Only thing keeping me from switching right now is that I refuse to give up ability to build my own computers. I'd love to have OS X on my PC, assuming it supported the hardware. I'd keep WinXP around for app/game support, though.
but why on earth would a non-AOL user want to use an AOL-branded version of IE?"
B/c there are still plenty of clueless users that AOL does not yet monopolize, and ironically they won't have a clue that the browser is just IE with AOL logos on it and an AOL homepage.
Well, when you claim to be good yet position your IPO to rape buyers of as much cash as possible
They weren't trying to rape their IPO buyers. They were trying to prevent Google from being raped buy the investment banks who traditionally lowball the IPO price knowing there will be a huge first day appreciation as the market prices the stock closer to what it's worth (to the market, that is), and the ibanks and their large institutional investors (mutual funds, pension funds, etc.) can pocket the float. But that float doesn't belong to the iBanks, it is value created by Google and no one else, and it should rightfully be pocketed by Google. The ibanks get it only because they control the financial system - they're the gatekeepers, and the toll has been massive, until Google executed the first Dutch Auction with a high float price. So I have no problem with what Google has done, which is basically to ensure they get roughly what they have earned.
IMHO it will be a great day when open electronic IPO networks make the market more freely accessible to new companies looking to go public, and they'll no longer have to go through the ibanks in the manner they do now. A similar paradigm shift happened when stock trading went online in the 90s, and then went to no/low-fee trades. Banks hated it, but consumers loved it, and some banks adapted and learned to profit from it. I think other areas of finance, IPO's for one, are ripe for such a change. I don't expect to see it soon, and don't pretend it will be technologically or politically easy, but hopefully it will happen one day, and I think Google may have taken the first small step in that direction.
Sun could still certify implementations as Java compatible, giving them the right to use the phrase, too. If there were a reasonable fee involved for certification, then Sun wins another revenue stream. It's a win-win.
Why is this so difficult for Sun to see?
Assuming infinite manpower, that might be a feasible option, but I doubt Sun has that. They may think their time and resources are better spent keeping up with MS by advancing Java in a less fractured way. Then again, IANASE.
Well folks, I appreciate the Interesting +1 mods, but I meant that to be funny in a smart-alecky kind of way. I guess I should have listened when the old-timers used to caution that tone and expression don't translate well through email, (or internet posts).
the holy grail of modern technology, the flying car.
Funny, I thought the holy grail was efficient nuclear fusion, or an unhackable OS, or superstrong and light nano-materials or something. Where have I been all these years?
ntel may have a lot of better technology than AMD,
I don't know if that's quite so self-evident anymore, what with Dirk Meyer, Alpha designer extraordinaire, leading AMD's CPU efforts. Unless you're just referring to the fact that AMD is still just building on x86 while Intel has IA64 and Alpha in addition to x86.
Question: I don't want universal healthcare. I don't mind paying for my healthcare, my children's healthcare, my parents' healthcare if necessary, and if it came to it I wouldn't mind helping out extended family or even close friends. But frankly I don't want to pay for the healthcare of some random, lifetime-McDonalds-eating, pack-a-day-smoking, sixpack gurgling couch potato I've never even seen, much less known. I'm sorry they're ill, but I've got my own financial challenges, and also want and deserve to enjoy the hard-earned fruits of my lifetime of labor and sacrifice. Can you convince me to change my mind?
More specifically, how do you feel about the electoral college system, which is the underlying cause of only having two parties?
It's not the electoral college system that is the cause, but the voting system. The electoral college system only weights less popular areas more heavily than they would be under a popular vote system. But the voting system in which you can only cast one vote prevents people from voting for smaller parties when their primary goal is to oust the current incumbent, a goal that can only be accomplished by voting for the opposing large party candidate. Changing the voting system from one-vote to a ranking system would allow people to vote for smaller party candidate by ranking him/her first, the opposing large party candidate second, and the hated incumbent third. That way you can vote for your preferred small-party candidate without hurting the chances of ousting the incumbent (or voting down the large party challenger).
People who vote for third party candidates are people who don't give a shit who will run the country.
No, people who vote for third party candidates are people who don't give a shit who will run the country for the next four years. But what they do care about is the long-term idealogical direction of the country, and that kind of change takes time. So if you care enough about the long-term direction of the country, you'll vote for your preference, not for expedience or the lesser of two evils.
In Drudge's defence, he also hammered Trent Lott when Lott made his infamous statement that if Strom Thurmond were elected president way back when, "we wouldn't have all these problems today", eg, wouldn't have Civil Rights and equality under the law for all races. Of course, all of the main stream media hammered Lott for that, so Drudge didn't get the same attention he did for Lewinsky and Rathergate, but he's not so rightwing that he blanks out or eases up on stories that hurt conservative pols.
The only problem with that is mozilla is still a touch flaky at times and I'm not sure that the current firefox designs will fit in with googles current design philosophy which is the embodiment of KISS (Keep It Simple Stupid).
Google's backend is anything but simple, only the GUI/public interface is. Maybe one task for all their new hires will be to simplify the Firefox frontend.
As long as they stick to their core business of organizing the world's (eg, internet's) information, I think they'll be fine. Both Froogle and Gmail are part of that business, not some crazy offshoots. And hopefully Filo and Yang will keep Google technologically and philosophically on course while letting Schmidt only handle the mundane day-to-day chores of running a large business. Eg, the Chief Software Architect(s) vs. CEO model that Microsoft adapted.
If this takes off, it will invevitably lead to collusion among workers in setting the minimum bid price, eg unionization and a new form of collective bargaining that fits within the eShift framework. Any company would be absolutely shortsighted to adapt such a scheme. But then again, these are American companies we're talking about.
They put that out there and it gets posted to Slashdot (which they probably expected) and gets deciphered in less than 20 minutes or so (which they also probably expected) and inevitably results in lots of geeks pondering applying to Google.
I can see the press release now: "According to the statistics for windowsupdate.com, 100% of the world is running Internet Explorer"
'Fraid not. Every so often I'll go to windows update on Opera (typing in the url manually), momentarily forgetting that it only works in IE. I only use IE for WU, hence my occasional lapse. So, better make that 99.999% of the world is running IE.
Withouth the US in WWII Russia woudl have taken more land, and nothign more. The germans never had a chance.
Without the US and Britain's invasion of Western Europe, the Germans would have only had to fight a one-front war against the Russians. The Germans could have drastically reinforced or even replaced their Eastern army that had essentially frozen to death during the brutal Russian winter. Come the spring, the Nazis could have turned the full blitzkrieg on Russia once more. I'm not saying the Russians would have fallen, but they certainly would not have driven the Nazis back to Berlin as they did.
The double-front cost Hitler the war, and the Russians, the US, and Britain all share in the credit for that.
Slashdot Mirror
Only thing keeping me from switching right now is that I refuse to give up ability to build my own computers. I'd love to have OS X on my PC, assuming it supported the hardware. I'd keep WinXP around for app/game support, though.
Unless, of course, you were in on it ;)
Maybe I was friend, maybe I was...
Gaaack! Thunk! Scuffle! Gurgle... clink.
---
--- User Detained
--- System Quarantined
--- @FBI Carnivore
--- End Transmission
---
but why on earth would a non-AOL user want to use an AOL-branded version of IE?"
B/c there are still plenty of clueless users that AOL does not yet monopolize, and ironically they won't have a clue that the browser is just IE with AOL logos on it and an AOL homepage.
Liberal activists are not exactly known for being the militant types (just ask any Republican)
Except for when they shoot up Republican campaign offices and burn swastikas in Republicans' yards...
"The most common format of music on an iPod is 'stolen'."
Funny he should say that, considering the entire Windows GUI, among other MS "innovations", are also stolen. Pot. Kettle. Black.
Well, when you claim to be good yet position your IPO to rape buyers of as much cash as possible
They weren't trying to rape their IPO buyers. They were trying to prevent Google from being raped buy the investment banks who traditionally lowball the IPO price knowing there will be a huge first day appreciation as the market prices the stock closer to what it's worth (to the market, that is), and the ibanks and their large institutional investors (mutual funds, pension funds, etc.) can pocket the float. But that float doesn't belong to the iBanks, it is value created by Google and no one else, and it should rightfully be pocketed by Google. The ibanks get it only because they control the financial system - they're the gatekeepers, and the toll has been massive, until Google executed the first Dutch Auction with a high float price. So I have no problem with what Google has done, which is basically to ensure they get roughly what they have earned.
IMHO it will be a great day when open electronic IPO networks make the market more freely accessible to new companies looking to go public, and they'll no longer have to go through the ibanks in the manner they do now. A similar paradigm shift happened when stock trading went online in the 90s, and then went to no/low-fee trades. Banks hated it, but consumers loved it, and some banks adapted and learned to profit from it. I think other areas of finance, IPO's for one, are ripe for such a change. I don't expect to see it soon, and don't pretend it will be technologically or politically easy, but hopefully it will happen one day, and I think Google may have taken the first small step in that direction.
...that Legolas was the first sign that ELFs were hazardous to our health. Anything that pale CAN'T be healthy.
That's not what all the drooling teenage girls in the theater seemed to think. Orlando Bloom, lucky sod...
Sun could still certify implementations as Java compatible, giving them the right to use the phrase, too. If there were a reasonable fee involved for certification, then Sun wins another revenue stream. It's a win-win.
Why is this so difficult for Sun to see?
Assuming infinite manpower, that might be a feasible option, but I doubt Sun has that. They may think their time and resources are better spent keeping up with MS by advancing Java in a less fractured way. Then again, IANASE.
Well folks, I appreciate the Interesting +1 mods, but I meant that to be funny in a smart-alecky kind of way. I guess I should have listened when the old-timers used to caution that tone and expression don't translate well through email, (or internet posts).
the holy grail of modern technology, the flying car.
Funny, I thought the holy grail was efficient nuclear fusion, or an unhackable OS, or superstrong and light nano-materials or something. Where have I been all these years?
That's his job - taking the fun out of fundamentalism!
uhmmm, then what's a "damentalist"?
ntel may have a lot of better technology than AMD,
I don't know if that's quite so self-evident anymore, what with Dirk Meyer, Alpha designer extraordinaire, leading AMD's CPU efforts. Unless you're just referring to the fact that AMD is still just building on x86 while Intel has IA64 and Alpha in addition to x86.
Question: I don't want universal healthcare. I don't mind paying for my healthcare, my children's healthcare, my parents' healthcare if necessary, and if it came to it I wouldn't mind helping out extended family or even close friends. But frankly I don't want to pay for the healthcare of some random, lifetime-McDonalds-eating, pack-a-day-smoking, sixpack gurgling couch potato I've never even seen, much less known. I'm sorry they're ill, but I've got my own financial challenges, and also want and deserve to enjoy the hard-earned fruits of my lifetime of labor and sacrifice. Can you convince me to change my mind?
More specifically, how do you feel about the electoral college system, which is the underlying cause of only having two parties?
It's not the electoral college system that is the cause, but the voting system. The electoral college system only weights less popular areas more heavily than they would be under a popular vote system. But the voting system in which you can only cast one vote prevents people from voting for smaller parties when their primary goal is to oust the current incumbent, a goal that can only be accomplished by voting for the opposing large party candidate. Changing the voting system from one-vote to a ranking system would allow people to vote for smaller party candidate by ranking him/her first, the opposing large party candidate second, and the hated incumbent third. That way you can vote for your preferred small-party candidate without hurting the chances of ousting the incumbent (or voting down the large party challenger).
People who vote for third party candidates are people who don't give a shit who will run the country.
No, people who vote for third party candidates are people who don't give a shit who will run the country for the next four years. But what they do care about is the long-term idealogical direction of the country, and that kind of change takes time. So if you care enough about the long-term direction of the country, you'll vote for your preference, not for expedience or the lesser of two evils.
In Drudge's defence, he also hammered Trent Lott when Lott made his infamous statement that if Strom Thurmond were elected president way back when, "we wouldn't have all these problems today", eg, wouldn't have Civil Rights and equality under the law for all races. Of course, all of the main stream media hammered Lott for that, so Drudge didn't get the same attention he did for Lewinsky and Rathergate, but he's not so rightwing that he blanks out or eases up on stories that hurt conservative pols.
The only problem with that is mozilla is still a touch flaky at times and I'm not sure that the current firefox designs will fit in with googles current design philosophy which is the embodiment of KISS (Keep It Simple Stupid).
Google's backend is anything but simple, only the GUI/public interface is. Maybe one task for all their new hires will be to simplify the Firefox frontend.
As long as they stick to their core business of organizing the world's (eg, internet's) information, I think they'll be fine. Both Froogle and Gmail are part of that business, not some crazy offshoots. And hopefully Filo and Yang will keep Google technologically and philosophically on course while letting Schmidt only handle the mundane day-to-day chores of running a large business. Eg, the Chief Software Architect(s) vs. CEO model that Microsoft adapted.
If this takes off, it will invevitably lead to collusion among workers in setting the minimum bid price, eg unionization and a new form of collective bargaining that fits within the eShift framework. Any company would be absolutely shortsighted to adapt such a scheme. But then again, these are American companies we're talking about.
They put that out there and it gets posted to Slashdot (which they probably expected) and gets deciphered in less than 20 minutes or so (which they also probably expected) and inevitably results in lots of geeks pondering applying to Google.
There are still geeks on slashdot?
I can see the press release now: "According to the statistics for windowsupdate.com, 100% of the world is running Internet Explorer"
'Fraid not. Every so often I'll go to windows update on Opera (typing in the url manually), momentarily forgetting that it only works in IE. I only use IE for WU, hence my occasional lapse. So, better make that 99.999% of the world is running IE.
... the buggers, scouting our solar system before coming to vivisect us all.
Withouth the US in WWII Russia woudl have taken more land, and nothign more. The germans never had a chance.
Without the US and Britain's invasion of Western Europe, the Germans would have only had to fight a one-front war against the Russians. The Germans could have drastically reinforced or even replaced their Eastern army that had essentially frozen to death during the brutal Russian winter. Come the spring, the Nazis could have turned the full blitzkrieg on Russia once more. I'm not saying the Russians would have fallen, but they certainly would not have driven the Nazis back to Berlin as they did.
The double-front cost Hitler the war, and the Russians, the US, and Britain all share in the credit for that.
When the crazy guy has a gun you don't point your gun at him and start yelling at him.
You obviously didn't go to the Mel Gibson/Martin Riggs school of crisis negotiation. I thought that was required for all Americans...
When the crazy guy has a gun you don't point your gun at him and start yelling at him.
You obviously didn't go to the Mel Gibson school of crisis negotiation. I thought that was required for all Americans...