Oil companies do not simply walk around with ice augers saying, "Try over there. I think there must be some oil over there."
My guess would be that the places you're likely to find oil reserves are probably structured differently from those where you'd find free hydrogen reserves.
Besides, this is an extractable resource. The oil companies will probably be all over this, since they'll be in a position to be the extractors. The suppressed-water-fueled-car conspiracy theory only holds any interest because water doesn't require any extraction to speak of, and is therefore a competitor to the oil companies. These companies formerly had a life only measured in decades - they'll be happy to hear of a new direction to proceed.
I stand by a statement I made a long time ago - circuit boards and manufacturing labels are inherently ugly. Perhaps I'm not geek enough to appreciate them properly (although I still find the new-electronics smell a pleasant one), but I'm very glad my computer has a case you can't see through.
In fact, I don't even like my computer looking like a computer - it doesn't fit my decor as it is. Make the whole thing invisible, and I'll be happy.
It's not like I boot into Windows, say "Computer, write the year-end fiscal report," and go golfing for the afternoon.
Thankfully, you can do just that with our new project, "Year End Fiscals" for linux. Currently in Alpha, version 0.000121001, it'll allow you to simply type "fiscals -yearend" (at a minimum) and walk away while it generates your documents.
Try it out. Features 1,2,3,5,7-22 and 24-492 inclusive have yet to be implemented, but it will properly accept the first of our command line parameters (of which 132 are planned).
We don't have a completed plan, so if anybody can lend a hand, we'd appreciate it. We need coders, project managers, and economists.
At some point in the distant future, when things are working perfectly, we'll also need documentation specialists. Oh, wait - I've been informed that the coders can write the documentation as they go.
By your definition, the kid working at Baskin Robbins making your sundae is an artist. Kind of trivializes musicians and painters, doesn't it?
You seem to claim that if there are many ways of fulfilling a technical requirement, the act of choosing one way and implementing it makes one an artist.
Complexity does not equal art. Never has, never will.
I don't disagree that this is the current state. However, we're talk about the post-liability state.
Business has NOT substantially changed in 2 decades.
Toolsets will not change nearly as rapidly, as companies on the hook for defects will likely stay with "proven" technologies. Skills will not reach obsolesence nearly as quickly.
Likewise, "proven" programmers will be selected over new blood even with a cost differential. Bad programmers will wash out much quicker.
And yet people write reliable software routinely on all of these platforms. If you contend that "perfect" software cannot be created under current conditions, I will agree. But you should certainly be able to write "reliable" software. Programmers have been coding around the bugs in the tools as long as tools have existed.
I realize this post is nitpicking, but if you are using widget 'X', and it's causing problems, use widget 'Y'. And if you only know how to use widget 'X', it's time to adapt.
When all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail.
Not reasonable. For a project of any complexity, verifying the integrity and correctness of the code is a financially gigantic undertaking. If you disagree, I have a favor to ask.
I'm kind of concerned about using this Apache product. Would you mind trundling off and verifying the integrity and correctness of all the source code please? Oh yeah - and if it includes standard libraries I need those verified as well.
Can you get that done before the weekend? I was hoping to install on Saturday.
Should such a situation come to pass, the fallout would include:
1) Higher development costs
2) Far fewer small companies in consulting
3) Shrinking job market for new grad coders
4) Larger legal costs on both sides on the fence
On the brightr side, it would also include:
1) Lessening of age discrimination - experience outweighs youth
2) Alteration of programming education to focus on security
3) Higher standard of programming excellence
4) Self-policing. Companies who fail to adhere will run themselves right out of business in short order.
Finally, legal liability for Open Source projects is not a bad idea at all.
I replied to him above, that should clarify things. But take a good look at the open source community. There are a huge number of projects on the go that have no economic viability, yet continue to be developed. Why? Because the deciding factors are not economic. The projects are spearheaded by people who are in it for other reasons. Claiming open source projects prove their economic viability because of their size and/or complexity is just silly.
My point is that you claim it would have cost 1.9 Billion dollars to develop the way Microsoft develops.
Then you claim the development never would have continued to the point where there was 1.9 Billion dollars of it if it wasn't economically viable.
However, since it wasn't developed the way Microsoft develops, you have a broken logic stream. You started with what sounded like a reasonable statement, and led the readers towards a claim that doesn't logically follow.
It's not the only example of faulty logic in the article. Pot meet kettle. How can I take this article as being anything other than cheerleading? It's certainly not factual.
"Mundie uses a textbook tactic of manipulation: start with some reasonable talk, and lead the audience to an unreasonable conclusion."
Then he goes on to make the following claim:
"A partial count of the software available in just one noncommercial Linux system released two years ago shows that it would have cost about $1.9 billion to develop the same software the way Microsoft does it... If open source was economically unviable, development would have ceased long before there was $1.9 billion worth of it."
Pot, meet Kettle. It might have cost $1.9 Billion the way Microsoft does it, but open source development is not built the way Microsoft does it. Open source development often relies on time and effort provided essentially by donation. As such, the $1.9 Billion he's using to imply economic viability never existed. Nobody paid $1.9 Billion to develop open source software, so that particular test never occured.
His statements are a perfect example of false logic. Strip down his arguments in the article, and you see that he IS another soapbox idiot. I trust him about as much as I do the people he is lambasting.
I realise this is slightly off-topic, but is anybody else disgusted with Disney's habit of putting out letterboxed versions, rather than Widescreen"Enhanced for 16x9 Television" editions?
I wanted to buy Hercules the other day - only letterboxed editions available. I have a 16x9 HD-Ready television, and it's either watch a terribly distorted picture, or watch it in 30% of the viewable area of the display.
Thankfully, their "Collectors Editions" (when available) have the enhanced versions, but some are simply not available.
From Canoe's site - "Sun Microsystems Inc. (SUNW) said Friday it was suing rival Microsoft (MSFT) for more than US$1 billion because the software giant made the Windows XP operating system incompatible with SunÕs Java programming language."
I have Windows XP. Just a few days ago I downloaded a new version of the Java Virtual Machine, one specifically for XP.
Sun and Oracle have turned into parodies of justice. I can't take them seriously anymore - can you?
"Sun Microsystems Inc. (SUNW) said Friday it was suing rival Microsoft (MSFT) for more than US$1 billion because the software giant made the Windows XP operating system incompatible with SunÕs Java programming language."
I have Windows XP. Just a few days ago I downloaded a new version of the Java Virtual Machine, one specifically for XP.
Sun and Oracle have turned into parodies of justice. I can't take them seriously anymore - can you?
Sadly, a failure like this is a high-visibility public relations disaster. Companies should refrain from including the name of an operating system in their company name.
Had the company "Mission Critical Implementations" gone under, it would have gone largely unnoticed.
Their failure as a business reflects poorly on their marketing and their business savvy - not on their choice of toolsets. The industry decision-makers, however, will be affected. "Yet another linux failure" will be the gut reaction.
The DOJ, with every detail of the trial available to them, decided that further litigation would not be of further use to anybody.
A large number of people with very limited access to the details (but with heavy anti-Microsoft biases) conclude that the DOJ is wrong.
Who's right? I know who I'd put my money on.
Do you believe that the righteous always win in the courthouses of the United States? Or that the lawbreakers never escape conviction or punishment?
Whether or not the settlement agreement is fair is beside the point. The decision to end the trial makes sense. Within the framework that is the justice system of the U.S., it appears the DOJ has gone as far as they can.
There is a limit to modularity. You decide up front which components will be core components (i.e. not removable). Then your modular components make use of the core components when accomplishing their tasks.
I have never seen XP's source code, but I would guess IE was specified as a core component, and its removal WOULD stop the bulk of the OS from functioning. Likely the majority of modular components make calls to the IE DLL's.
That decision may have been politically motivated, of course, but that doesn't change the reality of IE being required.
It's perfectly possible to know whether or not something is possible (meaning "realistic", since given unlimited time/resources anything is possible) without performing a study to find out.
Given the direction that Microsoft is gone, it probably ISN'T possible to remove IE without rewriting massive parts of the OS. With the amount of in-depth knowledge Allchin has, he can probably state that with 100% certainty - and he doesn't need to do a study to know it for certain.
The question is not whether they can provide an OS without a browser embedded - it's whether it is reasonable to modify their current OS's to that end.
Also, Allchin cannot either confirm or deny whether Microsoft broke the law. That determination is for the courts, and his statement, in either direction, does not make it so.
"Yeah, they played video games that made them go and kill people. Lets sue them. Lets just forget about the fact the guns that they used to kill everyone are easily attainable and loosely regulated. Obviously pretending to kill people is much worse then manufacturing the tools to actually do so."
So let me get this straight... You've been presented with a problem. Kids have somehow been raised with the inclination and ability to kill their companions in cold blood. Some aspect of social engineering has failed, and they've been dramatically warped.
Your solution? Don't give them guns.
How wonderfully shortsighted of you. So what happens when they build slingshots? Do you take away all their wood?
Now here is a classic example of treating the symptom, and not the problem.
Slashdot Mirror
Oil companies do not simply walk around with ice augers saying, "Try over there. I think there must be some oil over there."
My guess would be that the places you're likely to find oil reserves are probably structured differently from those where you'd find free hydrogen reserves.
Besides, this is an extractable resource. The oil companies will probably be all over this, since they'll be in a position to be the extractors. The suppressed-water-fueled-car conspiracy theory only holds any interest because water doesn't require any extraction to speak of, and is therefore a competitor to the oil companies. These companies formerly had a life only measured in decades - they'll be happy to hear of a new direction to proceed.
I stand by a statement I made a long time ago - circuit boards and manufacturing labels are inherently ugly. Perhaps I'm not geek enough to appreciate them properly (although I still find the new-electronics smell a pleasant one), but I'm very glad my computer has a case you can't see through.
In fact, I don't even like my computer looking like a computer - it doesn't fit my decor as it is. Make the whole thing invisible, and I'll be happy.
It's not like I boot into Windows, say "Computer, write the year-end fiscal report," and go golfing for the afternoon.
Thankfully, you can do just that with our new project, "Year End Fiscals" for linux. Currently in Alpha, version 0.000121001, it'll allow you to simply type "fiscals -yearend" (at a minimum) and walk away while it generates your documents.
Try it out. Features 1,2,3,5,7-22 and 24-492 inclusive have yet to be implemented, but it will properly accept the first of our command line parameters (of which 132 are planned).
We don't have a completed plan, so if anybody can lend a hand, we'd appreciate it. We need coders, project managers, and economists.
At some point in the distant future, when things are working perfectly, we'll also need documentation specialists. Oh, wait - I've been informed that the coders can write the documentation as they go.
Oh yeah - no reliability, no support.
Note: tongue firmly in cheek!
Then everything except breathing is an art - no, wait - some people can make an art of that as well.
Okay. Every skill is art. Therefore let's pick one word - skill or art - and use it exclusively. Kind of silly to have two words
By your definition, the kid working at Baskin Robbins making your sundae is an artist. Kind of trivializes musicians and painters, doesn't it?
You seem to claim that if there are many ways of fulfilling a technical requirement, the act of choosing one way and implementing it makes one an artist.
Complexity does not equal art. Never has, never will.
To which part of the constitution are you referring?
I think we'd all agree that:
...are all excellent ways to piss off a judge and screw up your shot at freedom.
1. Belittling the justice system
2. Nitpicking
3. Trying to do a pathetic end-run around procedure
If this guy keeps it up, he will provide us with many hours of hilarity. Plus, he makes me feel good about me.
What sterling proof that "technically proficient" and "dumb as a stick" are perfectly compatible traits.
hu-mor:
That which is intended to induce laughter or amusement.
sense of humor:
The ability to...
oh, never mind.
We're gonna make soldiers so incredibly expensive that we can't afford very many.
Then we'll send them into battle, whereupon they'll be vastly outnumbered by hoards of people carrying rocks.
Last words? "Ah... now here's a problem we didn't consider..."
I don't disagree that this is the current state. However, we're talk about the post-liability state.
Business has NOT substantially changed in 2 decades.
Toolsets will not change nearly as rapidly, as companies on the hook for defects will likely stay with "proven" technologies. Skills will not reach obsolesence nearly as quickly.
Likewise, "proven" programmers will be selected over new blood even with a cost differential. Bad programmers will wash out much quicker.
I like this vision.
And yet people write reliable software routinely on all of these platforms. If you contend that "perfect" software cannot be created under current conditions, I will agree. But you should certainly be able to write "reliable" software. Programmers have been coding around the bugs in the tools as long as tools have existed.
I realize this post is nitpicking, but if you are using widget 'X', and it's causing problems, use widget 'Y'. And if you only know how to use widget 'X', it's time to adapt.
When all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail.
Not reasonable. For a project of any complexity, verifying the integrity and correctness of the code is a financially gigantic undertaking. If you disagree, I have a favor to ask.
I'm kind of concerned about using this Apache product. Would you mind trundling off and verifying the integrity and correctness of all the source code please? Oh yeah - and if it includes standard libraries I need those verified as well.
Can you get that done before the weekend? I was hoping to install on Saturday.
Should such a situation come to pass, the fallout would include:
1) Higher development costs
2) Far fewer small companies in consulting
3) Shrinking job market for new grad coders
4) Larger legal costs on both sides on the fence
On the brightr side, it would also include:
1) Lessening of age discrimination - experience outweighs youth
2) Alteration of programming education to focus on security
3) Higher standard of programming excellence
4) Self-policing. Companies who fail to adhere will run themselves right out of business in short order.
Finally, legal liability for Open Source projects is not a bad idea at all.
I replied to him above, that should clarify things. But take a good look at the open source community. There are a huge number of projects on the go that have no economic viability, yet continue to be developed. Why? Because the deciding factors are not economic. The projects are spearheaded by people who are in it for other reasons. Claiming open source projects prove their economic viability because of their size and/or complexity is just silly.
My point is that you claim it would have cost 1.9 Billion dollars to develop the way Microsoft develops.
Then you claim the development never would have continued to the point where there was 1.9 Billion dollars of it if it wasn't economically viable.
However, since it wasn't developed the way Microsoft develops, you have a broken logic stream. You started with what sounded like a reasonable statement, and led the readers towards a claim that doesn't logically follow.
It's not the only example of faulty logic in the article. Pot meet kettle. How can I take this article as being anything other than cheerleading? It's certainly not factual.
Bruce Perens claims that:
"Mundie uses a textbook tactic of manipulation: start with some reasonable talk, and lead the audience to an unreasonable conclusion."
Then he goes on to make the following claim:
"A partial count of the software available in just one noncommercial Linux system released two years ago shows that it would have cost about $1.9 billion to develop the same software the way Microsoft does it... If open source was economically unviable, development would have ceased long before there was $1.9 billion worth of it."
Pot, meet Kettle. It might have cost $1.9 Billion the way Microsoft does it, but open source development is not built the way Microsoft does it. Open source development often relies on time and effort provided essentially by donation. As such, the $1.9 Billion he's using to imply economic viability never existed. Nobody paid $1.9 Billion to develop open source software, so that particular test never occured.
His statements are a perfect example of false logic. Strip down his arguments in the article, and you see that he IS another soapbox idiot. I trust him about as much as I do the people he is lambasting.
I realise this is slightly off-topic, but is anybody else disgusted with Disney's habit of putting out letterboxed versions, rather than Widescreen"Enhanced for 16x9 Television" editions?
I wanted to buy Hercules the other day - only letterboxed editions available. I have a 16x9 HD-Ready television, and it's either watch a terribly distorted picture, or watch it in 30% of the viewable area of the display.
Thankfully, their "Collectors Editions" (when available) have the enhanced versions, but some are simply not available.
Technology marches on, Disney! I won't buy them
From Canoe's site - "Sun Microsystems Inc. (SUNW) said Friday it was suing rival Microsoft (MSFT) for more than US$1 billion because the software giant made the Windows XP operating system incompatible with SunÕs Java programming language."
I have Windows XP. Just a few days ago I downloaded a new version of the Java Virtual Machine, one specifically for XP.
Sun and Oracle have turned into parodies of justice. I can't take them seriously anymore - can you?
"Sun Microsystems Inc. (SUNW) said Friday it was suing rival Microsoft (MSFT) for more than US$1 billion because the software giant made the Windows XP operating system incompatible with SunÕs Java programming language."
I have Windows XP. Just a few days ago I downloaded a new version of the Java Virtual Machine, one specifically for XP.
Sun and Oracle have turned into parodies of justice. I can't take them seriously anymore - can you?
1. Pornography
2. Gambling
3. Trolling for fights without fear of getting punched
4. Pornography
5. Easy chatting and email with friends
6. Endless time-wasting opportunity
7. Pornography
8. Groups for almost any conceivable interest
9. Pornography
What's not to like?
Sadly, a failure like this is a high-visibility public relations disaster. Companies should refrain from including the name of an operating system in their company name.
Had the company "Mission Critical Implementations" gone under, it would have gone largely unnoticed.
Their failure as a business reflects poorly on their marketing and their business savvy - not on their choice of toolsets. The industry decision-makers, however, will be affected. "Yet another linux failure" will be the gut reaction.
The DOJ, with every detail of the trial available to them, decided that further litigation would not be of further use to anybody. A large number of people with very limited access to the details (but with heavy anti-Microsoft biases) conclude that the DOJ is wrong. Who's right? I know who I'd put my money on. Do you believe that the righteous always win in the courthouses of the United States? Or that the lawbreakers never escape conviction or punishment? Whether or not the settlement agreement is fair is beside the point. The decision to end the trial makes sense. Within the framework that is the justice system of the U.S., it appears the DOJ has gone as far as they can.
There is a limit to modularity. You decide up front which components will be core components (i.e. not removable). Then your modular components make use of the core components when accomplishing their tasks.
I have never seen XP's source code, but I would guess IE was specified as a core component, and its removal WOULD stop the bulk of the OS from functioning. Likely the majority of modular components make calls to the IE DLL's.
That decision may have been politically motivated, of course, but that doesn't change the reality of IE being required.
It's perfectly possible to know whether or not something is possible (meaning "realistic", since given unlimited time/resources anything is possible) without performing a study to find out.
Given the direction that Microsoft is gone, it probably ISN'T possible to remove IE without rewriting massive parts of the OS. With the amount of in-depth knowledge Allchin has, he can probably state that with 100% certainty - and he doesn't need to do a study to know it for certain.
The question is not whether they can provide an OS without a browser embedded - it's whether it is reasonable to modify their current OS's to that end.
Also, Allchin cannot either confirm or deny whether Microsoft broke the law. That determination is for the courts, and his statement, in either direction, does not make it so.
"Yeah, they played video games that made them go and kill people. Lets sue them. Lets just forget about the fact the guns that they used to kill everyone are easily attainable and loosely regulated. Obviously pretending to kill people is much worse then manufacturing the tools to actually do so."
So let me get this straight... You've been presented with a problem. Kids have somehow been raised with the inclination and ability to kill their companions in cold blood. Some aspect of social engineering has failed, and they've been dramatically warped.
Your solution? Don't give them guns.
How wonderfully shortsighted of you. So what happens when they build slingshots? Do you take away all their wood?
Now here is a classic example of treating the symptom, and not the problem.