Too right. I have the utmost respect for the bartenders who serve me drinks at the bars I frequent, but even they would have to admit that pouring liquids into decanters is not rocket science. If I order a "bourbon and Coke," I am not paying you for your expertise at figuring out how to make it.
By and large, tending bar is a customer service profession. I'm not real likely to frequent any establishment that starts treating me like crap from the moment I walk in the door.
What this story suggests to me is that, for bartenders to take this kind of risk, Vancouver bar patrons must historically be pretty bad tippers to begin with.
Bruce, who was the owner of said car, immediately replied, "What my license number is is none of your business!", probably thinking the asker of the question a psycho stalker. The audience member then waved a driver's license in the air and Bruce was visibly surprised
Ummmm... I don't get it. Since when do they print your license plate number on your driver's license?
If you read the article, they aren't saying "Linux is a monopoly." They're saying that the state of Massachusetts would be in effect responsible for creating a monopoly, insofar as it would be restricted to a single "vendor."
This view is a little simplistic, of course -- obviously, lots and lots of people make free/open source software. But I do think it has some merit.
Suppose the gov't mandated open source software, then discovered that none of the open source database software available to them could meet the standards of their applications? Would it then fall upon the government to contract somebody to write the code that would bring PostgreSQL up to par with their existing Oracle installs?
Also, what if MS SQL Server is just the best tool for the job at hand? It's pretty darn fast. You may prefer another product yourself, but that doesn't mean there's anything really "wrong" with MS SQL. It's a totally viable contender. So why tell government organizations that they CAN NOT use it?
In fact, I'm extremely leery of the idea that the government should be allowed to single out a particular business/vendor and say "we will not consider this alternative," while considering all the others. If it's permitted to do that, what criteria should the company meet before it can be excluded? (Obligatory paranoid example: Suppose it was because the CEO was gay?)
The support issue is pretty relevant, too. This brings back the hoary old question, "Is Linux ready for the desktop?" And we're talking dollar values now. If it turns out that your average Joe Shmoe with a government job can't figure out AbiWord as easily as Microsoft Word, then what will be the cost of training those employees to use the new software?
What will be the cost to convert existing documents to file formats that the new software can support?
What will be the cost of supporting the new software, versus supporting the old? Shouldn't the people of Massachusetts be shown some figures before a decision is made?
Who's to say some support contractor won't come along and charge the government an arm and a leg for "advanced Unix experience," compared to what they'd pay to support Windows? I mean, it is the government, right? When did a contractor ever fleece the government?
I'm not trying to say that any of this proves that switching to open source is a bad idea for Massachusetts. But I do think that, if what this organization is saying is that the taxpayers should be asking questions and demanding answers, then I'd kinda tend to agree.
If you wan't to know what's hurting fortran you might try readin Dijkstra's "Goto Considered Harmful."
I don't know whether that's meant to be a criticism of Fortran as a language or merely the way in which it's used. I've never learned Fortran and therefore I've never read much Fortran code, so I can't say whether most Fortran programmers use too many Goto statements.
Still, if we're all supposed to regard Dijkstra's essay as gospel, then why have language designers continued to add Goto statements to languages since 1968? Even C has one.
So yes, I think Mr. Strickland represented his area well. He wanted to protect some jobs that some people have, regardless of the slight inconvenience of a few.
Agreed -- mostly. Seems like that last part should read "slight inconvenience of everybody," since I don't know anybody who's escaped telemarketing calls.
Still, before all of you who don't live in the 6th District of Ohio start bitching, why don't you do some research into Mr. Strickland's constituency. Quote:
Many of the district's counties, especially those along the Ohio River in old coal mining territory, suffer high unemployment. Among these is Scioto County, the 6th's most populous, which also contains Portsmouth, the district's largest city.
Yes, obviously closing a few call centers is not going to put everybody in Ohio out of work. But Mr. Strickland's constituents are clearly going to demand from him a strong stance against anything that could be perceived as costing jobs. Do you really think a steel worker is going to take it lying down if he believes his representative callously voted for a measure that would put hundreds of call center workers out of their jobs?
As a California resident, I say "well done" to Mr. Strickland, and a hearty "whew" that the bill passed by such a landslide anyway.
In fact, 100Hz TVs are becoming quite common in Europe, and I guess 120Hz TVs will also be available in the US.
It seems to me the trend is toward displays capable of progressive scan, which show the entire frame at once rather than splitting it into two screens' worth of fields. My DVD player can already output to my fancy TV in this way, and HDTV tuners can also.
Serious question here: Does anybody who ever installed Mac OS X really not have the BSD Subsystem? It seems like it's always been a part of the packaged default install -- you'd have to disable it on purpose to not get it. And why would you do that?
This description reminds me of Umberto Eco's "The Island of the Day Before".
Good call. Though normally a huge Eco fan, I found The Island of the Day Before to be rambling, directionless, and interminably dull. Reading this description of Quicksilver, I find myself expecting the same thing.
But then, I found that Cryptonomicon leaned in that direction, too.
P.S. Eco's Baudolino, on the other hand, was pretty entertaining. A great return to form.
Heh, heh... yup. Barring IrDA and PS2, replacing DVD-RW with DVD/CD-RW, and adding Sony Memory Stick(tm), the Fujitsu P5010 I just bought has all of the above, right out of the box.:-)
A great letter. However, if these messages are to percolate widely throughout the media, the general public, and (perhaps most importantly of all) the investment community, somebody in a position of authority/respect needs to come along and make these points using far fewer words. It's a simple fact of life that most of the people we want to reach with this message are not going to invest the time to read a dissertation of this length. Many will be automatically prejudiced against it, for fear that it will turn out to be an open source zealot's rant.
The well-reasoned thinking, the comprehensive argument, the lack of smug sarcasm all work in this letter's favor. But I just can't see your average C-level executive taking the time to read it.
This is one of the reasons why network security is so poor. Companies are loath to allow outside security experts anywhere near the place.
This is one of the reasons white hat hackers like Lamo do what they do.
Errr...yeah. And apparently, the other reason is to see their own names in print on Lexis-Nexis. Real noble.
Linux in an ammo case is clearly "embedded", much like american journalists.
Right. Just like the original poster said. An embedded system is a computer inside something that is not a computer -- just like an embedded journalist is a journalist inside something that is clearly not journalism.
Re:Lies, statistics, and analysts
on
Java vs .NET
·
· Score: 1
Analysts are nothing more than journalists whom other journalists call for information.
Heh. Too true. As a technology writer myself, every now and again an editor will say something to me like, "Hey, why don't you call up a couple analysts for some quotes, you know, to give us some background on this?"
My inevitable answer: "Why? That's my job."
It's sort of a holdover from traditional journalism style, though, that nobody's going to believe anything you say unless you can get somebody else to say it, then quote that person. It depends on which outlet I'm writing for, of course, but often it doesn't really seem to matter what my technical background is (it's considerable, compared to a lot of other writers in the field); if I just write down a bunch of things that I know to be true without quoting somebody else on it, then I'm the one who sounds like he's talking out of his arse.
My point, actually, is that Sandman is overrated. It's oh-kay. Nothing mind-boggling. I do actually like some of his earlier stuff better (Metallica trolls aside) -- Miracleman, for instance; but then, Alan Moore laid all the groundwork for that.
Come to think of it, I think most of Alan Moore's recent stuff, outside From Hell and maybe the League of Extraordinary Gentlemen, is pretty overrated.
P.S. And I suppose the fact that a writer's characters "often incarnate as goth types" is some kind of literary device? Jesus man, take off the Sailor Moon costume and get a life, fanboy.
He also goes on about how a re-usable spacecraft may not be the most cost efficient vehicle.
That's not how I read it. To me, it sounds like he's saying that any efforts by NASA to divert time/energy/know-how/budget into making things more re-usable as a way of cutting long term costs will only divert those resources from the effort to make the space program more safe. If we agree that, having had some really bad setbacks, safety is now the top priority, then it doesn't make sense to keep focusing on issues like re-usability. The exact quote:
"Any other requirements, like reusability to reduce costs, the ability to also carry cargo, or additional functions besides crew transport, would eat into the vehicle's safety margin."
Am I the only person on Earth who thinks that the whole Sandman series is woefully, outrageously overrated? I mean, it's just as silly as any superhero comic book that's ever hit the stands, but painfully, agonizingly pretentious.
...and there are many others. But Sandman? Why are we still harping on Sandman, all these years later? Have we not yet grown out of our moody, pretentious, "they're graphic novels, goddammit!" Goth phase?
Slashdot Mirror
Too right. I have the utmost respect for the bartenders who serve me drinks at the bars I frequent, but even they would have to admit that pouring liquids into decanters is not rocket science. If I order a "bourbon and Coke," I am not paying you for your expertise at figuring out how to make it.
By and large, tending bar is a customer service profession. I'm not real likely to frequent any establishment that starts treating me like crap from the moment I walk in the door.
What this story suggests to me is that, for bartenders to take this kind of risk, Vancouver bar patrons must historically be pretty bad tippers to begin with.
God, I'm such a nerd.
And, lest we forget, he was also the man behind Beastmaster.
Hey dude, if you're out there, at least I thought it was funny. Touche'!
Not necessarily; Vanuatu is basically just a tax haven.
If you read the article, they aren't saying "Linux is a monopoly." They're saying that the state of Massachusetts would be in effect responsible for creating a monopoly, insofar as it would be restricted to a single "vendor."
This view is a little simplistic, of course -- obviously, lots and lots of people make free/open source software. But I do think it has some merit.
Suppose the gov't mandated open source software, then discovered that none of the open source database software available to them could meet the standards of their applications? Would it then fall upon the government to contract somebody to write the code that would bring PostgreSQL up to par with their existing Oracle installs?
Also, what if MS SQL Server is just the best tool for the job at hand? It's pretty darn fast. You may prefer another product yourself, but that doesn't mean there's anything really "wrong" with MS SQL. It's a totally viable contender. So why tell government organizations that they CAN NOT use it?
In fact, I'm extremely leery of the idea that the government should be allowed to single out a particular business/vendor and say "we will not consider this alternative," while considering all the others. If it's permitted to do that, what criteria should the company meet before it can be excluded? (Obligatory paranoid example: Suppose it was because the CEO was gay?)
The support issue is pretty relevant, too. This brings back the hoary old question, "Is Linux ready for the desktop?" And we're talking dollar values now. If it turns out that your average Joe Shmoe with a government job can't figure out AbiWord as easily as Microsoft Word, then what will be the cost of training those employees to use the new software?
What will be the cost to convert existing documents to file formats that the new software can support?
What will be the cost of supporting the new software, versus supporting the old? Shouldn't the people of Massachusetts be shown some figures before a decision is made?
Who's to say some support contractor won't come along and charge the government an arm and a leg for "advanced Unix experience," compared to what they'd pay to support Windows? I mean, it is the government, right? When did a contractor ever fleece the government?
I'm not trying to say that any of this proves that switching to open source is a bad idea for Massachusetts. But I do think that, if what this organization is saying is that the taxpayers should be asking questions and demanding answers, then I'd kinda tend to agree.
Still, if we're all supposed to regard Dijkstra's essay as gospel, then why have language designers continued to add Goto statements to languages since 1968? Even C has one.
Still, before all of you who don't live in the 6th District of Ohio start bitching, why don't you do some research into Mr. Strickland's constituency. Quote:
Yes, obviously closing a few call centers is not going to put everybody in Ohio out of work. But Mr. Strickland's constituents are clearly going to demand from him a strong stance against anything that could be perceived as costing jobs. Do you really think a steel worker is going to take it lying down if he believes his representative callously voted for a measure that would put hundreds of call center workers out of their jobs?As a California resident, I say "well done" to Mr. Strickland, and a hearty "whew" that the bill passed by such a landslide anyway.
Serious question here: Does anybody who ever installed Mac OS X really not have the BSD Subsystem? It seems like it's always been a part of the packaged default install -- you'd have to disable it on purpose to not get it. And why would you do that?
But then, I found that Cryptonomicon leaned in that direction, too.
P.S. Eco's Baudolino, on the other hand, was pretty entertaining. A great return to form.
I'm on Earthlink DSL in San Francisco (nee Mindspring) and I'm still getting Verisign.
A great letter. However, if these messages are to percolate widely throughout the media, the general public, and (perhaps most importantly of all) the investment community, somebody in a position of authority/respect needs to come along and make these points using far fewer words. It's a simple fact of life that most of the people we want to reach with this message are not going to invest the time to read a dissertation of this length. Many will be automatically prejudiced against it, for fear that it will turn out to be an open source zealot's rant.
The well-reasoned thinking, the comprehensive argument, the lack of smug sarcasm all work in this letter's favor. But I just can't see your average C-level executive taking the time to read it.
Right. Just like the original poster said. An embedded system is a computer inside something that is not a computer -- just like an embedded journalist is a journalist inside something that is clearly not journalism.
My inevitable answer: "Why? That's my job."
It's sort of a holdover from traditional journalism style, though, that nobody's going to believe anything you say unless you can get somebody else to say it, then quote that person. It depends on which outlet I'm writing for, of course, but often it doesn't really seem to matter what my technical background is (it's considerable, compared to a lot of other writers in the field); if I just write down a bunch of things that I know to be true without quoting somebody else on it, then I'm the one who sounds like he's talking out of his arse.
My point, actually, is that Sandman is overrated. It's oh-kay. Nothing mind-boggling. I do actually like some of his earlier stuff better (Metallica trolls aside) -- Miracleman, for instance; but then, Alan Moore laid all the groundwork for that.
Come to think of it, I think most of Alan Moore's recent stuff, outside From Hell and maybe the League of Extraordinary Gentlemen, is pretty overrated.
P.S. And I suppose the fact that a writer's characters "often incarnate as goth types" is some kind of literary device? Jesus man, take off the Sailor Moon costume and get a life, fanboy.
Am I the only person on Earth who thinks that the whole Sandman series is woefully, outrageously overrated? I mean, it's just as silly as any superhero comic book that's ever hit the stands, but painfully, agonizingly pretentious.
Good comics: