Do you want to democratize technology or just have it controlled by elites?
If I have to be in charge of cleaning up their mess then I would prefer that they leave development to the professionals. I think that is what the parent is getting at. We professionals are tired of rescuing dabblers who get in over their heads because their "easy to use" tools are just powerful enough to get them into trouble, but not powerful enough to get them out. If people agree to be responsible for their own results, good or bad, then I say let them do as they wish. Unfortunately, it never seems to work out that way in the real world. If their experimental project causes me to have an unplanned interruption in my own development work to help them out of a jam, I am probably going to be unhappy.
a lot of computer stuff is pretty easy and paying someone is ridiculous.
The famous last words of many who come to IT, hat in hand, and ask us to "fix it" or "make it work". It may be easy for the Slashdot crowd, but in my experience real computer knowledge is less common in the general population than you might otherwise believe.
Even experienced developers can learn something new by seeing the code of another; steel sharpens steel after all. IMHO, the day that we stop improving in our profession is the day that we hang up the editor and retire.
You've given reasons why Microsoft would court Apple to work against Google, but not why Apple would go along with MS's offers.
Apple would go along with Microsoft because the Android OS and Google phone represent a much more serious competitive threat to iPhone than Windows Mobile does. Apple should cooperate with Microsoft if that cooperation improves the competitiveness of iPhone vis-a-vis Android more than it helps Windows Mobile become a viable competitor. Microsoft hasn't shown much interest lately in improving Windows Mobile (that might change, but not quickly); preferring instead to put resources into Bing and shoring up the Windows and Office franchises.
Google is growing at MS's expense while creating new ways for Apple to grow at MS's expense.
Google is competing directly with Apple more and more these days and when it comes to mobile computing Google and Apple are basically on a collision course in the mobile device markets. As I have already said, the day that Eric Schmidt left Apple's Board of Directors was the confirmation that Google and Apple are now competitors; not partners.
To use an analogy, I would compare this to the present geopolitical situation in Pakistan. The classic arch-enemy of Pakistan has been India (as Microsoft has classically been the arch-enemy of Apple). However many experts feel that Pakistan is underestimating the threat posed by the Taliban by continuing to focus their attention on India, which is not as pressing a problem as the Taliban. In a similar fashion, it would be a mistake IMHO for Apple to underestimate Google and mistake them for a partner rather than a competitor.
The Windows->Google-on-Mac->Apple path is an easier one for Apple to thrive in than the direct Windows->Apple path
And yet Apple has classically resisted third-party attempts to marginalize core Apple software packages because it is the total "package" (hardware + software) that constitutes the premium experience that Apple charges premium prices for. If Google apps compete effectively with Quicktime, iWork, GargageBand, etc...it lessens the reasons to buy an expensive Apple product when one could get the same Google apps on a cheaper commodity PC. Reducing barriers to "switching" is a two-edged sword for Apple. If Google succeeds in "replacing" premium apps on MacOS then Apple's pricing model is in trouble.
Google's not particularly attacking Apple so much as attacking the much larger (in the phone industry) companies; the iphone has great publicity but hasn't grabbed much of the market. Google's growth there can, again, be at everyone else's expense and open the path for Apple's continued growth.
The more that the iPhone edges out other competing phones and divides up the market between itself and the Android phones, the more that iPhone will find itself being targeted by Android competitors. The iPhone has more ground to loose in the phone market because it is already wildly popular. Thus, new iPhone customers must be convinced that iPhone is a better choice than a Blackberry or the new slate of competing Android phones; especially the Motorola Droid on Verizon.
Any deal Google makes is an opportunity for Apple to demand the same good deal, for example.
It is doubtful that Google will be able to make as good of a deal as Apple did with AT&T; especially on Verizon. Steve Jobs has a reputation as a very shrewd negotiator (when he chooses to negotiate rather than directly compete) and it isn't clear, at least to outsiders, that any particular individual at Google is his equal in that department.
It may be different now, but when I attended University in the late 90s most incoming freshmen did not know how to use LaTeX and some hadn't even heard of it. So unless you want to turn your computational physics course into "Introduction to LaTeX", it probably isn't reasonable to expect that incoming freshmen are immediately productive in LaTeX (which definitely has a learning curve). In fact, you will be lucky if they have had any formal training in Linux or Unix use let alone LaTeX (most US high schools , if they offer computer courses at all, invariably use Windows and Word).
Then there is Microsoft's Bing. Gaining market share rapidly, got some positive comments a few stories ago here on/.. Makes me wonder where that stands really, as Bing just needs a standards-compliant browser.
It boils down to revenue (i.e. money). The AdWords program, which is built upon the foundation of their successful search engine, is responsible for 90%+ of Google's present revenues; AdWords pays the bills at Google. This revenue stream is tremendously lucrative by anyone's estimation; indeed, there is a river of advertising money flowing through Google via AdWords. When one looks at the issue in this way, it is not difficult to understand Microsoft's interest in search and their substantial investments in Bing. If Microsoft continues to be successful with Bing then not only can they siphon off a portion of Google's current revenues, damaging a primary competitor, but they will add a new and growing stream of revenue to supplement the income generated by their Windows and Office product lines (which incidentally are also under threat from Google with Chrome OS and Google apps). The future of Microsoft may well be determined by how well Bing competes with Google.
Having read TFA, the principal objection of Jeremy Allison is not over use of commercial software in Linux per se, but rather over offensive use of patents, creating "walled gardens" which favor one implementation over another regardless of merit, to quash or demand ransom from open source projects. Mr Allison is wise in his conclusion: namely that open source projects should ignore these agreements and continue to produce software freely because, as others have pointed out, (Richard Stallman being prominent among them) patents remain a threat to free software which cannot be avoided at this time. In fact, it is not worth even searching existing patents because willful infringement, or infringing a patent that you know about, carries heavier penalties than simply infringing a patent of which you had no knowledge. The patent holder may decide to file a lawsuit in either case so it doesn't pay to risk more than necessary by being proactive with regard to software patents. Therefore, the open source community should accept the risk and continuing moving forward, for now, while working against software patents on the legal and political advocacy front. This is essentially the same conclusion that Richard Stallman arrived at many years ago.
Excuse me, but I think that you are misreading this. The more likely scenario is that Microsoft is enlisting Apple's help in its battle against everything Google. Apple has been a niche market player for most of its existence and it wasn't until relatively recently, with the development of the iPod and later the iPhone, that Apple captured a franchise position in a new market (namely mobile audio and video distribution). Google, on the other hand, is the biggest threat that Microsoft has faced since its founding and it has wasted no time in moving aggressively against both Microsoft and Apple, once Erich Schmidt left the board (that was the final sign that a war was brewing), by attacking their established franchises. In the case of Microsoft it is Google apps and Chrome OS while for Apple it is Android and the Google phone. Microsoft benefits more from having Apple as an ally in the fight against Google rather than attacking Apple with Windows Mobile, which isn't a serious contender anyway, while Google delivers a body blow to Windows and Office. No, Microsoft and Apple will set aside their differences, for now, to address the challenge of Google.
I really hope that Tenenbaum is eventually heard by the Supreme Court. From what I understand there is no logical explanation, given the Constitution and previous Supreme Court decisions on substantially similar points of law, why copyright infringement of sound recordings should enjoy extraordinary statutory damages without a separate constitutional amendment specifically granting them (the RIAA may be a powerful, but I just don't see them getting one).
Utter bollocks - an evening of games pales in comparison with a day-long pizza-fuelled session at the weekend.
ED: You see a well groomed garden. In the middle, on a small hill, you see a gazebo.
ERIC: A gazebo? What color is it?
ED: (Pause) It's white, Eric.
ERIC: How far away is it?
ED: About fifty yards.
ERIC: How big is it?
ED: (Pause) It's about thirty feet across, fifteen feet high, with a pointed top.
ERIC: I use my sword to detect good on it.
ED: It's not good, Eric. It's a gazebo!
ERIC: (Pause) I call out to it.
ED: It won't answer. It's a gazebo!
ERIC: (Pause) I sheathe my sword and draw my bow and arrows. Does it respond in any way?
ED: No, Eric, it's a gazebo!
ERIC: I shoot it with my bow (roll to hit). What happened?
ED: There is now a gazebo with an arrow sticking out of it.
ERIC: (Pause) Wasn't it wounded?
ED: Of course not, Eric! It's a gazebo!
ERIC: (Whimper) But that was a plus three arrow!
ED: It's a gazebo, Eric, a gazebo! If you really want to try to destroy it, you could try to chop it with an axe, I suppose, or you could try to burn it, but I don't know why anybody would even try. It's a *)@#! gazebo!
ERIC: (Long pause. He has no axe or fire spells.) I run away.
ED: (Thoroughly frustrated) It's too late. You've woken up the gazebo, and it catches you and eats you.
ERIC: (Reaching for his dice) Maybe I'll roll up a fire-using mage so I can avenge my Paladin.
The problem with running IT in this way, as TFA points out, is that it creates no incentive to use the "internal IT company" vs picking some outsourcing firm which operates in exactly the same way. It doesn't matter that their product is ultimately worse than yours because the outsourcing firm delivers immediate cost savings (which helps the manager get promoted and the consultant get paid). When the project ultimately bombs several years latter the guilty ones are long gone and the IT department (or what is left of it) will be asked to pick up the pieces. No doubt the outsourcing firms would like for IT to adopt a "fee for service" paradigm, as TFA points out, because it makes it easier for consultants and outsourcing firms to pitch a "switch" to management. The fact that the outsourcing firms and consultants are selling management a pig in a poke doesn't become apparent until much later.
Is he right? Absolutely. Will anything change? Absolutely not. Convincing management that IT should be a strategic partner rather than a customer service lackey is like trying to convince them that multitasking doesn't produce better results faster. You can show them study after study, scientific and peer-reviewed, proving that the conclusion they have reached (i.e. multitasking works and is more productive OR IT should serve customers) is wrong and they will refuse to believe it. They may only believe it when competitors, who are using this model, start eating their lunch and by then it may be too late. Even then they may reach the conclusion that their theory of IT operations is sound, but IT doesn't work hard enough to "realize the vision of management"; sad but true.
A decision about whether and how long to keep what data essentially boils down to a question of economics. Keeping some data is quite obviously valuable because it allows both for better tuning of search engine results AND targeted advertising which opens the door both to more relevant searches or better profits (most probably both). However, if keeping some data is good then keeping more is not always better. First, more data may not necessarily improve search results, particularly if the new data simply reinforces an existing rule or pattern in the search agent (assuming that AI methods are being used). Second, the more data you have stored the more attractive a target you become to various governments around the world (as Google is learning first-hand with Chinese hacking incidents and previously with the DOJ fishing expeditions). Finally, even if you could store everything the cost would be tremendous; even for big companies like Microsoft and Google. Looking at all of the data coming across the wire on the public Internet backbones and storing it is like looking into the Sun or drinking from a fire hose turned on full blast; there are reasons why people don't generally attempt these things (or at least not for indefinite periods of time). Thus, there is a balance to be struck between storing everything and storing nothing; the question is how much and what to store and I believe that the market will ultimately work that one out.
So you're suggesting everyone rush out and buy a book written by a Republican pollster who has worked with "Fox" News Channel?
There is no need to buy if you don't want to; I'm sure that your local library will get a few copies eventually. On the other hand, why do you refuse to read a book out of hand simply because it was written by someone you might disagree with? I have read a couple of Noam Chomsky's books because they covered topics in areas that interested me. Did I agree with everything Chomsky had to say? Of course not, but only a very small minded people absolutely refuse to be exposed to those with opposing views (as if those proposing them are mentally ill or worse).
I also find it ironic that so many "oh-so-smart" lefties take precisely this stance against anyone who disagrees with them (i.e anyone who disagrees with them is stupid, uneducated or unsophisticated). Incidentally, a big part of the public anger over the bailouts, government take overs, and most of all: health care "reform" is due to high-brow lefties ignoring the folks in "fly over country" whom they view them as ignorant and unsophisticated "little people"; thoroughly incapable of thinking for themselves. Well, the left will find out soon enough how the American people really feel when they are punished for their sins in the 2010 midterms. Maybe they could have the debates on C-Span, or then again maybe not.
When the next generation of financial types start trading eg 20 somethings they will not be buying the Wallstreet Journal and it will collapse.
I disagree completely. The Wall Street Journal has been available online to print subscribers and in a digital only subscription for some time now. The subscription includes feeds, videos, and access to the archives. Will the printed version be retired eventually? Perhaps, but I don't see that happening any time soon. In any case, the WSJ has shown that it can deliver content how and where people want on the device of their choice and that is not going away because the value is in the content and, as others have already said, the content on WSJ is worth the price. The WSJ has been successful in charging for online access whereas the New York Times has not; put that in your pipe and smoke it.
If that's the case, and I believe it is, shouldn't one read the newspaper that provides the best selection of such information available, regardless of the (unimportant) opinion section?
With so much of the hard news simply being reprinted verbatim off the news wires (Reuters, BBC, Associated Press, etc) the only thing that differentiates many papers anymore, especially local and regional ones is the opinion section (and local news). However, even then certain papers, and the New York Times is chief among them IMHO, allow the opinion section to dictate not only which stories appear on the front page but the angle from which they are covered. They may be careful not to express a direct opinion (although sometimes they are not even that cautious) but in many cases, especially with the New York times, they have absolutely cherry picked what stories to cover (or not to cover); even going so far as to basically ignore news worthy events and stories (i.e. no coverage or coverage on the back page with no elaboration off the news wire) that don't fit with the sort of views that appear in more direct forms on the opinion pages.
BTW: The Economist is a much better and more serious paper than the New York Times. I sometimes purchase The Economist, but I would never pay for the New York Times. I very rarely read it, even when I have an opportunity to do so for free, because other national and global papers are just so much better.
Don't worry, you weren't missing much by skipping the New York Times these days; the paper is a pale shadow of its former self. Indeed, the New York Times has moved to the left in the past 30 years while the American mainstream has remained, largely center right. No doubt, I will be modded down by the Slashdot "enlightened ones" (who tend to lean left) for bringing this up, but it is true.
Remember that only 1/3 (to be very generous) of Americans would characterize themselves as "liberal" (in the American sense of that word, not "classically liberal" as it was and is understood in Europe). If the New York Times wants to fill that niche on the left then they have to be willing to give up a substantial portion of the "national audience" and it just isn't clear that a paper as large as the New York Times can afford to do that without diminishing in ambition and quality as compared to their glory days in the decades immediately following WWII.
Finally, if the people here on Slashdot want to understand better what it is that most Americans really want, then might I suggest the following book? Even if you don't want the same sorts of things it helps to understand the values of mainstream America so that you can more effectively get at least some of what you want (when what you want lies just a bit outside the mainstream).
Makes me wonder if youthful rebellion manifests itself in a society like that.
When it does, the Chinese government simply machine guns the trouble makers and the rest fall into line. After all, they have millions of other youths (life is cheap in China) who will tow the party line; especially after the trouble makers, who conveniently gathered themselves together at the same place and time for a protest, are shot.
The ISP is in the business of serving subscribers who pay monthly fees. As long as your billing identity affords you plausible deniability, particularly for mobile broadband accounts, the ISP would be happy to continue selling you service under a new alias. It is an unfortunate truth that ordinary citizens, due to corrupt bargains between special interests and the government, are increasingly compelled by necessity to master the techniques of intelligence operatives simply to maintain privacy and duck silly restrictions, but that is the world that we live in today. For those who are interested, I recommend the following book. After all, the lobbyists, corporations and politicians don't play be the rules; so why should we?
Not to single them out, but I've found those trained in India to be the worst.
I too have experienced the same. The IIT graduates are by far the worst in this regard. Their heads are so inflated by their "elite" education that it requires only the slightest pinprick of reality to burst their bubble. Personally, I think that this is due to the style and structure of the Indian education system. The IIT graduate will, by the time they have completed their degree, beaten out thousands or even tens of thousands of others (not all qualified mind you) seeking a job in IT (i.e. the proverbial "golden ticket" to the middle and upper classes). The tests required to get into IIT feature massive amounts of rote memorization and obscure problem solving techniques which may have little or no use in real world IT work; serving mostly to eliminate large numbers of applicants. In this way the Indian education system is great at emphasizing rote memorization, but terrible when it comes to teaching critical thinking and creative problem solving skills. Indeed, when these "IITians", as they like to call themselves, are thrown a curve ball; they strike out 9 times out of 10.
I think you are also saying that an ignorant, uneducated third-worlder could not become a productive citizen of i.e. the United States, and it seems as if you've illustrated the point by saying an attempt would only end up as a Potemkin Village of welfare and services provided by educated, hard-working Americans.
Is it possible to take an individual from the third world, particularly a young person (under the age of 18 say), and pour resources into them to educate, train and produce a productive American or European citizen? Yes, that is possible. However, it is neither practical nor possible to do this for every young person presently living in poverty in Africa, never mind the older people. There are simply too many of them and they would require too much education and training to advance all of them so quickly in less than a single generation.
Oh, it's certainly possible.
No, it is not. IMHO, a valid solution must present a viable route to improving individual circumstances for every person willing to undertake the effort; wherever they start. Simply allowing anyone to live anywhere is not enough to effect that sort of change. Otherwise we are deciding who gets help and how much or who deserves help and how much and that is not a game that has any happy outcomes.
I'm not sure I follow you on the causes of poverty, slums and crime, there and here
For the vast majority of recorded human history (about 10,000 years now give or take a few centuries) the majority of people, with the exception of nobility and royalty numbering less than 1% of the population, essentially lived as subsistence dirt farmers. There were isolated places and brief periods during which some progress was made (the ancient city state of Athens or the golden age of Rome), but it was not sustained for long before wars, barbarians or other disasters hit the reset button and dragged everyone back into the mud. Obviously, this is NOT the current state of affairs for a substantial number (although not the majority) of people living in the first world today; so the question becomes, "What changed"? Well, to put it very bluntly and simply:
Beginning in Europe from roughly 500 years ago and continuing (not linearly) until the present day, a substantial and sustainable group of people began their long ascent of ladder of economic growth. The result, 500 years on, is that some societies have standards of living which are hundreds or even thousands of times better than those still living as subsistence dirt farmers or now in slums living off the scraps and discards of modern society. Unfortunately, not everyone came along for the ride from the start and we now see a greater difference in living standards between the poorest and the richest than at just about any other time in human history. Does this explain everything? No, but IMHO it is a key insight.
If people knew what was really going on, talks would probably break down from public outcry alone.
They might if they weren't too busy making the rent, finding a job, and worrying about how they are going to pay for it all when they get sick. This doesn't make secrecy a good thing for treaty negotiations, but I doubt that there would be much public outcry, even if they did know; sad though it may be.
Obama hires Indian code-slaves to make a website to help people find jobs.
McBushcain would have given Haliburton $200 billion to maybe hire some more people, if they wanted to.
Ron Paul would have left unemployment for the market to solve and hit the snooze button on his alarm.
The current system only soldiers on because, workers just have no choice. If they had one, labor might elect to find a more favorable set of laws to live under, which would somewhat mitigate management's ability to shop for the most cheap-but-labor-unfriendly shit-where-you-sleep laws they can find.
The entire world cannot live as people do in Europe and the United States, there are simply too many people and not enough resources or productivity to make that possible. Billions of people presently living on this planet have little or no formal education and insufficient skills to contribute productively in an advanced first world economy. Simply moving these people to the United States or Europe is not going to change their present circumstances. Oh sure, you could bring a few here and set them up in government paid-for housing with government paid-for jobs and equip them with all of the trappings of a first world lifestyle, but to do that is to engage in charity and as I have already said we do not have the resources to help everyone presently living on less than $2 per day in this way.
Really, the best that we can do is to provide advice and limited assistance to those looking to grasp the first rungs on the long ladder of economic growth, but it is difficult to be patient and work towards a goal that you personally will never realize for the sake of your children's children; especially when others living on this earth already have all of the "good things". I will grant you that certain policies of first world governments, namely farm subsidies, don't help matters in Africa and other poor countries (i.e. the so-called "aid dilemma"), but then again neither to improperly developed governments, laws and institutions. This difficulty is compounded by the suspicions of third world countries that any advice on "how to run things", no matter how good and well-intentioned, is "colonialism" and "telling us what to do".
You won't change anything by letting "everyone move to wherever they want", even if that were possible. You would simply have the sort of problems that we currently see in the third world transplanted to the United States and Europe (i.e. poverty, slums, crime, etc).
Thanks for bringing this to our attention NYC, but if you'll excuse the pun, we've heard this tune before. Suppose that the RIAA loses and is ordered to pay restitution, but instead of cash the court allows the RIAA and its members to "pay" by donating a selection of CDs or downloads of their choice (i.e. their choice of the worst selling items) while valuing them, for the purposes of the settlement, at "full retail" (even though almost none of them actually sell at that price in the real world). What will prevent them from offering an equally "useless" settlement payment, as they have been allowed to do in the past, again this time?
Slashdot Mirror
Do you want to democratize technology or just have it controlled by elites?
If I have to be in charge of cleaning up their mess then I would prefer that they leave development to the professionals. I think that is what the parent is getting at. We professionals are tired of rescuing dabblers who get in over their heads because their "easy to use" tools are just powerful enough to get them into trouble, but not powerful enough to get them out. If people agree to be responsible for their own results, good or bad, then I say let them do as they wish. Unfortunately, it never seems to work out that way in the real world. If their experimental project causes me to have an unplanned interruption in my own development work to help them out of a jam, I am probably going to be unhappy.
a lot of computer stuff is pretty easy and paying someone is ridiculous.
The famous last words of many who come to IT, hat in hand, and ask us to "fix it" or "make it work". It may be easy for the Slashdot crowd, but in my experience real computer knowledge is less common in the general population than you might otherwise believe.
Even experienced developers can learn something new by seeing the code of another; steel sharpens steel after all. IMHO, the day that we stop improving in our profession is the day that we hang up the editor and retire.
You've given reasons why Microsoft would court Apple to work against Google, but not why Apple would go along with MS's offers.
Apple would go along with Microsoft because the Android OS and Google phone represent a much more serious competitive threat to iPhone than Windows Mobile does. Apple should cooperate with Microsoft if that cooperation improves the competitiveness of iPhone vis-a-vis Android more than it helps Windows Mobile become a viable competitor. Microsoft hasn't shown much interest lately in improving Windows Mobile (that might change, but not quickly); preferring instead to put resources into Bing and shoring up the Windows and Office franchises.
Google is growing at MS's expense while creating new ways for Apple to grow at MS's expense.
Google is competing directly with Apple more and more these days and when it comes to mobile computing Google and Apple are basically on a collision course in the mobile device markets. As I have already said, the day that Eric Schmidt left Apple's Board of Directors was the confirmation that Google and Apple are now competitors; not partners.
To use an analogy, I would compare this to the present geopolitical situation in Pakistan. The classic arch-enemy of Pakistan has been India (as Microsoft has classically been the arch-enemy of Apple). However many experts feel that Pakistan is underestimating the threat posed by the Taliban by continuing to focus their attention on India, which is not as pressing a problem as the Taliban. In a similar fashion, it would be a mistake IMHO for Apple to underestimate Google and mistake them for a partner rather than a competitor.
The Windows->Google-on-Mac->Apple path is an easier one for Apple to thrive in than the direct Windows->Apple path
And yet Apple has classically resisted third-party attempts to marginalize core Apple software packages because it is the total "package" (hardware + software) that constitutes the premium experience that Apple charges premium prices for. If Google apps compete effectively with Quicktime, iWork, GargageBand, etc...it lessens the reasons to buy an expensive Apple product when one could get the same Google apps on a cheaper commodity PC. Reducing barriers to "switching" is a two-edged sword for Apple. If Google succeeds in "replacing" premium apps on MacOS then Apple's pricing model is in trouble.
Google's not particularly attacking Apple so much as attacking the much larger (in the phone industry) companies; the iphone has great publicity but hasn't grabbed much of the market. Google's growth there can, again, be at everyone else's expense and open the path for Apple's continued growth.
The more that the iPhone edges out other competing phones and divides up the market between itself and the Android phones, the more that iPhone will find itself being targeted by Android competitors. The iPhone has more ground to loose in the phone market because it is already wildly popular. Thus, new iPhone customers must be convinced that iPhone is a better choice than a Blackberry or the new slate of competing Android phones; especially the Motorola Droid on Verizon.
Any deal Google makes is an opportunity for Apple to demand the same good deal, for example.
It is doubtful that Google will be able to make as good of a deal as Apple did with AT&T; especially on Verizon. Steve Jobs has a reputation as a very shrewd negotiator (when he chooses to negotiate rather than directly compete) and it isn't clear, at least to outsiders, that any particular individual at Google is his equal in that department.
It may be different now, but when I attended University in the late 90s most incoming freshmen did not know how to use LaTeX and some hadn't even heard of it. So unless you want to turn your computational physics course into "Introduction to LaTeX", it probably isn't reasonable to expect that incoming freshmen are immediately productive in LaTeX (which definitely has a learning curve). In fact, you will be lucky if they have had any formal training in Linux or Unix use let alone LaTeX (most US high schools , if they offer computer courses at all, invariably use Windows and Word).
Then there is Microsoft's Bing. Gaining market share rapidly, got some positive comments a few stories ago here on /.. Makes me wonder where that stands really, as Bing just needs a standards-compliant browser.
It boils down to revenue (i.e. money). The AdWords program, which is built upon the foundation of their successful search engine, is responsible for 90%+ of Google's present revenues; AdWords pays the bills at Google. This revenue stream is tremendously lucrative by anyone's estimation; indeed, there is a river of advertising money flowing through Google via AdWords. When one looks at the issue in this way, it is not difficult to understand Microsoft's interest in search and their substantial investments in Bing. If Microsoft continues to be successful with Bing then not only can they siphon off a portion of Google's current revenues, damaging a primary competitor, but they will add a new and growing stream of revenue to supplement the income generated by their Windows and Office product lines (which incidentally are also under threat from Google with Chrome OS and Google apps). The future of Microsoft may well be determined by how well Bing competes with Google.
Having read TFA, the principal objection of Jeremy Allison is not over use of commercial software in Linux per se, but rather over offensive use of patents, creating "walled gardens" which favor one implementation over another regardless of merit, to quash or demand ransom from open source projects. Mr Allison is wise in his conclusion: namely that open source projects should ignore these agreements and continue to produce software freely because, as others have pointed out, (Richard Stallman being prominent among them) patents remain a threat to free software which cannot be avoided at this time. In fact, it is not worth even searching existing patents because willful infringement, or infringing a patent that you know about, carries heavier penalties than simply infringing a patent of which you had no knowledge. The patent holder may decide to file a lawsuit in either case so it doesn't pay to risk more than necessary by being proactive with regard to software patents. Therefore, the open source community should accept the risk and continuing moving forward, for now, while working against software patents on the legal and political advocacy front. This is essentially the same conclusion that Richard Stallman arrived at many years ago.
Excuse me, but I think that you are misreading this. The more likely scenario is that Microsoft is enlisting Apple's help in its battle against everything Google. Apple has been a niche market player for most of its existence and it wasn't until relatively recently, with the development of the iPod and later the iPhone, that Apple captured a franchise position in a new market (namely mobile audio and video distribution). Google, on the other hand, is the biggest threat that Microsoft has faced since its founding and it has wasted no time in moving aggressively against both Microsoft and Apple, once Erich Schmidt left the board (that was the final sign that a war was brewing), by attacking their established franchises. In the case of Microsoft it is Google apps and Chrome OS while for Apple it is Android and the Google phone. Microsoft benefits more from having Apple as an ally in the fight against Google rather than attacking Apple with Windows Mobile, which isn't a serious contender anyway, while Google delivers a body blow to Windows and Office. No, Microsoft and Apple will set aside their differences, for now, to address the challenge of Google.
I really hope that Tenenbaum is eventually heard by the Supreme Court. From what I understand there is no logical explanation, given the Constitution and previous Supreme Court decisions on substantially similar points of law, why copyright infringement of sound recordings should enjoy extraordinary statutory damages without a separate constitutional amendment specifically granting them (the RIAA may be a powerful, but I just don't see them getting one).
Utter bollocks - an evening of games pales in comparison with a day-long pizza-fuelled session at the weekend.
ED: You see a well groomed garden. In the middle, on a small hill, you see a gazebo.
ERIC: A gazebo? What color is it?
ED: (Pause) It's white, Eric.
ERIC: How far away is it?
ED: About fifty yards.
ERIC: How big is it?
ED: (Pause) It's about thirty feet across, fifteen feet high, with a pointed top.
ERIC: I use my sword to detect good on it.
ED: It's not good, Eric. It's a gazebo!
ERIC: (Pause) I call out to it.
ED: It won't answer. It's a gazebo!
ERIC: (Pause) I sheathe my sword and draw my bow and arrows. Does it respond in any way?
ED: No, Eric, it's a gazebo!
ERIC: I shoot it with my bow (roll to hit). What happened?
ED: There is now a gazebo with an arrow sticking out of it.
ERIC: (Pause) Wasn't it wounded?
ED: Of course not, Eric! It's a gazebo!
ERIC: (Whimper) But that was a plus three arrow!
ED: It's a gazebo, Eric, a gazebo! If you really want to try to destroy it, you could try to chop it with an axe, I suppose, or you could try to burn it, but I don't know why anybody would even try. It's a *)@#! gazebo!
ERIC: (Long pause. He has no axe or fire spells.) I run away.
ED: (Thoroughly frustrated) It's too late. You've woken up the gazebo, and it catches you and eats you.
ERIC: (Reaching for his dice) Maybe I'll roll up a fire-using mage so I can avenge my Paladin.
The problem with running IT in this way, as TFA points out, is that it creates no incentive to use the "internal IT company" vs picking some outsourcing firm which operates in exactly the same way. It doesn't matter that their product is ultimately worse than yours because the outsourcing firm delivers immediate cost savings (which helps the manager get promoted and the consultant get paid). When the project ultimately bombs several years latter the guilty ones are long gone and the IT department (or what is left of it) will be asked to pick up the pieces. No doubt the outsourcing firms would like for IT to adopt a "fee for service" paradigm, as TFA points out, because it makes it easier for consultants and outsourcing firms to pitch a "switch" to management. The fact that the outsourcing firms and consultants are selling management a pig in a poke doesn't become apparent until much later.
Is he right? Absolutely. Will anything change? Absolutely not. Convincing management that IT should be a strategic partner rather than a customer service lackey is like trying to convince them that multitasking doesn't produce better results faster. You can show them study after study, scientific and peer-reviewed, proving that the conclusion they have reached (i.e. multitasking works and is more productive OR IT should serve customers) is wrong and they will refuse to believe it . They may only believe it when competitors, who are using this model, start eating their lunch and by then it may be too late. Even then they may reach the conclusion that their theory of IT operations is sound, but IT doesn't work hard enough to "realize the vision of management"; sad but true.
A decision about whether and how long to keep what data essentially boils down to a question of economics. Keeping some data is quite obviously valuable because it allows both for better tuning of search engine results AND targeted advertising which opens the door both to more relevant searches or better profits (most probably both). However, if keeping some data is good then keeping more is not always better. First, more data may not necessarily improve search results, particularly if the new data simply reinforces an existing rule or pattern in the search agent (assuming that AI methods are being used). Second, the more data you have stored the more attractive a target you become to various governments around the world (as Google is learning first-hand with Chinese hacking incidents and previously with the DOJ fishing expeditions). Finally, even if you could store everything the cost would be tremendous; even for big companies like Microsoft and Google. Looking at all of the data coming across the wire on the public Internet backbones and storing it is like looking into the Sun or drinking from a fire hose turned on full blast; there are reasons why people don't generally attempt these things (or at least not for indefinite periods of time). Thus, there is a balance to be struck between storing everything and storing nothing; the question is how much and what to store and I believe that the market will ultimately work that one out.
So you're suggesting everyone rush out and buy a book written by a Republican pollster who has worked with "Fox" News Channel?
There is no need to buy if you don't want to; I'm sure that your local library will get a few copies eventually. On the other hand, why do you refuse to read a book out of hand simply because it was written by someone you might disagree with? I have read a couple of Noam Chomsky's books because they covered topics in areas that interested me. Did I agree with everything Chomsky had to say? Of course not, but only a very small minded people absolutely refuse to be exposed to those with opposing views (as if those proposing them are mentally ill or worse).
I also find it ironic that so many "oh-so-smart" lefties take precisely this stance against anyone who disagrees with them (i.e anyone who disagrees with them is stupid, uneducated or unsophisticated). Incidentally, a big part of the public anger over the bailouts, government take overs, and most of all: health care "reform" is due to high-brow lefties ignoring the folks in "fly over country" whom they view them as ignorant and unsophisticated "little people"; thoroughly incapable of thinking for themselves. Well, the left will find out soon enough how the American people really feel when they are punished for their sins in the 2010 midterms. Maybe they could have the debates on C-Span, or then again maybe not.
When the next generation of financial types start trading eg 20 somethings they will not be buying the Wallstreet Journal and it will collapse.
I disagree completely. The Wall Street Journal has been available online to print subscribers and in a digital only subscription for some time now. The subscription includes feeds, videos, and access to the archives. Will the printed version be retired eventually? Perhaps, but I don't see that happening any time soon. In any case, the WSJ has shown that it can deliver content how and where people want on the device of their choice and that is not going away because the value is in the content and, as others have already said, the content on WSJ is worth the price. The WSJ has been successful in charging for online access whereas the New York Times has not; put that in your pipe and smoke it.
If that's the case, and I believe it is, shouldn't one read the newspaper that provides the best selection of such information available, regardless of the (unimportant) opinion section?
With so much of the hard news simply being reprinted verbatim off the news wires (Reuters, BBC, Associated Press, etc) the only thing that differentiates many papers anymore, especially local and regional ones is the opinion section (and local news). However, even then certain papers, and the New York Times is chief among them IMHO, allow the opinion section to dictate not only which stories appear on the front page but the angle from which they are covered. They may be careful not to express a direct opinion (although sometimes they are not even that cautious) but in many cases, especially with the New York times, they have absolutely cherry picked what stories to cover (or not to cover); even going so far as to basically ignore news worthy events and stories (i.e. no coverage or coverage on the back page with no elaboration off the news wire) that don't fit with the sort of views that appear in more direct forms on the opinion pages.
BTW: The Economist is a much better and more serious paper than the New York Times. I sometimes purchase The Economist, but I would never pay for the New York Times. I very rarely read it, even when I have an opportunity to do so for free, because other national and global papers are just so much better.
Oh well, I just won't bother reading it then
Don't worry, you weren't missing much by skipping the New York Times these days; the paper is a pale shadow of its former self. Indeed, the New York Times has moved to the left in the past 30 years while the American mainstream has remained, largely center right. No doubt, I will be modded down by the Slashdot "enlightened ones" (who tend to lean left) for bringing this up, but it is true.
Remember that only 1/3 (to be very generous) of Americans would characterize themselves as "liberal" (in the American sense of that word, not "classically liberal" as it was and is understood in Europe). If the New York Times wants to fill that niche on the left then they have to be willing to give up a substantial portion of the "national audience" and it just isn't clear that a paper as large as the New York Times can afford to do that without diminishing in ambition and quality as compared to their glory days in the decades immediately following WWII.
Finally, if the people here on Slashdot want to understand better what it is that most Americans really want, then might I suggest the following book? Even if you don't want the same sorts of things it helps to understand the values of mainstream America so that you can more effectively get at least some of what you want (when what you want lies just a bit outside the mainstream).
Makes me wonder if youthful rebellion manifests itself in a society like that.
When it does, the Chinese government simply machine guns the trouble makers and the rest fall into line. After all, they have millions of other youths (life is cheap in China) who will tow the party line; especially after the trouble makers, who conveniently gathered themselves together at the same place and time for a protest, are shot.
you should be booted off of the internet?
The ISP is in the business of serving subscribers who pay monthly fees. As long as your billing identity affords you plausible deniability, particularly for mobile broadband accounts, the ISP would be happy to continue selling you service under a new alias. It is an unfortunate truth that ordinary citizens, due to corrupt bargains between special interests and the government, are increasingly compelled by necessity to master the techniques of intelligence operatives simply to maintain privacy and duck silly restrictions, but that is the world that we live in today. For those who are interested, I recommend the following book. After all, the lobbyists, corporations and politicians don't play be the rules; so why should we?
Not to single them out, but I've found those trained in India to be the worst.
I too have experienced the same. The IIT graduates are by far the worst in this regard. Their heads are so inflated by their "elite" education that it requires only the slightest pinprick of reality to burst their bubble. Personally, I think that this is due to the style and structure of the Indian education system. The IIT graduate will, by the time they have completed their degree, beaten out thousands or even tens of thousands of others (not all qualified mind you) seeking a job in IT (i.e. the proverbial "golden ticket" to the middle and upper classes). The tests required to get into IIT feature massive amounts of rote memorization and obscure problem solving techniques which may have little or no use in real world IT work; serving mostly to eliminate large numbers of applicants. In this way the Indian education system is great at emphasizing rote memorization, but terrible when it comes to teaching critical thinking and creative problem solving skills. Indeed, when these "IITians", as they like to call themselves, are thrown a curve ball; they strike out 9 times out of 10.
Do I have it right?
No.
I think you are also saying that an ignorant, uneducated third-worlder could not become a productive citizen of i.e. the United States, and it seems as if you've illustrated the point by saying an attempt would only end up as a Potemkin Village of welfare and services provided by educated, hard-working Americans.
Is it possible to take an individual from the third world, particularly a young person (under the age of 18 say), and pour resources into them to educate, train and produce a productive American or European citizen? Yes, that is possible. However, it is neither practical nor possible to do this for every young person presently living in poverty in Africa, never mind the older people. There are simply too many of them and they would require too much education and training to advance all of them so quickly in less than a single generation.
Oh, it's certainly possible.
No, it is not. IMHO, a valid solution must present a viable route to improving individual circumstances for every person willing to undertake the effort; wherever they start. Simply allowing anyone to live anywhere is not enough to effect that sort of change. Otherwise we are deciding who gets help and how much or who deserves help and how much and that is not a game that has any happy outcomes.
I'm not sure I follow you on the causes of poverty, slums and crime, there and here
For the vast majority of recorded human history (about 10,000 years now give or take a few centuries) the majority of people, with the exception of nobility and royalty numbering less than 1% of the population, essentially lived as subsistence dirt farmers. There were isolated places and brief periods during which some progress was made (the ancient city state of Athens or the golden age of Rome), but it was not sustained for long before wars, barbarians or other disasters hit the reset button and dragged everyone back into the mud. Obviously, this is NOT the current state of affairs for a substantial number (although not the majority) of people living in the first world today; so the question becomes, "What changed"? Well, to put it very bluntly and simply:
Beginning in Europe from roughly 500 years ago and continuing (not linearly) until the present day, a substantial and sustainable group of people began their long ascent of ladder of economic growth. The result, 500 years on, is that some societies have standards of living which are hundreds or even thousands of times better than those still living as subsistence dirt farmers or now in slums living off the scraps and discards of modern society. Unfortunately, not everyone came along for the ride from the start and we now see a greater difference in living standards between the poorest and the richest than at just about any other time in human history. Does this explain everything? No, but IMHO it is a key insight.
If people knew what was really going on, talks would probably break down from public outcry alone.
They might if they weren't too busy making the rent, finding a job, and worrying about how they are going to pay for it all when they get sick. This doesn't make secrecy a good thing for treaty negotiations, but I doubt that there would be much public outcry, even if they did know; sad though it may be.
Obama hires Indian code-slaves to make a website to help people find jobs.
McBushcain would have given Haliburton $200 billion to maybe hire some more people, if they wanted to.
Ron Paul would have left unemployment for the market to solve and hit the snooze button on his alarm.
It feels good to have "choices" doesn't it?
The current system only soldiers on because, workers just have no choice. If they had one, labor might elect to find a more favorable set of laws to live under, which would somewhat mitigate management's ability to shop for the most cheap-but-labor-unfriendly shit-where-you-sleep laws they can find.
The entire world cannot live as people do in Europe and the United States, there are simply too many people and not enough resources or productivity to make that possible. Billions of people presently living on this planet have little or no formal education and insufficient skills to contribute productively in an advanced first world economy. Simply moving these people to the United States or Europe is not going to change their present circumstances. Oh sure, you could bring a few here and set them up in government paid-for housing with government paid-for jobs and equip them with all of the trappings of a first world lifestyle, but to do that is to engage in charity and as I have already said we do not have the resources to help everyone presently living on less than $2 per day in this way.
Really, the best that we can do is to provide advice and limited assistance to those looking to grasp the first rungs on the long ladder of economic growth, but it is difficult to be patient and work towards a goal that you personally will never realize for the sake of your children's children; especially when others living on this earth already have all of the "good things". I will grant you that certain policies of first world governments, namely farm subsidies, don't help matters in Africa and other poor countries (i.e. the so-called "aid dilemma"), but then again neither to improperly developed governments, laws and institutions. This difficulty is compounded by the suspicions of third world countries that any advice on "how to run things", no matter how good and well-intentioned, is "colonialism" and "telling us what to do".
You won't change anything by letting "everyone move to wherever they want", even if that were possible. You would simply have the sort of problems that we currently see in the third world transplanted to the United States and Europe (i.e. poverty, slums, crime, etc).
Thanks for bringing this to our attention NYC, but if you'll excuse the pun, we've heard this tune before. Suppose that the RIAA loses and is ordered to pay restitution, but instead of cash the court allows the RIAA and its members to "pay" by donating a selection of CDs or downloads of their choice (i.e. their choice of the worst selling items) while valuing them, for the purposes of the settlement, at "full retail" (even though almost none of them actually sell at that price in the real world). What will prevent them from offering an equally "useless" settlement payment, as they have been allowed to do in the past, again this time?
This is unheard of!
Until it gets reported or exploited, then everyone knows about it.