So these other companies that "did it first" and thereby decreased their costs, passed this on to the consumer in the form of reduced prices?
Not necessarilly -- as the music industry demonstrates, there is a gap between 'supply' and 'demand'. Middlemen can exploit this gap to increase their profits.
Consider the gap between the price crash of beef in Canada for farmers and the lack of any change at retail. In effect, the middle men have split the supply and demand for beef into two separate, yet related, markets: since demand at the grocery store has not decreased, the market bears the current pricing models assuming supply remains constant. And since the middle men are the ones provding the supply (by demanding beef from farmers), they can control the supply by keeping the amount of product they buy constant. This isolates the depressive forces to the farmer's end, since he has an excess of supply but no increased demand, because it is in the middle men's interest to maintain the current throughput levels of product. It may be immoral, but it isn't illegal -- and it is precisely how the market works.
This is, in a broad sense, how any business works -- through the realization that if we pay some fool $x, and get $x+y value out of his labor, we profit from that gap. If the value obtained is less than the cost, then the operation is unviable unless artificially externally supported. This is why certain operations which cannot be profitable within the context of the law, such as welfare, must be supported by government.
But to get back to your question. Consider that in the US a CEO can be held liable for failing to provide a company which operates at maximum profitability and/or growth (which is an illusiary step on the ladder to profitability). If a CEO has the opportunity to increase profitability and does not, he will at best be likely to be tossed out on his ass, and at worst, sued until is lawyers are very very rich. There is no exception for ethical behavior. If the behavior is legal and probably profitable, he is practically obligated to do it.
Uh, huh. Ok, given that the inflation rate has remained pretty much constant, if not growing slightly, during this period of outsourcing, is it fair to say that the trend of outsourcing is, in fact, not driven by market forces?
See discussion above about the separation of markets between supply and demand.
If a group of companies collectively decide to engage in behavior to the detriment of their consumers (prices haven't dropped) and employees (who are out of work), and this behavior is not market driven, can you explain it in the context of antitrust law?
I think you mean price fixing, not anti-trust. And as long as there is no overt or covert agreement between companies (ie executed agreements authorized by company representatives), then this is merely market efficiencies being integrated into corporate behavior.
Shuttle has been a mismnagaed boondoggle from the very beginning.
The Space Shuttle Main Engine (SSME) is probably the most magnificent piece of operational rocketry engineering achieved by man to date -- an engine capable of delivering a payload to orbit, and then being reused.
This is one of the new technologies that we needed to develop, and without the Space Shuttle it would become unneccessary.
In Canada, it doesn't matter _what_ the victim says, if it looks like a crime took place, charges will be laid and courts will be involved.
INCORRECT, SIR. Here in canada the police, as well as the crown prosecutors, have what is called discretion. Every time an officer lets you off with a warning and a dirty look, it has been exercised.
Platform's LSF (Load Sharing Facility) is real and works. We've used it on heterogeneous networks (mixed Sun and Linux) installations, and while it doesn't address every single need you will ever have, it is a very powerful suite of tools.
Make no mistake about this -- it is not a Beowulf clone, but more an automated job dispatch and tracking system. If you have the problem of dealing with 10's of thousands of discrete, stand-alone jobs (like semiconductor regression and verification runs, or rendering movies) this tool can help you manage it.
Possibly -- I should have mentioned that this is from my own experience, and I have no idea if Macs scale, or even if the single Mac guy was very busy.
The windows number I justify by saying it was the bad old days of Win95/98/NT4, in a Visual Studio development shop. So we were probably busier than a modern word-processing-and-web-browsing site would be.
Figuring out that's the problem? And then _finding_ the damn drivers? Not so easy -- especially when you have a budget $50 piece of crap that you bought because it was theoretically good in the price-to-performance ratio...
Right now I have a problem with a brand new opteron motherboard that won't see it's Gb interface. I assume that the fix, one I find it and download it, will be precisely 5 minutes of work -- but I've pissed away 8 hours looking for the answer and trying non-fixes. This is why for my own machines I buy Dells. Say what you want about them, but you can usually find the up to date drivers relatively quickly and you are on your way again.
I am not advocating that organizations be required to support every UI under the sun. I am not advocating that programmers ensure that their apps work with every UI under the sun. I am not advocating that all users be extensively trained in the use of every UI under the sun.
Organizations, programmers, and users all must make decisions as to what they are going to use. If I work for organization X, then the standards of organization X is what I will use. If I need to use application X, then I will use whatever I need to use in order for application X to be happy. Any time I step beyond the bounds of where the application and/or organization has decided the limits are, I am on my own, and I accept that.
Don't fear my choice.
Don't remove my choice -- because I bet you won't be held responsible when I cannot do what I want to do in order to get my job done because of that limitation.
Because that's the way it's done on the majority of the millions of computers out there so that's the way it's done on those computers. Do it the standard, consistent way to make it easier for the end-users was the point.
Brilliant, and conceeded on the face of the argument. However, in detail this argument doesn't wash -- you can't seriously tell me that the storage of configuration options and settings is a serious impediment to construction of user applications. Consistancy where the user is expected to interface with the application is good; unneccesary obfusication of administration-specific data is not, especially when those settings are encapsulated in a data format exposed to corruption.
Yes, consistancy is good. But simplicity is also good.
This haughtiness-from-a-position-of-weakness is the biggest flaw of The Art of UNIX Programming (...)
You know, I had a similar thought when reading this review. Mr. Spolski brings
up many of the compare-and-contrast points of unix vs windows programming, and
while (in my unix-centric view) most unix points stand on their own, the windows
points are rather fluffed up with artificial and (in my unix-centric view)
rather unconvincing hand waving. Most of his points seem to boil down to
windows does it this way because it is better for users; and
problems in windows are due to bad windows programmers mis-using the api
...without really being able to explain or justify either statement. So we
use the Evil Registry instead of Elegant.rc Files because we want to sell
millions of copies of our word processor? Why?
In the end, Mr, Spolski's review falls into the same category that he would
like to pigeon-hole Mr. Raymond's book -- an attempt to be balanced and fair
defeated by the author's self-inflicted blinders.
In that sense, Windows offers me greater freedom to do with my computer what I want to.
Good. Great. Bully for you.
I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that you truely limit your comments to your wants and needs. The problem is that the standardization naz^Wadvocates (oops, almost invoked Godwin's Law, sorry about that) always extend their needs as trumping everyone else's needs. This is just as much a crime when it comes from those whining that Linux needs a standard GUI (or whatever) because the unstated subtext is always "the one I am using".
My needs are different from yours -- I find that I cannot use a Windows system the way I want to, and am much more at home on a unix system. I find I cannot use a KDE inteface the way I can use a olvwm interface. With a modular system like unix, I can use the interface I want, even as other users on the same system use a completely different one, and all without causing undue problems between them.
So, if the average person is stupid, then half the population is dumber than that. Which means a democracy is lead by a bunch of idiots. I know I am smarter than the majority, and I'd wager you probably are too.
When questioned, 85% think they are smarter than average. They can't all be right.
While this is better than a cubical the employee is paying for it. Another way to reduce pay in effect?
Daily parking: $10 ($200/month)
Daily fuel costs: 10L == $5 ($100/month)
Reduced driving wear and tear: 90% (so let's say about $100 a month)
Car now lasts 50% longer: let's say $200/month
I don't know about you, but if I could put 15% of my after-tax take-home back in my pocket every month, I'm all for this 'pay cut'.
Just because the company spends something on you as an expense doesn't mean it is a direct benefit.
The Meralvinchian's Train Master is used to 'sneak programs in and out.' From, or to, where?
The child program which was being moved at the request of her parents ends up, entirely without comment, in the custody of the Oracle and her guardian (who also aparrently has a history with the Meralvinchian). What is the relationship between the Oracle and the Meralvinchian?
The machine city boasts some heavy defences, overkill when you consider the rag-tag group of rebels inhabiting Zion. Machines don't do things just for kicks, they like to learn things the hard way. What is the history behind these defences?
This is a single city, with a single machine overmind. Are there other cities? Are there other power plants? Are there other Matricies? Is there a wider, more powerful resistance? Do the other cities utilize other power solutions?
What does the machine overmind want? What motivates it to keep its side of this bargain?
Just because you can not see the details of the depth does not mean that the depth is not there.
Let me get this straight -- you advocate the building of a system which will beam energy from orbit down at targets at the earth with sufficient power levels to make the whole exercise worth while?
The next bunch of terrorists won't need airplanes, they'll just hack into the targeting computers of your transmitters and have the beam take a walk through the nearest city.
Slashdot Mirror
Not necessarilly -- as the music industry demonstrates, there is a gap between 'supply' and 'demand'. Middlemen can exploit this gap to increase their profits.
Consider the gap between the price crash of beef in Canada for farmers and the lack of any change at retail. In effect, the middle men have split the supply and demand for beef into two separate, yet related, markets: since demand at the grocery store has not decreased, the market bears the current pricing models assuming supply remains constant. And since the middle men are the ones provding the supply (by demanding beef from farmers), they can control the supply by keeping the amount of product they buy constant. This isolates the depressive forces to the farmer's end, since he has an excess of supply but no increased demand, because it is in the middle men's interest to maintain the current throughput levels of product. It may be immoral, but it isn't illegal -- and it is precisely how the market works.
This is, in a broad sense, how any business works -- through the realization that if we pay some fool $x, and get $x+y value out of his labor, we profit from that gap. If the value obtained is less than the cost, then the operation is unviable unless artificially externally supported. This is why certain operations which cannot be profitable within the context of the law, such as welfare, must be supported by government.
But to get back to your question. Consider that in the US a CEO can be held liable for failing to provide a company which operates at maximum profitability and/or growth (which is an illusiary step on the ladder to profitability). If a CEO has the opportunity to increase profitability and does not, he will at best be likely to be tossed out on his ass, and at worst, sued until is lawyers are very very rich. There is no exception for ethical behavior. If the behavior is legal and probably profitable, he is practically obligated to do it.
See discussion above about the separation of markets between supply and demand.
I think you mean price fixing, not anti-trust. And as long as there is no overt or covert agreement between companies (ie executed agreements authorized by company representatives), then this is merely market efficiencies being integrated into corporate behavior.
As well you should -- it is just that the rest of us resent being asked to pay the freight when there is little payoff to us.
Note lack of smilie.
The Space Shuttle Main Engine (SSME) is probably the most magnificent piece of operational rocketry engineering achieved by man to date -- an engine capable of delivering a payload to orbit, and then being reused.
This is one of the new technologies that we needed to develop, and without the Space Shuttle it would become unneccessary.
Egg, meet chicken.
You are right, there's absolutely no difference between running sh on a VT100-over-serial terminal and running bash on a Multi-Gnome-Terminal.
Hang on, there's a huge difference -- what terminal are you using?
Stolen? Stolen?
All software costs something -- payware generally costs more money than freeware; and freeware generally costs more time than payware.
You never get something for free.
INCORRECT, SIR. Here in canada the police, as well as the crown prosecutors, have what is called discretion. Every time an officer lets you off with a warning and a dirty look, it has been exercised.
Make no mistake about this -- it is not a Beowulf clone, but more an automated job dispatch and tracking system. If you have the problem of dealing with 10's of thousands of discrete, stand-alone jobs (like semiconductor regression and verification runs, or rendering movies) this tool can help you manage it.
What's so hard about this?
Who's site? Theirs? Yours? Microsoft's? What about if the site is in Canada? What if you can't bring your gun?
I think you mean shoot on sight .
Welcome to the English language, enjoy your stay.
The windows number I justify by saying it was the bad old days of Win95/98/NT4, in a Visual Studio development shop. So we were probably busier than a modern word-processing-and-web-browsing site would be.
Isn't it interesting how the details matter? :)
He's been reading slashdot!
Installing drivers? That's the easy part.
Figuring out that's the problem? And then _finding_ the damn drivers? Not so easy -- especially when you have a budget $50 piece of crap that you bought because it was theoretically good in the price-to-performance ratio...
Right now I have a problem with a brand new opteron motherboard that won't see it's Gb interface. I assume that the fix, one I find it and download it, will be precisely 5 minutes of work -- but I've pissed away 8 hours looking for the answer and trying non-fixes. This is why for my own machines I buy Dells. Say what you want about them, but you can usually find the up to date drivers relatively quickly and you are on your way again.
Staff to support 100 unix boxes: 2
Staff to support 25 Macs (OS 7): 1
Staff to support 100 Windows boxes: 8
If it wasn't for the shitty OS and apps, there would be a lot of unemployed windows support people.
>/ironic>
I am not advocating that organizations be required to support every UI under the sun. I am not advocating that programmers ensure that their apps work with every UI under the sun. I am not advocating that all users be extensively trained in the use of every UI under the sun.
Organizations, programmers, and users all must make decisions as to what they are going to use. If I work for organization X, then the standards of organization X is what I will use. If I need to use application X, then I will use whatever I need to use in order for application X to be happy. Any time I step beyond the bounds of where the application and/or organization has decided the limits are, I am on my own, and I accept that.
Don't fear my choice.
Don't remove my choice -- because I bet you won't be held responsible when I cannot do what I want to do in order to get my job done because of that limitation.
Mr xdroop is my dad.
Brilliant, and conceeded on the face of the argument. However, in detail this argument doesn't wash -- you can't seriously tell me that the storage of configuration options and settings is a serious impediment to construction of user applications. Consistancy where the user is expected to interface with the application is good; unneccesary obfusication of administration-specific data is not, especially when those settings are encapsulated in a data format exposed to corruption.
Yes, consistancy is good. But simplicity is also good.
You know, I had a similar thought when reading this review. Mr. Spolski brings up many of the compare-and-contrast points of unix vs windows programming, and while (in my unix-centric view) most unix points stand on their own, the windows points are rather fluffed up with artificial and (in my unix-centric view) rather unconvincing hand waving. Most of his points seem to boil down to
In the end, Mr, Spolski's review falls into the same category that he would like to pigeon-hole Mr. Raymond's book -- an attempt to be balanced and fair defeated by the author's self-inflicted blinders.
Good. Great. Bully for you.
I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that you truely limit your comments to your wants and needs. The problem is that the standardization naz^Wadvocates (oops, almost invoked Godwin's Law, sorry about that) always extend their needs as trumping everyone else's needs. This is just as much a crime when it comes from those whining that Linux needs a standard GUI (or whatever) because the unstated subtext is always "the one I am using".
My needs are different from yours -- I find that I cannot use a Windows system the way I want to, and am much more at home on a unix system. I find I cannot use a KDE inteface the way I can use a olvwm interface. With a modular system like unix, I can use the interface I want, even as other users on the same system use a completely different one, and all without causing undue problems between them.
Or is Hemos going to post the same item in an hour?
Actually, you pick two -- but you tell us which one you really want. We try for the second one.
When questioned, 85% think they are smarter than average. They can't all be right.
Let's say electricity doubles: that's an additional $50.
Let's say heat doubles (we live in Canada, eh?); that's another $50 per month.
Let's say internet... nope, pay that anyways.
Let's say computer costs... nope, if my employer wants me to work full time, he pays for the computer.
Let's say water costs double (because we're now flushing at home instead of at the office); that's $25.
I'm confused. What are we spending the rest of the money on? Slashdot subscription? Dress bunny slippers?
For the same salary, I'm still ahead at home. Getting me out of the car makes a huge difference.
Daily parking: $10 ($200/month)
Daily fuel costs: 10L == $5 ($100/month)
Reduced driving wear and tear: 90% (so let's say about $100 a month)
Car now lasts 50% longer: let's say $200/month
I don't know about you, but if I could put 15% of my after-tax take-home back in my pocket every month, I'm all for this 'pay cut'.
Just because the company spends something on you as an expense doesn't mean it is a direct benefit.
I'll play.
Just because you can not see the details of the depth does not mean that the depth is not there.
The next bunch of terrorists won't need airplanes, they'll just hack into the targeting computers of your transmitters and have the beam take a walk through the nearest city.