With what you mention, I don't see how they are any less Democratic than the U.S. Our current government does whatever it wants and spends public funds to convince you that its what you wanted, or what you will want. But all policy is written by multinational governments and some local businesses and lobbys with enough pull. At least in the EU, they don't have external countries (other than the US), influencing the bills.
I'm hoping that IBM sues SCO for extortion. I don't want SCO to just go away--I want to see them punished. They damaged a whole market with baseless claims and caused companies to lose contracts because of fear of lawsuits. It is a total abuse of the courts and they should be an example. This sort of action is antithetical to progress in a capitalist society.
The corporate officers should see some jail and lose some golden parachutes in my opinion.
I don't have the link on me, but there was a recent report that the "Interim" Iraqi government made it illegal for Iraqi farmers to keep seeds. Not only are they going to be forced to only get GM crops from U.S. agribusinesses (the ones that donated to Bush, of course), but they are not even going to be allowed to replant.
I'm expecting this to happen to Afghanistan as well. They are thinking ahead to control of food and water in the third world, rather than just money. Iraq is important for its water supply as well as its oil.
3. Food raised with human waste. Cheaper isn't always better when you get Cholera. 4. You get to pretend you are helping out farming families, when 80% of the subsidies go to big corporations (read, pollitical donors) like Monsanto and ADM.
Everybody knows that Humans, can't effect the temperature of the planet? Haven't you heard from all the scientists who have said that global warming isn't happening? You know, the ones who use to work for the tobacco industry.
There are a lot of things that will become necessary or difficult without the internet. If it cost me $5 for everyone else to have access, I think it would be well worth it.
I am frustrated that people don't look more at the whole widget, the costs and benefits, before saying it is good or bad. The discussion I read at http://wifinetnews.com/archives/004765.html was well referenced and the points were researched. There is too much knee-jerking with; "that's anti-corporate or socialist" or "too profit oriented". There are both promise and pitfalls in a public WiFi.
But I think some people need to be educated that Capitalism does not work without government. Some think that competition immediatly leads to a meritocracy. It is a good system if checks and balances are in place. The most important being; "what helps the public good?"
In general, I think the government should always compete with business for basic services. Education and information are in societies best interest. It is cheaper to give someone a college education than to send them to jail. So forget arguements about whether people "deserve free internet". The arguement should be; "what is the cost of providing it, versus the cost of someone not having it?" I think the cost of not informing people in a Democracy is a tyranny--because people will not act in their own best interest when they don't know what it is.
We are spending more now for a government that does less in terms of social services and infrastructure. I like capitalism as much as the next guy, but I am not going to forget how dangerous unchecked greed can be. A government is the only organization capable of defending the average person from exploitation, pollution, and predatory business practices.
Some people seem to see every thing that might be beneficial as a public service as socialist. Not that there is anything wrong with socialism, other than that in these same people, it means that any intelligent discussion has just ended, and you are in for a long, boring discussion by someone who used cliff notes to get through history. But everyone forgets that the infrastructure that is created in the U.S. by government spending is the very same reason that our country is so productive. Here is a short list.
The government provides cheap and plentiful water. It used to provide sanitation, but now we spend a lot more for that. It provides electric power, but in places where the government doesn't do it or regulate it, it has become more expensive. Natural gas was about $35 a month 8 years ago, in my State, $45 is the price you pay for all the junk fees that are standard whether you use a drop or not. So natural gas costs about $160 per month for the average household. Did natural gas become 8x more expensive as a commodity? No. Wow, good thing the inefficient government isn't involved. The government provides roads. Sometimes there are sewage, street lights and other services. In some places, the government provides side walks and parks--those lucky places end up being called "communities". Sometimes the government provides mass transit which is less expensive and less polluting but provides some corporations less money. The government created the Internet, largely pushed by Al Gore by the way, but we are not allowed to recognize that (of course lies repeated have become the truth). The government subsidized the creation of the telephone service (of Course Ma Bell and local phone companies even today, keep leasing us the lines that we paid for as tax payers). The government licenses the airwaves (OK, the networks are coasting on our largess and aren't doing public service announcements or educating kids like they used to and the FCC has become a cancer, but they've released some military bands for WiFi--of course pushed by business but for once it was a good thing) The government protects health with the EPA (OK, now they work to protect polluters). The government protects food and drugs with the FDA (OK, under Bush that's going too). The government used to protect workers from exploitation with minimum wage, workers comp, and borders. Now people can work more than 12 hours a day and still not
I don't think that providing basic services to the poor necessarily means that a business model will dry up.
The government created public libraries. You can go and read books and magazines you might otherwise buy for free.
Obviously, people who can afford to, still read books (except people who watch Fox;-).
While I love the idea of cheap wireless I do not want the government controlling it. Unlike private corporations governments have incredible methods of ignoring laws and worse writing new ones that control access and content. They also are very good at pushing an agenda with such services.
A government service is not allowed to push an agenda, and if it does, then we might have a discussion about that. PBS and the Libraries have operated for years without enslaving anyone. The Interstate, while it may force you to drive out of your way is a large government installation without an agenda.
I see the same people being very negative about government programs that help people who are in the lower class. These same people were not upset when the government pushed a pro Christian agenda by giving subsidies to churches to take over government services like Welfare. Their is no consistent logic here. It's these same Astro-Turf campaigns that support the privatization of Social Security, or the privatization of electricity (which ripped off a lot of money from people in California). Government isn't necessarily evil unless we provide no oversight and allow it to become evil.
We have the government spending even more money so that electrical utilities can try to provide internet over power lines to areas that are not profitable for corporations to service. But since that is government largess to a company, there is no opposition to it in the media or from these Think Tanks. The WiFi service is cheaper (it depends on current, proven technology), better (it works), and has fewer side effects (note that the power line internet may kill off Ham radio).
Our office has OS/2 Warp still running the air conditioning system. That is pretty dependable.
I reinstall the OS on my Windows box and laptop about every 2 years.
The main issue with OS/2 is that the newer Word and Excel files couldn't open in the old Word and Excel, and that most vendors couldn't sell Windows preloaded if they also distributed OS/2. This bundling was the same issue brought up in a lawsuit that went nowhere years later.
Go back and research it... the issue was that vendors COULD NOT DISTRIBUTE OS/2, or they would be smashed by MS. Go back and see if Dell, Compaq or HP sold OS/2.
OK, I could be imaging a false past, but that's what I remember. So the original point about No Microsoft is the same thing that killed OS/2. Bundling.
OS2 and Amiga still have features that are ahead of things in use today. Of course, let's not even mention BeOS.
Operating Systems can be improved. NT was not the best and still isn't. And "Trusted Computing" which is really user hostile, will ensure that Windows will not be the best no matter how good the technology is.
Technology is not as much the issue as addressing what the user needs. BeOS was the most advanced operating system (so far, initially developed by Bell Labs), but it didn't address the market well enough. It also didn't penetrate the market enough to gain critical mind share. Pity. I still have version 3.5 on a CD i paid for and I have not installed it yet. What does that say?
OS/2 warp was "gimped" because Microsoft was its developer. It was a very stupid move by IBM to even allow MS on the premises. They should have just hired away the promising talent the way the smart companies do.
NT was developed with research that was paid for by IBM.
DEC, SGI, HP, Sun, and IBM would have course been more successful in their proprietary OSes, but none would have been as good at monopoly control. These companies are more developers than software pirates. Microsoft has been relentless in destroying rivals and marginalizing or stealing promising IP.
Linux would be in about the same position as now. OS2 would still be around. Apple would be gone, but all the developers would have ended up working at NeXT, which would have become the #2 operating system with a market share of 35%.
We would have full 3d computing environments and no "clippy". Networking wouldn't suck.
MSN was not created whole cloth by Microsoft. It also didn't achieve ubiquity on its own merits. It is pretty much installed by default and bundled on many new systems. There were also popular services like Hotmail that were bought out and used to capture market share.
Besides, since 90% use Windows, a Microsoft site would get the top ten whether it was good or not.
I think the best point is, that what makes Google so good is that it is an extension of their corporate values. They are doing research all the time to improve their product. Microsoft will immediately stop improving search after the competition is dead--or close to it.
So MS will bundle search.msn.com with searching on the computer with a pale immitation of Apple's spotlight. They already crap up their browser by taking you from mistyped URLs to some "close" URL of a corporate sponsor. More than likely, their integration will just confuse people. The temptation to misdirect the user is too philosophically strong at MS.
They could also "accidentally" disable URLs to *.google.com through their new spyware and virus protection.
They disabled the association of *.mov files with Quicktime with Windows Media and Explorer applications in the past, that's why when you run the quicktime player, it checks to see what associations are still active on the computer.
Microsoft could very easily make life difficult for Google. It just depends if they think they have enough politicos in their pocket to attempt it. In the US, they could get it written into a bill that pretends to reprimand them (just happened actually), but the EU is still a little more protective of their citizens.
MS will try and succeed on creating a compelling product, then bundle it in to Longhorn, then, when that fails, will try the underhanded technique of making Googling accidentally "difficult".
I agree with most of the negative comments about Linux gaming. It's pretty obvious that support and not having a "purchase" or protected game would be an issue. But network or subscription games are an option, and a developer could create a distribution OS for it. So the entire OS and application could be devoted to just the game and given away for free in hopes to capture revenue for peopel using the game server (which would implement the important aspects of the game like AI to which the free game would be useless without).
As an individual programmer, I am not going to be able to re-write Photoshop or Microsoft Word. Their compiled code is pretty secure, from all but a few companies with many resources themselves. The only threat is if companies don't innovate and just sit on a product. If anyone can do it better, then why should we stop them?
On the other hand, if a large company stole and algorithm or some code I had, then I would have to discover it, document it, then spend millions of $ I don't have to prove it and get the suit through an army of lawyers. And any big corporation could just destroy me in court at their leasure by just accusing me of stealing a patented piece of code and burying me in legal briefs. My company would be out of business before I proved myself innocent.
I think we all want to protect the little guy who had a great idea. But currently, we only protect the big guy who stole the great idea (not saying that all these companies are stealing IP but of course, I also don't exclude [cough] MicroSoft).
So I don't see what advantage patents for software have for anybody but companies that already have lots of money and resources.
If we keep on this path that we are going on, very few independent programmers will be able to earn a living, because they will spend all of their time researching to see if what they want to try to do is already forbidden by the 3 million Microsoft patents on how to use a mouse. Gone will be the days of someone just knocking off a nice key macro project and throwing it on Download.com for free just for the fun of it.
I think everyone likes money and wants to make a living. But I'm sick of this attitude that there is any connection between innovation and pay checks. People want to do great things for the sake of doing something great. Money is just a handy way to keep score. I'm not being a socialist by stating the obvious.
For example, the inventors of the radio, the tv and many other popular inventions all died poor.
The Hubble can scan frequencies that land-based systems can't. This makes it more vital, since it is one of the few. The reason Astro Physicists are upset over the hubble is that there is nothing right now that comes close on important segments of spectrum. Otherwise they wouldn't be so upset. I don't think there is any other telescope more coveted by researches than the Hubble.
So whatever advances we achieve in linking telescopes with computers, new number crunching to adapt to atmospheric defects and the like, you can't do good infra red and other spectrum from the ground (we'll, you can do UV in some places since we have nice big holes in the Ozone).
OMG, this post was so funny. This made my day. The terse, clipped language and acronym newspeak are brilliant--so IM. Like the first "Wazzup" commercials.
I'm wondering if you would consider rewriting a Shakespeare play in this format...
Sun readers are tards. Is this users of Solaris or readers of the Sun Times newspaper?
I think there are some economies of scale here, but the assembly is pure "Apple Custom". PC manufacturers may have a harder time doing something this nice and small.
I don't think Apple is getting any economies of scale with the hard drive. The IDE and SATA hard drives on all the macs these days are pretty standard. Apple using more or less 4200 rpms drives isn't going to cut costs. The use of the 4200 rpm laptop drive is to reduce heat and avoid fans. This makes the device smaller, cooler and less complicated.
Photoshop or video users are going to need/want an external firewire drive.
I think this is designed to make people "culpable" because they aren't able to say; "I didn't know".
SOMEONE MIGHT (should) just write a lot of bogus reports that it is spyware or send out versions with trojan horses. Then everyone will be afraid to use it. Thus preserving the "I didn't know what my MINOR CHILD was doing" defense that should hold up in court.;-)
Totally kidding. That would be WRONG. Like using the court system to ensure a company makes a profit and sending people to jail for fair use. Hmmm...
And really, how much are they going to get in music fees from a 10 year old?
The missing link could be created by some enterprising start-up. What is missing is an attachment to a cell phone, that would look at surrounding wifi connections and then see if you have access rights (a stored login) and if not, then it would dial the traditional cell phone. I don't think any of the traditional cell phone manufacturers would make this--they are too embedded with the communications providers. But you could adapt the "smarts" around the phone and intercept the receivers.
This would probably start as a geek hobby device that slash-dotters would use to void their warrantees.;-)
There is even more to freedom, but we don't often consider it; Can I run naked through a shopping center? Can I camp on the courthouse lawn? Can I figure out how to circumvent a security feature that is merely there to insure profits and share that information? Can I build my own amusement park or radio station on my lawn without a license? Can I do much of anything without a license? Can I drive a car without a safety belt, drive a motorcycle without a helmet, or drink alcohol? Can I use pot or some other drug that isn't all that unhealthy? Can I sell my prescription medicine to someone else? Can I sell my own ticket to the sports game to someone else for a profit? Can I choose not to pay taxes because the money is used for things I don't want? Can I sign up for the military and choose not to go? Can I trespass on private property? Can I attend a Bush meeting of any sort without being a supporter? Can I choose my own government without a privately owned and rigged election system? Can I get the truth about anything?
None of the previous actually hurts other people directly, but they are all proscribed. I'm not saying we shouldn't wear safety belts. The point is, that we are a nation with the opportunity for people to have privileges. Those privileges are usually restricted by money and the resources to attain them; like getting a radio broadcast license.
The list could go on. Let's just say; "Americans have the right to say many things out loud." Saying; "Americans are free" is just confusing.
The "Clinton Library" is not any sort of threat the the status quo. In the scheme of things, he's pretty much like Bush--except he's not a crook, stupid, and he actually cares about others.
Could you have a Pro-Bin Laden charity without being sent to a camp?
What if I thought Bin Laden was right... wouldn't I then become a terrorist? Because that's how the Patriot Act defines it. I don't have to do anything like build a bomb, I only have to support those who want to overthrow the government.
And how nervous am I to say even this?
>> In the future, an outlaw will be someon who doesn't dring the coolaide.
We have a higher percentage of citizens in prison.
We are now hearing a LOT about torture and depriving citizens of their rights.
We are developing Goolags around the world and in fact have already "disappeared" foreign nationals to a torture camp in Afghanistan. In Guantanamo, there are more than 1,200 people and only one conviction. Secrecy only helps the tyrants and we have a lot of secrecy right now.
The US has sponsored many tyrannical regimes around the world and sponsored death squads and the overthrow of Democratic governments (just look at Chili during Nixon and now what is happening to Venezuela). If you want to know more, read; "Confessions of a Corporate Hitman". If you can't find a few thousand reports around the globe of US involvement in these attoricities--then you really don't care to know.
So, the downside of our "cowboy macho" is that we don't have much to say to anyone anymore about human rights. I am not being a "blame America first" liberal on this. I've been a Dem, and Independant and a Republican. But the truth is that much of what the CIA does and the military, is for the benefit of corporations, and in many cases against the interests of the citizens.
I don't know the details about China, but I suspect that it is a simpler way of life, and that every stream isn't fenced and every action doesn't produce a lawsuit. And the oppression that occurred in Tianamin Square (sp?) was wrong and heavy handed. Our government wouldn't do that because, for the moment, it would be hard to get away with and it would cost a lot of air time on Fox News and Republican Radio to make people think that these patriots were terrorists. But don't believe that they couldn't, because you and I still don't know what happened with 9/11.
I used to see China in a more negative light. But they are actually opening up--they just can't let lose the flood gates with that many people in an agrarian society. China becoming like the US overnight would be a catastrophy--you couldn't support that many cars and roads and donut shops. They don't have the natural resources and the world doesn't have enough oil.
So I think in China, you trade one type of freedom; "expressing anything in public and buying everything you don't need" for another; "walking across somebody's lawn and not dealing with liability lawsuits".
The most salient point is that in China, the authorities wield absolute, arbitrary power over you. I totally agree that that is a major issue. But what I have always heard from NeoCons in the US is that we need to be tougher on crime. Civil liberties and rights to trial get in the way of law enforcement. Punish! And if we kill a few innocent people when we execute, so be it.
I would rather trade a higher crime rate than to have to live in a totalitarian state where somebody in power can just decide they don't like you. But secrecy and non-accountability allow for this oppression. And we now have the foundation laid for such tyranny in the United States of America.
So, I think China does sound like a good idea, because they are moving toward the Liberal ideals that made America great--while we have totally forgotten what actually worked in America. We are more cold-hearted, greedy and ignorant than we used to be.
The down-side is that Chinas fast-growing economy is going to be in trouble because they have not secured enough energy resources. And they will be short of fresh water. So it could get pretty tough there pretty soon, especially if their climate changes rapidly as well.
It is pretty sad when a statement like "free wi-fi costs company $12 Billion" is even a headline" Think about the logic for a second. It's like saying "free air breathers cost oxygen tank manufacturers".
The wireless companies may or may not be charging too much--I couldn't guess at what the overhead is to start up the network. But the real problem is that we have been taught a psychology that companies have any rights at all. If a company does not provide utility, then it should fail in the market. I've made this comment before about the music labels. Through PR and the courts they are trying to prevent obsolescence. If artists can get paid and music is free, then what exactly is wrong with that for the consumer? Will music get worse than it is now? Will concerts end? No, no and no. Companies have to provide a service. They can't say that citizens finding cheaper and better options is unlawful.
But, I suspect the company to push for legislation to solve the issue, rather than face an actual open marketplace.
Slashdot Mirror
With what you mention, I don't see how they are any less Democratic than the U.S. Our current government does whatever it wants and spends public funds to convince you that its what you wanted, or what you will want. But all policy is written by multinational governments and some local businesses and lobbys with enough pull. At least in the EU, they don't have external countries (other than the US), influencing the bills.
I'm hoping that IBM sues SCO for extortion. I don't want SCO to just go away--I want to see them punished. They damaged a whole market with baseless claims and caused companies to lose contracts because of fear of lawsuits. It is a total abuse of the courts and they should be an example. This sort of action is antithetical to progress in a capitalist society.
The corporate officers should see some jail and lose some golden parachutes in my opinion.
I don't have the link on me, but there was a recent report that the "Interim" Iraqi government made it illegal for Iraqi farmers to keep seeds. Not only are they going to be forced to only get GM crops from U.S. agribusinesses (the ones that donated to Bush, of course), but they are not even going to be allowed to replant.
I'm expecting this to happen to Afghanistan as well. They are thinking ahead to control of food and water in the third world, rather than just money. Iraq is important for its water supply as well as its oil.
1. Stability.
2. Security.
3. Food raised with human waste. Cheaper isn't always better when you get Cholera.
4. You get to pretend you are helping out farming families, when 80% of the subsidies go to big corporations (read, pollitical donors) like Monsanto and ADM.
Everybody knows that Humans, can't effect the temperature of the planet? Haven't you heard from all the scientists who have said that global warming isn't happening? You know, the ones who use to work for the tobacco industry.
You people just don't get the news...
Paying bills is much easier online.
There are a lot of things that will become necessary or difficult without the internet. If it cost me $5 for everyone else to have access, I think it would be well worth it.
I am frustrated that people don't look more at the whole widget, the costs and benefits, before saying it is good or bad. The discussion I read at http://wifinetnews.com/archives/004765.html was well referenced and the points were researched. There is too much knee-jerking with; "that's anti-corporate or socialist" or "too profit oriented". There are both promise and pitfalls in a public WiFi.
But I think some people need to be educated that Capitalism does not work without government. Some think that competition immediatly leads to a meritocracy. It is a good system if checks and balances are in place. The most important being; "what helps the public good?"
In general, I think the government should always compete with business for basic services. Education and information are in societies best interest. It is cheaper to give someone a college education than to send them to jail. So forget arguements about whether people "deserve free internet". The arguement should be; "what is the cost of providing it, versus the cost of someone not having it?" I think the cost of not informing people in a Democracy is a tyranny--because people will not act in their own best interest when they don't know what it is.
We are spending more now for a government that does less in terms of social services and infrastructure. I like capitalism as much as the next guy, but I am not going to forget how dangerous unchecked greed can be. A government is the only organization capable of defending the average person from exploitation, pollution, and predatory business practices.
Some people seem to see every thing that might be beneficial as a public service as socialist. Not that there is anything wrong with socialism, other than that in these same people, it means that any intelligent discussion has just ended, and you are in for a long, boring discussion by someone who used cliff notes to get through history. But everyone forgets that the infrastructure that is created in the U.S. by government spending is the very same reason that our country is so productive. Here is a short list.
The government provides cheap and plentiful water.
It used to provide sanitation, but now we spend a lot more for that.
It provides electric power, but in places where the government doesn't do it or regulate it, it has become more expensive.
Natural gas was about $35 a month 8 years ago, in my State, $45 is the price you pay for all the junk fees that are standard whether you use a drop or not. So natural gas costs about $160 per month for the average household. Did natural gas become 8x more expensive as a commodity? No. Wow, good thing the inefficient government isn't involved.
The government provides roads.
Sometimes there are sewage, street lights and other services.
In some places, the government provides side walks and parks--those lucky places end up being called "communities".
Sometimes the government provides mass transit which is less expensive and less polluting but provides some corporations less money.
The government created the Internet, largely pushed by Al Gore by the way, but we are not allowed to recognize that (of course lies repeated have become the truth).
The government subsidized the creation of the telephone service (of Course Ma Bell and local phone companies even today, keep leasing us the lines that we paid for as tax payers).
The government licenses the airwaves (OK, the networks are coasting on our largess and aren't doing public service announcements or educating kids like they used to and the FCC has become a cancer, but they've released some military bands for WiFi--of course pushed by business but for once it was a good thing)
The government protects health with the EPA (OK, now they work to protect polluters).
The government protects food and drugs with the FDA (OK, under Bush that's going too).
The government used to protect workers from exploitation with minimum wage, workers comp, and borders. Now people can work more than 12 hours a day and still not
I don't think that providing basic services to the poor necessarily means that a business model will dry up.
;-).
The government created public libraries. You can go and read books and magazines you might otherwise buy for free.
Obviously, people who can afford to, still read books (except people who watch Fox
While I love the idea of cheap wireless I do not want the government controlling it. Unlike private corporations governments have incredible methods of ignoring laws and worse writing new ones that control access and content. They also are very good at pushing an agenda with such services.
A government service is not allowed to push an agenda, and if it does, then we might have a discussion about that. PBS and the Libraries have operated for years without enslaving anyone. The Interstate, while it may force you to drive out of your way is a large government installation without an agenda.
I see the same people being very negative about government programs that help people who are in the lower class. These same people were not upset when the government pushed a pro Christian agenda by giving subsidies to churches to take over government services like Welfare. Their is no consistent logic here. It's these same Astro-Turf campaigns that support the privatization of Social Security, or the privatization of electricity (which ripped off a lot of money from people in California). Government isn't necessarily evil unless we provide no oversight and allow it to become evil.
We have the government spending even more money so that electrical utilities can try to provide internet over power lines to areas that are not profitable for corporations to service. But since that is government largess to a company, there is no opposition to it in the media or from these Think Tanks. The WiFi service is cheaper (it depends on current, proven technology), better (it works), and has fewer side effects (note that the power line internet may kill off Ham radio).
Our office has OS/2 Warp still running the air conditioning system. That is pretty dependable.
I reinstall the OS on my Windows box and laptop about every 2 years.
The main issue with OS/2 is that the newer Word and Excel files couldn't open in the old Word and Excel, and that most vendors couldn't sell Windows preloaded if they also distributed OS/2. This bundling was the same issue brought up in a lawsuit that went nowhere years later.
Go back and research it... the issue was that vendors COULD NOT DISTRIBUTE OS/2, or they would be smashed by MS. Go back and see if Dell, Compaq or HP sold OS/2.
OK, I could be imaging a false past, but that's what I remember. So the original point about No Microsoft is the same thing that killed OS/2. Bundling.
OS2 and Amiga still have features that are ahead of things in use today. Of course, let's not even mention BeOS.
Operating Systems can be improved. NT was not the best and still isn't. And "Trusted Computing" which is really user hostile, will ensure that Windows will not be the best no matter how good the technology is.
Technology is not as much the issue as addressing what the user needs. BeOS was the most advanced operating system (so far, initially developed by Bell Labs), but it didn't address the market well enough. It also didn't penetrate the market enough to gain critical mind share. Pity. I still have version 3.5 on a CD i paid for and I have not installed it yet. What does that say?
OS/2 warp was "gimped" because Microsoft was its developer. It was a very stupid move by IBM to even allow MS on the premises. They should have just hired away the promising talent the way the smart companies do.
NT was developed with research that was paid for by IBM.
DEC, SGI, HP, Sun, and IBM would have course been more successful in their proprietary OSes, but none would have been as good at monopoly control. These companies are more developers than software pirates. Microsoft has been relentless in destroying rivals and marginalizing or stealing promising IP.
Linux would be in about the same position as now. OS2 would still be around. Apple would be gone, but all the developers would have ended up working at NeXT, which would have become the #2 operating system with a market share of 35%.
We would have full 3d computing environments and no "clippy". Networking wouldn't suck.
MSN was not created whole cloth by Microsoft. It also didn't achieve ubiquity on its own merits. It is pretty much installed by default and bundled on many new systems. There were also popular services like Hotmail that were bought out and used to capture market share.
Besides, since 90% use Windows, a Microsoft site would get the top ten whether it was good or not.
I think the best point is, that what makes Google so good is that it is an extension of their corporate values. They are doing research all the time to improve their product. Microsoft will immediately stop improving search after the competition is dead--or close to it.
So MS will bundle search.msn.com with searching on the computer with a pale immitation of Apple's spotlight. They already crap up their browser by taking you from mistyped URLs to some "close" URL of a corporate sponsor. More than likely, their integration will just confuse people. The temptation to misdirect the user is too philosophically strong at MS.
They could also "accidentally" disable URLs to *.google.com through their new spyware and virus protection.
They disabled the association of *.mov files with Quicktime with Windows Media and Explorer applications in the past, that's why when you run the quicktime player, it checks to see what associations are still active on the computer.
Microsoft could very easily make life difficult for Google. It just depends if they think they have enough politicos in their pocket to attempt it. In the US, they could get it written into a bill that pretends to reprimand them (just happened actually), but the EU is still a little more protective of their citizens.
MS will try and succeed on creating a compelling product, then bundle it in to Longhorn, then, when that fails, will try the underhanded technique of making Googling accidentally "difficult".
We'll see.
I agree with most of the negative comments about Linux gaming. It's pretty obvious that support and not having a "purchase" or protected game would be an issue. But network or subscription games are an option, and a developer could create a distribution OS for it. So the entire OS and application could be devoted to just the game and given away for free in hopes to capture revenue for peopel using the game server (which would implement the important aspects of the game like AI to which the free game would be useless without).
What do you think?
As an individual programmer, I am not going to be able to re-write Photoshop or Microsoft Word. Their compiled code is pretty secure, from all but a few companies with many resources themselves. The only threat is if companies don't innovate and just sit on a product. If anyone can do it better, then why should we stop them?
On the other hand, if a large company stole and algorithm or some code I had, then I would have to discover it, document it, then spend millions of $ I don't have to prove it and get the suit through an army of lawyers. And any big corporation could just destroy me in court at their leasure by just accusing me of stealing a patented piece of code and burying me in legal briefs. My company would be out of business before I proved myself innocent.
I think we all want to protect the little guy who had a great idea. But currently, we only protect the big guy who stole the great idea (not saying that all these companies are stealing IP but of course, I also don't exclude [cough] MicroSoft).
So I don't see what advantage patents for software have for anybody but companies that already have lots of money and resources.
If we keep on this path that we are going on, very few independent programmers will be able to earn a living, because they will spend all of their time researching to see if what they want to try to do is already forbidden by the 3 million Microsoft patents on how to use a mouse. Gone will be the days of someone just knocking off a nice key macro project and throwing it on Download.com for free just for the fun of it.
I think everyone likes money and wants to make a living. But I'm sick of this attitude that there is any connection between innovation and pay checks. People want to do great things for the sake of doing something great. Money is just a handy way to keep score. I'm not being a socialist by stating the obvious.
For example, the inventors of the radio, the tv and many other popular inventions all died poor.
The Hubble can scan frequencies that land-based systems can't. This makes it more vital, since it is one of the few. The reason Astro Physicists are upset over the hubble is that there is nothing right now that comes close on important segments of spectrum. Otherwise they wouldn't be so upset. I don't think there is any other telescope more coveted by researches than the Hubble.
So whatever advances we achieve in linking telescopes with computers, new number crunching to adapt to atmospheric defects and the like, you can't do good infra red and other spectrum from the ground (we'll, you can do UV in some places since we have nice big holes in the Ozone).
OMG, this post was so funny. This made my day.
The terse, clipped language and acronym newspeak are brilliant--so IM. Like the first "Wazzup" commercials.
I'm wondering if you would consider rewriting a Shakespeare play in this format...
Sun readers are tards.
Is this users of Solaris or readers of the Sun Times newspaper?
I think there are some economies of scale here, but the assembly is pure "Apple Custom". PC manufacturers may have a harder time doing something this nice and small.
I don't think Apple is getting any economies of scale with the hard drive. The IDE and SATA hard drives on all the macs these days are pretty standard. Apple using more or less 4200 rpms drives isn't going to cut costs. The use of the 4200 rpm laptop drive is to reduce heat and avoid fans. This makes the device smaller, cooler and less complicated.
Photoshop or video users are going to need/want an external firewire drive.
I Am Not A Military Expert (IANAME), but I have heard that the hardest problem for troops in combat is knowing where they are and friend from foe.
So this may provide 90% of what someone needs in battle. Mainly it should be 100% reliable and rugged and very quick to use.
I think this is designed to make people "culpable" because they aren't able to say; "I didn't know".
;-)
SOMEONE MIGHT (should) just write a lot of bogus reports that it is spyware or send out versions with trojan horses. Then everyone will be afraid to use it. Thus preserving the "I didn't know what my MINOR CHILD was doing" defense that should hold up in court.
Totally kidding. That would be WRONG. Like using the court system to ensure a company makes a profit and sending people to jail for fair use. Hmmm...
And really, how much are they going to get in music fees from a 10 year old?
The missing link could be created by some enterprising start-up. What is missing is an attachment to a cell phone, that would look at surrounding wifi connections and then see if you have access rights (a stored login) and if not, then it would dial the traditional cell phone. I don't think any of the traditional cell phone manufacturers would make this--they are too embedded with the communications providers. But you could adapt the "smarts" around the phone and intercept the receivers.
;-)
This would probably start as a geek hobby device that slash-dotters would use to void their warrantees.
There is even more to freedom, but we don't often consider it;
Can I run naked through a shopping center?
Can I camp on the courthouse lawn?
Can I figure out how to circumvent a security feature that is merely there to insure profits and share that information?
Can I build my own amusement park or radio station on my lawn without a license?
Can I do much of anything without a license?
Can I drive a car without a safety belt, drive a motorcycle without a helmet, or drink alcohol?
Can I use pot or some other drug that isn't all that unhealthy?
Can I sell my prescription medicine to someone else?
Can I sell my own ticket to the sports game to someone else for a profit?
Can I choose not to pay taxes because the money is used for things I don't want?
Can I sign up for the military and choose not to go?
Can I trespass on private property?
Can I attend a Bush meeting of any sort without being a supporter?
Can I choose my own government without a privately owned and rigged election system?
Can I get the truth about anything?
None of the previous actually hurts other people directly, but they are all proscribed. I'm not saying we shouldn't wear safety belts. The point is, that we are a nation with the opportunity for people to have privileges. Those privileges are usually restricted by money and the resources to attain them; like getting a radio broadcast license.
The list could go on. Let's just say; "Americans have the right to say many things out loud." Saying; "Americans are free" is just confusing.
The "Clinton Library" is not any sort of threat the the status quo. In the scheme of things, he's pretty much like Bush--except he's not a crook, stupid, and he actually cares about others.
Could you have a Pro-Bin Laden charity without being sent to a camp?
What if I thought Bin Laden was right... wouldn't I then become a terrorist? Because that's how the Patriot Act defines it. I don't have to do anything like build a bomb, I only have to support those who want to overthrow the government.
And how nervous am I to say even this?
>> In the future, an outlaw will be someon who doesn't dring the coolaide.
We have a higher percentage of citizens in prison.
We are now hearing a LOT about torture and depriving citizens of their rights.
We are developing Goolags around the world and in fact have already "disappeared" foreign nationals to a torture camp in Afghanistan. In Guantanamo, there are more than 1,200 people and only one conviction. Secrecy only helps the tyrants and we have a lot of secrecy right now.
The US has sponsored many tyrannical regimes around the world and sponsored death squads and the overthrow of Democratic governments (just look at Chili during Nixon and now what is happening to Venezuela). If you want to know more, read; "Confessions of a Corporate Hitman". If you can't find a few thousand reports around the globe of US involvement in these attoricities--then you really don't care to know.
So, the downside of our "cowboy macho" is that we don't have much to say to anyone anymore about human rights. I am not being a "blame America first" liberal on this. I've been a Dem, and Independant and a Republican. But the truth is that much of what the CIA does and the military, is for the benefit of corporations, and in many cases against the interests of the citizens.
I don't know the details about China, but I suspect that it is a simpler way of life, and that every stream isn't fenced and every action doesn't produce a lawsuit. And the oppression that occurred in Tianamin Square (sp?) was wrong and heavy handed. Our government wouldn't do that because, for the moment, it would be hard to get away with and it would cost a lot of air time on Fox News and Republican Radio to make people think that these patriots were terrorists. But don't believe that they couldn't, because you and I still don't know what happened with 9/11.
I used to see China in a more negative light. But they are actually opening up--they just can't let lose the flood gates with that many people in an agrarian society. China becoming like the US overnight would be a catastrophy--you couldn't support that many cars and roads and donut shops. They don't have the natural resources and the world doesn't have enough oil.
So I think in China, you trade one type of freedom; "expressing anything in public and buying everything you don't need" for another; "walking across somebody's lawn and not dealing with liability lawsuits".
The most salient point is that in China, the authorities wield absolute, arbitrary power over you.
I totally agree that that is a major issue. But what I have always heard from NeoCons in the US is that we need to be tougher on crime. Civil liberties and rights to trial get in the way of law enforcement. Punish! And if we kill a few innocent people when we execute, so be it.
I would rather trade a higher crime rate than to have to live in a totalitarian state where somebody in power can just decide they don't like you. But secrecy and non-accountability allow for this oppression. And we now have the foundation laid for such tyranny in the United States of America.
So, I think China does sound like a good idea, because they are moving toward the Liberal ideals that made America great--while we have totally forgotten what actually worked in America. We are more cold-hearted, greedy and ignorant than we used to be.
The down-side is that Chinas fast-growing economy is going to be in trouble because they have not secured enough energy resources. And they will be short of fresh water. So it could get pretty tough there pretty soon, especially if their climate changes rapidly as well.
It is pretty sad when a statement like "free wi-fi costs company $12 Billion" is even a headline" Think about the logic for a second. It's like saying "free air breathers cost oxygen tank manufacturers".
The wireless companies may or may not be charging too much--I couldn't guess at what the overhead is to start up the network. But the real problem is that we have been taught a psychology that companies have any rights at all. If a company does not provide utility, then it should fail in the market. I've made this comment before about the music labels. Through PR and the courts they are trying to prevent obsolescence. If artists can get paid and music is free, then what exactly is wrong with that for the consumer? Will music get worse than it is now? Will concerts end? No, no and no. Companies have to provide a service. They can't say that citizens finding cheaper and better options is unlawful.
But, I suspect the company to push for legislation to solve the issue, rather than face an actual open marketplace.