>The studios have the right idea with the Marvel franchise - but it seems that Dollar Comics produces worse movies. I wonder why that is?
IF its done like DC can do comics then it should be pretty good.
IMHO, in the past 10 years, DC top comics better than Marvel top comics. Early JLA and Kingdom Come just two name 2 that are good. The Ultimates, from Marvel, is the only thing I can think of that reaches that level.
Ask an Indian worker if he thinks its evil or not.
>Why should a company's profit be at the expense of an individuals welfare?
Why is the individual's welfare so dependent on a nameless/faceless corporation? Whatever happened to a person's independence? On one hand, you want the government to stop bothering you with restrictive laws, on the other hand you want corporations to be responsible for your personal welfare.
>I'd say adventure is a good enough reason to get me my damn spaceship and lunar weekend retreat!
From http://www.nasawatch.com/policy.html "But only a tiny number of Earth's six billion inhabitants are direct participants. For the rest of us, the adventure is vicarious and akin to that of watching a science fiction movie. At the end of the day, I ask myself whether our huge national commitment of technical talent to human spaceflight and the ever present potential for the loss of precious human life are really justifiable."
So really, we are risking alot/spending alot of resources for entertainment? An exotic cottage?
Yes, we can learn things from space travel. But its HUMAN (frail and needy humans) space travel and compairing it to other alternatives (robotics) that the article is questioning.
>and I try pointing it at a MySQL server in "MS-SQL Compatibility" mode, how likely is it to work? I EXPECT that the answer is probably "only if it's using ODBC to connect", but in that case, has anyone tried it, and if so, does it turn out that it occasionally still doesn't work due to special quirks or capabilities provided by MS-SQL's ODBC driver that MySQL doesn't replicate?
You are asking something application specific, and it sounds like the compaitbilty mode isn't good enough.
From http://dev.mysql.com/tech-resources/articles/migra ting-from-microsoft.html "MySQL AB is constantly adding new features to MySQL, but there are always some features that SQL Server or Access will offer that are currently unavailable in MySQL. If you are using MySQL 4.0 you may find that a lack of prepared statements, stored procedures, subselects, and views affect the ease with which you can migrate an application to MySQL. This will of course depend on how extensively you have used such features in your application. In MySQL 4.1 we see the introduction of prepared statements and subselects. In MySQL 5.0 stored procedures and views have been introduced, although the stored procedure syntax will undoubtedly vary in some degree from Microsoft's T-SQL language."
And it goes on with other dramatic differences in the 5.0 release.
If you had a really, really simple program it could work, but in the end you have an unsupported system and no access to the code.
Do a search on Microsoft on Google's news search and the first article is about MS legal battle with the EU ("Date set for Microsoft's day in EU court").
Maybe both news engines are biased. (And before you go into "But its actual news!" so is the "why linux isn't ready for the desktop".) Or maybe its the poster who is biased?
> I'm not paying that sort of money... >an mp3 capable phone is something I'd be interested in
There are lots out there right now, and they might be cheaper if you are concerned about the money. So why would you buy a premium for something that you don't know if you want?
>It won't be an Apple branded product, it'll just carry a version of iTunes.
iTunes is an Apple brand. The entire "i-something" is a brand. iTunes is highly integrated with the iPod, something which is a big brand name for Apple. By putting out a bad, define bad anyway you want, iTunes product you are weakening Apple's image of producing quality products. Apple's repuation is what they have to lose.
>I'd be shocked if this phone cost more than a similar phone plus an iPod.
I would be too because its not a full iPod you are getting.
>Phones and PDAs have radically different screen size and input requirements.
Ok, a misunderstanding here.
Apple added to their iPod some PDA functionality but read only. Half an PDA. Why not go all the way and release a full blown PDA with their iPod? Is anyone happy that they can't jot down notes/phone numbers in their iPod but only read what you had on your computer? Apple added to a cell phone a small version of an iPod. Less than a full iPod. Why not go all the way?
Yes and then people will defend that design issue with arguments like;
"my grandmother understands it" "its simplier elegent UI" "a refreshing change for the masses and advanced users alike" "How intutive is right-clicking anyways?"
>Apple has nothing to lose from this, but a great deal to gain.
Not sure what they have to gain from this.
Half an iPod with an interface which I'm not sure how its going to work with a cell phone, doesn't sound like a strong product.
And they have alot to lose. Its called watering down a brand-name.
>There's people out there who don't know, or think they want an mp3 player
So why would they buy it with a cell phone? Why not go for this nicer/cheaper/better cell phone?
Apple should do the next step 100% with their iPod. No half PDA or half cellphone combos. Full working PDA/"Son of Newton" and a full blown iPod with a cellphone.
>"Froogles" was an attempt to make people think of "Google"
Froggles is plural. If it was an attempt then they would use the singular version, just as its Google (singular) and not Googles.
>Google didn't have a web shopping business before doesn't mean that it's ok to use a name potentially confusingly similar, without being related.
If that were true then you would be resorting to alot of non-words like Exxon. They have to be in non-related fields which don't cause confusion. Sort of like "Apple Computers" and "Apple Records".
>I'd search for, as an example, "Carrier central AC".
Home pages of major corporations is different from finding an unbiased review for purchasing decisions. This is what I was talking about. Try searching on; "Carrier central AC review" 4 out of the first 10 links would qualify, IMHO, as a review of an air conditioner.
All web searches have good top 10 result responses for years.
What would you consider a slow web search engine?
>more accurate
I am questioning that. It was good at the beginning of Google, but now its targetted by everyone to screw up the results. Look up any product name and review. 50% of the results have no review of the product but just people selling it.
>and has more robust features that the competitor's engines.
How is a web search engine "robust"? It doesn't crash?
>I would guess that the iPod was constantly ridiculed during development, and that there were numerous attempts (all driven by office politics, no doubt)
Read the problems with the iPod during development. For two months, with production lines ready, they had a 3 hour (off or on) mp3 player. That is a technical problem that you would be an idiot to ignore.
>Nothing will work.
Seriously, you need to look at what is happening in the world. There are lots of thing businesses are doing which are creative. Sometimes too creative that it gets close to illegal. Go to a product convention for any product category. Watch TV. Open up a mass-marketed science magazine. All sort of new products out there. There are too many new products out there that its hard to get people's attention to them.
>Try taking a new product to a bank for a loan to manufacture it.
Thats because a bank is a lender of last resort, you don't go to them for this stuff. They like conservative investments. Try a venture capitist or an 'angel investor'. Hell, they were throwing money around like nothing a few years ago and they will again in the future.
>No, instead of $56 billion, they will only have $24 billion (and dropping, the stock buy back will cost money too) after the dividend.
And then they will gain, in the normal course of business $15B (cash flow) or $26B (gross profit). And this is not including "cookie jar reserve" accounting that are known to they use.
Slashdot Mirror
>When people comment on the business practices of MS they're not indicting Gates as a man,
So what is with the "Gates in the Borg suit" for?
>what's stopping him from doing that?
Its security through obscurity and I'm not making a joke.
Very nice.
>The studios have the right idea with the Marvel franchise - but it seems that Dollar Comics produces worse movies. I wonder why that is?
IF its done like DC can do comics then it should be pretty good.
IMHO, in the past 10 years, DC top comics better than Marvel top comics. Early JLA and Kingdom Come just two name 2 that are good. The Ultimates, from Marvel, is the only thing I can think of that reaches that level.
>Out sourcing is an evil plain and simple.
Ask an Indian worker if he thinks its evil or not.
>Why should a company's profit be at the expense of an individuals welfare?
Why is the individual's welfare so dependent on a nameless/faceless corporation? Whatever happened to a person's independence? On one hand, you want the government to stop bothering you with restrictive laws, on the other hand you want corporations to be responsible for your personal welfare.
Interesting.
Too bad you haven't been modded up yet.
>I'd say adventure is a good enough reason to get me my damn spaceship and lunar weekend retreat!
From http://www.nasawatch.com/policy.html
"But only a tiny number of Earth's six billion inhabitants are direct participants. For the rest of us, the adventure is vicarious and akin to that of watching a science fiction movie. At the end of the day, I ask myself whether our huge national commitment of technical talent to human spaceflight and the ever present potential for the loss of precious human life are really justifiable."
So really, we are risking alot/spending alot of resources for entertainment? An exotic cottage?
Yes, we can learn things from space travel. But its HUMAN (frail and needy humans) space travel and compairing it to other alternatives (robotics) that the article is questioning.
>and I try pointing it at a MySQL server in "MS-SQL Compatibility" mode, how likely is it to work? I EXPECT that the answer is probably "only if it's using ODBC to connect", but in that case, has anyone tried it, and if so, does it turn out that it occasionally still doesn't work due to special quirks or capabilities provided by MS-SQL's ODBC driver that MySQL doesn't replicate?
a ting-from-microsoft.html
You are asking something application specific, and it sounds like the compaitbilty mode isn't good enough.
From http://dev.mysql.com/tech-resources/articles/migr
"MySQL AB is constantly adding new features to MySQL, but there are always some features that SQL Server or Access will offer that are currently unavailable in MySQL. If you are using MySQL 4.0 you may find that a lack of prepared statements, stored procedures, subselects, and views affect the ease with which you can migrate an application to MySQL. This will of course depend on how extensively you have used such features in your application. In MySQL 4.1 we see the introduction of prepared statements and subselects. In MySQL 5.0 stored procedures and views have been introduced, although the stored procedure syntax will undoubtedly vary in some degree from Microsoft's T-SQL language."
And it goes on with other dramatic differences in the 5.0 release.
If you had a really, really simple program it could work, but in the end you have an unsupported system and no access to the code.
>In many cases it might even be easier because of the lack of good hiring practices and oversite at small defense companies.
What hiring practices does Linux have?
Defense companies have to go through a certain amount of security and background checks to win a contract.
>I love biased news source.
Me too! Thats why I love slashdot!
Do a search on Microsoft on Google's news search and the first article is about MS legal battle with the EU ("Date set for Microsoft's day in EU court").
Maybe both news engines are biased. (And before you go into "But its actual news!" so is the "why linux isn't ready for the desktop".) Or maybe its the poster who is biased?
>Obviously sales via iTunes. Possibly increased iPod sales.
9 12 2621,00.htm
...
They don't make much off of iTunes. Its the iPod hardware they are making money off of, and they use iTunes to push it.
http://networks.silicon.com/mobile/0,39024665,3
> I'm not paying that sort of money
>an mp3 capable phone is something I'd be interested in
There are lots out there right now, and they might be cheaper if you are concerned about the money. So why would you buy a premium for something that you don't know if you want?
>It won't be an Apple branded product, it'll just carry a version of iTunes.
iTunes is an Apple brand. The entire "i-something" is a brand. iTunes is highly integrated with the iPod, something which is a big brand name for Apple.
By putting out a bad, define bad anyway you want, iTunes product you are weakening Apple's image of producing quality products. Apple's repuation is what they have to lose.
>I'd be shocked if this phone cost more than a similar phone plus an iPod.
I would be too because its not a full iPod you are getting.
>Phones and PDAs have radically different screen size and input requirements.
Ok, a misunderstanding here.
Apple added to their iPod some PDA functionality but read only. Half an PDA. Why not go all the way and release a full blown PDA with their iPod? Is anyone happy that they can't jot down notes/phone numbers in their iPod but only read what you had on your computer?
Apple added to a cell phone a small version of an iPod. Less than a full iPod. Why not go all the way?
>In a years time, this phone will be a success
Or in a years time, people will be saying how it was "ahead of its time" or "discontinued but still better than 99% of comparible product out there".
And so the cycle begins.
Yes and then people will defend that design issue with arguments like;
"my grandmother understands it"
"its simplier elegent UI"
"a refreshing change for the masses and advanced users alike"
"How intutive is right-clicking anyways?"
Whoops, scratch that last one.
>Apple has nothing to lose from this, but a great deal to gain.
Not sure what they have to gain from this.
Half an iPod with an interface which I'm not sure how its going to work with a cell phone, doesn't sound like a strong product.
And they have alot to lose. Its called watering down a brand-name.
>There's people out there who don't know, or think they want an mp3 player
So why would they buy it with a cell phone? Why not go for this nicer/cheaper/better cell phone?
Apple should do the next step 100% with their iPod. No half PDA or half cellphone combos. Full working PDA/"Son of Newton" and a full blown iPod with a cellphone.
>"Froogles" was an attempt to make people think of "Google"
Froggles is plural. If it was an attempt then they would use the singular version, just as its Google (singular) and not Googles.
>Google didn't have a web shopping business before doesn't mean that it's ok to use a name potentially confusingly similar, without being related.
If that were true then you would be resorting to alot of non-words like Exxon. They have to be in non-related fields which don't cause confusion. Sort of like "Apple Computers" and "Apple Records".
>Lycos is totally broken.
And Google is getting there.
>I'd search for, as an example, "Carrier central AC".
Home pages of major corporations is different from finding an unbiased review for purchasing decisions. This is what I was talking about.
Try searching on; "Carrier central AC review"
4 out of the first 10 links would qualify, IMHO, as a review of an air conditioner.
> Google audience is comparable to the Slashdot audience
Um... no?
http://www.google.com/press/zeitgeist.html
Top queries "martha stewart", "chad michael murray" and "british open". Does this sound like the Slashdot crowd?
Over 50% of the OS is MS Windows and IE 6 used more than all others combined.
>the mass media audience is the Fox Simple Life audience
The 2nd most popular blond image search was "paris hilton".
So what makes Google different from other media companies when their "eye-ball" base is this?
>Google's search engine is faster,
All web searches have good top 10 result responses for years.
What would you consider a slow web search engine?
>more accurate
I am questioning that. It was good at the beginning of Google, but now its targetted by everyone to screw up the results. Look up any product name and review. 50% of the results have no review of the product but just people selling it.
>and has more robust features that the competitor's engines.
How is a web search engine "robust"? It doesn't crash?
And how is this different from any media corporation (Magazines/TV/radio/newspapers)?
The search market engine really hasn't made impressive leaps.
1. Type in keywords
2. Get list of pages which are relevent.
Step 1 hasn't changed in a long time.
Step 2 is more like a battle against spam. How to avoid misleading (intentional or unintentional) pages.
What makes Google interesting is that it had really nice clean hits. Better than others. Now, due to popularity, its getting worse and worse.
Not much innovation recently.
>you absorb a lot less sunlight when upright since not as much surface area is perpendicular to the sun's rays
Thats what I recall hearing too. And the fact that in colder weather there is less surface area for your body's heat to rise and escape.
>Software patents?
>The digital broadcast flag is another
We are looking for laws that "explicitly ban free software for certain jobs". These restrict non-free software also.
You examples don't answer the question.
>I would guess that the iPod was constantly ridiculed during development, and that there were numerous attempts (all driven by office politics, no doubt)
Read the problems with the iPod during development. For two months, with production lines ready, they had a 3 hour (off or on) mp3 player. That is a technical problem that you would be an idiot to ignore.
>Nothing will work.
Seriously, you need to look at what is happening in the world. There are lots of thing businesses are doing which are creative. Sometimes too creative that it gets close to illegal. Go to a product convention for any product category. Watch TV. Open up a mass-marketed science magazine. All sort of new products out there. There are too many new products out there that its hard to get people's attention to them.
>Try taking a new product to a bank for a loan to manufacture it.
Thats because a bank is a lender of last resort, you don't go to them for this stuff. They like conservative investments. Try a venture capitist or an 'angel investor'. Hell, they were throwing money around like nothing a few years ago and they will again in the future.
>No, instead of $56 billion, they will only have $24 billion (and dropping, the stock buy back will cost money too) after the dividend.
And then they will gain, in the normal course of business $15B (cash flow) or $26B (gross profit). And this is not including "cookie jar reserve" accounting that are known to they use.