Good weather data is frequently a matter of life or death in many fields, it's that simple. Restriction for commercial gain cannot be sanctioned by any government that desires to avoid the pitchforks of public fury.
In case this doesn't seem odd to you, consider your insurance options if forecast trends become a matter of "commercial in confidence" and you didn't prepare for that sudden storm, to name one example. Or, if you're a private pilot, perhaps an ultralight enthusiast, consider the expense of your hobby if you have to pay extra to make damn sure you know the density altitude at that cross-country airport. Do farmers really need another expense to add to their list to make a harvest successful?
Don't let this get a foothold, noone can afford the price.
Your point 1: You've never read any Sherlock Holmes so your ignorance is forgiven. It refers to a case where Holmes realized the evidence was not an inconvenient fact but a missing fact. But you're playing word games too: if you like marketers, you call them thorough, if you don't, call them opportunistic. It doesn't change anything.
Your point 2: So what. They called us criminals first. Nyahh.
Your point 3: "Hey why don't I think of a word I don't like and then accuse ESR of not using it in a context that suits me?" Go back to Debating 101, kid.
Your point 4: What, so you can endlessly debate it? Seems to me you're asking for the impossible. Noone is going to agree with anyone's figures. This is also part of Debating 101.
Your point 5, which is so wrong I'm quoting it:
"Shared source is a poison pill." Shared Source may be a misnomer but calling it a "posion" pill is just imflamitory.
inflammatory for a start. It isn't inflammatory, its the truth. You agree to using MS's Shared Source providing you give MS royalty-free rights to use EVERYTHING you produce with it, and your source. Great deal, huh? NO. It's a poison pill.
Finally, your point 6: IIS is a crock. It's so bad that MS has said publicly there are bugs it will NOT fix. These happen to be bugs any script kiddy can drive a truck through. We live now in a world where if x = bug; attack(); if you haven't noticed. IIS is a PR nightmare for MS but they can't be seen to publicly discontinue support. Your argument is so besides the point it's almost trollery.
Otherwise, your heart's in the right place, you've just got sharpen your skillz.
Modders: I know it looked like it was a reasonable argument but it only deserved a 3.
Well, I can understand not wanting to push its own sponsored studies, but why hide the.NET vs J2EE study, do you think? And why can I still download them?
They're also playing to the GUI developers gallery...except they seem to have overlooked glade, kdevelop and a bunch of commercial offerings like coldfusion and kylix.
In that case, it reduces to a question of paradigm: IDE's or text editors. Even MS has programmers who will only work in emacs.
Face it, if the major attraction of a platform for you is the pretty toolset then you're no great loss to the real programming world.
We are not processing nobody, and the order of explanations is not related to a personal question.
They're putting a nice spin for us on a definite threat to Sergio Amadeu. This is odd, considering the kinds of things they've been screaming at the Brazilian government lately.
In this inadvertently hilarious google translation Microsoft Brazil says they were only asking for an explaination and were misreported. First noted by Alistair Burt on the Lessig blog.
It's called lip service How to look FOSS-friendly without actually having to support it.
Or what we down here in the great south land of the penguins (australia) call "Clayton's FOSS", after a famous advert for a non-alcoholic beverage. It's the FOSS you have when you're not having a FOSS:)
Our federal government is very much into Clayton's FOSS, and most of the state governments, except ironically the ACT, are the same.
Many posters seem to be promoting compilers over learning the nuts and bolts of a particular architecture yourself: somebody had to learn it to write that compiler! Probably a whole bunch of somebodies, because writing a good compiler is a hard task.
Even then, if you don't understand how your language is compiled, you cannot properly debug your code. With C/C++, it isn't just a case of stack frames, there's memory allocation, pointer dereferencing, etc. Sometimes you need to look at the assembler level to get a grip on some bugs.
I know from experience that compilers are buggy, don't perform the same way with the same switches on different platforms and while they may optimize generally better than a human, sometimes it's a bug to optimize at all!
Some appreciation of the assembley level is better than nothing at all.
Within a year of buying my first PC, I'd learnt everything I needed or wanted to know about DOS and Windows. That was in 1993-1994. Then I discovered linux.
Since 1994, I'm still learning. What more could you want?
...is to take to heart the old dictum don't feed the trolls. He wants you to feed him stuff he can attack the community with. Anonymous, out of context defamation is his cherished goal. DON'T GIVE IT TO HIM. He wants government to buy it.
PJ's reaction should give a useful heads-up. The Gilbert and Sullivan parody should be mandatory singing all day today!
What a simplistic over-generalization. Are we to assume by corollary that the brave new generation are automatically pro-nuclear? I think not.
What this post, and many like it, prefer to ignore are things like:
The political price-tag of energy. Witness Chernobyl and TMI. And if they lied to John Wayne, they'll lie to you. Plutonium goes missing more often than they'll tell you. Who has it? Noone knows. The first casualty of nuclear power is the truth.
Death-rates due to fossil fuel by-products are hidden behind insurance company premiums. Natural radiation is actually a component in insurance in the eastern United States. To say nothing of what the premium for unnatural radiation.
We shouldn't put up with any process that leaves undesirable by-products. Especially not ones that are dangerous for 250,000 years. Don't make excuses for it. Noone is going to pay for the incredibly expensive process to make it safe.
If the foregoing makes me a head-in-the-sand Boomer Anti-Nuclear Satanist, then at least I'm older, wiser and sadder than you young idiots. It's no wonder they send boys of your age to war, you're too stupid to accept that you'll die.
This is a PR disaster the m$ marketing droids must be salivating over. What lovely copy for them: bad UI design, knee-jerk flaming, PHB reluctance.
It's not an obstacle, it's an opportunity. Don't write off Petreley and esr, they are trying to help you by putting the message of the users into a form you might find easier to understand. Users are not necessarily stupid, just conservative. And they will avoid you if you confuse them.
Please learn this lesson; if I have to read this sort of thing again in another two years time, I'll know it's too late for FOSS. That's seriously all the time you're going to get.
You'd think that should be the case, but it isn't. Regardless of the avowed (and covert) aims of the US government, the economic aims of multinations are a law unto themselves. In fact no government matters to them.
Most of the profit for multinationals comes from using the relative cost/benefit of operating in poorer cheaper countries. First World labour cuts into those profits, remember. They have powerful lobby groups and make trade negotiations hell, because the everyone knows the US government is their agent.
Yes, it is counterproductive, and no it isn't a conspiracy. The people who run these things aren't stupid, it's been an obvious method of business for at least 25 years. Do a little historical research into the World Bank, for instance. In most cases, the politics follow the money, not the other way around.
It isn't popular stuff to be saying. Several prominent historians and economists are notorious for even suggesting it. But you don't need mad conspiracy theories to see the obvious. Yes, the US in general might wish for the rise of Third world countries, but that isn't the same as saying that its multinationals do. And who pays for presidential elections?
Seriously, show me the plane and i'll get on it. I don't care where or when (and I don't even have a passport), but if you want someone to help, I'll be there.
Anything's got to be better than administering a win98 network for idiots.
There should be a mod category -1 unrealistic (sigh).
Sorry, the real world doesn't work like you imagine: name me a commercial product that hasn't been released broken. Few truthfully acknowledge it. Are you going to get the source from them if they don't have the time/will to fix it themselves? The world's biggest software company treats its customers as unpaid beta testers, charges top dollar for support (if you could call it that) and makes it difficult to research previous issues with a product by moving the webpage address regularly.
From a commercial vendor's position, yes, broken is good, because they have the source, you can't fix it and they never will. But hey, you can buy the next version, can't you?
The article was good in that it recognized that commercial linux figures were only the tip of the iceberg of total linux usage, but it failed to realize that this means Linux is not playing the same game as Microsoft (or any other vendor).
Comparing revenue growth is meaningless. Even the effect on MS's bottom line is secondary to MS. They're more frightened about the mindshare. People don't want to upgrade to XP. People have lost faith in the Software Assurance program (if they had any to begin with).
There's no serious money in PC hardware at the moment, but people are seriously revising their upgrade needs for when the time comes.
I'm still wating for the killer web-based tax/accounting application (eg postgres+php). That would give the tortoise a wriggle-on.
...for me was Annie Lennox' shocked acceptance speech which rambled on so long that poor Fran Walsh had to stop the orchestra in order to get a word in (after all she only co-wrote the song with Howard Shore)
I feel sorry for the performers of the songs of the previous two movies, particularly Emiliana Torrini who sang the Gollum theme of TT, who didn't get a look in, and for all the actors who were summarily ignored by the Academy. Peter Jackson made a point of including them on stage for the Best Picture Oscar, and well done too.
Jokes at the McDonald's analogy aside, if you've looked at your local McDonald's lately, you might understand what this guy is saying about Microsoft's future strategy.
McDonald's used to sell just burgers, fries and Coke. Not anymore. Now we have a McCafe, and salads and chicken wraps. Why? Because they were missing out on a market segment and want to dominate that, too.
Remember, everything Microsoft does, it learnt first from IBM. And market segmentation is the name of the game here. Invent three boxes, small, medium and large, and claim that's more choice than Linux gives you.
Apart from the fact that such tactics won't work against an open-source model, isn't it a strategic mistake to chop op a major OS/Applications platform like this? Joe Average might be confused enough to think that Linux is a simpler alternative:)
by the complications surrounding indemifying Linux because they don't understand the nature of Linux distributions. Linux and a distribution are not the same, yet Berlind keeps confusing the two in the case of HP, Sun and IBM, even though two of them contribute code and the other offers Linux on its hardware via Red Hat; one of them is suing SCO and the other two are indemifying against SCO lawsuits.
I don't see anything wrong with Red Hat's position; the software business is after all a get-rich-quick-via-litigation arena these days, and they are a valid target. So I don't buy Berlind's arguments of a preemptive strike either.
I'm not arguing against indemnity per se, but, especially in reference to Linux, I don't think anyone really knows how to measure it as an insurance cost; the estimates are currently wildly high or low. There would be a high barrier to entry from most insurers point of view in any case, which is why the big companies do a lot of research and wait to be sued over a product rather than take out a policy and cross their fingers.
Slashdot Mirror
Good weather data is frequently a matter of life or death in many fields, it's that simple. Restriction for commercial gain cannot be sanctioned by any government that desires to avoid the pitchforks of public fury.
In case this doesn't seem odd to you, consider your insurance options if forecast trends become a matter of "commercial in confidence" and you didn't prepare for that sudden storm, to name one example. Or, if you're a private pilot, perhaps an ultralight enthusiast, consider the expense of your hobby if you have to pay extra to make damn sure you know the density altitude at that cross-country airport. Do farmers really need another expense to add to their list to make a harvest successful?
Don't let this get a foothold, noone can afford the price.
Your point 1: You've never read any Sherlock Holmes so your ignorance is forgiven. It refers to a case where Holmes realized the evidence was not an inconvenient fact but a missing fact. But you're playing word games too: if you like marketers, you call them thorough, if you don't, call them opportunistic. It doesn't change anything.
Your point 2: So what. They called us criminals first. Nyahh.
Your point 3: "Hey why don't I think of a word I don't like and then accuse ESR of not using it in a context that suits me?" Go back to Debating 101, kid.
Your point 4: What, so you can endlessly debate it? Seems to me you're asking for the impossible. Noone is going to agree with anyone's figures. This is also part of Debating 101.
Your point 5, which is so wrong I'm quoting it:
inflammatory for a start. It isn't inflammatory, its the truth. You agree to using MS's Shared Source providing you give MS royalty-free rights to use EVERYTHING you produce with it, and your source. Great deal, huh? NO. It's a poison pill.Finally, your point 6: IIS is a crock. It's so bad that MS has said publicly there are bugs it will NOT fix. These happen to be bugs any script kiddy can drive a truck through. We live now in a world where if x = bug; attack(); if you haven't noticed. IIS is a PR nightmare for MS but they can't be seen to publicly discontinue support. Your argument is so besides the point it's almost trollery.
Otherwise, your heart's in the right place, you've just got sharpen your skillz.
Modders: I know it looked like it was a reasonable argument but it only deserved a 3.
Oh, you meant the Microsoft page? Like the MetaGroup Benchmark?
Well, I can understand not wanting to push its own sponsored studies, but why hide the .NET vs J2EE study, do you think? And why can I still download them?
They're also playing to the GUI developers gallery...except they seem to have overlooked glade, kdevelop and a bunch of commercial offerings like coldfusion and kylix.
In that case, it reduces to a question of paradigm: IDE's or text editors. Even MS has programmers who will only work in emacs.
Face it, if the major attraction of a platform for you is the pretty toolset then you're no great loss to the real programming world.
To quote from the translation:
They're putting a nice spin for us on a definite threat to Sergio Amadeu. This is odd, considering the kinds of things they've been screaming at the Brazilian government lately.
In this inadvertently hilarious google translation Microsoft Brazil says they were only asking for an explaination and were misreported. First noted by Alistair Burt on the Lessig blog.
It's called lip service How to look FOSS-friendly without actually having to support it.
Or what we down here in the great south land of the penguins (australia) call "Clayton's FOSS", after a famous advert for a non-alcoholic beverage. It's the FOSS you have when you're not having a FOSS :)
Our federal government is very much into Clayton's FOSS, and most of the state governments, except ironically the ACT, are the same.
<matrix>MS Longhorn: "What's the use of a browser with soul...if you can't even surf?" </matrix>
Many posters seem to be promoting compilers over learning the nuts and bolts of a particular architecture yourself: somebody had to learn it to write that compiler! Probably a whole bunch of somebodies, because writing a good compiler is a hard task.
Even then, if you don't understand how your language is compiled, you cannot properly debug your code. With C/C++, it isn't just a case of stack frames, there's memory allocation, pointer dereferencing, etc. Sometimes you need to look at the assembler level to get a grip on some bugs.
I know from experience that compilers are buggy, don't perform the same way with the same switches on different platforms and while they may optimize generally better than a human, sometimes it's a bug to optimize at all!
Some appreciation of the assembley level is better than nothing at all.
Within a year of buying my first PC, I'd learnt everything I needed or wanted to know about DOS and Windows. That was in 1993-1994. Then I discovered linux.
Since 1994, I'm still learning. What more could you want?
...is to take to heart the old dictum don't feed the trolls. He wants you to feed him stuff he can attack the community with. Anonymous, out of context defamation is his cherished goal. DON'T GIVE IT TO HIM. He wants government to buy it.
PJ's reaction should give a useful heads-up. The Gilbert and Sullivan parody should be mandatory singing all day today!
What a simplistic over-generalization. Are we to assume by corollary that the brave new generation are automatically pro-nuclear? I think not.
What this post, and many like it, prefer to ignore are things like:
If the foregoing makes me a head-in-the-sand Boomer Anti-Nuclear Satanist, then at least I'm older, wiser and sadder than you young idiots. It's no wonder they send boys of your age to war, you're too stupid to accept that you'll die.
This is a PR disaster the m$ marketing droids must be salivating over. What lovely copy for them: bad UI design, knee-jerk flaming, PHB reluctance.
It's not an obstacle, it's an opportunity. Don't write off Petreley and esr, they are trying to help you by putting the message of the users into a form you might find easier to understand. Users are not necessarily stupid, just conservative. And they will avoid you if you confuse them.
Please learn this lesson; if I have to read this sort of thing again in another two years time, I'll know it's too late for FOSS. That's seriously all the time you're going to get.
You'd think that should be the case, but it isn't. Regardless of the avowed (and covert) aims of the US government, the economic aims of multinations are a law unto themselves. In fact no government matters to them.
Most of the profit for multinationals comes from using the relative cost/benefit of operating in poorer cheaper countries. First World labour cuts into those profits, remember. They have powerful lobby groups and make trade negotiations hell, because the everyone knows the US government is their agent.
Yes, it is counterproductive, and no it isn't a conspiracy. The people who run these things aren't stupid, it's been an obvious method of business for at least 25 years. Do a little historical research into the World Bank, for instance. In most cases, the politics follow the money, not the other way around.
It isn't popular stuff to be saying. Several prominent historians and economists are notorious for even suggesting it. But you don't need mad conspiracy theories to see the obvious. Yes, the US in general might wish for the rise of Third world countries, but that isn't the same as saying that its multinationals do. And who pays for presidential elections?
Catchy title. I'm a vim professional myself, why bother with all that pointy clicky stuff when you can edit hex :)
Taco, you might want to update the story with the link to the second draft, Draft File Transfer Specification. It isn't on the IETF site yet, however.
I'll say it again: woo-hoo!
If you can't read these books, you can't read. Give up, don't bother trying, it's too hard for you.
The rest of us can enjoy one of the few interesting authors left. I just wish he'd write them faster.
Seriously, show me the plane and i'll get on it. I don't care where or when (and I don't even have a passport), but if you want someone to help, I'll be there.
Anything's got to be better than administering a win98 network for idiots.
There should be a mod category -1 unrealistic (sigh).
Sorry, the real world doesn't work like you imagine: name me a commercial product that hasn't been released broken. Few truthfully acknowledge it. Are you going to get the source from them if they don't have the time/will to fix it themselves? The world's biggest software company treats its customers as unpaid beta testers, charges top dollar for support (if you could call it that) and makes it difficult to research previous issues with a product by moving the webpage address regularly.
From a commercial vendor's position, yes, broken is good, because they have the source, you can't fix it and they never will. But hey, you can buy the next version, can't you?
... after all it's a Markoff article.
this is my favourite bash function, psgrep()
ps aux | grep $1 | grep -v grepAnd my favourite script, cls:
#!/bin/sh
echo -e 'ESC[c'
The article was good in that it recognized that commercial linux figures were only the tip of the iceberg of total linux usage, but it failed to realize that this means Linux is not playing the same game as Microsoft (or any other vendor).
Comparing revenue growth is meaningless. Even the effect on MS's bottom line is secondary to MS. They're more frightened about the mindshare. People don't want to upgrade to XP. People have lost faith in the Software Assurance program (if they had any to begin with). There's no serious money in PC hardware at the moment, but people are seriously revising their upgrade needs for when the time comes.
I'm still wating for the killer web-based tax/accounting application (eg postgres+php). That would give the tortoise a wriggle-on.
...for me was Annie Lennox' shocked acceptance speech which rambled on so long that poor Fran Walsh had to stop the orchestra in order to get a word in (after all she only co-wrote the song with Howard Shore)
I feel sorry for the performers of the songs of the previous two movies, particularly Emiliana Torrini who sang the Gollum theme of TT, who didn't get a look in, and for all the actors who were summarily ignored by the Academy. Peter Jackson made a point of including them on stage for the Best Picture Oscar, and well done too.
Jokes at the McDonald's analogy aside, if you've looked at your local McDonald's lately, you might understand what this guy is saying about Microsoft's future strategy.
McDonald's used to sell just burgers, fries and Coke. Not anymore. Now we have a McCafe, and salads and chicken wraps. Why? Because they were missing out on a market segment and want to dominate that, too.
Remember, everything Microsoft does, it learnt first from IBM. And market segmentation is the name of the game here. Invent three boxes, small, medium and large, and claim that's more choice than Linux gives you.
Apart from the fact that such tactics won't work against an open-source model, isn't it a strategic mistake to chop op a major OS/Applications platform like this? Joe Average might be confused enough to think that Linux is a simpler alternative :)
by the complications surrounding indemifying Linux because they don't understand the nature of Linux distributions. Linux and a distribution are not the same, yet Berlind keeps confusing the two in the case of HP, Sun and IBM, even though two of them contribute code and the other offers Linux on its hardware via Red Hat; one of them is suing SCO and the other two are indemifying against SCO lawsuits.
I don't see anything wrong with Red Hat's position; the software business is after all a get-rich-quick-via-litigation arena these days, and they are a valid target. So I don't buy Berlind's arguments of a preemptive strike either.
I'm not arguing against indemnity per se, but, especially in reference to Linux, I don't think anyone really knows how to measure it as an insurance cost; the estimates are currently wildly high or low. There would be a high barrier to entry from most insurers point of view in any case, which is why the big companies do a lot of research and wait to be sued over a product rather than take out a policy and cross their fingers.