I was wrong about the apps above. That was my mistake. Obviously, if they are Mono apps designed to run on gnome, they must use GTK# and are therefore cross platform (to an extent, at least. No FreeBSD or Solaris support?). That was my mistake. I apologize.
However, despite Miguel being able to run MonoDevelop on his OS X box, I have not been able to get Wine-dependent mono applications to work under OS X. Maybe that will change in the future. I eagerly anticipate that day.
Right, I could use GTK# for complete cross platform development. In fact, I have Mono running on my OS X box with GTK#. But there are some pretty serious problems with using GTK#, for a person in my position.
First, my existing dotNet codebase, written under MS Visual Studio 2003, relies heavily on Windows.Forms (which is a substantial part of the class library, despite your cries of FUD). Thus, none of that is portable across platforms. I would have to re-write all of that interface code in GTK# to make that work across platforms.
Then, once I have a GTK# GUI codebase complete, do I continue to support two GUI codebases? Or do I install Cygwin / GTK# on all of my current Windows boxes to make them compatible with my GTK# GUI codebase? Something tells me my sys admin wouldn't be too happy about that particular install across our organization.
Finally, third party dotNet application developers will be far more likely to support Mono/X11/*nix if they don't have to re-implement in GTK# to do so. This is important to those of us who use existing third party dotNet applications.
To an existing dotNet developer (read: Visual Studio developer), X11 support for Windows.Forms is essential for realistic cross-platorm use. Until then, Mono is just a toy for me to play with.
Had Mono been on the scene 2 years ago when I started developing Windows.Forms applications, I might have considered GTK# for my front ends. It wasn't there. I'm not blaming them, nor am I angry at them, for not supporting Windows.Forms cross-platform. But the reality is that I NEED Windows.Forms to be cross platform before I can use my codebase in a multi-platform environment using Mono.
Taft
Re:What applications are there
on
Mono Beta 2 Released
·
· Score: 1, Informative
That should read:
"Mono apps for gnome on x86."
This is my major problem with Mono. They chose a development path which prevents a huge portion of their class library from working on non-x86 systems. Because they chose to lean on Wine libraries, I can't do anything useful with Mono in my primary development domain.
Any chance of X11 bindings in an upcoming release? I'd love to make my projects portable across platforms with Mono, but it just doesn't seem feasible right now.
That's because the 'check engine light' indicates an emissions problem, 99% of the time. Therefore if it is turned on, your emissions system is not performing to spec and you will not even be tested until the problem is resolved.
Nonsense.
Go read over the other comments in this thread. Or RTFA. The girl in the article went to the dealer over ten times for a "check engine" light. What was the problem every time? A loose gas cap. Does that sound like an emmissions problem to you?
Or this comment. Does a burned out headlight sound like an emissions problem to you?
I'm sure your 99% figure was just a convenient exaggeration to make your point, but it doesn't even come close to matching reality. Most "check engine" lights come on when ANY sensor in the engine indicates ANY sign of error. Unlike you, I won't pretend to know the amount of "check engine" errors that are actually emissions problems, but I can assure you it is no where near 100%.
I actually agree with the grandparent here. It seems that his original objection was in relying completely on science to the point of exclusion of artistry, not in the use of science as part of the art of cooking. His post (the grandparent to this post), is a good example of this.
There, he had sound scientific knowledge (milk + acid + heat = curdled milk) which he combined with artistry (use curdling to me advantage) to produce a "super buerre blanc." The perfect marriage of science and art.
I think the grandparent poster misunderstood Alton's use of science in his show and was reacting to the the story-posters comments.
I love Alton. But I love him for precisly the same reason you hate him: cooking is an art.
The concept you seem to be missing, maybe due to your existing knowledge as a chemist, is that knowing the processes behind why things curdle, are tasteless or fall is part of the art of cooking. Very few TV cooks tell you the "processes behind the meal," which are essential to understanding the art of cooking. Alton fills that gap.
I certainly agree with you that it takes much more than science to get that omlette to come out just right, etc. It requires much skill and practice, the right tools and knowledge of how to use them. But I don't think Alton would disagree with you, either.
Think about one of the examples you gave: curdling. If you knew the underlying cause of curdled milk, you can apply that knowledge to a wide variety of recipies, not just the one you were working on. Yet most TV chefs don't get to that level. Sure their recipe might show you how to avoid curdling throught a precise list of steps and procedures. But very few would tell you why those steps are necessary to prevent curdling. Alton does just that.
Cooking is an art with many scientific principles behind it. Any cook who dismisses the artistry of cooking will undoubtedly never be a great chef. Any cook who ignores completely the science behind cooking will likewise never advance in his artistry.
I will admit, however, that a great chef may not have the same type of scientific knowledge that Alton advances. It may be sufficient to know, for example, that acid + milk + heat = curdled milk. But I really don't see the harm in knowing what chemical reactions happen in such a scenario.
Hey, you don't want to get to that level? Emeril airs a half hour after Good Eats. He's a fountain of enlightenment if I've ever seen one.:rolleyes:
It is a very low ratings, low viewership channel that could not survive on it's own... they knew it when they sold to Comcast.
Bullroar. Absolute nonsense.
When did ZDTV come out? Let's see, it was probably 1998-1999, if I remember correctly. That's about 6 years on the air. During that time, they went from having very few advertisers, to having many (as some other posts here have actually lamented). They went from a few original programs to more than a few.
Basically, they could survive on their own. Sure, not the same way Comedy Central or TNT survives, but they had been around for quite some time and had been steadily improving the whole time. No telethons our pleading for cash necessary. They WERE surviving before this move, they just weren't a cash cow.
And why would ANYONE rejoice in Comcast picking this channel up to make it another cookie-cutter crappy cable TV network? Sure, it might become marginally more profitable, but we already have 150+ cable channels offering the same crap. YOU might not have liked TechTV, but it was unique. It was geeky, too, and that helped make it fun. What can we expect now instead of that "by geeks (even if you didn't like them), for geeks" feeling? Maybe all weekend movie marathons? Infomercials during non-peak hours? Stupid shitty gameshows? Maybe they can find a way to incorporate reality TV with a geek channel?
I had Comcast cable for over a year. They like to split channels. You know, Court TV from 3:00 AM to 5:00 PM, Comedy Central from 5:00 PM to 3:00 AM eveyday of the week. They show no signs of changing this fucking insanely stupid policy, even in the face of Direct TV which, *gasp*, allows you to get FULL TV channels 24 hours a day.
Somehow I don't hold high hopes of Comcast making this a channel I'd like to watch. Call me cynical, I guess...Or maybe I just learn from my bad choices in corporate content providers.
And I agree with the majority of what you said. I think we are focusing on different eras, though.
Back in the Apple II* vs. "IBM Compatible" days, there was almost NO compatibility between systems. This lack of compatibility extended well into the early Mac days. Fortunately, with each release of classic Mac OS, they got more and more compatible with widespread standards, culminating with the so-called "ultimate compatibility" of OS X (Unix and Mac OS meeting in harmony, etc. etc.).
But this early lack of compatibility really hurt Apple, especially in the business arena. You are right that business uptake of a system is no assurance of future company success. Look at NeXT, for instance. When they hit the scene, their uptake among banks was very promising, yet they ultimately tanked. However, that era, in hindsight, was key in shaping the computing landscape into what it is today. Widespread use of "IBM Compatibles" and the OS and business software that went with it (read: MS Windows and MS Office) would be among my top reasons Windows dominates today.
Don't get me wrong, I think Apple IS a success today. But the computing world might have been very different today had Apple dominated the business world instead of MS in the late 80's and early 90's.
And what if Apple had used x86 in the original Macs? What if they would have gone for MS Office (or wordperfect) compatibility early on. Those what-if's would result in some pretty interesting scenarios, if you ask me.
Right. Because a lack of compatibility, software and market share in business had nothing to do with Apple's decline.
Price is not the only reason Apple lost marketshare. In fact, it probably wasn't even the primary reason. Your comment is a gross simplification of computing history.
Also, I find it interesting that people still equate not being as successful as MS with being a failure. Apple had some rocky times in the past. But now, they are looking pretty good. This, despite their lack of 80%+ marketshare.
Complete world dominance is not the only metric of success.
The slashdot crowd does tend to be a little hyper-reactive, don't they?
If you re-read my post, you'll notice that my objects to Java GUIs has to do more with speed than portability. There are a few problems I've heard of in porting Java GUIs (to Mac OS X, for example), but on the whole, they are about as portable as QT and GTK.
You'll also notice that I didn't advocate avoiding GUIs or even Java GUIs. I suggested using QT or GTK as alternatives to a pure Java GUI in the case where speed is critical. In that scenario, you can implement all of your "work" in Java and put a pretty (and fast) front end on it with QT. This does have the downside of needing seperate binaries and compiles for different systems. But with the realities of dealing with Windows, *nix and Mac OS X install procedures, you'll probably end up needing seperate "binaries" anyway, if only for the installation.
I'm a big advocate of using the right tool for the job. Java isn't an end-all solution. But it does tend to fit a lot of my needs in a very stable and efficient way. I find that with the right combination of Java and other technologies, I'm as productive as I'll ever want to be and my products are darn good. I could say many of the same things for C# (which is my primary language of development for work).
I respect your opinion, but wholeheartedly disagree.
So long as you stay away from any native calls, Java code is VERY portable across JVMs (including across systems). GUIs do tend to have some problems, but I tend to avoid pure Java GUIs anyway, due to latency issues (which tend to rear their ugly heads more often in live trading scenarios). If I plan sufficiently, keeping my core infrastructure/business logic in pure Java, using JNI sparingly, and write all of my GUIs in QT/GTK, I have no problems with porting.
So why bother with Java at all? (I can picture you asking the question, so I may as well answer it.) Simple: I find it soooooo much easier to write good code in Java than C/C++. While I've heard some denounce Java's framework classes as a messy C++ superset, I disagree. It's easy to use, well documented (java.sun.com/j2se/1.4.2/docs/api/ may be all you ever need) and easy to refactor. Combine that with a kick-ass tool like IDEA (www.intellij.com) and you have my personal dream environment for development.
From my POV, so long as you keep GUI issues out of the equation, Java is as close to the perfect development environment I'm likely to get. I work in a setting where I can keep my business logic and infrastructure pretty well removed from the GUI level. This makes things easy for me. YMMV.
Many people prefer to not have to carry around CDs. MP3s are smaller than AIFF, but a CD still doesn't hold much, comparatively.
Hard drives the size of those used in the iPod and Dell's products are relatively expensive. Go look at prices out there. They make up a significant amount of the cost of an iPod.
People will pay a tad more for Apple products. You may not. Many may not. But there are more than enough customers to keep Apple going.
You are comparing apples to oranges here. A fifty dollar MP3 player, barring some crazy-low priced MS model, is a solid state, small (relatively) capacity player. Or a CD player, I guess. Very different creatures than the iPod.
Yesterday, Blagojevich dismissed out of hand a casino proposal the mayor of Chicago had proposed, threatening to veto any legislation the mayor was able to get passed. He did so in part because it would "prevents us from making the hard decisions that are necessary to continue to reform the system here in Springfield and get our fiscal house in order." Basically the message was, no quick fix until the budget comes under control. Read more about it here ("free" registration required).
Now today, we get his quick fix plan to tax custom software! And I'm sure we'd all agree this is much better than a casino in Chicago, right? Right??
But does publishing unverified conspiracy or corruption theories to the public really help catch the conspirators? Sure, you publish 50 baseless theories, one of them might turn out to be true. But did the fact that you published the theory really lead to the conspiracy being exposed? More likely, some enterprising law enforcement officer, investigative journalist, or concerned citizen will be responsible for the exposure of such conspiracies (eg. Watergate).
And that's really the problem with publishing baseless conspiracies: it's a crapshoot. For every one conspiracy theory you got right, you got 49 wrong. How can you trust a "news source" with such an abysmal record? And what goal does the mass publication of rumors accomplish? It likely won't lead to any more conspiracies uncovered, that's for sure.
Also, just because a conspiracy theorist isn't insane, doesn't make him honest. Like the guy who gets all the press for playing up the "fake moon landing" and "face on mars" theories (can't find a link right now:( ). His livelyhood largely revolves around people believing his theories are plausible. Any self-respecting scientist would immediately dismiss his "evidence," yet he incredibly receives a lot of press. What purpose does this guy's "work" serve other than to spread information for his own benefit?
Isn't this more of the pseudo-science tripe that the original article was referring to?
I mean, I see where you are going with it, and the theory is an interesting one, but does it have any factual basis? Where did those "persistant rumors" originate from? Who is running the "education program"? A special secret department in the government? What event or "truth" would the government be preparing us for? Who has access to that information? The president? Wouldn't there have been leaks by now?
To me, this post is exactly why people don't find science interesting any more. The lines between fantasy and reality have been blurred so much that pure reality pieces just seem boring. So rather than publish just reality, why not spice it up with some baseless conspiracy theory?
I think the underlying problem is a lack of diversified sources for information. People overwhelmingly go to the major networks for their news and entertainment. The major networks realize that news doesn't sell as well as news+entertainment. The public, therefore, overwhelmingly gets news + entertainment, which they mistake for news.
And I will stay the hell away from any employer with that attitude. Why do you want the programmer who will be hooking up that webserver to that database to know math well and to be a good problem solver?
-Because that person might be writing your SQL queries too.
-Because elegant and reusable code usually comes from the minds of people interested in solving problems.
-Because that person might be able to understand the problem domain better than some I-don't-give-a-shit-about-anything-other-than-code programmer.
-Because that person might work in other areas of development eventually. Did you hire the person for ONLY their database-to-webserver knowledge? Was that shortsighted? Maybe you'd rather have a well-rounded and generally smart person to solve those new problems.
We have a very rigorous hiring program at the firm I work for. We look for intelligent people with a wide base of skills who we think can easily adapt to new problems and environments. We DON'T look for specific knowledge in anything but our most senior positions. We have had wild success in finding very talented people because we are not looking for a person with skill A. How long will skill A be relevant for anyway? Will the person with skill A be able to do good work if we try to teach him skill B later? That seems pretty important to me.
So the question is really: what are the most valuable qualities that a new hire can have? If your firm thinks that 3+ years of java experience is the most important quality a new hire can have, then I really don't want to work for them. I have over 3 years of java experience, but I in no way consider that my most valuable quality as an employee.
I know you weren't talking about minorities. But you also seem to be missing my point.
I'm not talking about "white collar crime." I'm talking about white, middle class people using drugs. Lots of them do. In fact, just as many middle class white folk use drugs as poor folk and black folk. That is indisputable.
It is also indisputable that middle-class folk who use drugs don't usually get arrested/imprisoned for it while, at the same time, many poor folk do. Our system of law (US law) treats two people, who are breaking the exact same law, differently.
But I really disagree with your last paragraph. Why, exactly, are drugs illegal? To make the children safer? Studies have shown that legallizing drugs might actually lead to decreased usage and a safer supply of drugs. There is little evidence which shows that decreased regulation of drugs leads to greater rates of abuse. Again, read all about it for yourself here and here.
This isn't wishy-washy. These are real studies, often commissioned by governments, which indicate that relaxed regulation and open dialog on drug use might actually be a better way to combat drug use than cracking down with police and prison time. Drugs are illegal for very bad reasons. They are illegal because people assume a police crackdown automatically leads to less drug usage.
You should shed a tear because they aren't doing anything differently than their white counterparts. All statistics indicate that white consume as much, or more, drugs than minorities. Surprisingly, or maybe not so surprisingly, even though less minorities use drugs, they are incarcerated for it at a far higher rate.
I agree that anyone who uses drugs instead of providing for their families or themselves shouldn't get much simpathy. But at the same time, they aren't doing anything that the rest of America isn't doing. And, being poor, they statistically have a far higher rate of mental and emotional problems than their well-to-do counterparts. Ever hear of coping?
But I think the real tragedy is that the poor get treated differently by our system of law. That is the real injustice. The fact that poor/minorities are incarcerated at a higher rate than their well-to-do counterparts and use the same amount of drugs indicates an inequality in enforcement/prosecution of drug criminals. What happened to justice being blind?
Hey, doesn't this sounds familiar? I seem to remember reading about these people who were buying a product for their personal use in the privacy of their homes. It seems that the government didn't like this product and in an effort to "protect the children," they began arresting its users.
Who were they? Marijuana users.
Seriously, this has been tried before (and undoubtedly will be tried again), but it doesn't work. We have decades of data which indicate that the war on drugs hasn't worked. All its been successful in doing is putting a lot of people (mostly minorities and the poor) in jail. Drug use rates among teens or the population in general have not gone down.
So now, after learning all that we have from the war on drugs, we are supposed to enact more laws limiting freedoms so we can have the mistaken impression that we are acting proactively against a problem and this action is making things better? No thank you.
Just like the war on drugs, making spam purchases illegal will simply result in more people in jail. Except that, in this case, it is more likely to be men with small penises than a minority.
Yes, but you are missing the point of the parent poster.
The point is: right now Java is available on Linux. And not just available, but officially supported by Java's manufacturer, Sun. Right now, full.NET support (yes, the framework is important, too) is still a long ways away for most Unix platforms, including Linux.
You do bring up valid points, in that Java does have minor compatibility problems across platforms and that Sun ownz Java the same way MS ownz.NET. But what is better: *slight* incompatibilities, or a massively incomplete system? And do you really think that Mono is going to be 100% compatible with MS.NET efforts when Mono hits 1.0? Not bloody likely. They will have the same compatibility problems Java has. Meaning, there will be *slight* differences across CLR/Framework implementations.
I actively program in.NET (C# specifically) at work and I know how good it is: about as good as Java, for the majority of jobs. But I also run Mac OS X at home and know how good Mono runs on that platform: like shit. I'm not complaining. I'm just saying that if you have serious work you want to get done, you might consider going with the technology that has been around the block and that is fully supported by a wide array of OS and hardware vendors: Java. If you choose.NET you have to face the reality that on any platform other than Windows,.NET isn't going to be smooth sailing and fully functional. At least, not yet.
I have mixed feelings about projects such as Mono. On one hand, it is very easy to think that Mono is simply supporting the tactics of Microsoft and will help them gain/maintain marketshare by promoting their.NET technologies. On the other, it'd be really cool to take my work (C# code) home and compile it on my Mac OS X boxen.
For my own products, though, if I'm really concerned about cross-platform development with a "write once, run anywhere" philosophy, I think Java is the only way to go. In the future, that may change (for better or for worse).
Coward, eh? Why is that? Care to backup your namecalling?
Anyhow, you still have given no evidence that RealNetworks (the company) supports Air America. You have shown that RealNetworks Chairman Rob Glaser is an investor in Air America, but that's all private money. It does not show that RealNetworks is aligned politically with Air America.
In fact, given the historical lobbying efforts of most major corporations, RealNetworks would never chain themselves to a single political party. They, just like all the other big players, are paying out to anyone and everyone that will help make their corporate interests a reality.
And lets pretend you had proof that RealNetworks (the company) DID invest in Air America. Do you know for a fact that they don't also invest in conservative radio? Couldn't that investment be a tactic to expand the usage of Real formats in cyberspace? Also, your "prominent Democrat" link proves nothing. Who was Maria Cantwell running against in that election? A historical Microsoft supporter. Her running might be motivated by her interests in Real as much as by her political tendencies.
Your theories are conjecture, that is all. It might be right, but it is just as likely that you are wrong. Your "good authority" should have little meaning here as you can prove nothing.
Taft (Despite your best efforts to equate me with the nasty Michael Sims. Yeah, I think so, too).
Hi "Seth." (What is his name in quotes? Click the link on his sig or view his journal.)
Just wondering if you can provide even a shred of evidence for your claim. I understand the issue of protecting sources, but I don't generally trust the claims of posters with a history of malicious behavior without backup.
BTW, does NPR pay for their Real streaming license? They are, after all, the radio equivilent of a liberal rag, so Ms. Help-Out-All-Fellow-Democrats must be funding them as well, no?
Slashdot Mirror
http://www.hybridcars.com/oil.html
It may not be a good source, but at least it isn't from anyone's hind regions.
Taft
Taft
I was wrong about the apps above. That was my mistake. Obviously, if they are Mono apps designed to run on gnome, they must use GTK# and are therefore cross platform (to an extent, at least. No FreeBSD or Solaris support?). That was my mistake. I apologize.
However, despite Miguel being able to run MonoDevelop on his OS X box, I have not been able to get Wine-dependent mono applications to work under OS X. Maybe that will change in the future. I eagerly anticipate that day.
Taft
First, my existing dotNet codebase, written under MS Visual Studio 2003, relies heavily on Windows.Forms (which is a substantial part of the class library, despite your cries of FUD). Thus, none of that is portable across platforms. I would have to re-write all of that interface code in GTK# to make that work across platforms.
Then, once I have a GTK# GUI codebase complete, do I continue to support two GUI codebases? Or do I install Cygwin / GTK# on all of my current Windows boxes to make them compatible with my GTK# GUI codebase? Something tells me my sys admin wouldn't be too happy about that particular install across our organization.
Finally, third party dotNet application developers will be far more likely to support Mono/X11/*nix if they don't have to re-implement in GTK# to do so. This is important to those of us who use existing third party dotNet applications.
To an existing dotNet developer (read: Visual Studio developer), X11 support for Windows.Forms is essential for realistic cross-platorm use. Until then, Mono is just a toy for me to play with.
Had Mono been on the scene 2 years ago when I started developing Windows.Forms applications, I might have considered GTK# for my front ends. It wasn't there. I'm not blaming them, nor am I angry at them, for not supporting Windows.Forms cross-platform. But the reality is that I NEED Windows.Forms to be cross platform before I can use my codebase in a multi-platform environment using Mono.
Taft
"Mono apps for gnome on x86."
This is my major problem with Mono. They chose a development path which prevents a huge portion of their class library from working on non-x86 systems. Because they chose to lean on Wine libraries, I can't do anything useful with Mono in my primary development domain.
Any chance of X11 bindings in an upcoming release? I'd love to make my projects portable across platforms with Mono, but it just doesn't seem feasible right now.
Taft
Nonsense.
Go read over the other comments in this thread. Or RTFA. The girl in the article went to the dealer over ten times for a "check engine" light. What was the problem every time? A loose gas cap. Does that sound like an emmissions problem to you?
Or this comment. Does a burned out headlight sound like an emissions problem to you?
I'm sure your 99% figure was just a convenient exaggeration to make your point, but it doesn't even come close to matching reality. Most "check engine" lights come on when ANY sensor in the engine indicates ANY sign of error. Unlike you, I won't pretend to know the amount of "check engine" errors that are actually emissions problems, but I can assure you it is no where near 100%.
I (mostly) agree with the grandparent.
Taft
There, he had sound scientific knowledge (milk + acid + heat = curdled milk) which he combined with artistry (use curdling to me advantage) to produce a "super buerre blanc." The perfect marriage of science and art.
I think the grandparent poster misunderstood Alton's use of science in his show and was reacting to the the story-posters comments.
Taft
The concept you seem to be missing, maybe due to your existing knowledge as a chemist, is that knowing the processes behind why things curdle, are tasteless or fall is part of the art of cooking. Very few TV cooks tell you the "processes behind the meal," which are essential to understanding the art of cooking. Alton fills that gap.
I certainly agree with you that it takes much more than science to get that omlette to come out just right, etc. It requires much skill and practice, the right tools and knowledge of how to use them. But I don't think Alton would disagree with you, either.
Think about one of the examples you gave: curdling. If you knew the underlying cause of curdled milk, you can apply that knowledge to a wide variety of recipies, not just the one you were working on. Yet most TV chefs don't get to that level. Sure their recipe might show you how to avoid curdling throught a precise list of steps and procedures. But very few would tell you why those steps are necessary to prevent curdling. Alton does just that.
Cooking is an art with many scientific principles behind it. Any cook who dismisses the artistry of cooking will undoubtedly never be a great chef. Any cook who ignores completely the science behind cooking will likewise never advance in his artistry.
I will admit, however, that a great chef may not have the same type of scientific knowledge that Alton advances. It may be sufficient to know, for example, that acid + milk + heat = curdled milk. But I really don't see the harm in knowing what chemical reactions happen in such a scenario.
Hey, you don't want to get to that level? Emeril airs a half hour after Good Eats. He's a fountain of enlightenment if I've ever seen one. :rolleyes:
Taft
Bullroar. Absolute nonsense.
When did ZDTV come out? Let's see, it was probably 1998-1999, if I remember correctly. That's about 6 years on the air. During that time, they went from having very few advertisers, to having many (as some other posts here have actually lamented). They went from a few original programs to more than a few.
Basically, they could survive on their own. Sure, not the same way Comedy Central or TNT survives, but they had been around for quite some time and had been steadily improving the whole time. No telethons our pleading for cash necessary. They WERE surviving before this move, they just weren't a cash cow.
And why would ANYONE rejoice in Comcast picking this channel up to make it another cookie-cutter crappy cable TV network? Sure, it might become marginally more profitable, but we already have 150+ cable channels offering the same crap. YOU might not have liked TechTV, but it was unique. It was geeky, too, and that helped make it fun. What can we expect now instead of that "by geeks (even if you didn't like them), for geeks" feeling? Maybe all weekend movie marathons? Infomercials during non-peak hours? Stupid shitty gameshows? Maybe they can find a way to incorporate reality TV with a geek channel?
I had Comcast cable for over a year. They like to split channels. You know, Court TV from 3:00 AM to 5:00 PM, Comedy Central from 5:00 PM to 3:00 AM eveyday of the week. They show no signs of changing this fucking insanely stupid policy, even in the face of Direct TV which, *gasp*, allows you to get FULL TV channels 24 hours a day.
Somehow I don't hold high hopes of Comcast making this a channel I'd like to watch. Call me cynical, I guess...Or maybe I just learn from my bad choices in corporate content providers.
Taft
Back in the Apple II* vs. "IBM Compatible" days, there was almost NO compatibility between systems. This lack of compatibility extended well into the early Mac days. Fortunately, with each release of classic Mac OS, they got more and more compatible with widespread standards, culminating with the so-called "ultimate compatibility" of OS X (Unix and Mac OS meeting in harmony, etc. etc.).
But this early lack of compatibility really hurt Apple, especially in the business arena. You are right that business uptake of a system is no assurance of future company success. Look at NeXT, for instance. When they hit the scene, their uptake among banks was very promising, yet they ultimately tanked. However, that era, in hindsight, was key in shaping the computing landscape into what it is today. Widespread use of "IBM Compatibles" and the OS and business software that went with it (read: MS Windows and MS Office) would be among my top reasons Windows dominates today.
Don't get me wrong, I think Apple IS a success today. But the computing world might have been very different today had Apple dominated the business world instead of MS in the late 80's and early 90's.
And what if Apple had used x86 in the original Macs? What if they would have gone for MS Office (or wordperfect) compatibility early on. Those what-if's would result in some pretty interesting scenarios, if you ask me.
Taft
Price is not the only reason Apple lost marketshare. In fact, it probably wasn't even the primary reason. Your comment is a gross simplification of computing history.
Also, I find it interesting that people still equate not being as successful as MS with being a failure. Apple had some rocky times in the past. But now, they are looking pretty good. This, despite their lack of 80%+ marketshare.
Complete world dominance is not the only metric of success.
Taft
If you re-read my post, you'll notice that my objects to Java GUIs has to do more with speed than portability. There are a few problems I've heard of in porting Java GUIs (to Mac OS X, for example), but on the whole, they are about as portable as QT and GTK.
You'll also notice that I didn't advocate avoiding GUIs or even Java GUIs. I suggested using QT or GTK as alternatives to a pure Java GUI in the case where speed is critical. In that scenario, you can implement all of your "work" in Java and put a pretty (and fast) front end on it with QT. This does have the downside of needing seperate binaries and compiles for different systems. But with the realities of dealing with Windows, *nix and Mac OS X install procedures, you'll probably end up needing seperate "binaries" anyway, if only for the installation.
I'm a big advocate of using the right tool for the job. Java isn't an end-all solution. But it does tend to fit a lot of my needs in a very stable and efficient way. I find that with the right combination of Java and other technologies, I'm as productive as I'll ever want to be and my products are darn good. I could say many of the same things for C# (which is my primary language of development for work).
Taft
While I've heard some denounce Java's framework classes as a messy C++ framework superset.
Templates, multiple inheritance, etc. are language features, not part of the framework.
Taft
So long as you stay away from any native calls, Java code is VERY portable across JVMs (including across systems). GUIs do tend to have some problems, but I tend to avoid pure Java GUIs anyway, due to latency issues (which tend to rear their ugly heads more often in live trading scenarios). If I plan sufficiently, keeping my core infrastructure/business logic in pure Java, using JNI sparingly, and write all of my GUIs in QT/GTK, I have no problems with porting.
So why bother with Java at all? (I can picture you asking the question, so I may as well answer it.) Simple: I find it soooooo much easier to write good code in Java than C/C++. While I've heard some denounce Java's framework classes as a messy C++ superset, I disagree. It's easy to use, well documented (java.sun.com/j2se/1.4.2/docs/api/ may be all you ever need) and easy to refactor. Combine that with a kick-ass tool like IDEA (www.intellij.com) and you have my personal dream environment for development.
From my POV, so long as you keep GUI issues out of the equation, Java is as close to the perfect development environment I'm likely to get. I work in a setting where I can keep my business logic and infrastructure pretty well removed from the GUI level. This makes things easy for me. YMMV.
Taft
Many people prefer to not have to carry around CDs. MP3s are smaller than AIFF, but a CD still doesn't hold much, comparatively.
Hard drives the size of those used in the iPod and Dell's products are relatively expensive. Go look at prices out there. They make up a significant amount of the cost of an iPod.
People will pay a tad more for Apple products. You may not. Many may not. But there are more than enough customers to keep Apple going.
You are comparing apples to oranges here. A fifty dollar MP3 player, barring some crazy-low priced MS model, is a solid state, small (relatively) capacity player. Or a CD player, I guess. Very different creatures than the iPod.
Taft
Now today, we get his quick fix plan to tax custom software! And I'm sure we'd all agree this is much better than a casino in Chicago, right? Right??
Bah! Me no like politicians.
Taft
But does publishing unverified conspiracy or corruption theories to the public really help catch the conspirators? Sure, you publish 50 baseless theories, one of them might turn out to be true. But did the fact that you published the theory really lead to the conspiracy being exposed? More likely, some enterprising law enforcement officer, investigative journalist, or concerned citizen will be responsible for the exposure of such conspiracies (eg. Watergate).
And that's really the problem with publishing baseless conspiracies: it's a crapshoot. For every one conspiracy theory you got right, you got 49 wrong. How can you trust a "news source" with such an abysmal record? And what goal does the mass publication of rumors accomplish? It likely won't lead to any more conspiracies uncovered, that's for sure.
Also, just because a conspiracy theorist isn't insane, doesn't make him honest. Like the guy who gets all the press for playing up the "fake moon landing" and "face on mars" theories (can't find a link right now :( ). His livelyhood largely revolves around people believing his theories are plausible. Any self-respecting scientist would immediately dismiss his "evidence," yet he incredibly receives a lot of press. What purpose does this guy's "work" serve other than to spread information for his own benefit?
Taft
I mean, I see where you are going with it, and the theory is an interesting one, but does it have any factual basis? Where did those "persistant rumors" originate from? Who is running the "education program"? A special secret department in the government? What event or "truth" would the government be preparing us for? Who has access to that information? The president? Wouldn't there have been leaks by now?
To me, this post is exactly why people don't find science interesting any more. The lines between fantasy and reality have been blurred so much that pure reality pieces just seem boring. So rather than publish just reality, why not spice it up with some baseless conspiracy theory?
I think the underlying problem is a lack of diversified sources for information. People overwhelmingly go to the major networks for their news and entertainment. The major networks realize that news doesn't sell as well as news+entertainment. The public, therefore, overwhelmingly gets news + entertainment, which they mistake for news.
Taft
-Because that person might be writing your SQL queries too.
-Because elegant and reusable code usually comes from the minds of people interested in solving problems.
-Because that person might be able to understand the problem domain better than some I-don't-give-a-shit-about-anything-other-than-code programmer.
-Because that person might work in other areas of development eventually. Did you hire the person for ONLY their database-to-webserver knowledge? Was that shortsighted? Maybe you'd rather have a well-rounded and generally smart person to solve those new problems.
We have a very rigorous hiring program at the firm I work for. We look for intelligent people with a wide base of skills who we think can easily adapt to new problems and environments. We DON'T look for specific knowledge in anything but our most senior positions. We have had wild success in finding very talented people because we are not looking for a person with skill A. How long will skill A be relevant for anyway? Will the person with skill A be able to do good work if we try to teach him skill B later? That seems pretty important to me.
So the question is really: what are the most valuable qualities that a new hire can have? If your firm thinks that 3+ years of java experience is the most important quality a new hire can have, then I really don't want to work for them. I have over 3 years of java experience, but I in no way consider that my most valuable quality as an employee.
Taft
I'm not talking about "white collar crime." I'm talking about white, middle class people using drugs. Lots of them do. In fact, just as many middle class white folk use drugs as poor folk and black folk. That is indisputable.
It is also indisputable that middle-class folk who use drugs don't usually get arrested/imprisoned for it while, at the same time, many poor folk do. Our system of law (US law) treats two people, who are breaking the exact same law, differently.
But I really disagree with your last paragraph. Why, exactly, are drugs illegal? To make the children safer? Studies have shown that legallizing drugs might actually lead to decreased usage and a safer supply of drugs. There is little evidence which shows that decreased regulation of drugs leads to greater rates of abuse. Again, read all about it for yourself here and here.
This isn't wishy-washy. These are real studies, often commissioned by governments, which indicate that relaxed regulation and open dialog on drug use might actually be a better way to combat drug use than cracking down with police and prison time. Drugs are illegal for very bad reasons. They are illegal because people assume a police crackdown automatically leads to less drug usage.
They couldn't be more wrong.
Taft
Read all the facts for yourself here.
I agree that anyone who uses drugs instead of providing for their families or themselves shouldn't get much simpathy. But at the same time, they aren't doing anything that the rest of America isn't doing. And, being poor, they statistically have a far higher rate of mental and emotional problems than their well-to-do counterparts. Ever hear of coping?
But I think the real tragedy is that the poor get treated differently by our system of law. That is the real injustice. The fact that poor/minorities are incarcerated at a higher rate than their well-to-do counterparts and use the same amount of drugs indicates an inequality in enforcement/prosecution of drug criminals. What happened to justice being blind?
Taft
Who were they? Marijuana users. Seriously, this has been tried before (and undoubtedly will be tried again), but it doesn't work. We have decades of data which indicate that the war on drugs hasn't worked. All its been successful in doing is putting a lot of people (mostly minorities and the poor) in jail. Drug use rates among teens or the population in general have not gone down.
So now, after learning all that we have from the war on drugs, we are supposed to enact more laws limiting freedoms so we can have the mistaken impression that we are acting proactively against a problem and this action is making things better? No thank you.
Just like the war on drugs, making spam purchases illegal will simply result in more people in jail. Except that, in this case, it is more likely to be men with small penises than a minority.
Taft
The point is: right now Java is available on Linux. And not just available, but officially supported by Java's manufacturer, Sun. Right now, full .NET support (yes, the framework is important, too) is still a long ways away for most Unix platforms, including Linux.
You do bring up valid points, in that Java does have minor compatibility problems across platforms and that Sun ownz Java the same way MS ownz .NET. But what is better: *slight* incompatibilities, or a massively incomplete system? And do you really think that Mono is going to be 100% compatible with MS .NET efforts when Mono hits 1.0? Not bloody likely. They will have the same compatibility problems Java has. Meaning, there will be *slight* differences across CLR/Framework implementations.
I actively program in .NET (C# specifically) at work and I know how good it is: about as good as Java, for the majority of jobs. But I also run Mac OS X at home and know how good Mono runs on that platform: like shit. I'm not complaining. I'm just saying that if you have serious work you want to get done, you might consider going with the technology that has been around the block and that is fully supported by a wide array of OS and hardware vendors: Java. If you choose .NET you have to face the reality that on any platform other than Windows, .NET isn't going to be smooth sailing and fully functional. At least, not yet.
I have mixed feelings about projects such as Mono. On one hand, it is very easy to think that Mono is simply supporting the tactics of Microsoft and will help them gain/maintain marketshare by promoting their .NET technologies. On the other, it'd be really cool to take my work (C# code) home and compile it on my Mac OS X boxen.
For my own products, though, if I'm really concerned about cross-platform development with a "write once, run anywhere" philosophy, I think Java is the only way to go. In the future, that may change (for better or for worse).
Taft
Anyhow, you still have given no evidence that RealNetworks (the company) supports Air America. You have shown that RealNetworks Chairman Rob Glaser is an investor in Air America, but that's all private money. It does not show that RealNetworks is aligned politically with Air America.
In fact, given the historical lobbying efforts of most major corporations, RealNetworks would never chain themselves to a single political party. They, just like all the other big players, are paying out to anyone and everyone that will help make their corporate interests a reality.
And lets pretend you had proof that RealNetworks (the company) DID invest in Air America. Do you know for a fact that they don't also invest in conservative radio? Couldn't that investment be a tactic to expand the usage of Real formats in cyberspace? Also, your "prominent Democrat" link proves nothing. Who was Maria Cantwell running against in that election? A historical Microsoft supporter. Her running might be motivated by her interests in Real as much as by her political tendencies.
Your theories are conjecture, that is all. It might be right, but it is just as likely that you are wrong. Your "good authority" should have little meaning here as you can prove nothing.
Taft
(Despite your best efforts to equate me with the nasty Michael Sims. Yeah, I think so, too).
Just wondering if you can provide even a shred of evidence for your claim. I understand the issue of protecting sources, but I don't generally trust the claims of posters with a history of malicious behavior without backup.
BTW, does NPR pay for their Real streaming license? They are, after all, the radio equivilent of a liberal rag, so Ms. Help-Out-All-Fellow-Democrats must be funding them as well, no?
Bleh.
Taft