One way to get Microsoft off its butt is to make it angry or threaten its core business. Firefox is in the process of doing that. Firefox has a head start. Mozilla Foundation should be looking at ways to stay ahead of the curve.
Would you rather have IBM demanding royalties for the use of those things the USPTO has allowed them to claim as property?
It seems pretty clear that there has to be a sea change in Washington (don't take this as a Democrat vs. Republican thing -- they're both beholden to interests that want to see IP strengthened, not overhauled) before IP will be given the overhaul it desperately needs. Until that happens, this is the next best thing.
Microsoft isn't threatened by ever-increasing bandwidth. They are well-positioned to participate in the post-PC world:
1. X-Box isn't just a game machine. Several interviews with Microsoft execs indicate that this will eventually be their play for media convergence. If their vision pans out, X-Box will be a major player.
2. They're signing ISPs to deliver MSN, and cable companies to use MS software in their set-top boxes. If they're successful in winning over most of them, this will put them in the role of the ASP and essentially neuter the threat posted by an ASP model.
3. Longhorn is being engineered to use web services internally and XAML (the XUL/Flex rip-off) positions them to provide for internet delivered applications.
I detest Microsoft's bloatware and its business practices, but that doesn't change facts. They *are* planning for the post-PC world, and (unfortunately) have a good shot at leveraging their old monopoly into new ones.
If the name of the game is cost containment, then it would be up to Americans to set up their own outsourcing outfits that compete with Indian shops. News.com recently ran a short story about one outfit that uses a rural workforce (mainly retrained displaced factory workers) that comes in with a total cost less than offshoring.
I would question the architecture of a system that requires push updates to the client. There are other reliable ways to achieve the desired results. This is the reason PointCast got marginalized.
J2EE runs on J2SE, and there are plenty of facilities available for:
- Running web-based clients to business objects - Running flash-based clients to business objects - Running Swing/SWT fat/rich clients to business objects
However, unless you use Flash, UI work is not as easy for the developer as it is in Visual Studio (or Delphi, for that matter).
Going beyond that, most mainframes have software written in the 1970s (or maybe earlier) that runs unrecompiled on the latest release of the OS, and it does it transparently recompiling objects to take advantage of the new hardware (e.g., the IBM AS/400 went to 64-bit in 1995. All existing 48-bit code (that wasn't stripped) was transparently recompiled to use the 64-bit architecture.)
I can't see how the judge would agree to open up court documents that contain trade secret information, unless it's in a redacted form (and then it might render some of the documents devoid of content).
To whomever identified this point, whether it was a commenter or NOAA staff member:
"Mission connection: NOAA's information services will support the NOAA mission. As a government agency, NOAA recognizes its core responsibility to protect life and property."
The responsibility to protect life and property trumps all other concerns. Providing for the security of citizens is the primary responsibility of government. Supplying the data only to commercial entities would be improper delegation of that responsibility.
I'm not saying it's a huge downside, but it can be if managed incorrectly. If hyrdrogen in the atmosphere is converted to water, then the relative density of water vapor goes up.
Sorry, but that's just not true, at least not in the sense of headcount based on Java vs. LAMP as the only factor.
In most cases I've been around, the language choice is largely irrelevent (the grandparent's post about all the little nitpicky details it claims you need to learn is interesting, but ultimately just plain wrong). How the project is managed is the big factor...are the requirements and designs constantly being modified, or are they clear and relatively static? A competent Java programmer and a competent PHP programmer can whip the same application out in about the same amount of time if they both use the standard tools supplied with the language and any well-known frameworks that make sense for the app.
You haven't seen The Incredibles, then. Lasseter and Co. recognized that they were in danger of getting into a creative rut (you can only improve the "wow" factor so many times before you can't make the gigantic leaps), so they brought in Brad Bird. He got total creative control.
Actually, it wasn't a mandate so much as a request. However, Disney screwed Pixar on the contract by saying that TS2 couldn't count against the number of movies on the agreement. This is what really caused the wedge to form between Disney and Pixar.
Also, I think we will see a The Incredibles 2, but it will be done by Disney (as apparently is their right under contract...expect Monsters Inc 2 and Finding Nemo 2 also, along with other soulless Disney rip-offs of itself and Pixar).
Their judgement in candidates led to the situation that has them believing Saddam Hussein was complicit in the World Trade Center. If the Republicans had picked McCain in 2000, none of this Iraq fiasco would have happened.
I don't think the parent was all that ignorant. However, it's not the president who is guilty of citizen payola...it's the senators and representatives. You need to look no further than how popular the ones that bring a lot of pork barrel projects back to their districts are.
although in recent years his studio's work has been eclipsed by other films (e.g., The Matrix, Shrek, Toy Story, Finding Nemo, Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow).
I would dispute that.
Pixar really plays to different market segments than Lucas's films, so they haven't really eclipsed Lucas's work. (And to be fair, Pixar itself started out as a division of Lucasfilm, Ltd. It was purchased by Steve Jobs for $10mil in 1986 and rechristened "Pixar".). No Pixar = no Toy Story, and no Toy Story means we probably wouldn't have seen a good wholly computer animated picture yet.
ILM was the special effects studio for Sky Captain and the World fo Tomorrow, so Lucas's company was part of that one.
That leaves the Matrix. Although bullet time generated more buzz than massively digitally created armies of Phantom Menace, it's about equivalent on the revolutionary scale. Matrix got perceived as better by having a more well-executed story.
The fact is engraved into Pixar's HQ: "No amount of technology can turn a bad story into a good one" (Although TPM and AOTC were good stories, poorly told).
Slashdot Mirror
One way to get Microsoft off its butt is to make it angry or threaten its core business. Firefox is in the process of doing that. Firefox has a head start. Mozilla Foundation should be looking at ways to stay ahead of the curve.
Would you rather have IBM demanding royalties for the use of those things the USPTO has allowed them to claim as property?
It seems pretty clear that there has to be a sea change in Washington (don't take this as a Democrat vs. Republican thing -- they're both beholden to interests that want to see IP strengthened, not overhauled) before IP will be given the overhaul it desperately needs. Until that happens, this is the next best thing.
Glad to hear it. I'm still loathing the day when Comcast wants to roll out Microsoft's software on the set-top boxes. It's already bad enough.
Microsoft isn't threatened by ever-increasing bandwidth. They are well-positioned to participate in the post-PC world:
1. X-Box isn't just a game machine. Several interviews with Microsoft execs indicate that this will eventually be their play for media convergence. If their vision pans out, X-Box will be a major player.
2. They're signing ISPs to deliver MSN, and cable companies to use MS software in their set-top boxes. If they're successful in winning over most of them, this will put them in the role of the ASP and essentially neuter the threat posted by an ASP model.
3. Longhorn is being engineered to use web services internally and XAML (the XUL/Flex rip-off) positions them to provide for internet delivered applications.
I detest Microsoft's bloatware and its business practices, but that doesn't change facts. They *are* planning for the post-PC world, and (unfortunately) have a good shot at leveraging their old monopoly into new ones.
Microsoft didn't develop it in the first place. NCSA/Spyglass did.
NIHACBIO (Not Invented Here And Can't Buy It Out) syndrome.
Why would they when they have a bunch of people doing it for free? :-)
If the name of the game is cost containment, then it would be up to Americans to set up their own outsourcing outfits that compete with Indian shops. News.com recently ran a short story about one outfit that uses a rural workforce (mainly retrained displaced factory workers) that comes in with a total cost less than offshoring.
I would question the architecture of a system that requires push updates to the client. There are other reliable ways to achieve the desired results. This is the reason PointCast got marginalized.
J2EE runs on J2SE, and there are plenty of facilities available for:
- Running web-based clients to business objects
- Running flash-based clients to business objects
- Running Swing/SWT fat/rich clients to business objects
However, unless you use Flash, UI work is not as easy for the developer as it is in Visual Studio (or Delphi, for that matter).
Umm...dude, Blaggy's a liberal Democrat, not a fundamentalist by any stretch.
Going beyond that, most mainframes have software written in the 1970s (or maybe earlier) that runs unrecompiled on the latest release of the OS, and it does it transparently recompiling objects to take advantage of the new hardware (e.g., the IBM AS/400 went to 64-bit in 1995. All existing 48-bit code (that wasn't stripped) was transparently recompiled to use the 64-bit architecture.)
I can't see how the judge would agree to open up court documents that contain trade secret information, unless it's in a redacted form (and then it might render some of the documents devoid of content).
To whomever identified this point, whether it was a commenter or NOAA staff member:
"Mission connection: NOAA's information services will support the NOAA mission. As a government agency, NOAA recognizes its core responsibility to protect life and property."
The responsibility to protect life and property trumps all other concerns. Providing for the security of citizens is the primary responsibility of government. Supplying the data only to commercial entities would be improper delegation of that responsibility.
I'm not saying it's a huge downside, but it can be if managed incorrectly. If hyrdrogen in the atmosphere is converted to water, then the relative density of water vapor goes up.
:-)
It's humid enough in Florida, dammit!
The product of hydrogen combustion is water. If this is released into the environment, then we're dealing with another greenhouse gas (water vapor).
Sorry, but that's just not true, at least not in the sense of headcount based on Java vs. LAMP as the only factor.
In most cases I've been around, the language choice is largely irrelevent (the grandparent's post about all the little nitpicky details it claims you need to learn is interesting, but ultimately just plain wrong). How the project is managed is the big factor...are the requirements and designs constantly being modified, or are they clear and relatively static? A competent Java programmer and a competent PHP programmer can whip the same application out in about the same amount of time if they both use the standard tools supplied with the language and any well-known frameworks that make sense for the app.
How can a statement that says J2EE is irrelevent be considered anything but the deliberate start of a flame war?
You haven't seen The Incredibles, then. Lasseter and Co. recognized that they were in danger of getting into a creative rut (you can only improve the "wow" factor so many times before you can't make the gigantic leaps), so they brought in Brad Bird. He got total creative control.
Toy Story 2 was a mandate from Disney
Actually, it wasn't a mandate so much as a request. However, Disney screwed Pixar on the contract by saying that TS2 couldn't count against the number of movies on the agreement. This is what really caused the wedge to form between Disney and Pixar.
Also, I think we will see a The Incredibles 2, but it will be done by Disney (as apparently is their right under contract...expect Monsters Inc 2 and Finding Nemo 2 also, along with other soulless Disney rip-offs of itself and Pixar).
Their judgement in candidates led to the situation that has them believing Saddam Hussein was complicit in the World Trade Center. If the Republicans had picked McCain in 2000, none of this Iraq fiasco would have happened.
I don't think the parent was all that ignorant. However, it's not the president who is guilty of citizen payola...it's the senators and representatives. You need to look no further than how popular the ones that bring a lot of pork barrel projects back to their districts are.
True, but the supervisor of the whole thing is Scott Anderson, an ILM alumnus.
although in recent years his studio's work has been eclipsed by other films (e.g., The Matrix, Shrek, Toy Story, Finding Nemo, Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow).
I would dispute that.
Pixar really plays to different market segments than Lucas's films, so they haven't really eclipsed Lucas's work. (And to be fair, Pixar itself started out as a division of Lucasfilm, Ltd. It was purchased by Steve Jobs for $10mil in 1986 and rechristened "Pixar".). No Pixar = no Toy Story, and no Toy Story means we probably wouldn't have seen a good wholly computer animated picture yet.
ILM was the special effects studio for Sky Captain and the World fo Tomorrow, so Lucas's company was part of that one.
That leaves the Matrix. Although bullet time generated more buzz than massively digitally created armies of Phantom Menace, it's about equivalent on the revolutionary scale. Matrix got perceived as better by having a more well-executed story.
The fact is engraved into Pixar's HQ: "No amount of technology can turn a bad story into a good one" (Although TPM and AOTC were good stories, poorly told).
Using the video in its entirety goes beyond what fair use is meant to do. If they wanted to do it, they should restage it.