Unfortunately, this won't help in the short term. Its going to be a very, very long time (if ever) before the only office users are office 2k3 users. There are still, after all, people out there using Office 97.
Me too. And I'm not particularly sure its even a valid comparison in this case. This is not a better technology coming out and destroying an obsolete industry.
So I don't really believe making constant comparisons to the textile machines driving cottage workers out of business are valid. Only if the results of the textile machines was offered for free, complete with plans for building more textile machines. And the textile machines were operated by cottage workers who did all this in their spare time (either while they were learning how to sew clothes or while they were making a living sewing clothes in the old style).
Look, I'm not saying that Open Source software is bad. It plainly isn't - Apache, perl, the list of incredibly useful open source packages goes on on on. And I'm definitely not saying Gates doesn't have a vested interest in Open Source software going down. But saying that Open Source software's widespread adoption isn't going to cause massive changes to the software industry, both positive and negative, is as disingenous as saying that proprietary software is always good (or is always bad).
You seem to be saying its a marketing ploy because its not an absolutely perfect solution, just one that's better than the solutions out there today.
By that logic, I declare the internet to be little more than a marketing ploy because it doesn't provide totally perfect, secure communications between two parties. Sometimes, a router can go down!
Well, the problem is that they need to solve the problem that the pipe can be spied upon and used by unauthorized third parties somehow. This seems like a good solution.
Yes, a listener who is authorized to be on the pipe can read any traffic going over the pipe. Unfortunately, that's a seperate problem. Trying to combine the two just leads to monolithic, difficult to use solutions.
This is a very scary rebuttal we now have from Kenneth Brown. As you go through, notice that Brown doesn't actually come out and say that Linus stole Minix code line-for-line. Instead his main argument seems to be that Linus stole the concepts of Minix and used them in his Linux.
Think for a minute about what Brown is really saying. I'm willing to presume that all the concepts used in minix are concepts that any third year computer science student would pick up from an Operating System Fundamentals course. I have an OS Fundamentals textbook sitting on by bookcase, from when I took that course.
Brown's argument seems to be that we can't draw on concepts from other pieces of code or from books. Its illeagal in his world, or immoral.
Think about what that means. Taken to the extreme, that means that any time you go to write code you cannot use a reference book. You cannot use any precompiled tools. Heck, I'm not even sure if you can develop using any sort of API in Brown-World. Every time, you have to start from complete scratch. Otherwise, you're irreversibly tainted from those sources.
I don't know about the rest of you, but this is not a world I want to live in.
This looks neat, but I'll need to know more about it before I can judge. At the minimum, I want the ability to substitute in new algorithms as old ones are broken and new ones are developed.
Just because they have three locations doesn't mean that they have an even number of people at each of those locations. Two of those sites could be solely for support and sales. Time zones are a bitch to handle for companies that deal across the nation, and being able to say that mid-working day for a customer's site in California is mid-working day for their service center in California is very handy.
Here's a good question, though. Is there any good reason why always-on internet connections such as Cable or DSL don't implement a firewall in the modem itself?
I have to disagree.
Does anyone else remember the days when the web was filled with personal websites? Or the days when people used to cry out against the vanishing of those websites?
Seriously - this is just a further extension of the concept of the personal website, which was an expression of what a lot of people felt the internet should be: a media that anyone could use to say anything.
Just because Google doesn't necessarily index those blogs correctly doesn't make them bad - it means Google is broken.
It would also be an absolute accounting nightmare for companies like Apple for another reason - multiple markets. While Apple may have at one point controlled 99% of the online music sales industry, they only control about 10-20% of the computer desktop industry. Which money gets taxed at which rate?
Now take that example and broaden it to something like GE, which has its fingers in hundreds of different pies.
Not to mention the question of who determines what a 'market' is. Is a derivation of a particular product line a new market?
John
Since the first thing I needed was an mp3 player, my first downloaded mp3 would be the 'Winamp. It really kicks the lama's ass' mp3 that comes with Winamp.:)
Slightly better than the method of paying at most restaurants: handing your credit car to a waiter/waitress getting paid less than minimum wage and letting them, away from your eyes, handle the transaction.
I'm not sure this is such a huge deal. What happened was back in March of 2002, Yahoo! created a whole new set of opt-out options with the intention of driving their marketing emails based off of those.
The bad was, however, that they defaulted everyone to receive emails from every category. A scandal broke, please see: http://slashdot.org/articles/02/03/29/1833235.shtm l?tid=111 for more details on that scandal.
Yahoo apparantly decided they weren't going to start sending mail based on those new preferences for a while. They've decided recently, though, that that policy is going to change.
So anyone who did reset their preferences back in 2002 is safe. I know when I went in, my preferences were just the way I had them.
That said, its still odd that they defaulted everyone to 'yes'. And that shopping from a Yahoo! merchant will get your mailing address onto that form.
Did anyone else notice Ellison didn't say software was dead? He said:
--
Ellison, known for his outspoken views, was downcast in January as he told Barrons weekly newspaper that high-tech's mind-boggling growth spurt is over -- never to return again.
"It's (Silicon Valley) not coming back... The industry's maturing. The Valley will never be what it was," Ellison said.
--
Essentially, it sounds to me like he's saying we're not going to get another bubble like we had in the 90s. Which seems kind of the prevailing opinion, at least I've not heard anyone said that we're ever goign to return to the growth we had in the 90s.
Actually, according to NPR, the first cellular call was made to a colleague in Bell Labs to inform him that they had finished their cell phone first.:)
I'm not sure that's indicative of a desire for better spam filtering, or a bunch of major consumer ISPs trying desperately to differentiate themselves from the other two in a way that doesn't cut their profit margins to the *bone*.
Which brings up an interesting question. If the article was in German, who translated it? Did this person have an axe to grind with Gates, and thus translate it to sound as harshly as they possibly could?
You said:Part of the problem is the FCC restricting the features of broadcast. Part of the problem is phone companies not wanting to invest in changing. Part of the problem is that people either don't know or don't care about what they could be getting for their money.
I'm the first to admit that I'm in that last group. I don't really like cellphones and when I am eventually forced to get one, I'll try to get the least whiz-bang model I can find because I don't care about all that extra jazz.
I'm saying:
It seems to me like those problems are related. If people were clammoring over the features that Japanese and European consumers are getting, then the phone companies would be putting in the money to change. Instead, most customers just seem to want to talk on their cell phones and not want the enhanced features.
There seems to be a major flaw in this argument. The failure of FedEx's fax network, it seems to me, happened because people were really willing to buy fax machines. Could the price of the fax machines have fallen far enough to make it worthwhile, faster than FedEx anticipated?
Either way, the phone companies certainly weren't crying when the fax machine started being widely used by businesses. It was yet another use for the huge networks they had created, and one that would be profitable for them.
Which is why I don't think VOIP or wireless networks are going to destroy the telecom firm. Why would it? To use these products, customers still need to connect all their nifty gadgets to an network connected to the internet. And the main broadband providers of internet access are the cable companies or the telecom firms.
No, I think its more likely that when people start to really play with their broadbad and use all that capacity you're going to see it cost more as the companies are forced to upgrade their networks. It could, very well, end up in the same kind of per-minute pricing scheme that we have with the phone systems.
Wow. It sounds like all that place needed to be like Star Trek was a large, heavy emergency door that closes just slow enough that the last person can roll out of the room just in time for the door to slam shut.
Quote from my copy of 'Edge of Victory 1: Conquest', on the copyright page:
'Sale of this book without a front cover may be unauthorized. If this book is coverless, it may have been reported to the publisher as "unsold or destroyed" and neither the author nor the publisher have received payment for it.'
How does that fit in?
Uhm. Not really. They're exercising their right to free speech to urge that people in turn exercise *their* right to free speech in protesting this. I didn't see anythingin the article about any sort of legal or government action, which would bring about a restriction in your rights.
Isn't this the way things are supposed to work?
Never mind. I used them through Yahoo! Stores. So not only did I give them money to ship me something, I somehow also gave them permission to spam my home mailbox and my phone? This sux.
Slashdot Mirror
Unfortunately, this won't help in the short term. Its going to be a very, very long time (if ever) before the only office users are office 2k3 users. There are still, after all, people out there using Office 97.
So I don't really believe making constant comparisons to the textile machines driving cottage workers out of business are valid. Only if the results of the textile machines was offered for free, complete with plans for building more textile machines. And the textile machines were operated by cottage workers who did all this in their spare time (either while they were learning how to sew clothes or while they were making a living sewing clothes in the old style).
Look, I'm not saying that Open Source software is bad. It plainly isn't - Apache, perl, the list of incredibly useful open source packages goes on on on. And I'm definitely not saying Gates doesn't have a vested interest in Open Source software going down. But saying that Open Source software's widespread adoption isn't going to cause massive changes to the software industry, both positive and negative, is as disingenous as saying that proprietary software is always good (or is always bad).
You seem to be saying its a marketing ploy because its not an absolutely perfect solution, just one that's better than the solutions out there today. By that logic, I declare the internet to be little more than a marketing ploy because it doesn't provide totally perfect, secure communications between two parties. Sometimes, a router can go down!
Well, the problem is that they need to solve the problem that the pipe can be spied upon and used by unauthorized third parties somehow. This seems like a good solution. Yes, a listener who is authorized to be on the pipe can read any traffic going over the pipe. Unfortunately, that's a seperate problem. Trying to combine the two just leads to monolithic, difficult to use solutions.
Think for a minute about what Brown is really saying. I'm willing to presume that all the concepts used in minix are concepts that any third year computer science student would pick up from an Operating System Fundamentals course. I have an OS Fundamentals textbook sitting on by bookcase, from when I took that course.
Brown's argument seems to be that we can't draw on concepts from other pieces of code or from books. Its illeagal in his world, or immoral.
Think about what that means. Taken to the extreme, that means that any time you go to write code you cannot use a reference book. You cannot use any precompiled tools. Heck, I'm not even sure if you can develop using any sort of API in Brown-World. Every time, you have to start from complete scratch. Otherwise, you're irreversibly tainted from those sources.
I don't know about the rest of you, but this is not a world I want to live in.
This looks neat, but I'll need to know more about it before I can judge. At the minimum, I want the ability to substitute in new algorithms as old ones are broken and new ones are developed.
Here's a good question, though. Is there any good reason why always-on internet connections such as Cable or DSL don't implement a firewall in the modem itself?
I have to disagree. Does anyone else remember the days when the web was filled with personal websites? Or the days when people used to cry out against the vanishing of those websites? Seriously - this is just a further extension of the concept of the personal website, which was an expression of what a lot of people felt the internet should be: a media that anyone could use to say anything. Just because Google doesn't necessarily index those blogs correctly doesn't make them bad - it means Google is broken.
It would also be an absolute accounting nightmare for companies like Apple for another reason - multiple markets. While Apple may have at one point controlled 99% of the online music sales industry, they only control about 10-20% of the computer desktop industry. Which money gets taxed at which rate? Now take that example and broaden it to something like GE, which has its fingers in hundreds of different pies. Not to mention the question of who determines what a 'market' is. Is a derivation of a particular product line a new market? John
Since the first thing I needed was an mp3 player, my first downloaded mp3 would be the 'Winamp. It really kicks the lama's ass' mp3 that comes with Winamp. :)
Slightly better than the method of paying at most restaurants: handing your credit car to a waiter/waitress getting paid less than minimum wage and letting them, away from your eyes, handle the transaction.
I'm not sure this is such a huge deal. What happened was back in March of 2002, Yahoo! created a whole new set of opt-out options with the intention of driving their marketing emails based off of those. The bad was, however, that they defaulted everyone to receive emails from every category. A scandal broke, please see: http://slashdot.org/articles/02/03/29/1833235.shtm l?tid=111 for more details on that scandal.
Yahoo apparantly decided they weren't going to start sending mail based on those new preferences for a while. They've decided recently, though, that that policy is going to change.
So anyone who did reset their preferences back in 2002 is safe. I know when I went in, my preferences were just the way I had them.
That said, its still odd that they defaulted everyone to 'yes'. And that shopping from a Yahoo! merchant will get your mailing address onto that form.
Really? That's weird, my mailbox tells me that SIZE DOES MATTER 100 times every morning. Or until I start crying because my mailbox hit quota again.
Did anyone else notice Ellison didn't say software was dead? He said: -- Ellison, known for his outspoken views, was downcast in January as he told Barrons weekly newspaper that high-tech's mind-boggling growth spurt is over -- never to return again. "It's (Silicon Valley) not coming back ... The industry's maturing. The Valley will never be what it was," Ellison said.
--
Essentially, it sounds to me like he's saying we're not going to get another bubble like we had in the 90s. Which seems kind of the prevailing opinion, at least I've not heard anyone said that we're ever goign to return to the growth we had in the 90s.
Actually, according to NPR, the first cellular call was made to a colleague in Bell Labs to inform him that they had finished their cell phone first. :)
I'm not sure that's indicative of a desire for better spam filtering, or a bunch of major consumer ISPs trying desperately to differentiate themselves from the other two in a way that doesn't cut their profit margins to the *bone*.
Which brings up an interesting question. If the article was in German, who translated it? Did this person have an axe to grind with Gates, and thus translate it to sound as harshly as they possibly could?
You said:Part of the problem is the FCC restricting the features of broadcast. Part of the problem is phone companies not wanting to invest in changing. Part of the problem is that people either don't know or don't care about what they could be getting for their money. I'm the first to admit that I'm in that last group. I don't really like cellphones and when I am eventually forced to get one, I'll try to get the least whiz-bang model I can find because I don't care about all that extra jazz. I'm saying: It seems to me like those problems are related. If people were clammoring over the features that Japanese and European consumers are getting, then the phone companies would be putting in the money to change. Instead, most customers just seem to want to talk on their cell phones and not want the enhanced features.
There seems to be a major flaw in this argument. The failure of FedEx's fax network, it seems to me, happened because people were really willing to buy fax machines. Could the price of the fax machines have fallen far enough to make it worthwhile, faster than FedEx anticipated? Either way, the phone companies certainly weren't crying when the fax machine started being widely used by businesses. It was yet another use for the huge networks they had created, and one that would be profitable for them. Which is why I don't think VOIP or wireless networks are going to destroy the telecom firm. Why would it? To use these products, customers still need to connect all their nifty gadgets to an network connected to the internet. And the main broadband providers of internet access are the cable companies or the telecom firms. No, I think its more likely that when people start to really play with their broadbad and use all that capacity you're going to see it cost more as the companies are forced to upgrade their networks. It could, very well, end up in the same kind of per-minute pricing scheme that we have with the phone systems.
Wow. It sounds like all that place needed to be like Star Trek was a large, heavy emergency door that closes just slow enough that the last person can roll out of the room just in time for the door to slam shut.
Quote from my copy of 'Edge of Victory 1: Conquest', on the copyright page: 'Sale of this book without a front cover may be unauthorized. If this book is coverless, it may have been reported to the publisher as "unsold or destroyed" and neither the author nor the publisher have received payment for it.' How does that fit in?
Uhm. Not really. They're exercising their right to free speech to urge that people in turn exercise *their* right to free speech in protesting this. I didn't see anythingin the article about any sort of legal or government action, which would bring about a restriction in your rights. Isn't this the way things are supposed to work?
Never mind. I used them through Yahoo! Stores. So not only did I give them money to ship me something, I somehow also gave them permission to spam my home mailbox and my phone? This sux.
Screw dat! I never gave Yahoo my new address or phone number and they somehow have it!