Bear in mind that leeches were 'medicine' at one point, too. Although the hypocrisy of the War On Drugs can't be disputed, it doesn't turn coke into a cure for cancer.
Mod -1 Flamebait. BSD is not a better OS than Linux, nor is Linux better than BSD. Make your arguments based on credible facts, not personal opinion.
Linux is not a better OS than Win2K, nor is Win2K better than Linux. Make your arguments based on credible facts, not personal opinion.
Oh, wait. Backing up opinions isn't necessary when everyone on/. agrees with you.;) Seriously. If it's valid to say that Linux is better than Win2K, it's valid to say that BSD is better than Linux. You can disagree, but it's not as if other people haven't expressed the opinion before.
It sounds like an industry-approved ID3 field. I'm assuming this 'net barcode' would be paired with some new file format, something that weaves the ID into the music itself rather than tagging it on as an afterthought.
I'm not sure how they plan on compensating artists with this plan, since there doesn't seem to be a *payment* mechanism. It strikes me as a first step towards 'Music Audits' in which a hard drive is scanned for the works of particular artists.
Movies like October Sky nonwithstanding, most of the public doesn't see the value in private experimentation and exploration. 'Space' is something for crewcut jocks and military guys who'll plant a flag on Mars. Enthusiastic third parties who want to expand human knowledge (and do fun stuff along the way) are more likely to be seen as oddball eccentrics than contributors to space exploration.
Sadly, in the wake of the Columbia disaster, they might be seen as a threat as well. Space Shuttle debris scattered across Texas could have spread toxins at random. If that happens with a privately funded craft, I think it's more likely to be seen as an act of dangerous tomfoolery than a tragic setback.
Wow. I just used the word 'tomfoolery' in a/. post. I'm not sure if I should be amused, or ashamed.
In any case, I think what Carmack and others are doing is great, but expecting cooperation from the public, or industry, is probably a little too optimistic for now.
"Total ojectivity" is only going to be found in yourself...
Errrr... isn't that a bit of a contradiction? That would be subjectivity. An opinion formed after taking in a multitude of other opinions is still a subjective view.
Nah, you're not a Luddite. You're just a really boring prick.
I mean, if you've never actually had to make it to a client's office on short notice in a town you've never visited before, and you don't have time to scour a four year old paper map for the street name of the office park, then plan a route, I can understand why you might think GPS units are toys for wannabee mountain men. As someone who rarely feels like unfolding a 4'x4' paper map while I'm driving, just to double-check that I'm on the right path, a GPS unit is invaluable. As someone who's never been great with directions, having a GPS unit to orient myself while traveling is also invaluable. I'm not forging into the wilderness or some stupid shit like that -- it's just useful.
> Why don't we just get all of the soft-drink > manufacturers to get together to make ONE good > drink to rule them all.
Because consumers don't have to re-learn how to open a can and drink every time they try a new soft drink.
--v
The net is infrastructure...
on
The Wireless City
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
As much as we want the 'net to be privately funded, it seems pretty unrealistic to expect networks like this to spring up privately. Like the road system, or sanitation, shouldn't access be a utility?
It's interesting that you should mention the Newton... IIRC, it completely abandoned the concept of windows.
Most of its 'natural feel' came from subtler details than the appearance of the screen. For example, it stored all data as a giant 'soup' of information that all applicatoins could draw on. Enter an address in one app, it's immediately recognized by others. It helped reduce the sense of modality that one gets using most PDAs.
Another interesting example: drawing a horizontal line across the screen created a new 'document' -- a natural, intuitive gesture of separation that eliminated the need for additional UI controls.
Sad that they axed it before the hardware could catch up with the UI -- that sucker was an absolute beast to haul around compared to even the largest palm pilot.
Oi... you're right. Now that you mention it, I *do* remember that. At the time, there were no Windows openDoc developers that I was able to track down, and Apple was letting the Win development tools lag behind.
Thanks for the clarification, though...
--the verb
The Grim Story of OpenDoc
on
GUIs for Everyone
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
This would have maximized competition, as well as making computers much more sensible, in my opinion. It got killed, and I'm not sure why, but I'd sure like to see it get revived.
I did a lot of research on OpenDoc around the time it was taking off, and worked closely with one of the companies that was doing tons of development for it. They bet the farm on OpenDoc and lost big when it tanked.
For those who don't remember it, the whole affair was based on a couple of core concepts:
(1) Big, monolithic applications suck. They never provide the perfect set of features for a given user, they're overkill for everyone, and they tilt the market in favor of huge companies with massive feature lists, punishing smaller companies that make focused products.
(2) Users don't care about applications: they care about documents and tasks. As long as the user's "favorite" tool works and lets them manipulate the same data as any other tool, the user will be happy.
(3) Creating solutions out of many tiny components instead of monolithic applications will result in a larger, richer software market.
Although it all looks good on paper, it didn't play out. In my opinion, it failed for the following reasons:
(1) may be true, but tracking down two or three dozen text manipulation components to build your 'pefect word processor' isn't much better than biting the bullet and buying MS Word. In fact, most Opendoc demos were really monolithic apps with a few custom components 'plugged in' to provide simple image editing, or graphing. It was the only way to provide a workable UI for users in the soup of 'universal data.' At that point, the 'revolutionary paradigm' is nothing more than a meta plug-in format.
(2) Users may care about tasks and documents more than applications. This point is actually the best one, but Opendoc's soup of "container apps," "editor components" and "read-only components" for distribution made building that 'perfect mix of features' more difficult for a user than just buying a monolithic app. Want to send a document to a friend? Unless they have the very same mix of components, you'll need to imbed them in the document. Watch that letter to grandma swell to a meg or so...
(3) Building software out of discrete parts was supposed to make everything cheaper for uesrs, and provide more opportunities for developers. Someone has to pay, though. Even if a user only has to pay $15 or $20 for each component of his perfect word processing solution, the aggregate cost is likely to be higher than a monolithic solution. Apple talked about companies selling 'pre-packaged' collections of OpenDoc parts as readymade solutions and making a profit on the integration work, but this is no better, in the long run, than monolithic apps with hooks for other programs to integrate with.
In addition, it would require complete re-writes of existing monolithic applications with no benefit to the companies save additional competition. Since it was a Mac-only technology, it would have made porting software nigh impossible as well.
Mind you, I never actually DEVELOPED OpenDoc software. I used OpenDoc software o nmy own maching for almost six months, and I spent quite a bit of time talking to developers who were willing to bet the farm on the idea. I'm still sad that Apple didn't succeed -- the problems they wanted to solve wree real ones, but the solution died under its own weight. There was no real value proposition for end users or software companies.
Remember the strategy we all agreed on at the super secret l33t meeting? Encourage companies to use open standards instead of proprietary ones in the name of interoperability? Then refuse to buy their products in favor of cheap half-finished freeware once thethe companies have spent millions making the open standards ubiquitous?
What? Oh... I mean... sorry, we're flaming M$. Sorry, carry on, carry on.
There's a significant difference between the two situations. In the classic IE bundling situation, MS was using a product with near-complete market domination (Windows) to take over another sector (browsers).
The bundling was an example of utilizing a monopoly advantage to take over a second business area.
MS is trailing in the game console world, and thus has no monopoly advantage to leverage. Sure, they have lots of cash, but it's only misusing monopoly advantages that the Justice Department gets mad about, not spending cash hand over fist to win market share.
This is actually one of the problems with the way we approach anti-trust law, IMO. We encourage highly competitive practices until the moment we consider them a monopoly -- then a company is expected to stop, or be broken up.
The company I used to work for (before the management team went schizoid and scuttled the firm) had some of the best practices I've seen in a small firm.
An automated bug-tracking system that allowed QA's to rank defects by importance, severity, and component... very direct lines of communication between QAs and Devs, including a 'pair testing' system. When a QA found a non-cosmetic bug, they were teamed with a dev who would work directly with them in isolating and fixing the problem.
It actually fostered teamwork between the two groups, although we salted that with the occasional "Round of beer for the QAs if they can find a level 3 or higher defect after Monday, Round of beer for us if they can't" sort of contest.
That is incorrect. If a copyright holder creates a protection system that makes copying absolutely impossible, circumventing it or creating tools to circumvent it -- even for "fair use" is illegal. Is it not? That's the beauty of the DMCA.
--the verb
But that's the whole point -- it sounds like he's not TALKING about that fine of detail in his overviews. The difference between 'stateful and stateless' for example, is a philosophical one that affects implementation. It has nothing to do with pointers, by reference versus by value, and so on.
How about, "Fuck fixing obscure bugs for free when some random guy on/. sends me an email that reads, 'Tried to enter url. didn't work, crashed hard!!!! serious bugg!!!!!'"
Which means watching the sell-through numbers on these first generation consoles and titles will be critical. Are X-Box developers selling enough units to make funding second-generation titles likely?
And, from a purely subjective standpoint, Halo was pretty but insanely boring after a while. A friend and I finished it in an evening of co-op play... and a lot of that felt like mindless corridor-searching.
It's a pretty game, but it just didn't live up to the goals Bungie was shooting for when they started the project.
In fact, go take a look at the XBox game racks next to the GameCube racks today and you'll see a pretty impressive diference.
For an even more amusing comparison, compare the XBox game racks to the PS2 game racks. And the PS1 game racks.
The hardware may not be as impressive, but time and time again consumers have demonstrated that they will purchase a console based on a combination of game quality and game quantity. Hardware capability affects game quality, but it's far from the only variable.
The PS2 has game quantity, and with its huge advantage in the number of consoles shipped means that games will keep coming out, and in greater numbers. Developers are starting to tap more of its potential with the current generation of games, and the console has momentum like nobody's business.
Online multiplayer games are the XBox's only real hope of making a dent. It needs killer apps -- not just from a visual standpoint but a gameplay standpoint -- in at least two genres, IMO.
A single broken interface is bad, but people can get used to it.
Infinitely customizable interfaces lead to infinite levels of brokeness, with no ability to leverage learning time from one car to another.
--the verb
This is the kind of stuff that MS was known for doing back in the wretched days of MS Word 4.0, when the entire app was written in PCode, and an interpereter was created for each platform.
MSIE for the Mac is a native application, written ground-up by a separate team of developers. While some code is doubtlessly shared between the two teams, it's not the same sort of 'port' that you're talking about.
True, true. But the Janitor/CEO pay disparity is a philosophical problem more than a monetary one.
Take CEO Bob of MegaCorp. He makes a million a year. There are 2000 employees under him, all making $20,000 per year.
If you fire Bob and distribute his million to everyone else, you've still only managed a 2.5% raise. Another $500 in the pocket each year is good, but the difference between $20,000 and $20,500 isn't very much once you distribute it out.
For companies with higher-paid workers (say, $30,000 to $50,000), the difference is even less noticable.
So, yes -- ther high 'CEO/Janitor' salary disparity is a bad thing, but simply redistributing pay isn't going to solve the problem. As much as I hate to say it, I *DO* agree with Com2Kid's statement that companies need to focus on sustainability before skyrocketing profits. Profit is good, but building a sustainable long-term infrastructure, with labor practices to go with it, will lead to a stronger company over the long haul.
That's not a problem with 'bean counters' -- it's a problem with human nature.
Slashdot Mirror
Bear in mind that leeches were 'medicine' at one point, too. Although the hypocrisy of the War On Drugs can't be disputed, it doesn't turn coke into a cure for cancer.
Mod -1 Flamebait. BSD is not a better OS than Linux, nor is Linux better than BSD. Make your arguments based on credible facts, not personal opinion.
/. agrees with you. ;) Seriously. If it's valid to say that Linux is better than Win2K, it's valid to say that BSD is better than Linux. You can disagree, but it's not as if other people haven't expressed the opinion before.
Linux is not a better OS than Win2K, nor is Win2K better than Linux. Make your arguments based on credible facts, not personal opinion.
Oh, wait. Backing up opinions isn't necessary when everyone on
--v
It sounds like an industry-approved ID3 field. I'm assuming this 'net barcode' would be paired with some new file format, something that weaves the ID into the music itself rather than tagging it on as an afterthought.
I'm not sure how they plan on compensating artists with this plan, since there doesn't seem to be a *payment* mechanism. It strikes me as a first step towards 'Music Audits' in which a hard drive is scanned for the works of particular artists.
--v
Movies like October Sky nonwithstanding, most of the public doesn't see the value in private experimentation and exploration. 'Space' is something for crewcut jocks and military guys who'll plant a flag on Mars. Enthusiastic third parties who want to expand human knowledge (and do fun stuff along the way) are more likely to be seen as oddball eccentrics than contributors to space exploration.
/. post. I'm not sure if I should be amused, or ashamed.
Sadly, in the wake of the Columbia disaster, they might be seen as a threat as well. Space Shuttle debris scattered across Texas could have spread toxins at random. If that happens with a privately funded craft, I think it's more likely to be seen as an act of dangerous tomfoolery than a tragic setback.
Wow. I just used the word 'tomfoolery' in a
In any case, I think what Carmack and others are doing is great, but expecting cooperation from the public, or industry, is probably a little too optimistic for now.
--v
"Total ojectivity" is only going to be found in yourself...
Errrr... isn't that a bit of a contradiction? That would be subjectivity. An opinion formed after taking in a multitude of other opinions is still a subjective view.
--the verb
Nah, you're not a Luddite. You're just a really boring prick.
I mean, if you've never actually had to make it to a client's office on short notice in a town you've never visited before, and you don't have time to scour a four year old paper map for the street name of the office park, then plan a route, I can understand why you might think GPS units are toys for wannabee mountain men. As someone who rarely feels like unfolding a 4'x4' paper map while I'm driving, just to double-check that I'm on the right path, a GPS unit is invaluable. As someone who's never been great with directions, having a GPS unit to orient myself while traveling is also invaluable. I'm not forging into the wilderness or some stupid shit like that -- it's just useful.
But then, I forgot. You're "normal" people.
--the verb
> Why don't we just get all of the soft-drink
> manufacturers to get together to make ONE good
> drink to rule them all.
Because consumers don't have to re-learn how to open a can and drink every time they try a new soft drink.
--v
As much as we want the 'net to be privately funded, it seems pretty unrealistic to expect networks like this to spring up privately. Like the road system, or sanitation, shouldn't access be a utility?
--v.
Reminds me of the night a friend and I watched EpII. "Genocide!" she says loud enough for the theater to hear, "The way to every woman's heart!"
I choked on popcorn laughing. That Anakin... what a friendly guy!
--the verb
It's interesting that you should mention the Newton... IIRC, it completely abandoned the concept of windows.
Most of its 'natural feel' came from subtler details than the appearance of the screen. For example, it stored all data as a giant 'soup' of information that all applicatoins could draw on. Enter an address in one app, it's immediately recognized by others. It helped reduce the sense of modality that one gets using most PDAs.
Another interesting example: drawing a horizontal line across the screen created a new 'document' -- a natural, intuitive gesture of separation that eliminated the need for additional UI controls.
Sad that they axed it before the hardware could catch up with the UI -- that sucker was an absolute beast to haul around compared to even the largest palm pilot.
--the verb
Oi... you're right. Now that you mention it, I *do* remember that. At the time, there were no Windows openDoc developers that I was able to track down, and Apple was letting the Win development tools lag behind.
Thanks for the clarification, though...
--the verb
This would have maximized competition, as well as making computers much more sensible, in my opinion. It got killed, and I'm not sure why, but I'd sure like to see it get revived.
I did a lot of research on OpenDoc around the time it was taking off, and worked closely with one of the companies that was doing tons of development for it. They bet the farm on OpenDoc and lost big when it tanked.
For those who don't remember it, the whole affair was based on a couple of core concepts:
(1) Big, monolithic applications suck. They never provide the perfect set of features for a given user, they're overkill for everyone, and they tilt the market in favor of huge companies with massive feature lists, punishing smaller companies that make focused products.
(2) Users don't care about applications: they care about documents and tasks. As long as the user's "favorite" tool works and lets them manipulate the same data as any other tool, the user will be happy.
(3) Creating solutions out of many tiny components instead of monolithic applications will result in a larger, richer software market.
Although it all looks good on paper, it didn't play out. In my opinion, it failed for the following reasons:
(1) may be true, but tracking down two or three dozen text manipulation components to build your 'pefect word processor' isn't much better than biting the bullet and buying MS Word. In fact, most Opendoc demos were really monolithic apps with a few custom components 'plugged in' to provide simple image editing, or graphing. It was the only way to provide a workable UI for users in the soup of 'universal data.' At that point, the 'revolutionary paradigm' is nothing more than a meta plug-in format.
(2) Users may care about tasks and documents more than applications. This point is actually the best one, but Opendoc's soup of "container apps," "editor components" and "read-only components" for distribution made building that 'perfect mix of features' more difficult for a user than just buying a monolithic app. Want to send a document to a friend? Unless they have the very same mix of components, you'll need to imbed them in the document. Watch that letter to grandma swell to a meg or so...
(3) Building software out of discrete parts was supposed to make everything cheaper for uesrs, and provide more opportunities for developers. Someone has to pay, though. Even if a user only has to pay $15 or $20 for each component of his perfect word processing solution, the aggregate cost is likely to be higher than a monolithic solution. Apple talked about companies selling 'pre-packaged' collections of OpenDoc parts as readymade solutions and making a profit on the integration work, but this is no better, in the long run, than monolithic apps with hooks for other programs to integrate with.
In addition, it would require complete re-writes of existing monolithic applications with no benefit to the companies save additional competition. Since it was a Mac-only technology, it would have made porting software nigh impossible as well.
Mind you, I never actually DEVELOPED OpenDoc software. I used OpenDoc software o nmy own maching for almost six months, and I spent quite a bit of time talking to developers who were willing to bet the farm on the idea. I'm still sad that Apple didn't succeed -- the problems they wanted to solve wree real ones, but the solution died under its own weight. There was no real value proposition for end users or software companies.
Apple eventually realized this, and axed it.
--the verb
Obviously you've never developed a web system that had to deal with any load.
Form validation and image swapping are the two best uses of JS, in my opinion. But they're pretty important.
--the verb
Johnson, Johnson, Johnson.
Remember the strategy we all agreed on at the super secret l33t meeting? Encourage companies to use open standards instead of proprietary ones in the name of interoperability? Then refuse to buy their products in favor of cheap half-finished freeware once thethe companies have spent millions making the open standards ubiquitous?
What? Oh... I mean... sorry, we're flaming M$. Sorry, carry on, carry on.
--the verb
There's a significant difference between the two situations. In the classic IE bundling situation, MS was using a product with near-complete market domination (Windows) to take over another sector (browsers).
The bundling was an example of utilizing a monopoly advantage to take over a second business area.
MS is trailing in the game console world, and thus has no monopoly advantage to leverage. Sure, they have lots of cash, but it's only misusing monopoly advantages that the Justice Department gets mad about, not spending cash hand over fist to win market share.
This is actually one of the problems with the way we approach anti-trust law, IMO. We encourage highly competitive practices until the moment we consider them a monopoly -- then a company is expected to stop, or be broken up.
It's a bit odd, IMO.
--the verb
I agree wholeheartedly.
The company I used to work for (before the management team went schizoid and scuttled the firm) had some of the best practices I've seen in a small firm.
An automated bug-tracking system that allowed QA's to rank defects by importance, severity, and component... very direct lines of communication between QAs and Devs, including a 'pair testing' system. When a QA found a non-cosmetic bug, they were teamed with a dev who would work directly with them in isolating and fixing the problem.
It actually fostered teamwork between the two groups, although we salted that with the occasional "Round of beer for the QAs if they can find a level 3 or higher defect after Monday, Round of beer for us if they can't" sort of contest.
--the verb
That is incorrect. If a copyright holder creates a protection system that makes copying absolutely impossible, circumventing it or creating tools to circumvent it -- even for "fair use" is illegal. Is it not? That's the beauty of the DMCA. --the verb
Sort of like people laughing very, very hard when /.ers say that Linux is easy to use?
--the verb
But that's the whole point -- it sounds like he's not TALKING about that fine of detail in his overviews. The difference between 'stateful and stateless' for example, is a philosophical one that affects implementation. It has nothing to do with pointers, by reference versus by value, and so on.
--the verb
How about, "Fuck fixing obscure bugs for free when some random guy on /. sends me an email that reads, 'Tried to enter url. didn't work, crashed hard!!!! serious bugg!!!!!'"
--the verb
Which means watching the sell-through numbers on these first generation consoles and titles will be critical. Are X-Box developers selling enough units to make funding second-generation titles likely?
And, from a purely subjective standpoint, Halo was pretty but insanely boring after a while. A friend and I finished it in an evening of co-op play... and a lot of that felt like mindless corridor-searching.
It's a pretty game, but it just didn't live up to the goals Bungie was shooting for when they started the project.
--the verb
In fact, go take a look at the XBox game racks next to the GameCube racks today and you'll see a pretty impressive diference.
For an even more amusing comparison, compare the XBox game racks to the PS2 game racks. And the PS1 game racks.
The hardware may not be as impressive, but time and time again consumers have demonstrated that they will purchase a console based on a combination of game quality and game quantity. Hardware capability affects game quality, but it's far from the only variable.
The PS2 has game quantity, and with its huge advantage in the number of consoles shipped means that games will keep coming out, and in greater numbers. Developers are starting to tap more of its potential with the current generation of games, and the console has momentum like nobody's business.
Online multiplayer games are the XBox's only real hope of making a dent. It needs killer apps -- not just from a visual standpoint but a gameplay standpoint -- in at least two genres, IMO.
--the verb
A single broken interface is bad, but people can get used to it. Infinitely customizable interfaces lead to infinite levels of brokeness, with no ability to leverage learning time from one car to another. --the verb
Incorrect.
This is the kind of stuff that MS was known for doing back in the wretched days of MS Word 4.0, when the entire app was written in PCode, and an interpereter was created for each platform.
MSIE for the Mac is a native application, written ground-up by a separate team of developers. While some code is doubtlessly shared between the two teams, it's not the same sort of 'port' that you're talking about.
--the verb
True, true. But the Janitor/CEO pay disparity is a philosophical problem more than a monetary one.
Take CEO Bob of MegaCorp. He makes a million a year. There are 2000 employees under him, all making $20,000 per year.
If you fire Bob and distribute his million to everyone else, you've still only managed a 2.5% raise. Another $500 in the pocket each year is good, but the difference between $20,000 and $20,500 isn't very much once you distribute it out.
For companies with higher-paid workers (say, $30,000 to $50,000), the difference is even less noticable.
So, yes -- ther high 'CEO/Janitor' salary disparity is a bad thing, but simply redistributing pay isn't going to solve the problem. As much as I hate to say it, I *DO* agree with Com2Kid's statement that companies need to focus on sustainability before skyrocketing profits. Profit is good, but building a sustainable long-term infrastructure, with labor practices to go with it, will lead to a stronger company over the long haul.
That's not a problem with 'bean counters' -- it's a problem with human nature.
--the verb