It's a cool idea, but I still remember being all excited about Biosphere 2 when I was a kid, and it turned out to be a colossal failure.
I'm glad they've got a design, but are they planning on actually testing it? This is not the sort of thing you just build and hope it works. I mean, at least a working model would be something.
I don't disagree with the need (or desire, for that matter) to have a superior interface. Far from it.
However, I stand by my statement that Microsoft compatibility is key for widespread adoption of OO. For an organization to consider switching from MS Office to OO, they have to consider more than a side-by-side product comparison, user training, and license cost; they have to consider the fact that they already have a huge number of documents in MS Office formats. If OO cannot read or write to these files effectively and accurately, then they either have to give these documents up for lost, or manually re-format them. So to effectively transition to OO, at minimum they would have to devote a huge amount of man-hours to reformatting old documents--if not re-creating them completely.
Until that changes, transitioning to OO is simply not going to be cost-effective for any business that has a substantial amount of pre-existing documentation. The adoption of OO is going to be limited to very small businesses, companies that start as OO shops, and independent contractors/consultants. In other words, it's not a question of which product is superior, it's a question of how efficiently the transition process can be carried out.
A related issue is communication between companies. Many, many times in the past when I've dealt with vendors (or been the vendor selling to another company), the proposals, specifications, reports, and so on have all been MS Office documents--Excel, Word, PowerPoint, etc. If a company is considering transitioning to OO, they have to consider how that would effect their communication with their clients, customers, and/or vendors. If they can't read or write MS Office documents effectively and accurately, it's going to have an impact on those business relationships--and not a good impact, either.
This is why I say that greater MS Office compatibility is the only way OO will see widespread adoption. Having a superior interface is great, but it's really of limited concern when it comes to deciding whether to make an organization-wide transition; even if OO's interface was absolutely perfect in every way, if the actual transition process is overly cumbersome and/or costly, or if the transition creates potential problems communicating with clients or vendors, adopting OO is not going to be worth the effort for any medium or large sized organization. It would simply create more problems than it would solve.
OO needs to spend less time on new features and more time fixing the ones they've got, IMO. Especially when it comes to compatibility with MS Office. ODF's great, don't get me wrong, but the only way OO will see anything close to widespread adoption is when people can effectively and easily transition off of MS Office.
I wasn't familiar with Steam and had to google it. Fair point, there.
The reason I suggested making it free is that if everyone is free to (re)distribute the application, even if the BBFC does have the actual legal authority to censor stuff, they wouldn't be able to stop it. If the RIAA can't stop the torrents, I doubt the BBFC could.
At this point they really ought to just release the game for the PC as free software, and use the strategy guides, web sites, forums, etc to generate revenue.
As an added bonus, it would be a huge middle finger to the jackasses who think it's acceptable to "ban" a video game.
If they keep on appealing, it's just going to be a bigger money pit--and it probably won't get them anywhere. Time to cut your losses, guys.
On the one hand, there are a lot more opportunities for making money from writing--blogs, namely. The downside of that, however, is that because there are so many people doing so, the pay is usually crap. To be successful, writers have to work much harder at promoting themselves directly to the readers. In the Olde Days(tm), writers had to promote their work to publishers, who then in turn promoted their work to their readers.
For fiction writers, I think it's a different animal altogether--in fact, I'd say that beyond offering a new medium for promotion and sales (Amazon), the Net hasn't had much effect on fiction writing. eBooks are not getting any traction. Online fiction zines typically don't pay very well (if at all), and aren't really well respected or frequented by readers.
I was at a con this weekend where there was a panel on Print-On-Demand, which is a technology used mainly by self-publishing companies and "vanity presses." Sites like Lulu.com are taking some of the stigma out of self-publishing (I've done it myself), but self-publishing again requires massive amount of work at self-promotion. (And some of the sleazier methods of said promotion are creating yet another stigma on the concept.) It's really only useful if you either have an audience already, or if you don't intend to sell more than a few hundred copies. As a means to earn a living, it just plain sucks.
For a fiction writer, the world hasn't changed much--dead trees are still the name of the game, as are the publishing firms that control them.
Between this and the RIAA's campaign of suing grandmothers and 12-year-olds, I say--more power to 'em!
The more the recording industry engages in these batshit-crazy pursuits of extra money, the more people will come to realize that the entire "intellectual property" legal system needs to be completely rethought. The EFF can only dream of being able to this kind of support; these bozos manage to do the job well enough on their own.
Of course, it's not the equivalent of a Berkeley education or anything remotely close to it. But i
This seems to be part of a trend; I know some scientific journals are considering putting their articles online for all to read, instead of charging exorbitant subscription fees like they do now.
I'd like to see old lectures online, too--watching Richard Feynman lecture on physics would be too cool for words.
I really doubt this is going to last, and nobody outside of Germany is going to take it seriously. Too many servers log IP addresses, if nothing else just because IIS and Apache do that by default.
Then there is the issue of competing laws. In the US, for example, federal encryption laws require IP addresses to be logged when certain pieces of software are downloaded.
I think in this case wording is everything. It doesn't seem to me that the majority of the general public, outside of techies and their friends, is really informed about "Net Neutrality" and the debate over it.
You could probably get a poll to go either way based on how you word the question:
"Do you believe that governments or corporations should place restrictions on what websites you can visit, or charge you extra based on visiting certain sites?"
"Do you believe that private property should be respected, and that Internet Service Providers have the right to control the content they deliver, such as restrictions on child pornography, sites that contain malicious software, and terrorist web sites?"
I think any support Apple had for the open source concept went out the window when they started making sweetheart deals with companies in other industries. iTunes was hugely successful--but in order to make it work with the RIAA, Apple put in DRM. With its success from the iPod, the iPhone was almost guaranteed to be a success. But they signed this deal with AT&T, which is a complete anathema to anything remotely approaching open source--just ask the poor schlubs who are carrying around $500 bricks.
The thing is, if Apple *wants* to support "open source" ideas, they can--they just have to choose to make it a company principle and be aggressive about it. They're successful enough that they can make it work. But the reality is, they have no incentive to do so.
Compare the situation with IBM, who is heavily backing FOSS. In fact, doing so has likely saved the company; their proprietary products simply weren't doing well, and the company was a mess in the 90s. AIX, OS/2--really, the company had very little going for it. Nobody was adopting their technologies. So they started investing in technology that people were adopting--Linux, Java, and so forth. Many of which were either open source or OS-friendly (Java).
Apple has no similar motivation to go the OS route. People are buying their technology, in droves. They have no reason to open up the iPod or iPhone API, or stop the DRM implementation in iTunes (though this may change as non-DRM competition gets stronger).
For that to change, either Apple has to adopt a pro-FOSS ideology, or find themselves in a situation where a closed-source viewpoint is hurting their bottom line.
What a strange, strange policy. I cannot for the life of me think of a reason why they would even consider spending time and effort enforcing such a silly rule....Unless a certain executive got cyber-naughty with a hot "babe," only to look up their user information and get a mild shock.:D
On a serious note, my sympathies to his families, friends, and fans.
On a not-so-serious note, if you lament the lack of new WoT books, just read the first four over and over again. It's like he's still there cranking out books.:)
Slashdot Mirror
It's a cool idea, but I still remember being all excited about Biosphere 2 when I was a kid, and it turned out to be a colossal failure.
I'm glad they've got a design, but are they planning on actually testing it? This is not the sort of thing you just build and hope it works. I mean, at least a working model would be something.
I don't disagree with the need (or desire, for that matter) to have a superior interface. Far from it.
However, I stand by my statement that Microsoft compatibility is key for widespread adoption of OO. For an organization to consider switching from MS Office to OO, they have to consider more than a side-by-side product comparison, user training, and license cost; they have to consider the fact that they already have a huge number of documents in MS Office formats. If OO cannot read or write to these files effectively and accurately, then they either have to give these documents up for lost, or manually re-format them. So to effectively transition to OO, at minimum they would have to devote a huge amount of man-hours to reformatting old documents--if not re-creating them completely.
Until that changes, transitioning to OO is simply not going to be cost-effective for any business that has a substantial amount of pre-existing documentation. The adoption of OO is going to be limited to very small businesses, companies that start as OO shops, and independent contractors/consultants. In other words, it's not a question of which product is superior, it's a question of how efficiently the transition process can be carried out.
A related issue is communication between companies. Many, many times in the past when I've dealt with vendors (or been the vendor selling to another company), the proposals, specifications, reports, and so on have all been MS Office documents--Excel, Word, PowerPoint, etc. If a company is considering transitioning to OO, they have to consider how that would effect their communication with their clients, customers, and/or vendors. If they can't read or write MS Office documents effectively and accurately, it's going to have an impact on those business relationships--and not a good impact, either.
This is why I say that greater MS Office compatibility is the only way OO will see widespread adoption. Having a superior interface is great, but it's really of limited concern when it comes to deciding whether to make an organization-wide transition; even if OO's interface was absolutely perfect in every way, if the actual transition process is overly cumbersome and/or costly, or if the transition creates potential problems communicating with clients or vendors, adopting OO is not going to be worth the effort for any medium or large sized organization. It would simply create more problems than it would solve.
OO needs to spend less time on new features and more time fixing the ones they've got, IMO. Especially when it comes to compatibility with MS Office. ODF's great, don't get me wrong, but the only way OO will see anything close to widespread adoption is when people can effectively and easily transition off of MS Office.
Translation: "We realized that the whole thing was a steaming pile of crap, and needed to be seriously re-engineered."
Sometimes you just have to realize that your "Beta" is more of an "Alpha."
I wasn't familiar with Steam and had to google it. Fair point, there.
The reason I suggested making it free is that if everyone is free to (re)distribute the application, even if the BBFC does have the actual legal authority to censor stuff, they wouldn't be able to stop it. If the RIAA can't stop the torrents, I doubt the BBFC could.
At this point they really ought to just release the game for the PC as free software, and use the strategy guides, web sites, forums, etc to generate revenue.
As an added bonus, it would be a huge middle finger to the jackasses who think it's acceptable to "ban" a video game.
If they keep on appealing, it's just going to be a bigger money pit--and it probably won't get them anywhere. Time to cut your losses, guys.
This looks like a job for...the Mythbusters!
Or Dave Barry.
But given that no toilet is involved, I'm inclined to lean towards the Mythbusters.
It's a mixed bag, I think.
On the one hand, there are a lot more opportunities for making money from writing--blogs, namely. The downside of that, however, is that because there are so many people doing so, the pay is usually crap. To be successful, writers have to work much harder at promoting themselves directly to the readers. In the Olde Days(tm), writers had to promote their work to publishers, who then in turn promoted their work to their readers.
For fiction writers, I think it's a different animal altogether--in fact, I'd say that beyond offering a new medium for promotion and sales (Amazon), the Net hasn't had much effect on fiction writing. eBooks are not getting any traction. Online fiction zines typically don't pay very well (if at all), and aren't really well respected or frequented by readers.
I was at a con this weekend where there was a panel on Print-On-Demand, which is a technology used mainly by self-publishing companies and "vanity presses." Sites like Lulu.com are taking some of the stigma out of self-publishing (I've done it myself), but self-publishing again requires massive amount of work at self-promotion. (And some of the sleazier methods of said promotion are creating yet another stigma on the concept.) It's really only useful if you either have an audience already, or if you don't intend to sell more than a few hundred copies. As a means to earn a living, it just plain sucks.
For a fiction writer, the world hasn't changed much--dead trees are still the name of the game, as are the publishing firms that control them.
Between this and the RIAA's campaign of suing grandmothers and 12-year-olds, I say--more power to 'em!
The more the recording industry engages in these batshit-crazy pursuits of extra money, the more people will come to realize that the entire "intellectual property" legal system needs to be completely rethought. The EFF can only dream of being able to this kind of support; these bozos manage to do the job well enough on their own.
The ultimate purpose of the service is to provide an online accessible but highly secure service to patients and medical facilities:
Yeah...That's gonna work out well. After all, whose products are more secure than Microsoft's?
Sounds like they adapted the OO concept of abstract classes to neural devices.
Lakshminarayan "Ram" Srinivasan, lead author of a paper on the subject
As in the Long Island Srinivasans?
Of course, it's not the equivalent of a Berkeley education or anything remotely close to it. But i
This seems to be part of a trend; I know some scientific journals are considering putting their articles online for all to read, instead of charging exorbitant subscription fees like they do now.
I'd like to see old lectures online, too--watching Richard Feynman lecture on physics would be too cool for words.
Fuck the FCC: http://www.pythonline.com/plugs/idle/FCCSong.mp3
Desperado, why don't you come to your senses...
:P
It works on a couple of different levels.
I really doubt this is going to last, and nobody outside of Germany is going to take it seriously. Too many servers log IP addresses, if nothing else just because IIS and Apache do that by default.
Then there is the issue of competing laws. In the US, for example, federal encryption laws require IP addresses to be logged when certain pieces of software are downloaded.
I think in this case wording is everything. It doesn't seem to me that the majority of the general public, outside of techies and their friends, is really informed about "Net Neutrality" and the debate over it.
You could probably get a poll to go either way based on how you word the question:
"Do you believe that governments or corporations should place restrictions on what websites you can visit, or charge you extra based on visiting certain sites?"
"Do you believe that private property should be respected, and that Internet Service Providers have the right to control the content they deliver, such as restrictions on child pornography, sites that contain malicious software, and terrorist web sites?"
"Apple's reasoning for keeping the iPhone a closed platform is that they don't want to 'potentially gum up the provider's network'."
Yes, and I'm sure that's why they're keeping the iPod a closed platform, too.
In addition, MS has helped IT security improve more than any other company.
Actually, I think the joke was the link that the domain actually pointed to. ;)
So when was the first "First Post" post?
:)
The first "all your base are belong to us?"
The first "in Soviet Russia" joke?
The first time someone imagined a Beowulf cluster?
Ah, ten years of Slashdot cliches. Here's to ten more, you crazy nerds.
I think any support Apple had for the open source concept went out the window when they started making sweetheart deals with companies in other industries. iTunes was hugely successful--but in order to make it work with the RIAA, Apple put in DRM. With its success from the iPod, the iPhone was almost guaranteed to be a success. But they signed this deal with AT&T, which is a complete anathema to anything remotely approaching open source--just ask the poor schlubs who are carrying around $500 bricks.
The thing is, if Apple *wants* to support "open source" ideas, they can--they just have to choose to make it a company principle and be aggressive about it. They're successful enough that they can make it work. But the reality is, they have no incentive to do so.
Compare the situation with IBM, who is heavily backing FOSS. In fact, doing so has likely saved the company; their proprietary products simply weren't doing well, and the company was a mess in the 90s. AIX, OS/2--really, the company had very little going for it. Nobody was adopting their technologies. So they started investing in technology that people were adopting--Linux, Java, and so forth. Many of which were either open source or OS-friendly (Java).
Apple has no similar motivation to go the OS route. People are buying their technology, in droves. They have no reason to open up the iPod or iPhone API, or stop the DRM implementation in iTunes (though this may change as non-DRM competition gets stronger).
For that to change, either Apple has to adopt a pro-FOSS ideology, or find themselves in a situation where a closed-source viewpoint is hurting their bottom line.
Must...Not...Imagine....Beowulf...Cluster....
What a strange, strange policy. I cannot for the life of me think of a reason why they would even consider spending time and effort enforcing such a silly rule. ...Unless a certain executive got cyber-naughty with a hot "babe," only to look up their user information and get a mild shock. :D
Well, yay for IBM, but don't you think they could put a few of those developers to use making Lotus Notes suck less?
On a serious note, my sympathies to his families, friends, and fans.
:)
On a not-so-serious note, if you lament the lack of new WoT books, just read the first four over and over again. It's like he's still there cranking out books.