Exactly! And consumers don't seem to want windows anywhere except on their PCs (and some not even there). I certainly don't want windows in a music player - or a phone, or a PDA.
PHB's everywhere will soon be able to Google their way to the information they need - what will that mean for corporate report developers and business intelligence staff?
Unless the information is formatted (sorted, ordered, grouped, linked) and organised (styled) the way a business report usually is, the answer to the question is "Absolutely Nothing".
There is a reason why, for the most part, the interface to website searches is not SQL based, and corporate reports don't rely on text searches.
I suspect (not having RTFA) this box is about the providing the ability to perform Ad hoc queries against all sources of corporate data (word, excel, PDF, SQL databases/datasources etc) that data first having been spidered by a mini google in the box.
Also, this probably isn't just about providing "PHBs" this ability. Ordinary people within an organisation often need to be able to search for docs, emails etc based on a piece of text - which is possible with things like Microsofts Index Server, but probably Index Server (or whatever it is these days) isn't as efficient as a dedicated googlebox is.
Allowing them to link has diluted efforts to create free drivers, diluted the GPL's effectiveness (in the kernel) and allowed Nvidia & ATI to appear to be contributing more then they actually are.
I disagree. The whole problem with Linux and drivers stems from the fact that, on the whole, vendors are discouraged from writing drivers for their own hardware by the attitude that the code for said drivers must be Freely available - even when there are good commercial reasons for it not to be.
I think that drivers should be a special case. Maybe the kernel team could provide a stable LGPL wrapper around the ever changing kernel APIs, against which hardware vendors could link their driver code.
That ought to keep both sides happy - and if the hardware vendors will not supply drivers, then there's nothing stopping "The Community" attempting to provide the drivers as they do now.
Perhaps there are technical reasons why this can't happen, but I get the feeling that the overall reason it won't happen is ideological.
/.ers already know that Duke Nukem aids long term memory research of course. Just look how long we've been remembering about Duke Nukem Forever!"
That is so unfair!! Why should the article submitter also steal the troll which rightfully, belongs to the First Poster!? And every other troll in this thread!
This argument is so old. I suppose the fact that it keeps coming back must indicate something, however.
I think there are two views. The first is that the kernel source should include all of the drivers' source. Buggy drivers destabilise the kernel and if they're closed, then then life is more difficult for the kernel devs.
The second view is that the kernel and the drivers ought to be separate as much as is feasible, that where possible, the kernel should expose a stable set of APIs which the drivers can use and the driver writers should wrap the kernel APIs in a LGPL wrapper which they can then link their proprietary drivers against.
I happen to agree with the second way of doing things, when it's not feasible to pursue the first. Feasibility has to be determined by pragmatism or religion/zealotry which is what all of this boils down to.
Well, this is (theoretically) why the monarchy still exists, unfortunatly, too many people have no respect for what power the sovereign has. She can refuse to sign this bill into law, even if Parliament passes it. Too bad she probably won't as that will trigger a constitutional crisis and put the Queen into a political position which they tend to try to avoid.
She can refuse to sign and as you say, this would immediately provoke a constitutional crisis. Such a crisis would mean the end of the monarchy, no question, because if she assumes a political position, then she can't also be monarch - The People won't stand for that. They would then have to thrash out a written constitution, which would probably result in an elected head of state and an elected upper chamber and the end of tax funding royalty. Don't think Queenie - or Charlie - want any of that...
there's a lot of noise, over on the ars forums, about why Apple may want to prevent XP and foghorn (vista) from running on Mac hardware.
I think it's the opposite. Apple won't try to hard to prevent windows operating systems from running on Mac hardware, because Apple are, primarily, a hardware company - they want to sell macs.
In fact, if people are buying macs intending to install windows, Apple may hope to use that as a bate and switch tactic.
I think they're more likely to attempt to prevent people from running OS X on bog standard beige PCs (or Dells or whatever)
because that could hurt Mac sales.
I was especially interested to read the following (apart from the funny connotations of the scientists name!)
Sue Ion is the technology director for British Nuclear Fuels. She thinks nuclear energy is becoming more attractive because of the growing concern over greenhouse gas emissions from coal-fired power plants. Ms. Ion also says pebble beds have an added benefit that can move them beyond the electricity business. The reactors will operate at extremely high temperatures -- not hot enough to melt the fuel, but hot enough to efficiently desalinate ocean water for drinking. And actually so hot they could crack open molecules of water. That would make it possible to manufacture hydrogen.
It would seem that this could kill several birds with one stone - "cleaner" electricity production, a source of hydrogen for motor vehicles and the possibility to make sea water domestically usable. Those seem like massive upsides, what are the downsides?
My problem is that.Net is a framework, while JAVA is a language
If.NET is a framework, then Java definitely is a framework too. The only difference being that.NET has several different language syntaxes which use it's frameworks, whereas Java has only one (although there are bindings for other languages).
In fact, I'd argue that Java is a collection of frameworks - as is.NET
I think the point about java, is that when things like the Collections framework change, the old stuff is deprecated, meaning it's still available, but is marked for deletion at some future point, whereas the move from.NET 1 to 2 seems not to deprecate stuff. Or am I being too simplistic?
Rabbit was a venture by Hutchinson Telecom, who threw it overin favour of Orange. One of the good points aboout rabbit was that they had recievers underground in tube stations, IIRC.
When it comes to opressing people, this government has a very good record when using technology. Speed cameras, facial recognition systems, number plate phtography and vehicle movement monitoring, congestion charging etc
If you commit a motoring "offence" the letter arrives almost the next day.
So, I predict that this system (or multiplicity of systems which is what it will be) will cost billions, but will be delivered and will work.
It's only when it come to assisting people that government can't (won't) do Info Tech. (Health, the Child Support Agency, Social Security systems etc)
Hmmm. I could argue this one, but I suspect it would be wasted. If you can't spot the simple difference between the use of a word or phrase in the general sense and the deployment of the same word or phrase within a specific context, you're beyond help.
Yeah, and then let's take that completely in context:
Then the LORD said to Moses: 14 "Take the blasphemer outside the camp. All those who heard him are to lay their hands on his head, and the entire assembly is to stone him. 15 Say to the Israelites: 'If anyone curses his God, he will be held responsible; 16 anyone who blasphemes the name of the LORD must be put to death. The entire assembly must stone him. Whether an alien or native-born, when he blasphemes the Name, he must be put to death
Obviously, the blasphemer would have to have been inside the camp, his blasphemy witnessed by those also inside the camp and the sentence carried out by the entire assembly.
The way you take verse 16 OUT OF CONTEXT makes me wonder if these radical/fundamental muslims aren't doing the same with their Koran.
If you have an office to yourself, how much would they have to pay you to make you willingly give it up?
If you have an office to yourself, it's either because you're the CEO or becasue you're the last (wo)man standing!
On a more serious note, in the UK, office space tends not to be partitioned into cubicles, or even personal offices, but tends to be open plan.
If you take a modern office, like 30 St.Mary Axe, the London HQ of Swiss Re insurance - a beautiful building btw - office space is offered in three configurations; Financial, corporate or legal. Legal tends to have the most space per person and more individual space and trading the least.
Check the website linked above, click through accommodation, space plans and choose a floor to see an example of this.
All of the offices I've worked in have been open plan and one of my past employers had a policy of everyone working in an open plan area regardless of rank within the organisation. So, in theory, the Chief Exec and the coding grunts had exactly the same facilities. I say in theory, because I never saw the Chief Exec in person and I suspect that senior management had their own open plan office for themselves and their admin staff.
The office I currently work in isn't great - it has faulty airconditioning, exposed block walls old desks and chairs etc. However, that's OK because the company isn't about glamourous good looks, or employee creature comfort.
Most of the verses you quoted make it clear that those directives were aimed at fellow Hebrews. Terms such as "outside the camp" and "among you" show that clearly.
This isn't advocating violence against people of other persuasions. Unlike the "radical" or "fundamental" interpretations of islam .
Wasn't that what Reagan said after the first shuttle accident? IIRC, he said something like, "Sometimes when men reach for the face of God, they fall short". Didn't think he was being literal, however.
Having read the article, it seems to me that it's a case of the print media having to modernise or die - and this action is an attempt to avoid doing either.
Most print publications tend not to offer all (or any) of their print content in the web version of their newspapers, using the website as a means of advertising the print publication or attracting people to take subscriptions to the print publication.
The problem for those who do, is that a service like google news allows web users to use the newpaper websites as sources of news (rather than advertisments or subscription bait) which said web users don't have to pay for.
At the same time, google will eventually be looking at ways of making a profit from the people using google news - none of which the sites providing the content will be able share.
So what do the newspaper publishers do? It's a bit of a rock and a hard place for them - web based news is already contributing to a fall in the circulation of printed newspapers. If a newpaper decides to run a full web version, how do they stop it from cannibalising sales of their print version, while selling a full edition on a regular basis to subscribers?
It's a bit of a cliche, but it's true that the web is changing the way we communicate. The era of print news (which survived the advent of television) may be drawing to a close. Meanwhile, newspaper publishers will have to be creative in the way they offer content to the public - maybe by making certain stories/pictures available for free to aggregators, and requireing subscription for a full web version of the printed paper. If memory serves, the Financial Times, and several other papers are using this model.
In the UK, all of the national broadsheets except the Telegraph have resized to tabloid size in an attempt to attract new readers.
"'They're building a new medium on the backs of our industry, without paying for any of the content,' Ali Rahnema, managing director of the association, told Reuters in an interview. 'The news aggregators are taking headlines, photos, sometimes the first three lines of an article
A new medium? I think not. I see a photo, a headline and the first three lines of an article which interests me, I click the link and am redirected to the news-site hosting the story. When I get there, I get bombarded with their advertising and have to register to see other articles.
I mean, if google were to drive traffic to my site for free, I'd be all for it.
Now if I RTFA before commenting, I'd probably see the side to this complaint which I'm struggling to see now, so off I go to RTFA!
Slashdot Mirror
Pass my tinfoil hat, I think I sense astroturfing...
Exactly! And consumers don't seem to want windows anywhere except on their PCs (and some not even there). I certainly don't want windows in a music player - or a phone, or a PDA.
If you lived in the UK, you can buy a Lenova/IBM thinkpad with linux preloaded already, from here
Vista? Nah, will this be enough to run Duke Nukem Forever?
You do appreciate the different concerns adderessed by CORBA and LAMP don't you?
PHB's everywhere will soon be able to Google their way to the information they need - what will that mean for corporate report developers and business intelligence staff?
Unless the information is formatted (sorted, ordered, grouped, linked) and organised (styled) the way a business report usually is, the answer to the question is "Absolutely Nothing".
There is a reason why, for the most part, the interface to website searches is not SQL based, and corporate reports don't rely on text searches.
I suspect (not having RTFA) this box is about the providing the ability to perform Ad hoc queries against all sources of corporate data (word, excel, PDF, SQL databases/datasources etc) that data first having been spidered by a mini google in the box.
Also, this probably isn't just about providing "PHBs" this ability. Ordinary people within an organisation often need to be able to search for docs, emails etc based on a piece of text - which is possible with things like Microsofts Index Server, but probably Index Server (or whatever it is these days) isn't as efficient as a dedicated googlebox is.
Allowing them to link has diluted efforts to create free drivers, diluted the GPL's effectiveness (in the kernel) and allowed Nvidia & ATI to appear to be contributing more then they actually are.
I disagree. The whole problem with Linux and drivers stems from the fact that, on the whole, vendors are discouraged from writing drivers for their own hardware by the attitude that the code for said drivers must be Freely available - even when there are good commercial reasons for it not to be.
I think that drivers should be a special case. Maybe the kernel team could provide a stable LGPL wrapper around the ever changing kernel APIs, against which hardware vendors could link their driver code.
That ought to keep both sides happy - and if the hardware vendors will not supply drivers, then there's nothing stopping "The Community" attempting to provide the drivers as they do now. Perhaps there are technical reasons why this can't happen, but I get the feeling that the overall reason it won't happen is ideological.
/.ers already know that Duke Nukem aids long term memory research of course. Just look how long we've been remembering about Duke Nukem Forever!"
That is so unfair!! Why should the article submitter also steal the troll which rightfully, belongs to the First Poster!? And every other troll in this thread!
This argument is so old. I suppose the fact that it keeps coming back must indicate something, however.
I think there are two views. The first is that the kernel source should include all of the drivers' source. Buggy drivers destabilise the kernel and if they're closed, then then life is more difficult for the kernel devs.
The second view is that the kernel and the drivers ought to be separate as much as is feasible, that where possible, the kernel should expose a stable set of APIs which the drivers can use and the driver writers should wrap the kernel APIs in a LGPL wrapper which they can then link their proprietary drivers against.
I happen to agree with the second way of doing things, when it's not feasible to pursue the first. Feasibility has to be determined by pragmatism or religion/zealotry which is what all of this boils down to.
MS doesn't need any more of my cash.
But they'll still get it when you buy another (couple of) PC(s)
No, the way to reduce "piracy" and grow sales is to
Well, this is (theoretically) why the monarchy still exists, unfortunatly, too many people have no respect for what power the sovereign has. She can refuse to sign this bill into law, even if Parliament passes it. Too bad she probably won't as that will trigger a constitutional crisis and put the Queen into a political position which they tend to try to avoid.
She can refuse to sign and as you say, this would immediately provoke a constitutional crisis. Such a crisis would mean the end of the monarchy, no question, because if she assumes a political position, then she can't also be monarch - The People won't stand for that. They would then have to thrash out a written constitution, which would probably result in an elected head of state and an elected upper chamber and the end of tax funding royalty. Don't think Queenie - or Charlie - want any of that...
there's a lot of noise, over on the ars forums, about why Apple may want to prevent XP and foghorn (vista) from running on Mac hardware. I think it's the opposite. Apple won't try to hard to prevent windows operating systems from running on Mac hardware, because Apple are, primarily, a hardware company - they want to sell macs. In fact, if people are buying macs intending to install windows, Apple may hope to use that as a bate and switch tactic. I think they're more likely to attempt to prevent people from running OS X on bog standard beige PCs (or Dells or whatever) because that could hurt Mac sales.
...seem like an interesting concept.
I was especially interested to read the following (apart from the funny connotations of the scientists name!)
Sue Ion is the technology director for British Nuclear Fuels. She thinks nuclear energy is becoming more attractive because of the growing concern over greenhouse gas emissions from coal-fired power plants. Ms. Ion also says pebble beds have an added benefit that can move them beyond the electricity business. The reactors will operate at extremely high temperatures -- not hot enough to melt the fuel, but hot enough to efficiently desalinate ocean water for drinking. And actually so hot they could crack open molecules of water. That would make it possible to manufacture hydrogen.
It would seem that this could kill several birds with one stone - "cleaner" electricity production, a source of hydrogen for motor vehicles and the possibility to make sea water domestically usable. Those seem like massive upsides, what are the downsides?
My problem is that .Net is a framework, while JAVA is a language
.NET is a framework, then Java definitely is a framework too. The only difference being that .NET has several different language syntaxes which use it's frameworks, whereas Java has only one (although there are bindings for other languages).
.NET
.NET 1 to 2 seems not to deprecate stuff. Or am I being too simplistic?
If
In fact, I'd argue that Java is a collection of frameworks - as is
I think the point about java, is that when things like the Collections framework change, the old stuff is deprecated, meaning it's still available, but is marked for deletion at some future point, whereas the move from
Randy is a common name I see in the US. In the UK it's slang for someone who is sexually excited.
I don't want to be in the business meeting with our US collegues when Mr.Randy Slapper is introduced...straight faces won't be in it!
Rabbit was a venture by Hutchinson Telecom, who threw it overin favour of Orange. One of the good points aboout rabbit was that they had recievers underground in tube stations, IIRC.
When it comes to opressing people, this government has a very good record when using technology. Speed cameras, facial recognition systems, number plate phtography and vehicle movement monitoring, congestion charging etc
If you commit a motoring "offence" the letter arrives almost the next day.
So, I predict that this system (or multiplicity of systems which is what it will be) will cost billions, but will be delivered and will work.
It's only when it come to assisting people that government can't (won't) do Info Tech. (Health, the Child Support Agency, Social Security systems etc)
Hmmm. I could argue this one, but I suspect it would be wasted. If you can't spot the simple difference between the use of a word or phrase in the general sense and the deployment of the same word or phrase within a specific context, you're beyond help.
Yeah, and then let's take that completely in context:
Then the LORD said to Moses: 14 "Take the blasphemer outside the camp. All those who heard him are to lay their hands on his head, and the entire assembly is to stone him. 15 Say to the Israelites: 'If anyone curses his God, he will be held responsible; 16 anyone who blasphemes the name of the LORD must be put to death. The entire assembly must stone him. Whether an alien or native-born, when he blasphemes the Name, he must be put to death
Obviously, the blasphemer would have to have been inside the camp, his blasphemy witnessed by those also inside the camp and the sentence carried out by the entire assembly.
The way you take verse 16 OUT OF CONTEXT makes me wonder if these radical/fundamental muslims aren't doing the same with their Koran.
If you have an office to yourself, how much would they have to pay you to make you willingly give it up?
If you have an office to yourself, it's either because you're the CEO or becasue you're the last (wo)man standing!
On a more serious note, in the UK, office space tends not to be partitioned into cubicles, or even personal offices, but tends to be open plan.
If you take a modern office, like 30 St.Mary Axe, the London HQ of Swiss Re insurance - a beautiful building btw - office space is offered in three configurations; Financial, corporate or legal. Legal tends to have the most space per person and more individual space and trading the least.
Check the website linked above, click through accommodation, space plans and choose a floor to see an example of this.
All of the offices I've worked in have been open plan and one of my past employers had a policy of everyone working in an open plan area regardless of rank within the organisation. So, in theory, the Chief Exec and the coding grunts had exactly the same facilities. I say in theory, because I never saw the Chief Exec in person and I suspect that senior management had their own open plan office for themselves and their admin staff.
The office I currently work in isn't great - it has faulty airconditioning, exposed block walls old desks and chairs etc. However, that's OK because the company isn't about glamourous good looks, or employee creature comfort.
Most of the verses you quoted make it clear that those directives were aimed at fellow Hebrews.
Terms such as "outside the camp" and "among you" show that clearly.
This isn't advocating violence against people of other persuasions. Unlike the "radical" or "fundamental" interpretations of islam .
Wasn't that what Reagan said after the first shuttle accident? IIRC, he said something like, "Sometimes when men reach for the face of God, they fall short". Didn't think he was being literal, however.
Having read the article, it seems to me that it's a case of the print media having to modernise or die - and this action is an attempt to avoid doing either.
Most print publications tend not to offer all (or any) of their print content in the web version of their newspapers, using the website as a means of advertising the print publication or attracting people to take subscriptions to the print publication.
The problem for those who do, is that a service like google news allows web users to use the newpaper websites as sources of news (rather than advertisments or subscription bait) which said web users don't have to pay for.
At the same time, google will eventually be looking at ways of making a profit from the people using google news - none of which the sites providing the content will be able share.
So what do the newspaper publishers do? It's a bit of a rock and a hard place for them - web based news is already contributing to a fall in the circulation of printed newspapers. If a newpaper decides to run a full web version, how do they stop it from cannibalising sales of their print version, while selling a full edition on a regular basis to subscribers?
It's a bit of a cliche, but it's true that the web is changing the way we communicate. The era of print news (which survived the advent of television) may be drawing to a close. Meanwhile, newspaper publishers will have to be creative in the way they offer content to the public - maybe by making certain stories/pictures available for free to aggregators, and requireing subscription for a full web version of the printed paper. If memory serves, the Financial Times, and several other papers are using this model.
In the UK, all of the national broadsheets except the Telegraph have resized to tabloid size in an attempt to attract new readers.
"'They're building a new medium on the backs of our industry, without paying for any of the content,' Ali Rahnema, managing director of the association, told Reuters in an interview. 'The news aggregators are taking headlines, photos, sometimes the first three lines of an article
A new medium? I think not. I see a photo, a headline and the first three lines of an article which interests me, I click the link and am redirected to the news-site hosting the story. When I get there, I get bombarded with their advertising and have to register to see other articles.
I mean, if google were to drive traffic to my site for free, I'd be all for it.
Now if I RTFA before commenting, I'd probably see the side to this complaint which I'm struggling to see now, so off I go to RTFA!