Yes, I thought the same thing. But my solution would be some sort of pump or vacuum because if you packed compressed air you'd have a limited supply. At least with some mechanism for shooting air you'd be able to use it time and time again.
However, this answer seems so obvious and trivial so I'm pretty sure it's already been addressed.
True. I guess I wasn't speaking against the popularity but more in terms of the grander picture and the ability to create revenue. As far as I know Hotmail:
1) Does not generate any significant amount of revenue (nor is part of any larger scheme that does)
2) Free internet email came be found in many, many places so there's no real "technological dominance" that Hotmail seems to have.
I seem to have a completely different perspective.
First of all, you have to know the history. Vietnamese "youth gangs" didn't suddenly say, "Hey, let's meet up at Cybercafe X for our next gang meeting". You have to live in cities like Garden Grove to understand the reality.
The first question one should ask is what a "gang" really is. Many white suburban area police have been quick to identify groups of male asian youth as gangs. Today, I think that term might be properly applied, but when places like this started sprouting up 4 or 5 years ago I felt that the majority of kids hanging out were unfairly labeled gangs. In fact the only difference between these groups and groups of lan-gamers were the way they dressed (and may some other bad habits like smoking but, as you all know, "gang members" aren't the only ones who break rules).
To me a gang represents a group of individuals who partakes in breaking the law as a group. I think it's incorrect to make this blanket accusation amongst all the asian kids that hang out at cybercafes.
This has noting to do with immigrants who don't have computers and to say that this has no caught on with "anglo youth" because they have access at home and school is ludicrous (if not racist). Parents do NOT sanction tehse places because they seem educational. I dont' know where you got that from. Whenever my parents see places like this they complain about how kids go there to be around bad influences while their parents work hard to make a living income. Any parents with common sense say the same. The truth is these kids probably lie to their parents about where they are (much like I did in high school but in a less harmful way).
Microsoft was able to kill those companies (Real, Netscape, etc) because they used their OS leverage which those pieces of software are dependent on.
The difference with Google is that it resides in the Internet NOT on an OS so they don't have the same leverage as they did with software that ran on Windows. The only way Microsoft can beat Google is through the old traditional way of competition.
Anybody who's been aware of recent internet history knows that Microsoft made a huge mistake in coming late to the internet game. In fact, they thought the internet would never be big and that's why they didn't bet much money on it until late in the game (.Net). If you take a look at the industry as a whole Microsoft is a very weak player (they dont' have the top search engine, they dont' have the top email services, they dont' provide any huge online services that are #1, SQL Servers is not that great,.Net is not as widely used as Java).
Let me illustrate this for you: Bureaucracy is when you have to go through a myriad of measures to get anything done. You talk to your boss who says to talk to someone else and then they have to get some sort of approval or disapproval. Your general red tape.
Hierarchy is when your boss says that you do it and then you do it. You don't question it. There's no review process, there's no talking to anybody else, there's no general decision making pattern. This isn't bureaucracy.
Compare the US govt to the Chinese one and then you'll understand. The US laws are filled with things like lawsuits, appeals, bureaus, regulations, turnovers, etc. In China they simply sentence you and it's done and over with.
You proved my point. The American public is more capitalist in nature and European most socialist. So?
"This has nothing to do with the regime present"
Where does this come from? Ohh...
Noo no no. When I talked about communism, socialism and capitalism I'm not talking about regimes. I'm talking about social ideals. Hopefully you'll understand that. If not, read up on socialism versus capitalism.
..the fact that you consider the behavior described "ideal" proves that it is the way the US thinks. Even if it's not necessarily accomplished, it's viewed as the "right" way to do things.
I'm sorry, but I don't follow your non sequitur. It's kind of like saying that Stalinist Russia viewed Communism as the "ideal" even if no one followed it. So? What's the point if no one follows it?
Anyway, just because _I_ described it as ideal doesn't prove that the US thinks it is ideal. I'm simply one person in a work force of millions. Many (if not most) bosses, executives, chief officers, etc, believe that a hierarchical workplace is better than a equally cooperative one. It's a typical no-questions-asked supervisor policy that has existed for all time.
Europe seems to have more of a communist/socialist perspective compared to America's capitalist attitude. I mean look at the number of vacation days Europeans have compared to Americans.
In my work experience, even if someone points out a mistake it often doesn't get addressed. Look at NASA. That's a prime example.
I think one difference between West and the East is that the West is often about bureaucracy while the East sees itself as more efficient (this isn't the whole story but just a devil's advocate position to yours).
I think the thing is is that in Eastern cultures it isn't necessarily that questioning a decision implies it's wrong, but that seniority (in both age and position) is more highly valued and that it's simply disrespectful to question a leader. (kinda like how some people feel that attacking President Bush is off limits)
Your response reminds me of the divide I had at my first company between the west coast offices and the east coast offices. I wonder if that, too, had something to do with the difference in mentality (west coasters vs east coasters).
"In Western societies, decisions are made on the basis of input from those involved. In cultures with greater hierarchies, group members assume an authority will decide and they are only to enact the decision."
Is it just me, or didn't America invent the term "Corporate America" to describe the bureaucracy and politics of the working environment?
Honestly, I'd LIKE to think that it's common that in Western societies (well, just speaking about America since I'm not familiar with working conditions in Europe), work "together". My working experience has been mixed, but for the most part I think hierarchy is still alive in the American workplace.
Ideally, I could tell my boss that it would be best to do this thing that way and that thing this way, and once in a while I'm listened to. But, quite often, I'm given this attitude like "i'm the boss and you're the worker so do what I say". Didn't we invent this?
I suppose it might be worse in eastern cultures (or non-Western ones) but I hardly think corporate America is as ideal as the above comment painted.
NASA did a full report on how the shuttle came apart. They did NOT do a full report on how they died. If they had DONE a full report on how they died, you would seen comments in that article about the various ways they would've died. Instead they left it one or two comments about cabin pressure and merely said that the module with them in it was intact.
If you read it carefully you won't find any gruesome details about suffocation, blunt trauma, the effects of high speed objects colliding with the human body, etc.
You ask: If you had a decision would ride on the Challenger or Columbia. Well, one, what's the point of asking the question? It seems to really be asking: Which way would you rather die? THAT'S why I think the question is insulting/sick and childish. At least a child, who is immature, has an excuse for asking such a question. This is why I think you're young.
Anyway, you asked it twice, but I answered it in my first response. Go ahead and read it for yourself. I quote myself:
"If I had to chooose I'd pick either of them because in both cases I'd have the chance to give my life for my country with fellow citizens who represent the cream of the crop of America."
Once again, answering this, I still don't see any point to your question.
However, if you're young, I understand and apologize. I'm probably too harsh.
But reading that question after reading that whole article about the death of that crew was pretty heartwrenching. You have to remember that those were real people. Think of it this way: pretend like your family was the crew of Columbia and Challenger. Would you ask such a silly question?
It's a childish question based on 2 very serious disasters where Americans died.
It's like asking whether you would've rather been in a concentration camp or in the twin towers. The person who asks this kind of question is waiting to get smacked.
Honestly, I find it insulting and sick that anyone would even ask such a question. We're talking about a national tragedy, in both cases, where heroes died trying to advance the knowledge of our universe, our planet, our solar system and ourselves.
If I had to chooose I'd pick either of them because in both cases I'd have the chance to give my life for my country with fellow citizens who represent the cream of the crop of America.
I haven't read about the technology but I would think that this would never work. I mean if some dude is out there planting plants/flowers right where the mine is chances are he's going to set it off. Right?
Luck is winning the lottery. Luck is getting into an airplane crash and being 1 of 10 who survived with 490 other people dying.
You could say that Bill was lucky to be born of rich parents. But jsut because he was born of rich parents didn't mean that Microsoft would become an instant success. That totally does not speak the the things he did over the many years to make Microsoft successful. You're basically implying that we're born into a certain fate and those who end up with good ones are simply luck. I'm sorry but that sounds like complete bs to me and it's a way for people who are jealous of people like Bill to comfort themselves.
The point of Rounders was simply to illustrate my idea that what many people refer to as luck is simply people playing the odds.
I read your "email" (post) past the first line. No, he wasn't a computer genius but my post, nor yours, was about genius, was it? It was about playing probability.
Thanks for the history of Microsoft. Oddly I already knew it (go figure). But you further make my point; winning the lottery is luck because of the extreme chances involved, the fact that it happens in 10 seconds (to pick the winning numbers) and takes no effort on teh part of the winner. However, if you read the Microsoft history you just wrote, you'll see that this didn't happen in a day. It took a very long time for Microsoft to become as powerful and wealthy as it did. The chances were good giving the industry he was aiming for AND the decisions HE made..which was more than just one decision but a series of decision which you wrote about. AND it took extreme effort on his (and Balmer's) part to make it a success. That, to me, is not luck. That's preserverance.
Like I said in my other response, Rome and Microsoft wasn't built in a day. By your logic we should call the creation of Rome "luck".
Slashdot Mirror
GAHHHH!!!! :]
The world is full of skeptics and naysayers. :\
Yes, I thought the same thing. But my solution would be some sort of pump or vacuum because if you packed compressed air you'd have a limited supply. At least with some mechanism for shooting air you'd be able to use it time and time again.
However, this answer seems so obvious and trivial so I'm pretty sure it's already been addressed.
Read for yourself. :)
True. I guess I wasn't speaking against the popularity but more in terms of the grander picture and the ability to create revenue. As far as I know Hotmail:
1) Does not generate any significant amount of revenue (nor is part of any larger scheme that does)
2) Free internet email came be found in many, many places so there's no real "technological dominance" that Hotmail seems to have.
I seem to have a completely different perspective.
First of all, you have to know the history. Vietnamese "youth gangs" didn't suddenly say, "Hey, let's meet up at Cybercafe X for our next gang meeting". You have to live in cities like Garden Grove to understand the reality.
The first question one should ask is what a "gang" really is. Many white suburban area police have been quick to identify groups of male asian youth as gangs. Today, I think that term might be properly applied, but when places like this started sprouting up 4 or 5 years ago I felt that the majority of kids hanging out were unfairly labeled gangs. In fact the only difference between these groups and groups of lan-gamers were the way they dressed (and may some other bad habits like smoking but, as you all know, "gang members" aren't the only ones who break rules).
To me a gang represents a group of individuals who partakes in breaking the law as a group. I think it's incorrect to make this blanket accusation amongst all the asian kids that hang out at cybercafes.
This has noting to do with immigrants who don't have computers and to say that this has no caught on with "anglo youth" because they have access at home and school is ludicrous (if not racist). Parents do NOT sanction tehse places because they seem educational. I dont' know where you got that from. Whenever my parents see places like this they complain about how kids go there to be around bad influences while their parents work hard to make a living income. Any parents with common sense say the same. The truth is these kids probably lie to their parents about where they are (much like I did in high school but in a less harmful way).
I think the article was talking more about the 70s and 80s seeing that they the example given was during the Reagan administration.
Microsoft was able to kill those companies (Real, Netscape, etc) because they used their OS leverage which those pieces of software are dependent on.
.Net is not as widely used as Java).
The difference with Google is that it resides in the Internet NOT on an OS so they don't have the same leverage as they did with software that ran on Windows. The only way Microsoft can beat Google is through the old traditional way of competition.
Anybody who's been aware of recent internet history knows that Microsoft made a huge mistake in coming late to the internet game. In fact, they thought the internet would never be big and that's why they didn't bet much money on it until late in the game (.Net). If you take a look at the industry as a whole Microsoft is a very weak player (they dont' have the top search engine, they dont' have the top email services, they dont' provide any huge online services that are #1, SQL Servers is not that great,
Wrong. What I described in hierarchy.
Let me illustrate this for you: Bureaucracy is when you have to go through a myriad of measures to get anything done. You talk to your boss who says to talk to someone else and then they have to get some sort of approval or disapproval. Your general red tape.
Hierarchy is when your boss says that you do it and then you do it. You don't question it. There's no review process, there's no talking to anybody else, there's no general decision making pattern. This isn't bureaucracy.
Compare the US govt to the Chinese one and then you'll understand. The US laws are filled with things like lawsuits, appeals, bureaus, regulations, turnovers, etc. In China they simply sentence you and it's done and over with.
Uhh ok.
You proved my point. The American public is more capitalist in nature and European most socialist. So?
"This has nothing to do with the regime present"
Where does this come from? Ohh...
Noo no no. When I talked about communism, socialism and capitalism I'm not talking about regimes. I'm talking about social ideals. Hopefully you'll understand that. If not, read up on socialism versus capitalism.
..the fact that you consider the behavior described "ideal" proves that it is the way the US thinks. Even if it's not necessarily accomplished, it's viewed as the "right" way to do things.
I'm sorry, but I don't follow your non sequitur. It's kind of like saying that Stalinist Russia viewed Communism as the "ideal" even if no one followed it. So? What's the point if no one follows it?
Anyway, just because _I_ described it as ideal doesn't prove that the US thinks it is ideal. I'm simply one person in a work force of millions. Many (if not most) bosses, executives, chief officers, etc, believe that a hierarchical workplace is better than a equally cooperative one. It's a typical no-questions-asked supervisor policy that has existed for all time.
Europe seems to have more of a communist/socialist perspective compared to America's capitalist attitude. I mean look at the number of vacation days Europeans have compared to Americans.
Well, this is ideal.
In my work experience, even if someone points out a mistake it often doesn't get addressed. Look at NASA. That's a prime example.
I think one difference between West and the East is that the West is often about bureaucracy while the East sees itself as more efficient (this isn't the whole story but just a devil's advocate position to yours).
I think the thing is is that in Eastern cultures it isn't necessarily that questioning a decision implies it's wrong, but that seniority (in both age and position) is more highly valued and that it's simply disrespectful to question a leader. (kinda like how some people feel that attacking President Bush is off limits)
Your response reminds me of the divide I had at my first company between the west coast offices and the east coast offices. I wonder if that, too, had something to do with the difference in mentality (west coasters vs east coasters).
That's precisely what I was saying about Corporate America. A term invented by white-collar politics and bureaucracy.
"In Western societies, decisions are made on the basis of input from those involved. In cultures with greater hierarchies, group members assume an authority will decide and they are only to enact the decision."
Is it just me, or didn't America invent the term "Corporate America" to describe the bureaucracy and politics of the working environment?
Honestly, I'd LIKE to think that it's common that in Western societies (well, just speaking about America since I'm not familiar with working conditions in Europe), work "together". My working experience has been mixed, but for the most part I think hierarchy is still alive in the American workplace.
Ideally, I could tell my boss that it would be best to do this thing that way and that thing this way, and once in a while I'm listened to. But, quite often, I'm given this attitude like "i'm the boss and you're the worker so do what I say". Didn't we invent this?
I suppose it might be worse in eastern cultures (or non-Western ones) but I hardly think corporate America is as ideal as the above comment painted.
NASA did a full report on how the shuttle came apart. They did NOT do a full report on how they died. If they had DONE a full report on how they died, you would seen comments in that article about the various ways they would've died. Instead they left it one or two comments about cabin pressure and merely said that the module with them in it was intact.
If you read it carefully you won't find any gruesome details about suffocation, blunt trauma, the effects of high speed objects colliding with the human body, etc.
You ask: If you had a decision would ride on the Challenger or Columbia. Well, one, what's the point of asking the question? It seems to really be asking: Which way would you rather die? THAT'S why I think the question is insulting/sick and childish. At least a child, who is immature, has an excuse for asking such a question. This is why I think you're young.
Anyway, you asked it twice, but I answered it in my first response. Go ahead and read it for yourself. I quote myself:
"If I had to chooose I'd pick either of them because in both cases I'd have the chance to give my life for my country with fellow citizens who represent the cream of the crop of America."
Once again, answering this, I still don't see any point to your question.
However, if you're young, I understand and apologize. I'm probably too harsh.
But reading that question after reading that whole article about the death of that crew was pretty heartwrenching. You have to remember that those were real people. Think of it this way: pretend like your family was the crew of Columbia and Challenger. Would you ask such a silly question?
It's a childish question based on 2 very serious disasters where Americans died.
It's like asking whether you would've rather been in a concentration camp or in the twin towers. The person who asks this kind of question is waiting to get smacked.
Not to mention the quality of news you get from the NYTimes for free and how painless it is to register.
Sorry, I was being unclear. Actually _I_, personally, was talking about the Columbia. I mean it is THE most relevant topic given the article.
Honestly, I find it insulting and sick that anyone would even ask such a question. We're talking about a national tragedy, in both cases, where heroes died trying to advance the knowledge of our universe, our planet, our solar system and ourselves.
If I had to chooose I'd pick either of them because in both cases I'd have the chance to give my life for my country with fellow citizens who represent the cream of the crop of America.
I haven't read about the technology but I would think that this would never work. I mean if some dude is out there planting plants/flowers right where the mine is chances are he's going to set it off. Right?
That's not luck.
Luck is winning the lottery. Luck is getting into an airplane crash and being 1 of 10 who survived with 490 other people dying.
You could say that Bill was lucky to be born of rich parents. But jsut because he was born of rich parents didn't mean that Microsoft would become an instant success. That totally does not speak the the things he did over the many years to make Microsoft successful. You're basically implying that we're born into a certain fate and those who end up with good ones are simply luck. I'm sorry but that sounds like complete bs to me and it's a way for people who are jealous of people like Bill to comfort themselves.
The point of Rounders was simply to illustrate my idea that what many people refer to as luck is simply people playing the odds.
..which was more than just one decision but a series of decision which you wrote about. AND it took extreme effort on his (and Balmer's) part to make it a success. That, to me, is not luck. That's preserverance.
I read your "email" (post) past the first line. No, he wasn't a computer genius but my post, nor yours, was about genius, was it? It was about playing probability.
Thanks for the history of Microsoft. Oddly I already knew it (go figure). But you further make my point; winning the lottery is luck because of the extreme chances involved, the fact that it happens in 10 seconds (to pick the winning numbers) and takes no effort on teh part of the winner. However, if you read the Microsoft history you just wrote, you'll see that this didn't happen in a day. It took a very long time for Microsoft to become as powerful and wealthy as it did. The chances were good giving the industry he was aiming for AND the decisions HE made
Like I said in my other response, Rome and Microsoft wasn't built in a day. By your logic we should call the creation of Rome "luck".