Which explains all those German and Russian Peacekeepers in Baghdad
Russian and German troops in Baghdad? That's news to me. Where did you get that idea?
From CBS News, July 18, 2003:
Germany's visiting foreign minister, Joschka Fischer, speaking alongside Powell at the State Department, said, "the responsibility on the ground is in the hands of the coalition (U.S. and Britain). We are not part of the coalition and we are ready to contribute to the humanitarian situation. Our business community is ready to play its role in the reconstruction, if it is warranted and if we know more details about the reconstruction... but our position linked to the question of sending military troops is unchanged." In other words, the Bush administration chose the course that led to a conflict opposed by Germany, and now Washington should not expect German troops to enter Baghdad and replace American troops as targets for the remnants of Saddam's military.
I'm fed up with all this blather about Linux on the desktop. Is it ready yet? What needs to be improved? Why hasn't it happened yet? etc. etc.
There is one thing that is going to get Linux on the desktop, and one thing only. That is that the big PC manufacturers (principally Dell and HP) start to seriously promote and sell desktop PCs with Linux already installed.
If that doesn't happen, then Linux on the desktop will probably never happen to a significant extent.
Is the XBox actually going anywhere? Here in Spain I must see ten PS2 advertisements on the TV for every one for the XBox. And in most stores the PS2 seems to have about three to five times more shelf space allocated to it than the XBox. Not only that, but with the GameCube priced at 99 Euros, the XBox has some serious competition this Christmas. Can the XBox ever become serious competition to the Playstation under those conditions?
Microsoft made some serious design mistakes with the first X-Box. One of the big ones was they assumed that if they used generic standard PC parts that would make it somehow cheaper. However, the economic logic of the PC industry doesn't necessarily apply to the gaming console industry, where you want to make tens of millions of consoles all exactly the same. When you are doing that, it actually is worth the effort making fairly customized hardware, because every cent you can shave of the production costs of a unit makes a big difference.
Why "despite" it being a member of the EU and Euro? One of the reasons for the EU and the Euro is to create a single European trade block, and as everyone knows, the larger the block and the less barriers to free trade exist, the more competition there is within the block.
My wording came from writing it from the perspective of someone who thinks the EU and the Euro is a bad thing. I personally don't think that myself.
Government regulation is evil, because the government lives on money extorted from people.
It's sad that there are so many in the USA that believe this these days.
This is the 21st century. We should be getting more civilised, not less. Many in the USA seem to believe that the only model that works is one of selfish individualism - like animals - and want to drag the rest of the world down to their level.
I have no problem with the neo-Cons. What I do have a real big problem with is the aggressive way they to try to completely distort, dismiss or destroy any person/organisation that doesn't agree with them. That is extremely unhealthy from my point of view.
I think that's more to do with population than any real social tendencies. The US is a highly populated area, perhaps the 4th largest country in the world. Europe with a smaller population HAS more open space, which belies the installation of large hard wired network: witness the lower takeup of cable services in europe. Wireless networks just make sense in that situation alot of the time
It depends what you mean by Europe, of course, but after the next round of expansion in 2004, when Eastern European countries will join the EU, Europe is actually going to have a populartion to some 450 million. Which I believe is more than the USA and Japan combined.
The USA has been behind in the uptake of a lot of technologies recently - mobile, WiFi and broadband to make just three.
Why is this? Many Americans that it is because of the USAs more disperse population, but personally I find that a very poor excuse considering, for instance, the places with the strongest usage of these technologies (Norway, Finland) are actually harsh environments with disperse populations.
Personally I think the route cause may be fairly simple. It has become common in the USA to believe that a completely free market always comes up with the most efficient solution, and that which is best for the people. Perhaps this just isn't true in these situations.
So for instance, the competing standards for the mobile phone networks in the USA, where as in Europe they agreed on a standard beforehand. Perhaps government regulation of this sort in Europe is actually a good, positive thing?
It has also become worryingly popular in the USA of late to dismiss outright views that don't fit the neo-Con agenda, so I expect I am going to be mocked by some for even proposing that government regulation might be senisble in some situations, and that the European system might be better in this regard. It is interesting to note that the World Economics Forum recently identified Finland as being the most competitive country in the world from a business perspective, despite it being a fully paid up member of the EU and the Euro currency.
Even *if* this report can be *manipulated* to make Microsofts solutions *appear* cheaper, they have many, many more headaches ahead of them.
It looks like you haven't had much contact with accountants...
There is no "if" about it. The report will say MS solutions are cheaper.
I used to believe that accountancy was an exact science. It makes sense that it should be, doesn't it? But when you start dealing with accountants, you quickly learn that it isn't. In fact, it's quite shocking how much leeway an accountant has to move figures around, and that there are no clear-cut rules for many things.
This report will be based mainly on estimates. How else are they going to do it? They are looking at a theoretical situation - what if Newham Council changed to OSS... At the end of the day, an esimate is just a guess, and you can estimate on the high-side or on the low-side. The consultants doing this audit are just going to do the estimating based on the outcome that's required, i.e. that MS is cheaper than OSS.
The majority of the internet is essentially a MS community site.
oh I see...
if they can turn on the computer, run a word processor, surf the net, send/receive email, and do the other basics that they want to do, then they are happy. And they can do that.
You don't know many home users, do you? When I go visit friends and family I often am asked to sort out all kinds of problems, that for you or I would be simple. And having once spent a few days listening to support calls, I can tell you that even the basics like sending email cause loads of problems for many home users.
And no, there isn't a good community for them, at least not one that is commonly known about. I know of at least half a dozen for Linux users, even "newbies". So I think that your idea that "the majority of the internet is a MS community site" is bullshit.
Yep. But I think it is interesting that many of these sites are either directly or indirectly supported by Microsoft. I wonder who much of a community there would be without that support.
Looks useful. It is still in many ways sponsored by Microsoft though, as I understand "Microsoft Most Valued Professionals" get various benefits from MS. So it's not really a genuine community site.
There's no reason for "community". When most of the people on the planet are using their software, there's no real reason for the users to band together.
That's BS, if you don't mind me saying. Precisely because so many people use their software, you would expect to find a big community. When everyone is using OSS, will the community disappear? No, it will be even stronger and larger.
Or maybe there are actually some cool people in MS who aren't afraid to publish their own opinions? While MS ain't exactly a nice company, it can be a nice company to work for, and it's a bit silly to expect a monoculture of Dr. Evils.
True, but from what I know about MS employees, they are very keen to do whatever is officially approved by MS, and if MS is currently keen to promote an MS community, then there will be MS employees who will want to be seen doing that.
Interesting that the three of the four principal sponsors of this site are "MSDN Magazine", "Visual Studio.NET", and "Windows Server 2003" in other words Microsoft, Microsoft and Microsoft.
Not that there's anything wrong with that, but I wonder if there would be any MS "community" at all if Microsoft didn't fund it?
I think Microsoft realised a couple of years ago that the really powerful thing about OSS was actually the community. And they want to try to make such a community themselves. That's one of the reasons I think there seem to be so many MS staff who have blogs - they want to be seen encoraging an MS community. And why they have taken to "accidentally" releasing alpha/beta stuff into the wild recently.
Some of their efforts have been laughable in the way that they have tried to make corporate efforts look as if they are really community based. I've tried to find evidence of a genuine MS community but there isn't much about. The only equivalent to Slashdot for MS lovers in ActiveWin, which has about a dozen people that post to it, mainly when a story about Linux or critical of MS comes up.
There is a lot of activity on GotDotNet, but mostly it is technical queries.
Are there other, genuine examples of MS community sites? Or alternatively, attempts that are obviously MS driven? I'm just interested to compare the strength of the OSS community with the MS community (yes I know they are not logically exclusive, but in reality it seems to be pretty much the case).
Aren't there some principals/ground rules about how voting should take place? It seems a pretty fundamental thing, after all. I mean something along the lines of "the process should be observable and observed by ordinary members of the general public".
When I went to vote in some local elections recently (in Europe), you post your vote into a transparent box. The people cross your name off the public electoral role with a pen. There are observers selected from the public at all stages of the process, both at the actual voting and the counting. It would be extremely difficult to rig such an election.
I like it this way. I can trust that system. Knowing what we do about computers and electronic systems, can we ever really trust an electronic vote? My main criticism is that it is not observable, i.e. you can't have a neutral observer who can say, "yes, that persons vote has definately been counted" because they can't actually observe the process.
Mostly people who commission corporate websites are impressed by aesthetics
You said it right there.
If there is a multi-company pitch for the design of a web site, the company that pitches on the basis of fancy design will very often win.
I have been in pitches where we have stressed that it is the content itself which is important, not fancy design, and stressed things like quick loading, easy access and wide accessibility. You know what? It's often not a great pitch. Most often (and understandably) the company that shows the potential client something that makes them go "wow!" will more often than not get the job.
So anyway, these days, if I'm pitching to a client I don't know well, I'll always do a "wow! look at that!" pitch. It wins more work.
Slashdot Mirror
Ah, now I understand. You were giving a sarcastic response to my sarcastic response, without realising that I was being sarcastic. Confusing.
Which explains all those German and Russian Peacekeepers in Baghdad
... but our position linked to the question of sending military troops is unchanged." In other words, the Bush administration chose the course that led to a conflict opposed by Germany, and now Washington should not expect German troops to enter Baghdad and replace American troops as targets for the remnants of Saddam's military.
Russian and German troops in Baghdad? That's news to me. Where did you get that idea?
From CBS News, July 18, 2003:
Germany's visiting foreign minister, Joschka Fischer, speaking alongside Powell at the State Department, said, "the responsibility on the ground is in the hands of the coalition (U.S. and Britain). We are not part of the coalition and we are ready to contribute to the humanitarian situation. Our business community is ready to play its role in the reconstruction, if it is warranted and if we know more details about the reconstruction
I'm fed up with all this blather about Linux on the desktop. Is it ready yet? What needs to be improved? Why hasn't it happened yet? etc. etc.
There is one thing that is going to get Linux on the desktop, and one thing only. That is that the big PC manufacturers (principally Dell and HP) start to seriously promote and sell desktop PCs with Linux already installed.
If that doesn't happen, then Linux on the desktop will probably never happen to a significant extent.
As opposed to now, right? When you had all that support from the UN and all of those Arab countries.
You obviously haven't been swallowing the official line on this. Repeat after me - it was only France. Everyone else was with us.
No, don't think about it! Repeat - it was only France...
Is the XBox actually going anywhere? Here in Spain I must see ten PS2 advertisements on the TV for every one for the XBox. And in most stores the PS2 seems to have about three to five times more shelf space allocated to it than the XBox. Not only that, but with the GameCube priced at 99 Euros, the XBox has some serious competition this Christmas. Can the XBox ever become serious competition to the Playstation under those conditions?
What's it like in the rest of the world?
I knew this was coming.
Microsoft made some serious design mistakes with the first X-Box. One of the big ones was they assumed that if they used generic standard PC parts that would make it somehow cheaper. However, the economic logic of the PC industry doesn't necessarily apply to the gaming console industry, where you want to make tens of millions of consoles all exactly the same. When you are doing that, it actually is worth the effort making fairly customized hardware, because every cent you can shave of the production costs of a unit makes a big difference.
Why "despite" it being a member of the EU and Euro? One of the reasons for the EU and the Euro is to create a single European trade block, and as everyone knows, the larger the block and the less barriers to free trade exist, the more competition there is within the block.
My wording came from writing it from the perspective of someone who thinks the EU and the Euro is a bad thing. I personally don't think that myself.
Government regulation is evil, because the government lives on money extorted from people.
It's sad that there are so many in the USA that believe this these days.
This is the 21st century. We should be getting more civilised, not less. Many in the USA seem to believe that the only model that works is one of selfish individualism - like animals - and want to drag the rest of the world down to their level.
Finally, stop picking on "neo-Cons"
I have no problem with the neo-Cons. What I do have a real big problem with is the aggressive way they to try to completely distort, dismiss or destroy any person/organisation that doesn't agree with them. That is extremely unhealthy from my point of view.
Do you know, for instance, that Ashcroft is currently trying to use ancient and irrelevant laws to destroy Greenpeace in the USA? Now, that kind of thing I really object to, and I will continue to "pick on" the neo-Cons whilst the continue to behave in such a manner.
I think that's more to do with population than any real social tendencies. The US is a highly populated area, perhaps the 4th largest country in the world. Europe with a smaller population HAS more open space, which belies the installation of large hard wired network: witness the lower takeup of cable services in europe. Wireless networks just make sense in that situation alot of the time
It depends what you mean by Europe, of course, but after the next round of expansion in 2004, when Eastern European countries will join the EU, Europe is actually going to have a populartion to some 450 million. Which I believe is more than the USA and Japan combined.
Is there any reason to be suprised by this?
The USA has been behind in the uptake of a lot of technologies recently - mobile, WiFi and broadband to make just three.
Why is this? Many Americans that it is because of the USAs more disperse population, but personally I find that a very poor excuse considering, for instance, the places with the strongest usage of these technologies (Norway, Finland) are actually harsh environments with disperse populations.
Personally I think the route cause may be fairly simple. It has become common in the USA to believe that a completely free market always comes up with the most efficient solution, and that which is best for the people. Perhaps this just isn't true in these situations.
So for instance, the competing standards for the mobile phone networks in the USA, where as in Europe they agreed on a standard beforehand. Perhaps government regulation of this sort in Europe is actually a good, positive thing?
It has also become worryingly popular in the USA of late to dismiss outright views that don't fit the neo-Con agenda, so I expect I am going to be mocked by some for even proposing that government regulation might be senisble in some situations, and that the European system might be better in this regard. It is interesting to note that the World Economics Forum recently identified Finland as being the most competitive country in the world from a business perspective, despite it being a fully paid up member of the EU and the Euro currency.
Even *if* this report can be *manipulated* to make Microsofts solutions *appear* cheaper, they have many, many more headaches ahead of them.
It looks like you haven't had much contact with accountants...
There is no "if" about it. The report will say MS solutions are cheaper.
I used to believe that accountancy was an exact science. It makes sense that it should be, doesn't it? But when you start dealing with accountants, you quickly learn that it isn't. In fact, it's quite shocking how much leeway an accountant has to move figures around, and that there are no clear-cut rules for many things.
This report will be based mainly on estimates. How else are they going to do it? They are looking at a theoretical situation - what if Newham Council changed to OSS... At the end of the day, an esimate is just a guess, and you can estimate on the high-side or on the low-side. The consultants doing this audit are just going to do the estimating based on the outcome that's required, i.e. that MS is cheaper than OSS.
I mean hey, hell would freeze over if this "audit" shows anything than a clear advantage in costeffectivness for Windows.
What the hell do you think it is going to show, given the circumstances?
If you want to compete with Free Software, the only way you can truly compete is at the cost of use level.
Yes, because when it comes to cost, it's easy to spin it whichever way you want.
I can just imagine the scene in a few months time:
A meeting between representatives of Microsoft, Cap Gemini Ernst & Young, and Newham Council:
Consultant: We have finished our audit, and our conclusion is that it would be cheaper for Newham Council to use Open Source Software.
MS rep: What??
Consultant: Yes, the situation is quite clear. It would be cheaper to use OSS.
MS rep: Oh! We weren't expecting that! But fair's fair I guess! [Shrugs]
Newham rep: This meeting has been quicker than I thought it would be. Shall we go to the pub for a lunch-time pint?
The majority of the internet is essentially a MS community site.
oh I see...
if they can turn on the computer, run a word processor, surf the net, send/receive email, and do the other basics that they want to do, then they are happy. And they can do that.
You don't know many home users, do you? When I go visit friends and family I often am asked to sort out all kinds of problems, that for you or I would be simple. And having once spent a few days listening to support calls, I can tell you that even the basics like sending email cause loads of problems for many home users.
And no, there isn't a good community for them, at least not one that is commonly known about. I know of at least half a dozen for Linux users, even "newbies". So I think that your idea that "the majority of the internet is a MS community site" is bullshit.
Yep. But I think it is interesting that many of these sites are either directly or indirectly supported by Microsoft. I wonder who much of a community there would be without that support.
Looks useful. It is still in many ways sponsored by Microsoft though, as I understand "Microsoft Most Valued Professionals" get various benefits from MS. So it's not really a genuine community site.
There's no reason for "community". When most of the people on the planet are using their software, there's no real reason for the users to band together.
That's BS, if you don't mind me saying. Precisely because so many people use their software, you would expect to find a big community. When everyone is using OSS, will the community disappear? No, it will be even stronger and larger.
Or maybe there are actually some cool people in MS who aren't afraid to publish their own opinions? While MS ain't exactly a nice company, it can be a nice company to work for, and it's a bit silly to expect a monoculture of Dr. Evils.
True, but from what I know about MS employees, they are very keen to do whatever is officially approved by MS, and if MS is currently keen to promote an MS community, then there will be MS employees who will want to be seen doing that.
Interesting that the three of the four principal sponsors of this site are "MSDN Magazine", "Visual Studio .NET", and "Windows Server 2003" in other words Microsoft, Microsoft and Microsoft.
Not that there's anything wrong with that, but I wonder if there would be any MS "community" at all if Microsoft didn't fund it?
I think Microsoft realised a couple of years ago that the really powerful thing about OSS was actually the community. And they want to try to make such a community themselves. That's one of the reasons I think there seem to be so many MS staff who have blogs - they want to be seen encoraging an MS community. And why they have taken to "accidentally" releasing alpha/beta stuff into the wild recently.
Some of their efforts have been laughable in the way that they have tried to make corporate efforts look as if they are really community based. I've tried to find evidence of a genuine MS community but there isn't much about. The only equivalent to Slashdot for MS lovers in ActiveWin, which has about a dozen people that post to it, mainly when a story about Linux or critical of MS comes up.
There is a lot of activity on GotDotNet, but mostly it is technical queries.
Are there other, genuine examples of MS community sites? Or alternatively, attempts that are obviously MS driven? I'm just interested to compare the strength of the OSS community with the MS community (yes I know they are not logically exclusive, but in reality it seems to be pretty much the case).
Aren't there some principals/ground rules about how voting should take place? It seems a pretty fundamental thing, after all. I mean something along the lines of "the process should be observable and observed by ordinary members of the general public".
When I went to vote in some local elections recently (in Europe), you post your vote into a transparent box. The people cross your name off the public electoral role with a pen. There are observers selected from the public at all stages of the process, both at the actual voting and the counting. It would be extremely difficult to rig such an election.
I like it this way. I can trust that system. Knowing what we do about computers and electronic systems, can we ever really trust an electronic vote? My main criticism is that it is not observable, i.e. you can't have a neutral observer who can say, "yes, that persons vote has definately been counted" because they can't actually observe the process.
Let's been voting manual.
Mostly people who commission corporate websites are impressed by aesthetics
You said it right there.
If there is a multi-company pitch for the design of a web site, the company that pitches on the basis of fancy design will very often win.
I have been in pitches where we have stressed that it is the content itself which is important, not fancy design, and stressed things like quick loading, easy access and wide accessibility. You know what? It's often not a great pitch. Most often (and understandably) the company that shows the potential client something that makes them go "wow!" will more often than not get the job.
So anyway, these days, if I'm pitching to a client I don't know well, I'll always do a "wow! look at that!" pitch. It wins more work.
You said:
Oh, and not only is diving, expensive, difficult, relatively less than safe. It's also slow. It wastes a lot of time and resources.
Original poster said:
I'd prefer to see money spent on making dive trips easier/safer/less expensive.
So, the original poster is saying the problems with diving should be addressed.