Re:Comments to come: blah, Perl hard to read/maint
on
Perl Medic
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
Yeah, but perl makes it easier to write shit. I happen to love perl and use it all the time, but I also have to be very disciplined about the aspects and particularly syntax conventions of the language that I use, in order to write readable perl. Just because you can write:
do { thirty(); things(); in(); a(); list(); unformatted(); } if($foo);
Doesn't mean that you should.
One of the brilliant aspects of perl is that it allows you to write code like you think about code. Well doesn't that presuppose that other people are going to think about code the same way you do? Ooops.
Books and books have been written on the need for code formatting, syntax, and variable naming conventions in languages that are twice as rigorous and disciplined as perl. In perl, the need is double.
So I guess what I'm saying is that although shitty code is shitty code in any language, perl provides the possibility for a certain depth and richness of shit that just isn't accomodated in other languages. Kudos to the authors for addressing what is a real problem with a powerful and widely used programming language.
Laziness is one of the virtues of programmers and vices of the free media. I don't really think these people have some evil hidden agenda to pollute public discourse with lies, I think they're probably just schmoes who are under the gun on a deadline and cut some corners in order to make sure that what sounds like a really good story makes it onto paper in time.
That's from the perspective of the publications anyway. The laziness displayed by the people actually fabricating the news is much worse, but even they are doing it because they're lazy, or because they are dishonest opportunists who want to be known for getting the scoop.
This is a hand wringing exercise by the American press. Readership has and will continue to fall off in favor of other news outlets, robbing the public of the detail that is required to make informed political decisions.
All of those new outlets are going to be susceptible to the same old mistakes. Blogs don't even make an attempt at even claiming they're impartial, much less actually being impartial. I just hope we don't end up with most of the nation listening to the Rush Limbaughs and Michael Moores of the world for all of their political reporting.
But the New York Times and media of its ilk isn't ever going to go out of business. Because from time to time, they may be crooked, corrupt, lazy, or incompetent, but they really are still the best thing going out there in terms of honesty and completeness.
Yes, I know that saying that is depressing, but it's still true. They shouldn't be the gold standard, but they are. Or does someone want to stand up and claim the Washington Post is going to fill the gap? (chuckle)
Huh? Actually, the more public the exploits the less secure the browser. An exploit isn't a security problem until someone finds out about it.
Actually, the ones that go public in a big way get fixed quickly. The really nasty dangerous ones are the ones that only the underground community knows about, because they have working code to exploit it.
There's no relationship between total number of bugs in a piece of software and reporting on those bugs. Software can have many thousands of unreported bugs or security holes - on the flip side, a solid, mature software package may have a handful that are heavily reported. Should we then conclude that the mature software package is less secure?
If a piece of software is only used by 1000 people, there is not really much of a point in exploiting it to say increase your count of zombied PCs
Agreed...but then you follow it up with:
If 20,000,000 people use a piece of software then that is fertile ground whether you want to zombie some machines or just make a splash
Correct premise, wrong implied conclusion. Yes, you can make a bigger splash with software packages that have so many users in terms of bot nets. Having 20 bazillion users guarantees you'll get some attention from the black hats, but it doesn't guarantee that they'll be successful. There is such a thing as well secured and thoroughly audited mature software. Granted, it isn't common, but it is out there.
Again, there is a perceived relationship here between installed base and frequency of exploitation, but it's only perceived. I guarantee you that if you pick a random "just-for-fun" web server implementation off of freshmeat and have black hats audit that for security problems against say Apache, they'll be tearing into the low-user base application in no time. Apache has regular security reports, and a large user base. That doesn't make it less secure than MyFirstHTTPD written by Joe Blow.
A few points to consider when you're evaluating the security of software:
Security issue visibility is not the same thing as security. Just because IE has more exploits publicized (or Firefox has more) doesn't actually mean they're more or less secure, it means they're getting more public attention about their security. Important difference. If someone has an objective, quantitative, and verifiable way of measuring a piece of software's security so that we can actually make these comparisons, I'd love to see it
The more users use a piece of software, the more it will be targeted. But again, that's not the same thing as saying "the more it will be exploited"
Most users ultimately decide based on personal experience, which typically trumps abstract reporting. Have you ever had a problem with Firefox? Have you ever had a problem with IE? I'd suspect most people who switched to Firefox did it because they actually experienced a problem with IE, not because it was more ideologically pure.
Where does Slashdot say that it will provide a fair and balanced view of technology? Where does the site claim to be a source of unbiased journalistic excellence?
Isn't it incumbent upon all readers of all internet media to identify bias and understand what they're reading, and the viewpoint that it's coming from? Even when people do claim to be impartial that's necessary to do.
It's a tech site that's provided for tidbits of information, and to furnish and environment where we can all pick on each other. It ain't the New York Times. Welcome to Infotainment.
The 73 percent refers to users of smart phones, not the general public. Not 100% of the public are mobile phone users, and of mobile phone users (I think their number was) 4% have smart phones.
I don't find 73% completely believable, but it was a pretty specialized group they were talking about. You'd have to know at least something about technology to have a smart phone in the first place (ostensibly because the extra functionality wouldn't be useful without some knowledge) - these people might be predisposed to know what virii are, or to believe they might have come into contact with some.
I'm confused. So is your assertion that there isn't a risk, and these anti-virus companies are just smart enough to convince all the morons out there that there's something to fear?
Don't you think it's a bit more plausible that perhaps there really is a risk, that people actually do lose valuable privacy and data to virii, and that they reasonably might want to take steps to prevent that?
Now if you're saying that anti-virus companies might exaggerate or overplay the threat with dire scenarios in order to sell software, you're preaching to the choir. But don't confuse the run-of-the-mill software vendor BS for the nonexistence of a real threat.
Shouldn't it be obvious that these types of things are eventually going to be a problem on mobile platforms?
People have been talking about digital convergence, and the idea that many devices are becoming one. Already, these mobile phones are just PCs who happen to have one primary specialized purpose (voice communications). Since they are basically PCs, unless there's something fundamentally different about the way the software is architected or the way the systems are designed from the start, there's no reason to believe that they would be any less vulnerable to viruses, or that they would be any less attractive as a target for virus writers.
Unlike with most computer virii, there is an incentive to profit with cell virii.
There may be different ways of profiting with cell virii, but there are plenty of ways of profiting with computer virii, from bogus click-nets, to identity theft, to pilfering personal financial information (.doc and.xls files on disk) to all sorts of other methods.
The profit motive comes later though - the first wave of virii seems to always just be by geeks who did it to see if they could. (They can)
this survey is much better than most. They freely admit how it was done, and that it isn't perfect. Most surveys don't go into nearly as much details, and practically state that they are useful and represent the broader people as a whole.
"Better" in this context means that they're more honest about their stats - not that their stats are more objectively accurate.
So I'm willing to believe them for my purposes, which are unscientific. If I needed real results (...)
That's an important point to be made - the accuracy of a poll that's actually needed is tied to how the information is going to be used. Since we don't have any serious use or need for this information (i.e. there are no bets or investments being placed whose outcome might be affected by the quality of information) the quality is largely irrelevant - the survey would be just as entertaining if it was 20 percentage points off.
On the other hand, for many sampling reasons, the results would never be taken seriously by someone who had a serious stake in actually making the right decision based on such a survey.
And what about Area 51, the Green Zone in Baghdad, and all of the nifty places on the earth that we don't typically get to see via satellite photos?
How do they filter those images out, anyway? These satellites have much better views than the typical U2 spy plane - is this a tacit agreement between defense and the satellite operating company, or does the defense department get a crack at the images before they're released to the public?
And it's also time to send out notice to the Californians: no more nude sunbathing.
Now that would be one hell of a computer science Ph.D. project: "Investigating the 'Where's Waldo' Imaging Algorithm for the Detection of Nude Figures in Satellite Photos"
My biggest problem with applications like Open Office and Microsoft Word is that the general way they're put together sucks. It seems everybody thinks that applications always have to be built based off of what people are familiar with. Certainly there are strong arguments for that.
But wouldn't it be cool if one of these "Microsoft Killing Apps" would strike out in a truly new, really interesting direction, rather than focusing on reimplementing everything Microsoft has done? If price is the only selling point for this software, I don't think much of its future. At some point, it's going to have something substantially better than what MS has.
I wonder how much technology adoption has to do with when things get lots of press relative to the product design cycle. If something is new at a time when not many products are in the planning phase, it might stand less of a chance at immediate adoption than if it's really on people's radar screens when they're planning.
Time will tell if it's the next big thing. With nothing against UWB though, it's worth noting that for every 50 new technologies with "buzz" behind them, 1 or 2 of them end up being "the next big thing". It's like some gigantic geek-driven technology version of "American Idol". (Shudder)
Government workers actually have very strong regulations on them, and the government really doesn't have a sense of humor about some of its regulations. Particularly what's found in the FAR (Federal Acquisitions Regs)
When people do things that are crooked, from what I've seen they get nailed to the wall. They don't do Martha Stewart white collar leniency, particularly for actual (or perceived) graft.
Absolutely. One of the things people forget about is the migration path. If there isn't a clear migration path from one technology to another (regardless of what the specifics of the technology are) it isn't going to work.
There are still going to be a lot of specialized markets though that use that 0.00001% of functionality that may never switch; many law offices STILL use version of WordPerfect back from the days when they reigned supreme o'er the land in part because they couldn't get their documents to convert perfectly to anything else. I imagine the same is true for specialized document management shops that might use obscure features of Word.
If it's true and mobile phones really do fry your eggs, (and that's in doubt) I wonder if it would really change anyone's behavior.
Mobile phones have become a lifestyle thing, and plenty of people I know are addicted to the ability to be reached and reach anybody else at any time. I have actually seen people get quite nervous at the prospect that their US mobile phone wasn't going to work overseas on vacation. Trying to talk them out of taking the phone to the airport for the last 20 minutes of possible usability is like talking to a hoarder during riots.
Anyway, if there's anybody out there that actually has the information on HOW mobile phones are supposedly harming people, I'd be interested in hearing it. (i.e. what about the electromagnetic radiation is harmful? Does it detach too many bogons from people's neurons?)
But make no mistake about it my fellow greyheads. They have about as much respect for you and your skills as they have for the beaker that collects bull semen. What you have to do is rape them on the contract.
It's worth pointing out that no one can make a company pay more for something than it's inherently worth to them. It simply wouldn't make economic sense. So if you're getting $100/hour and in your estimation "raping them", aside from the concerns I'd have about your professional integrity at attempting to violate your clients sexually or economically, you have to wonder if you're leaving money on the table.
Trust me, IBM would not continue to invest all that money in MVS and z/OS Large Systems if they thought there was a limited future in it.
"Trust me" - the cry of the true pundit. And the suggestion? Since IBM is investing in MVS, it must be worthwhile for me to do it too! (That equates to the statement "Trust IBM") I would have thought that the rest of your post would have cautioned against putting your economic future in other people's hands.
Every couple of years there is the same old new revolution in commercial IT. It's part of the scenery like starving African children with automatic weapons. Sell them more weapons.
What better way to end a cynical, combatitive, and unrealistic post then to drop an obtuse metaphor based on a distorted view of reality?
You're painting a picture of stupid businessmen, machiavellian tech workers who only want to take advantage of them, and a dishonest tech industry that's only recycling old ideas into new technology they can charge people through the nose for. Thank god we don't have more people who feel like you do. Otherwise, we might not have had the unprecedented growth in productivity, introduction of new products, increase in people's options, and advent of new useful technologies that we've experienced.
Being able to take multiple sources, evaluate them all, then form your own opinions is more valuable than just reading something in one place once. That's only my opinion though, and it is always horses for courses.
I agree entirely. This is the crucial aspect to using information on the Internet. A potential problem with a site like wikipedia though is this: one source people use to evaluate multiple sources is "perceived credibility". (As in, perhaps the New York Times has more than the average skinhead crackpot site). Wikipedia is a site that by billing itself as an encyclopedia is trying to build perceived credibility.
Although it's collaboratively edited, there isn't any message on Wikipedia along the lines of "Warning: We believe this information to be correct, but ultimately it was written by people whose identities may be unverfiable, and who may or may not know anything about the topic that they're writing about". I think that Wikipedia is a great source and that for the most part their articles are good, but there's no denying that the above statement is accurate.
So by that rationale would embedded product placements in TV shows be illegal?
"""Wow Gary, why don't we take a quick break from fighting crime to enjoy a bubbly refreshing Coca Cola at the local McDonalds!"""
I've listened to radio for years, and I never actually thought that the DJs were picking the songs. (Well, maybe on college radio they do, but in general, it's clear that Wacky Wild Willy the morning guy on your local station is putting on an act to get paid) Come to think of it, I can't even remember a time when I heard a DJ say something akin to "I picked this song". I've heard them say that they like a song, or that it's great, but never personally endorse the choice of song.
Even then...I mean come on. Are we banning payola in a vain attempt to preserve the nation's trust in our DJ's choice of music? Come on! Does anybody think that Tiger Woods uses Nike because they're the best brand on the planet?
As far as I can tell, the only thing payola laws serve to do is to make payola more indirect, and to preserve people's ability to be naive about promotion.
Why do record companies put singles on the air? To advertise albums. Why do companies put advertisements on TV? To advertise products. People charge for advertisements on TV (both inside of the primary content in the form of embedded ads, and outside the primary content in the form of 30 second spots)
So what's wrong with payola, anyway? It seems to me that it's not a bribing behavior (or is perhaps only because people say it is) Record companies are paying in effect to advertise their product. How is that sinister again? Because other musicians don't get heard? Does that make the New York times a bribe-accepting organization for placing their printed ads outside of my price range, or ABC a corrupt organization for pricing their 30 second spots and product placements in sitcoms outside of my range?
What again were the sinister implications of companies making deals with radio stations to promote their songs?
That's the great thing about standards. There are so many of them to choose from.:) The thing with freedom of choice in software is that it tends to spread things out like this. (For example, there are several different popular choices for desktop environments) That's not without its own advantages, but it kinda sucks for the developers. I can't blame the developers of the packages though from doing things that are non-standard; they're just trying to distinguish themselves, and there is so much else that is possible on top of the standard that they shouldn't even restrict themselves to it.
I've always thought that the database is a mature and old enough technology that it should pretty much be a standard component of an OS, like filesystems and perhaps windowing systems. Think about how easy it would be to organize configurations, replacing both UNIX-style/etc/foo and the windows registry. Or how it could be used as a standardized store by applications for things like email, multimedia files, and just about anything.
As for ingres, I say it sounds great. More open code provides: - more study opportunity for university classes, - more sample code for hackers learning, - more opportunities for third parties that need to bundle software
The amount of money it takes to get by is irrelevant. These voice actors are essentially partners in a business venture with Fox. Their increasing demands shouldn't be framed as "I need this much money to get by". It's more like this - when actors of any type ask for increases like this, it reflects the fact that they know Fox is making more money than ever on the show, and they'd like to share in the growing wealth that the show produces. I wouldn't be suprised if they modeled what they were asking on based off of a percentage of total revenues from the show.
To say that these guys shouldn't ask for a raise is like saying that they're simply paid help. They're not. They're the life of the show. If fox manages to shoot the golden goose and refuse their demands, the show will go on with new voice actors, but the show will likely be a shadow of itself.
These actors aren't stupid. They aren't going to ask for a salary that they know would cause Fox to lose money, since if they did so, Fox would be guaranteed to reject their offer. Looks to me like the simpson's overall take has increased, and te actors are just requesting their fair share. I don't see any problem with that.
...And this type of dissatisfaction my friends is why monopolies suck. The lack of options is a problem, but it's the secondary problem. Options are needed when the products are no good. The so-called invisible hand of the economy is supposed to ruthlessly punish companies who produce crappy products that don't give customers what they need. In monopolies, the invisible hands are handcuffed. This in turn really robs the company in question of any motivation to do it right.
I mean, what's the difference? People are going to buy their stuff whether it's good or not. This reminds me of the South Park episode where Mr. Garrison comes up with an alternative to the airplane industry. The only problem is that it has serious, terrible drawbacks. (To say the least) Still, people go after it because even if it's terrible, it provides an incremental advantage to how terrible the airlines were.
Part of the lack of choice isn't Microsoft's fault. Computers are new, and society at large is sorely lacking in the skills necessary to use them effectively. Computer education at all levels (not programming, just training on effective use) is vital if you ever want people to take an alternative to Microsoft, even if it is ever presented.
Strike "Word of Mouth Ruled Illegal", I have another suggestion:
Slander/Libel law broadened to include "negative and harmful" speech towards economic activity.
I personally know a guy who was successfully sued for posting a negative opinion of one company's products in a forum devoted to discussion of products in a particular hobby area. (In his case, outdoor water gardens)
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah, but perl makes it easier to write shit. I happen to love perl and use it all the time, but I also have to be very disciplined about the aspects and particularly syntax conventions of the language that I use, in order to write readable perl. Just because you can write:
do { thirty(); things(); in(); a(); list(); unformatted(); } if($foo);
Doesn't mean that you should.
One of the brilliant aspects of perl is that it allows you to write code like you think about code. Well doesn't that presuppose that other people are going to think about code the same way you do? Ooops.
Books and books have been written on the need for code formatting, syntax, and variable naming conventions in languages that are twice as rigorous and disciplined as perl. In perl, the need is double.
So I guess what I'm saying is that although shitty code is shitty code in any language, perl provides the possibility for a certain depth and richness of shit that just isn't accomodated in other languages. Kudos to the authors for addressing what is a real problem with a powerful and widely used programming language.
Laziness is one of the virtues of programmers and vices of the free media. I don't really think these people have some evil hidden agenda to pollute public discourse with lies, I think they're probably just schmoes who are under the gun on a deadline and cut some corners in order to make sure that what sounds like a really good story makes it onto paper in time.
That's from the perspective of the publications anyway. The laziness displayed by the people actually fabricating the news is much worse, but even they are doing it because they're lazy, or because they are dishonest opportunists who want to be known for getting the scoop.
This is a hand wringing exercise by the American press. Readership has and will continue to fall off in favor of other news outlets, robbing the public of the detail that is required to make informed political decisions.
All of those new outlets are going to be susceptible to the same old mistakes. Blogs don't even make an attempt at even claiming they're impartial, much less actually being impartial. I just hope we don't end up with most of the nation listening to the Rush Limbaughs and Michael Moores of the world for all of their political reporting.
But the New York Times and media of its ilk isn't ever going to go out of business. Because from time to time, they may be crooked, corrupt, lazy, or incompetent, but they really are still the best thing going out there in terms of honesty and completeness.
Yes, I know that saying that is depressing, but it's still true. They shouldn't be the gold standard, but they are. Or does someone want to stand up and claim the Washington Post is going to fill the gap? (chuckle)
Huh? Actually, the more public the exploits the less secure the browser. An exploit isn't a security problem until someone finds out about it.
Actually, the ones that go public in a big way get fixed quickly. The really nasty dangerous ones are the ones that only the underground community knows about, because they have working code to exploit it.
There's no relationship between total number of bugs in a piece of software and reporting on those bugs. Software can have many thousands of unreported bugs or security holes - on the flip side, a solid, mature software package may have a handful that are heavily reported. Should we then conclude that the mature software package is less secure?
If a piece of software is only used by 1000 people, there is not really much of a point in exploiting it to say increase your count of zombied PCs
Agreed...but then you follow it up with:
If 20,000,000 people use a piece of software then that is fertile ground whether you want to zombie some machines or just make a splash
Correct premise, wrong implied conclusion. Yes, you can make a bigger splash with software packages that have so many users in terms of bot nets. Having 20 bazillion users guarantees you'll get some attention from the black hats, but it doesn't guarantee that they'll be successful. There is such a thing as well secured and thoroughly audited mature software. Granted, it isn't common, but it is out there.
Again, there is a perceived relationship here between installed base and frequency of exploitation, but it's only perceived. I guarantee you that if you pick a random "just-for-fun" web server implementation off of freshmeat and have black hats audit that for security problems against say Apache, they'll be tearing into the low-user base application in no time. Apache has regular security reports, and a large user base. That doesn't make it less secure than MyFirstHTTPD written by Joe Blow.
A few points to consider when you're evaluating the security of software:
Where does Slashdot say that it will provide a fair and balanced view of technology? Where does the site claim to be a source of unbiased journalistic excellence?
Isn't it incumbent upon all readers of all internet media to identify bias and understand what they're reading, and the viewpoint that it's coming from? Even when people do claim to be impartial that's necessary to do.
It's a tech site that's provided for tidbits of information, and to furnish and environment where we can all pick on each other. It ain't the New York Times. Welcome to Infotainment.
The 73 percent refers to users of smart phones, not the general public. Not 100% of the public are mobile phone users, and of mobile phone users (I think their number was) 4% have smart phones.
I don't find 73% completely believable, but it was a pretty specialized group they were talking about. You'd have to know at least something about technology to have a smart phone in the first place (ostensibly because the extra functionality wouldn't be useful without some knowledge) - these people might be predisposed to know what virii are, or to believe they might have come into contact with some.
I'm confused. So is your assertion that there isn't a risk, and these anti-virus companies are just smart enough to convince all the morons out there that there's something to fear?
Don't you think it's a bit more plausible that perhaps there really is a risk, that people actually do lose valuable privacy and data to virii, and that they reasonably might want to take steps to prevent that?
Now if you're saying that anti-virus companies might exaggerate or overplay the threat with dire scenarios in order to sell software, you're preaching to the choir. But don't confuse the run-of-the-mill software vendor BS for the nonexistence of a real threat.
People have been talking about digital convergence, and the idea that many devices are becoming one. Already, these mobile phones are just PCs who happen to have one primary specialized purpose (voice communications). Since they are basically PCs, unless there's something fundamentally different about the way the software is architected or the way the systems are designed from the start, there's no reason to believe that they would be any less vulnerable to viruses, or that they would be any less attractive as a target for virus writers.
There may be different ways of profiting with cell virii, but there are plenty of ways of profiting with computer virii, from bogus click-nets, to identity theft, to pilfering personal financial information (.doc and
The profit motive comes later though - the first wave of virii seems to always just be by geeks who did it to see if they could. (They can)
"Better" in this context means that they're more honest about their stats - not that their stats are more objectively accurate.
That's an important point to be made - the accuracy of a poll that's actually needed is tied to how the information is going to be used. Since we don't have any serious use or need for this information (i.e. there are no bets or investments being placed whose outcome might be affected by the quality of information) the quality is largely irrelevant - the survey would be just as entertaining if it was 20 percentage points off.
On the other hand, for many sampling reasons, the results would never be taken seriously by someone who had a serious stake in actually making the right decision based on such a survey.
And what about Area 51, the Green Zone in Baghdad, and all of the nifty places on the earth that we don't typically get to see via satellite photos?
How do they filter those images out, anyway? These satellites have much better views than the typical U2 spy plane - is this a tacit agreement between defense and the satellite operating company, or does the defense department get a crack at the images before they're released to the public?
And it's also time to send out notice to the Californians: no more nude sunbathing.
Now that would be one hell of a computer science Ph.D. project: "Investigating the 'Where's Waldo' Imaging Algorithm for the Detection of Nude Figures in Satellite Photos"
Oh, wait...the battle's not quite over.
My biggest problem with applications like Open Office and Microsoft Word is that the general way they're put together sucks. It seems everybody thinks that applications always have to be built based off of what people are familiar with. Certainly there are strong arguments for that.
But wouldn't it be cool if one of these "Microsoft Killing Apps" would strike out in a truly new, really interesting direction, rather than focusing on reimplementing everything Microsoft has done? If price is the only selling point for this software, I don't think much of its future. At some point, it's going to have something substantially better than what MS has.
I wonder how much technology adoption has to do with when things get lots of press relative to the product design cycle. If something is new at a time when not many products are in the planning phase, it might stand less of a chance at immediate adoption than if it's really on people's radar screens when they're planning.
Time will tell if it's the next big thing. With nothing against UWB though, it's worth noting that for every 50 new technologies with "buzz" behind them, 1 or 2 of them end up being "the next big thing". It's like some gigantic geek-driven technology version of "American Idol". (Shudder)
Are you sure? Larry Franklin might beg to differ:m erica
. htm
http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?F=829855&C=a
Here's another recent story about a government procurement officer whose probably headed to the pokey for a long time in connection with a Boeing deal:
http://www.govexec.com/features/0704-15/0704-15s2
Government workers actually have very strong regulations on them, and the government really doesn't have a sense of humor about some of its regulations. Particularly what's found in the FAR (Federal Acquisitions Regs)
When people do things that are crooked, from what I've seen they get nailed to the wall. They don't do Martha Stewart white collar leniency, particularly for actual (or perceived) graft.
Absolutely. One of the things people forget about is the migration path. If there isn't a clear migration path from one technology to another (regardless of what the specifics of the technology are) it isn't going to work.
There are still going to be a lot of specialized markets though that use that 0.00001% of functionality that may never switch; many law offices STILL use version of WordPerfect back from the days when they reigned supreme o'er the land in part because they couldn't get their documents to convert perfectly to anything else. I imagine the same is true for specialized document management shops that might use obscure features of Word.
If it's true and mobile phones really do fry your eggs, (and that's in doubt) I wonder if it would really change anyone's behavior.
Mobile phones have become a lifestyle thing, and plenty of people I know are addicted to the ability to be reached and reach anybody else at any time. I have actually seen people get quite nervous at the prospect that their US mobile phone wasn't going to work overseas on vacation. Trying to talk them out of taking the phone to the airport for the last 20 minutes of possible usability is like talking to a hoarder during riots.
Anyway, if there's anybody out there that actually has the information on HOW mobile phones are supposedly harming people, I'd be interested in hearing it. (i.e. what about the electromagnetic radiation is harmful? Does it detach too many bogons from people's neurons?)
It's worth pointing out that no one can make a company pay more for something than it's inherently worth to them. It simply wouldn't make economic sense. So if you're getting $100/hour and in your estimation "raping them", aside from the concerns I'd have about your professional integrity at attempting to violate your clients sexually or economically, you have to wonder if you're leaving money on the table.
"Trust me" - the cry of the true pundit. And the suggestion? Since IBM is investing in MVS, it must be worthwhile for me to do it too! (That equates to the statement "Trust IBM") I would have thought that the rest of your post would have cautioned against putting your economic future in other people's hands.
What better way to end a cynical, combatitive, and unrealistic post then to drop an obtuse metaphor based on a distorted view of reality?
You're painting a picture of stupid businessmen, machiavellian tech workers who only want to take advantage of them, and a dishonest tech industry that's only recycling old ideas into new technology they can charge people through the nose for. Thank god we don't have more people who feel like you do. Otherwise, we might not have had the unprecedented growth in productivity, introduction of new products, increase in people's options, and advent of new useful technologies that we've experienced.
I agree entirely. This is the crucial aspect to using information on the Internet. A potential problem with a site like wikipedia though is this: one source people use to evaluate multiple sources is "perceived credibility". (As in, perhaps the New York Times has more than the average skinhead crackpot site). Wikipedia is a site that by billing itself as an encyclopedia is trying to build perceived credibility.
Although it's collaboratively edited, there isn't any message on Wikipedia along the lines of "Warning: We believe this information to be correct, but ultimately it was written by people whose identities may be unverfiable, and who may or may not know anything about the topic that they're writing about". I think that Wikipedia is a great source and that for the most part their articles are good, but there's no denying that the above statement is accurate.
So by that rationale would embedded product placements in TV shows be illegal?
"""Wow Gary, why don't we take a quick break from fighting crime to enjoy a bubbly refreshing Coca Cola at the local McDonalds!"""
I've listened to radio for years, and I never actually thought that the DJs were picking the songs. (Well, maybe on college radio they do, but in general, it's clear that Wacky Wild Willy the morning guy on your local station is putting on an act to get paid) Come to think of it, I can't even remember a time when I heard a DJ say something akin to "I picked this song". I've heard them say that they like a song, or that it's great, but never personally endorse the choice of song.
Even then...I mean come on. Are we banning payola in a vain attempt to preserve the nation's trust in our DJ's choice of music? Come on! Does anybody think that Tiger Woods uses Nike because they're the best brand on the planet?
As far as I can tell, the only thing payola laws serve to do is to make payola more indirect, and to preserve people's ability to be naive about promotion.
Why do record companies put singles on the air? To advertise albums. Why do companies put advertisements on TV? To advertise products. People charge for advertisements on TV (both inside of the primary content in the form of embedded ads, and outside the primary content in the form of 30 second spots)
So what's wrong with payola, anyway? It seems to me that it's not a bribing behavior (or is perhaps only because people say it is) Record companies are paying in effect to advertise their product. How is that sinister again? Because other musicians don't get heard? Does that make the New York times a bribe-accepting organization for placing their printed ads outside of my price range, or ABC a corrupt organization for pricing their 30 second spots and product placements in sitcoms outside of my range?
What again were the sinister implications of companies making deals with radio stations to promote their songs?
That's the great thing about standards. There are so many of them to choose from. :) The thing with freedom of choice in software is that it tends to spread things out like this. (For example, there are several different popular choices for desktop environments) That's not without its own advantages, but it kinda sucks for the developers. I can't blame the developers of the packages though from doing things that are non-standard; they're just trying to distinguish themselves, and there is so much else that is possible on top of the standard that they shouldn't even restrict themselves to it.
/etc/foo and the windows registry. Or how it could be used as a standardized store by applications for things like email, multimedia files, and just about anything.
I've always thought that the database is a mature and old enough technology that it should pretty much be a standard component of an OS, like filesystems and perhaps windowing systems. Think about how easy it would be to organize configurations, replacing both UNIX-style
As for ingres, I say it sounds great. More open code provides:
- more study opportunity for university classes,
- more sample code for hackers learning,
- more opportunities for third parties that need to bundle software
It's a win for everybody as far as I'm concerned.
The amount of money it takes to get by is irrelevant. These voice actors are essentially partners in a business venture with Fox. Their increasing demands shouldn't be framed as "I need this much money to get by". It's more like this - when actors of any type ask for increases like this, it reflects the fact that they know Fox is making more money than ever on the show, and they'd like to share in the growing wealth that the show produces. I wouldn't be suprised if they modeled what they were asking on based off of a percentage of total revenues from the show.
To say that these guys shouldn't ask for a raise is like saying that they're simply paid help. They're not. They're the life of the show. If fox manages to shoot the golden goose and refuse their demands, the show will go on with new voice actors, but the show will likely be a shadow of itself.
These actors aren't stupid. They aren't going to ask for a salary that they know would cause Fox to lose money, since if they did so, Fox would be guaranteed to reject their offer. Looks to me like the simpson's overall take has increased, and te actors are just requesting their fair share. I don't see any problem with that.
Mmmmmm ... tomacco ... addictively good!
Agghhghghghghghgh
...And this type of dissatisfaction my friends is why monopolies suck. The lack of options is a problem, but it's the secondary problem. Options are needed when the products are no good. The so-called invisible hand of the economy is supposed to ruthlessly punish companies who produce crappy products that don't give customers what they need. In monopolies, the invisible hands are handcuffed. This in turn really robs the company in question of any motivation to do it right.
I mean, what's the difference? People are going to buy their stuff whether it's good or not. This reminds me of the South Park episode where Mr. Garrison comes up with an alternative to the airplane industry. The only problem is that it has serious, terrible drawbacks. (To say the least) Still, people go after it because even if it's terrible, it provides an incremental advantage to how terrible the airlines were.
Part of the lack of choice isn't Microsoft's fault. Computers are new, and society at large is sorely lacking in the skills necessary to use them effectively. Computer education at all levels (not programming, just training on effective use) is vital if you ever want people to take an alternative to Microsoft, even if it is ever presented.
Strike "Word of Mouth Ruled Illegal", I have another suggestion:
Slander/Libel law broadened to include "negative and harmful" speech towards economic activity.
I personally know a guy who was successfully sued for posting a negative opinion of one company's products in a forum devoted to discussion of products in a particular hobby area. (In his case, outdoor water gardens)