No, it's not about MS vs. Intel. The problem is you brought Intel into this discussion which *is* about innovation, and now appear to be blaming MS for Intel's lack of innovation. It is you who need to re-read the discussion at hand.
aej17 said: "That is not the point. It is obvious from any number of examples over the past two decades that MS, AS A CORPORATION, does not particularly care about either quality of their products or innovation in those products"
then man_of_mr_e said: "I think you'd have a hard time finding any major company that wasn't exactly as you describe"
Thereafter, you give Intel as a counterexample. And I claim Intel is no different than IBM, Sun, MS, etc. as previously mentioned in this thread. Clearly we are not talking about CEOs that are technically oriented but have business sense. What we are talking about, however, are executives that are innovation-oriented. Or, generally, a "techie." A person who has a passion/hobby/whatever for technology that blinds them from business issues.
If you still insist Intel is somehow different, consider this: Intel would only want to drop the x86 architecture since it is a headache for *them*. It is only getting more difficult to add more cruft to the platform and they would like to be free from dealing with it. They do not care about such silliness as innovation or whether people dislike it. They just care that people buy their product. And that they remain relevant. Innovation is not a requirement for them to remain relevant. They just need to evolve.
But I wouldn't consider Intel the pinnacle of innovation. Sure, they move forward. But that's just what Microsoft does. More evolution than revolution. People blame MS for poor software. Can't we blame Intel for that crap known as the x86 architecture?
I really don't see why you're letting Intel get away with murder while MS receives crucifixion.
And I believe the previous poster was referring to companies ran like Symbolics. An extremely innovative company, but ultimately doomed by their engineers. What good is innovation if it is half-complete, late, impractical, or entirely too expensive? That was the case for Symbolics. Most innovation dies before reaching the market the same way.
It's not really fair to blame it on engineers, but they tend to not have much business sense and they are in the business at hand so it's easy. It's really a matter of having perspective in management. Xerox obviously lacked it despite sitting on a goldmine at one time.
I know of an adult game for you. It has the most realistic sex scenes, the most realistic blood. Even the pain is real. It's the most complex game ever created with endless moves and possibilities. It features the most realistic 3D graphics you will ever see.
no, recursion is not "incredibly expensive." I don't know where you get that crap from. But that's not the point anyways...
The interviewer asked specifically about the algorithm *after the fact*. He did not say before hand how he wanted it implemented. The interviewer was testing him by playing a game. Whatever the original poster wrote on the board would have not been good enough or fit the "requirements."
You are arguing for the sake of it, and not actually reading what I wrote.
premature optimization is the root of evil, etc. etc. You could spend months optimizing a single function that gets called exactly once. There would be negligible difference between the "optimized" or "unoptimized."
The original poster should not have been faulted for that, as there are countless ways to optimize and he was never given that particular requirement ahead of time. If he did implement it using whatever algorithm the interviewer asked after the fact, then the interviewer would have just had another complaint. It's a game of working under pressure, dealing with changing requirements and management, etc.
As for your second point it makes no sense really.
I like how you simply shrug off any point-of-view that does not agree with yours. Keep it up. If you want to pay out the ass for a programmer to design and implement the software you want and then you give it away for free, be my guest. You can do this today, but I doubt you do it because you probably do not have enough money for R&D (the architect+programmer, which was my entire point). Either shut up, or put up...
If it is easy to make digital copies, the market value of a copy should be low. Simple as that. Ignoring this fact introduces a market distortion, which will rapidly be compensated by the market. If not the regular market, then the black market. Hence you will need to waste resources fighting the black market with force to enforce your view, in a war you will never win.
You are quite ignorant. We do this today. The concept is individual ownership. It is much easier to walk across the street, hop in my neighbor's car and drive off than drive five miles away to the dealership and spend all day purchasing a car. Countless resources are wasted in negotiation of property ownership and the securing of that ownership. You are arguing for a socialist system whether you realize it or not. You want state (or public) owned goods. Copyright and patents, et al. are good for providing incentive to produce. You want to know the "market response" when those virtual forms of property disappear? The products vanish completely. No more music, no more movies. No more vaccines. No more books. Or we could increase taxes and give out grants (some states already reimburse movie productions) and, what do you know, we have a socialist system!
Of course, your response will be that digital copies are different from actual physical goods, such as a car. Try this. Look outside in your neighborhood or down your street. Each time I do, there is a 100% chance another car will be sitting somewhere on the street. Never have I looked outside and not found a car. Digital copies, while nearly free, are not. They do take resources to recreate however small that may be. Cars are not sold at-cost of production. Other factors such as research and development are factored into the price.
Now you may say, "what if I take my neighbor's rare diamond, which there is only one in the world?" (in a world with public-owned property) I'll have to say that you will never have such a neighbor, because he or she will hoard such an item and never let anyone know about it. The same will happen with talent and knowledge in a world where copyright does not matter. No one wants to be taken advantage of. Talent and knowledge will be squandered.
The irony, you see, is that Linux and GCC would both not exist without Bell Labs.
You are seriously discounting research and development costs in your argument. Without R&D, there is no future software. Good ideas (ones that work) are the scarcity. The cost is distributed over all consumers. Not much software is "born complete" as you would say, but I have yet to see software that has evolved from nothing and been supported monetarily all the way. Sure, quite a few might pay to add new features and fix bugs that are in already completed software, but not too many people will pay for code that does absolutely nothing (alpha/beta/vapor).
I still think all software development should be a consulting business, like plumbers, electricians, or mechanics.
This analogy falls apart when you realize that programmers are also filling the role of architect. Plumbers, electricians, and mechanics already have the structure built to work with.
The cost of physically copying software, music, movies, etc. should never enter discussion of producing those items. For centuries we have relied on abstract concepts to provide and carry the concept of value, such as patents, copyright, trademarks, and even the concept of money itself. Just because it's convenient to make digital copies does not mean it's the best way to determine or relate value.
On a tangent, I feel obligated to point out a contradiction in capitalism. The idea of a free market and capitalism is that individuals can achieve greater reward than their effort. The underlying assumption is that there is an abundance of resources, all there for the taking. Yet, the concepts of economics are all based on the idea of scarcity. Take this however you wish...
Surely you do not take futurama and family guy literally, why fault animation from Japan for this same reason then?
This sounds arrogant upon hearing it (and I hate saying it because it's overused when discussing anime and manga), but maybe you really do not understand it?
I still do not understand everything about FLCL (fooly-cooly). That does not mean it is crap, however. You say you can't connect to certain characters. That is the same as saying you lack understanding.
That said, there is anime which is the Japan equivalent of Thundercats and Transformers. Dragonball Z, et al. You saw those and thought they were (rightly) for children, but you should not confuse those few shows with the entire spectrum of Japan animation.
Watch Texhnolyze, Noir, Cowboy Bebop, Gunslinger Girl, Lain Serial Experiments, Perfect Blue, and A Kite. It would be foolish to assume that animation has to have satire (futurama, family guy) to be taken seriously, as it seems to be almost a requirement for US animation. Watch those and you will see many adult themes and complex plots.
If you don't believe me, at the very least watch Cowboy Bebop episode 22. Keep in mind this is pre 9/11 and read between the lines about what is being said about fundamentalism, et al. (Do not confuse right/wrong with what is being said.. merely that it is an adult message and theme being expressed)
you didn't mention Texhnolyze, or maybe you haven't seen it. just as well, most kids probably shouldn't be watching Akira... but who knows best for the little kiddies is a matter of politics.
Not just file system. Access to every hardware device and complete system information. Access to the partition table, etc. etc. And the jab at Windows is moot.. I've already pointed that out.
It's not about trust, it's not about openssh, encryption or any technology. It's not about Linux being superior to XYZ. It's about the Golden Rule. Nothing more or less.
And if we must argue about the technical aspects of it... to play mp3s and run firefox as the OP desired, it would take hardware access to the sound card, the video card, and an input device. The video card the OP might be able to get standard VGA running. I seriously doubt he wanted to view the web in that resolution, however. My sound card no one is going to get running. I would have to sit down with the OP and actively help him load the Linux driver for it as well as configure ALSA for it.
And what if he completely kills a device? I've done it with Linux, so don't go there.
And accidents *do* happen. I remember once I completely erased/overwrote my drive using Cthuga. Yes, that innocent-looking VGAlib sound visualizer. I had ran the program countless times prior, but did one boneheaded move and that was the end of that Linux installation.
Nice.. so you're saying that no one could even boot Knoppix on your PC and that the entire point is lost on you.
I'm amazed at how many people do not grasp the simple concept of the Golden Rule.. treat others as you wish to be treated. Or maybe it's a reading comprehension problem. Obviously if you are so paranoid that others should not touch your PC, you probably shouldn't go messing with another person's PC or running a foreign OS on it.
It's not about what the distro installs or how safe you think XYZ distro is... it's about principle. Sure *you* might think you have self control, but you would never let someone touch your PC and run their own version of whatever OS *they* wanted. Yet you would gladly do the exact thing you don't want others doing to your PC.
I run Linux, but I definately would not want someone tossing in another Linux distro CD and running that. And what if someone tossed in a Windows CD and were to boot that? Yeah, there's one for the zealots...
How ironic. You complain about spyware on Windows, yet *you* load the biggest potential spyware by completely subverting all security.
You laugh because it's Windows. "What security?" Now imagine your roommate did that shit on your Linux PC. Then he proceeds to mount/dev/hda and mess with your file permissions. Or worse. He accidentally does cat whatever >/dev/hda or something. Yeah.. you're laughing now.
Just because you know Linux (and are likely a know-it-all geek) doesn't mean you know better than the owner of the PC. Another reason why I will never let another geek within 10 feet of my PC.
You're friends might not care, but to some people the "P" in PC still stands for "personal."
as others have said, you aren't getting bash (even if it is "there") and you definately are not installing squeak. and since you don't know, squeak is smalltalk. not scheme. why you don't know this is beyond me.
there is no 10MB limit since you can upgrade the flash RAM, but that's largely irrelevant unless you feel like paying twice as much for a phone. it's just another java phone, this time on top of linux. big deal.
the guys at id software were stephenson fans i think, and named the weapon after the "rail gun" in snow crash that fires depleted uranium ammo. The actual weapon in q3 is graphically modelled as a beam weapon, though. you can even turn on a spiral particle effect and the sound effect is more of a laser cannon type thing (like a few of half-life's weapons)...
Nonsense. There were far fewer trolls before Slashdot even had user registration. Then/. turned hostile towards the users... calling them anonymous "cowards" and removing entire threads (sometimes trolls, many times not). And let's get serious here... FortKnox? That's not exactly a person. You're still anonymous as just about everyone else is.
And for what it's worth... Slashdot is not geared towards discussion. You will not find discussion much further past the front page (the archive navigation to this very day is garbage). Slashdot is designed for quick, ADD-riddled posts that have little depth.. so don't be surprised if you get what is designed for.
Slashdot Mirror
sendmail
bind
BSD (FreeBSD)
come back when you have a point to make.
No, it's not about MS vs. Intel. The problem is you brought Intel into this discussion which *is* about innovation, and now appear to be blaming MS for Intel's lack of innovation. It is you who need to re-read the discussion at hand.
aej17 said:
"That is not the point. It is obvious from any number of examples over the past two decades that MS, AS A CORPORATION, does not particularly care about either quality of their products or innovation in those products"
then man_of_mr_e said:
"I think you'd have a hard time finding any major company that wasn't exactly as you describe"
Thereafter, you give Intel as a counterexample. And I claim Intel is no different than IBM, Sun, MS, etc. as previously mentioned in this thread. Clearly we are not talking about CEOs that are technically oriented but have business sense. What we are talking about, however, are executives that are innovation-oriented. Or, generally, a "techie." A person who has a passion/hobby/whatever for technology that blinds them from business issues.
If you still insist Intel is somehow different, consider this: Intel would only want to drop the x86 architecture since it is a headache for *them*. It is only getting more difficult to add more cruft to the platform and they would like to be free from dealing with it. They do not care about such silliness as innovation or whether people dislike it. They just care that people buy their product. And that they remain relevant. Innovation is not a requirement for them to remain relevant. They just need to evolve.
But I wouldn't consider Intel the pinnacle of innovation. Sure, they move forward. But that's just what Microsoft does. More evolution than revolution. People blame MS for poor software. Can't we blame Intel for that crap known as the x86 architecture?
I really don't see why you're letting Intel get away with murder while MS receives crucifixion.
And I believe the previous poster was referring to companies ran like Symbolics. An extremely innovative company, but ultimately doomed by their engineers. What good is innovation if it is half-complete, late, impractical, or entirely too expensive? That was the case for Symbolics. Most innovation dies before reaching the market the same way.
It's not really fair to blame it on engineers, but they tend to not have much business sense and they are in the business at hand so it's easy. It's really a matter of having perspective in management. Xerox obviously lacked it despite sitting on a goldmine at one time.
I know of an adult game for you. It has the most realistic sex scenes, the most realistic blood. Even the pain is real. It's the most complex game ever created with endless moves and possibilities. It features the most realistic 3D graphics you will ever see.
It's called life.
no, recursion is not "incredibly expensive." I don't know where you get that crap from. But that's not the point anyways...
The interviewer asked specifically about the algorithm *after the fact*. He did not say before hand how he wanted it implemented. The interviewer was testing him by playing a game. Whatever the original poster wrote on the board would have not been good enough or fit the "requirements."
You are arguing for the sake of it, and not actually reading what I wrote.
premature optimization is the root of evil, etc. etc. You could spend months optimizing a single function that gets called exactly once. There would be negligible difference between the "optimized" or "unoptimized."
The original poster should not have been faulted for that, as there are countless ways to optimize and he was never given that particular requirement ahead of time. If he did implement it using whatever algorithm the interviewer asked after the fact, then the interviewer would have just had another complaint. It's a game of working under pressure, dealing with changing requirements and management, etc.
I like how you simply shrug off any point-of-view that does not agree with yours. Keep it up. If you want to pay out the ass for a programmer to design and implement the software you want and then you give it away for free, be my guest. You can do this today, but I doubt you do it because you probably do not have enough money for R&D (the architect+programmer, which was my entire point). Either shut up, or put up...
You are quite ignorant. We do this today. The concept is individual ownership. It is much easier to walk across the street, hop in my neighbor's car and drive off than drive five miles away to the dealership and spend all day purchasing a car. Countless resources are wasted in negotiation of property ownership and the securing of that ownership. You are arguing for a socialist system whether you realize it or not. You want state (or public) owned goods. Copyright and patents, et al. are good for providing incentive to produce. You want to know the "market response" when those virtual forms of property disappear? The products vanish completely. No more music, no more movies. No more vaccines. No more books. Or we could increase taxes and give out grants (some states already reimburse movie productions) and, what do you know, we have a socialist system!
Of course, your response will be that digital copies are different from actual physical goods, such as a car. Try this. Look outside in your neighborhood or down your street. Each time I do, there is a 100% chance another car will be sitting somewhere on the street. Never have I looked outside and not found a car. Digital copies, while nearly free, are not. They do take resources to recreate however small that may be. Cars are not sold at-cost of production. Other factors such as research and development are factored into the price.
Now you may say, "what if I take my neighbor's rare diamond, which there is only one in the world?" (in a world with public-owned property) I'll have to say that you will never have such a neighbor, because he or she will hoard such an item and never let anyone know about it. The same will happen with talent and knowledge in a world where copyright does not matter. No one wants to be taken advantage of. Talent and knowledge will be squandered.
You are quite the troll. You can't even get one line written without resorting to ad hominem.
The irony, you see, is that Linux and GCC would both not exist without Bell Labs.
You are seriously discounting research and development costs in your argument. Without R&D, there is no future software. Good ideas (ones that work) are the scarcity. The cost is distributed over all consumers. Not much software is "born complete" as you would say, but I have yet to see software that has evolved from nothing and been supported monetarily all the way. Sure, quite a few might pay to add new features and fix bugs that are in already completed software, but not too many people will pay for code that does absolutely nothing (alpha/beta/vapor).
This analogy falls apart when you realize that programmers are also filling the role of architect. Plumbers, electricians, and mechanics already have the structure built to work with.
The cost of physically copying software, music, movies, etc. should never enter discussion of producing those items. For centuries we have relied on abstract concepts to provide and carry the concept of value, such as patents, copyright, trademarks, and even the concept of money itself. Just because it's convenient to make digital copies does not mean it's the best way to determine or relate value.
On a tangent, I feel obligated to point out a contradiction in capitalism. The idea of a free market and capitalism is that individuals can achieve greater reward than their effort. The underlying assumption is that there is an abundance of resources, all there for the taking. Yet, the concepts of economics are all based on the idea of scarcity. Take this however you wish...
Surely you do not take futurama and family guy literally, why fault animation from Japan for this same reason then?
This sounds arrogant upon hearing it (and I hate saying it because it's overused when discussing anime and manga), but maybe you really do not understand it?
I still do not understand everything about FLCL (fooly-cooly). That does not mean it is crap, however. You say you can't connect to certain characters. That is the same as saying you lack understanding.
That said, there is anime which is the Japan equivalent of Thundercats and Transformers. Dragonball Z, et al. You saw those and thought they were (rightly) for children, but you should not confuse those few shows with the entire spectrum of Japan animation.
Watch Texhnolyze, Noir, Cowboy Bebop, Gunslinger Girl, Lain Serial Experiments, Perfect Blue, and A Kite. It would be foolish to assume that animation has to have satire (futurama, family guy) to be taken seriously, as it seems to be almost a requirement for US animation. Watch those and you will see many adult themes and complex plots.
If you don't believe me, at the very least watch Cowboy Bebop episode 22. Keep in mind this is pre 9/11 and read between the lines about what is being said about fundamentalism, et al. (Do not confuse right/wrong with what is being said.. merely that it is an adult message and theme being expressed)
you didn't mention Texhnolyze, or maybe you haven't seen it. just as well, most kids probably shouldn't be watching Akira... but who knows best for the little kiddies is a matter of politics.
Uh, you're missing the point.
Not just file system. Access to every hardware device and complete system information. Access to the partition table, etc. etc. And the jab at Windows is moot.. I've already pointed that out.
It's not about trust, it's not about openssh, encryption or any technology. It's not about Linux being superior to XYZ. It's about the Golden Rule. Nothing more or less.
And if we must argue about the technical aspects of it... to play mp3s and run firefox as the OP desired, it would take hardware access to the sound card, the video card, and an input device. The video card the OP might be able to get standard VGA running. I seriously doubt he wanted to view the web in that resolution, however. My sound card no one is going to get running. I would have to sit down with the OP and actively help him load the Linux driver for it as well as configure ALSA for it.
And what if he completely kills a device? I've done it with Linux, so don't go there.
And accidents *do* happen. I remember once I completely erased/overwrote my drive using Cthuga. Yes, that innocent-looking VGAlib sound visualizer. I had ran the program countless times prior, but did one boneheaded move and that was the end of that Linux installation.
Nice.. so you're saying that no one could even boot Knoppix on your PC and that the entire point is lost on you.
I'm amazed at how many people do not grasp the simple concept of the Golden Rule.. treat others as you wish to be treated. Or maybe it's a reading comprehension problem. Obviously if you are so paranoid that others should not touch your PC, you probably shouldn't go messing with another person's PC or running a foreign OS on it.
Fucking linux zealots, I swear.
It's not about what the distro installs or how safe you think XYZ distro is... it's about principle. Sure *you* might think you have self control, but you would never let someone touch your PC and run their own version of whatever OS *they* wanted. Yet you would gladly do the exact thing you don't want others doing to your PC.
I run Linux, but I definately would not want someone tossing in another Linux distro CD and running that. And what if someone tossed in a Windows CD and were to boot that? Yeah, there's one for the zealots...
you're -> your
How ironic. You complain about spyware on Windows, yet *you* load the biggest potential spyware by completely subverting all security.
/dev/hda and mess with your file permissions. Or worse. He accidentally does cat whatever >/dev/hda or something. Yeah.. you're laughing now.
You laugh because it's Windows. "What security?" Now imagine your roommate did that shit on your Linux PC. Then he proceeds to mount
Just because you know Linux (and are likely a know-it-all geek) doesn't mean you know better than the owner of the PC. Another reason why I will never let another geek within 10 feet of my PC.
You're friends might not care, but to some people the "P" in PC still stands for "personal."
as others have said, you aren't getting bash (even if it is "there") and you definately are not installing squeak. and since you don't know, squeak is smalltalk. not scheme. why you don't know this is beyond me.
there is no 10MB limit since you can upgrade the flash RAM, but that's largely irrelevant unless you feel like paying twice as much for a phone. it's just another java phone, this time on top of linux. big deal.
the guys at id software were stephenson fans i think, and named the weapon after the "rail gun" in snow crash that fires depleted uranium ammo. The actual weapon in q3 is graphically modelled as a beam weapon, though. you can even turn on a spiral particle effect and the sound effect is more of a laser cannon type thing (like a few of half-life's weapons)...
quake3 rail gun. 'nuff said.
you do know what this means, don't you?
i have some friends that will be coming over to wish you a happy birthday soon.
Nonsense. There were far fewer trolls before Slashdot even had user registration. Then /. turned hostile towards the users... calling them anonymous "cowards" and removing entire threads (sometimes trolls, many times not). And let's get serious here... FortKnox? That's not exactly a person. You're still anonymous as just about everyone else is.
And for what it's worth... Slashdot is not geared towards discussion. You will not find discussion much further past the front page (the archive navigation to this very day is garbage). Slashdot is designed for quick, ADD-riddled posts that have little depth.. so don't be surprised if you get what is designed for.
How about getting lectured on reading comprehension?
(and since the moderators obviously missed that one... it was the NY Times quoting the LA Times)
yeah.. we all know KDE and GNOME are completely original. get back in your cave, troll.