any takers?
- jonathan.
"Every tool is a weapon, if you hold it right." - ani difranco
This article was produced because some guy wanted to write about Linux. He was pissed off that Linus wasn't available, so he wrote a fluff story. There is so little truth in this article it's ridiculous!! Who the fsck reads this stuff!?!?!
To finalize my case, take the following quote from the article:
Take his press Q+A session at the LinuxWorld Expo in San Jose earlier this month. Torvalds, who agreed to the session because he simply didn't have time to field the innumerable individual requests, first had to rattle off what were becoming familiar answers to familiar questions. Can open source work in the business world? Are you trying to rule software the way Bill Gates rules software? What do you think of Microsoft? What is open source? What is Linux? Why a penguin?
Hello!?!!? For anyone who was actually there at LinuxWorld, the majority of Linus' talk centered around what features would be incorporated into furture versions of Linux, including various kernel modules and drivers (DVD, khttpd, FireWire, journailing FS, SMP scalability, etc.), and was NOT your standard BS mainstream-type info-session.
I'm currently working on an ASP->JSP translator. An initial release should be available in the October/November time frame.
The translator will do pretty much everything but COM objects (save that for version 2): VBScript becomes Java, ADO becomes JDBC, and the ASP runtime environment (Session, Response, etc) will be mapped to (or wrapped by, haven't gotten there yet) the JSP runtime environment.
The translator will be open source, of course. I'm targeting GNUJSP as my reference implementation. So... if anyone's willing to help out (perhaps with porting some of the 80+ ASP global functions to Java), pop me an email at hardcorejon@hardcorejon.com
> They will take power away from big government and gladly allow big business to take up the slack.
WRONG. The purpose of a corporation is to maximize shareholder value. The only way they can do that is to sell something that people like. A very democratic process. Without government intervention, the free market MUST provide consumers with the best possible products. This gets perverted when government incentives exist (subsidies, special protections). (side note: I believe there is a case for anti-trust law, but otherwise I am against governmental interference in the operation of a market.)
Corporations DO NOT wield the same power as govnement. They cannot force people to buy their products (M$ excepted - see above note on antitrust), and they cannot put people in jail because they don't like their personal choices.
The point I'm trying to make here is that governmental power is coercive power. Taking that power away simply leaves we the citizens with less coercion, and more choice. This is a Good Thing. Coercive power cannot be "snatched up" by corporations, or anyone - coercive power exists solely within the government.
> The purpose of government is to do whatever the people want it to do.
WRONG. Madison's essays on the politics of faction make some clear warnings about a minority of people (read: corporations, christian right, etc) forcing their world-view upon everyone. The purpose of government is to allow people to do as they wish while allowing others the to same , and resolving disputes arising from the above (civil courts).
Example: Let's pretend that the South won the Civil War, and slavery were still legal there. Even if the majority of people think it's OK, its the government's sole function to protect the individual liberty of its citizens. Consensus does not equal justice.
Once again, pardon my rantings if you disagree... just give me a good retort. That's what America's all about (to me): open discussions and wildly different points of view.
It is refreshing to hear such an energetic argument for protection of freedoms.
I've got a question for you: have you heard of the libertarian party? That's where all my support goes. It's the only political party in America based on PRINCIPLES.
More precisely, the principle that the sole function of government is to protect the liberty of its people. That means national defense, a court system, police, etc, etc.
That does NOT mean the government has a right to:
Dictate what we can and cannot eat and drink (FDA)
Jail us for consensual "crimes" like drug posession, and prostitution, and confiscate our property without a court trial (DEA, FBI)
Claim that we're to stupid to save for our own retirement and force us to pay into a system that is a total scam (social security)
Tell us what we can and cannot buy for our kids (CPSC)
Enact trade and immigration barriers
The list goes on an on...
ALL of which our current "democracy" currently DOES DO.
OK, pardon my rantings, I get a little excited sometimes:)
- jonathan.
"The system gives you just enough... to make you think that you see change... it will sing you right to sleep... and then they'll screw you just the same." - ani difranco
The libertarian party does cooperate with other groups (usually the ACLU and the like) on some issues. The problem is resources. The LP's budget is miniscule compared to the republicrats, and much of it is spent campaigning to get a few more people in office each election. IMHO, the LP is fighting to make the world a better place, and they have my (albeit tiny) donation. I think there are some issues (such as this one) where the FUD can only go on so long. I certainly hope I'm not mistaken, but I think NSI's grip on the domain registration monopoly will succumb to the pressure before long.
IMO, Roundeye has done an amazing job dissecting the underlying message of the slate articles.
just wanted to add one thing: its obvious (to me) that these articles are a knee-jerk reaction to the momentum building behind linux. The good news is that this is the first definitively negative article I've ever seen on linux to date - and (big surprise) it's from MS!
I guess they thought a press release would be too obvious, but have they really fooled anyone here?
Slashdot Mirror
Preface: It's very refreshing to engage in a thread where users remember that this is not a black-and-white issue, it's most certainly quite gray and deserves some nontrivial thought and analysis. Bravo to the /.ers found here!
That said, I do worry a little about the merger, but moreso because the cable system is still a closed, government regulated system. This may make life tough for competitors in the same market space. On the other hand, though...
1. On the content side, I think the sheer volume of data and services available on the net is more than any company (or even oligopoly of companies) can control. The only way to achieve that level of control is through govt mandate/regulation. Since the Net is not the domain of any single nation, regulation will always be difficult/ineffective/harmful for the regulating country (witness the encryption fiasco).
2. On the content-delivery side, cable is an attractive option today. If AOLTW wants to make a buck, they'd better keep it competitive with other net access technologies. They do not have anything close to a monopoly in this arena, because the other players are numerous and growing rapidly.
A final note on your comment:
But look at the telecom industry, competition is decreasing, not increasing, and the industry is consolidating.
This is not entirely true. I think a major fallacy (seen in countless other posts) is that consolidation == less competition. Consolidation is a natural market phenomenon that fosters competition on larger economies of scale (greater efficiency). Witness the long distance rate wars -- 5 cents a minute is pretty damn good! Now we see the FCC allowing some local carriers to enter the long distance market, and vice versa. All of this is good for consumers.
To wrap up (and to reference the title of my post), the thing that scares me most is the totally one-sided view that Katz presented. I grant that it's editorial, and I'm not asking for objectivity in that space, but I thought Katz was absolutely inflammatory. Was anyone else irked by this?
- jonathan.
your basic average superstar,
is singing about justice. and peace. and love.
and i'm glaring at the radio, swearing,
saying "that's what i was afraid of."
- ani difranco
I was facing the exact same problem just last month. In my experience, if you want to develop scalable server-side software, and you're using OO technology, you need a layer of database objects to encapsulate all your data access logic. You then build service-oriented objects on top of those. This is very similar to the EJB model (minus containers/transactions/etc), but you can't afford EJB because a good server is >$10k.
But this object layer can prove to be a high maintenance piece of software. Every time a data structure changes, both the object layer and the database scripts have to incorporate the change.
My software is written to read a single specification file, and from that file it generates:
So, yes, the specification file you feed the script can be quite complex, but it's nice to maintain your database AND your object layer from one place.
Well, my software is really just a hack I put together, I wouldn't be surprised at all if many other people have done the same thing already. I dunno.
Anyway, if anyone's interested in using my software, it's still not 100% foolproof, so I'd like to give it some nice stress testing in an open source environment.
Any takers?
- jonathan.
"Every tool is a weapon, if you hold it right." - ani difranco
This article was produced because some guy wanted to write about Linux. He was pissed off that Linus wasn't available, so he wrote a fluff story. There is so little truth in this article it's ridiculous!! Who the fsck reads this stuff!?!?!
To finalize my case, take the following quote from the article:
Take his press Q+A session at the LinuxWorld Expo in San Jose earlier this month. Torvalds, who agreed to the session because he simply didn't have time to field the innumerable individual requests, first had to rattle off what were becoming familiar answers to familiar questions. Can open source work in the business world? Are you trying to rule software the way Bill Gates rules software? What do you think of Microsoft? What is open source? What is Linux? Why a penguin?
Hello!?!!? For anyone who was actually there at LinuxWorld, the majority of Linus' talk centered around what features would be incorporated into furture versions of Linux, including various kernel modules and drivers (DVD, khttpd, FireWire, journailing FS, SMP scalability, etc.), and was NOT your standard BS mainstream-type info-session.
Such blatantly careless journalism is inexusable.
- jonathan.
One brief sidenote I forgot:
I'm using ANTLR (www.antlr.org) as my parser- and lexer- generator, and it ROCKS. I *highly* recommend it for any non-trivial parsing jobs.
- jonathan.
Hey all,
I'm currently working on an ASP->JSP translator. An initial release should be available in the October/November time frame.
The translator will do pretty much everything but COM objects (save that for version 2): VBScript becomes Java, ADO becomes JDBC, and the ASP runtime environment (Session, Response, etc) will be mapped to (or wrapped by, haven't gotten there yet) the JSP runtime environment.
The translator will be open source, of course. I'm targeting GNUJSP as my reference implementation. So... if anyone's willing to help out (perhaps with porting some of the 80+ ASP global functions to Java), pop me an email at hardcorejon@hardcorejon.com
> They will take power away from big government and gladly allow big business to take up the slack.
WRONG. The purpose of a corporation is to maximize shareholder value. The only way they can do that is to sell something that people like. A very democratic process. Without government intervention, the free market MUST provide consumers with the best possible products. This gets perverted when government incentives exist (subsidies, special protections). (side note: I believe there is a case for anti-trust law, but otherwise I am against governmental interference in the operation of a market.)
Corporations DO NOT wield the same power as govnement. They cannot force people to buy their products (M$ excepted - see above note on antitrust), and they cannot put people in jail because they don't like their personal choices.
The point I'm trying to make here is that governmental power is coercive power. Taking that power away simply leaves we the citizens with less coercion, and more choice. This is a Good Thing. Coercive power cannot be "snatched up" by corporations, or anyone - coercive power exists solely within the government.
> The purpose of government is to do whatever the people want it to do.
WRONG. Madison's essays on the politics of faction make some clear warnings about a minority of people (read: corporations, christian right, etc) forcing their world-view upon everyone. The purpose of government is to allow people to do as they wish while allowing others the to same , and resolving disputes arising from the above (civil courts).
Example: Let's pretend that the South won the Civil War, and slavery were still legal there. Even if the majority of people think it's OK, its the government's sole function to protect the individual liberty of its citizens. Consensus does not equal justice.
Once again, pardon my rantings if you disagree... just give me a good retort. That's what America's all about (to me): open discussions and wildly different points of view.
OK: The libertarian party home page is at http://www.lp.org/. Other sites I enjoy are the ACLU, the Internation Society for Individual Liberty, and NORML.
- jonathan.
I've got a question for you: have you heard of the libertarian party? That's where all my support goes. It's the only political party in America based on PRINCIPLES.
More precisely, the principle that the sole function of government is to protect the liberty of its people. That means national defense, a court system, police, etc, etc.
That does NOT mean the government has a right to:
- Dictate what we can and cannot eat and drink (FDA)
- Jail us for consensual "crimes" like drug posession, and prostitution, and confiscate our property without a court trial (DEA, FBI)
- Claim that we're to stupid to save for our own retirement and force us to pay into a system that is a total scam (social security)
- Tell us what we can and cannot buy for our kids (CPSC)
- Enact trade and immigration barriers
- The list goes on an on...
ALL of which our current "democracy" currently DOES DO.OK, pardon my rantings, I get a little excited sometimes
- jonathan.
"The system gives you just enough...
to make you think that you see change...
it will sing you right to sleep...
and then they'll screw you just the same."
- ani difranco
The libertarian party does cooperate with other groups (usually the ACLU and the like) on some issues. The problem is resources. The LP's budget is miniscule compared to the republicrats, and much of it is spent campaigning to get a few more people in office each election. IMHO, the LP is fighting to make the world a better place, and they have my (albeit tiny) donation. I think there are some issues (such as this one) where the FUD can only go on so long. I certainly hope I'm not mistaken, but I think NSI's grip on the domain registration monopoly will succumb to the pressure before long.
Everyone I've ever talked to says Netscape's app server is really bad....
check out philip greenspun's new book for a real mean thrashing.
IMO, Roundeye has done an amazing job dissecting the underlying message of the slate articles.
just wanted to add one thing: its obvious (to me) that these articles are a knee-jerk reaction to the momentum building behind linux. The good news is that this is the first definitively negative article I've ever seen on linux to date - and (big surprise) it's from MS!
I guess they thought a press release would be too obvious, but have they really fooled anyone here?