Actually, for the last couple of decades the proportion of cost of a computer system which is represented by hardware has been falling, and that of software rising.
Neither is the cost of replicating software (putting it onto some media) any large proportion of the cost of developing it (which is largely determined by the people writing it).
Now for a fundamental economics lessons: the price of something is dependant on what people will pay for it and not what it cost to produce it. This is more often a factor of perception than reality. Example: if I tried to sell you a new BMW for $100, would you buy it? Many people would not, because they would perceive it to be a con or stolen.
The reason that hardware is declining as a cost factor in the cost of computing is that people don't buy a computer for itself. (The exception is MAC users). Given any three computers, users will generally buy the system that (a) runs the programs they want and (b) is cheapest. Hardware is a commodity.
Software is different. Any given program can be produced by only one vendor (the software owner). While similar programs may exist, no two programs can be exactly the same. In many ways this is an absolute barrier to entry. People want software they can trust, that is intuitive, that looks and works in exactly the same way their existing software does. People have historically paid large quantities of money to fulfil these criteria.
We can get calculators for ten pounds that can do calculations as fast as a mainframe that costs millions in World War II. Hardware isn't going to become more expensive than software in the near future.
I've heard a lot about component-based software engineering. And, yes, it might help programmers become more productive. As might visual programming. Generally, the results of all other improvements in programming technology have resulted in increased productivity that is then spent on creating more complex programs.
First, it will force Microsoft to raise prices in other ways, so the fine is a hidden tax on consumers.
Thereby increasing the price of the product and making it less competitive against rivals. *cough* apple. *cough* unix.
Second, it does not change the underlying problem, which is that Microsoft have been allowed over the last decade to establish a position from which they can control prices in a market almost devoid of real competition.
But establishing that microsoft is a monopoly in court creates a landslide of other regulations and potential liabilities. e.g. (a) the UK and other EU governments can order products to be sold on fixed terms at a reasonable price. (b) any purchase by microsoft of other companies will be reviewed by government organisations (c) any release of a new product that is supported by the existing monopoly may be a breach of the law (d) Refusal to give vital information about microsoft API's, software code, document formats may constitute anticompetitive behaviour. & etc.
Third, the timing is poor, since the EU and US are on the edge of a trade war, and the US will certainly use this as an excuse to raise barriers on EU businesses.
Lets face it: The US was always going to try to raise trade barriers against the EU because it's trade balance is so poor. Let them. It will give the UK and other EU nations a good excuse to get out of the daft war on terror
Lastly, Microsoft will appeal and this will take years, during which there will be much argument and hostility, with no positive changes to show for it.
Fines and remedies can go up as well as down in the EU appeal process. And I would like to know how doing nothing against microsoft would result in positive changes?
One antitrust trial has gone. But Microsoft is still a proven monopoly, and is therefore subject to US monopoly laws. If it breaks them in future, then there can be a new case. Microsoft has to be careful in future. Plus, if Microsoft can be brought to court over netscape, why can't it be brought to court on Media Player too? or past offences?
Microsoft is now a proven monopoly in the EU. (subject to appeal). That is far more significent than a fine of 300 million euro would suggest. For example, copyright law in the UK includes limitations on protection for monopoly's that allow the UK government to require a monopoly to distribute copyrightable material at a fixed price on fixed conditions.
This reminds me a bit of the tobacco trials. All it needs is one big verdict, and Microsoft could find itself against hundreds of golddiggers and class actions.
It depends on the OS. In Windows I would be dead in the water without a GUI, but in a Unix-based OS I would be quite happy.
As an anecdotal point my dad used to teach computing to kids, and was fairly good at it (not a GURU but a capable user). Once the GUI came in, Dads computing knowledge gained a half-life of every 2 years. Every time a new OS comes out, everything looks different. And he has to learn it all again. Whereas all command prompts look the same. And all you needed was a list of the appropriate commands, rather than a 200 page "how to" book. Now he can barely open a word document. How intuitive is that?
I was going to post a rant about how this would destroy privacy, allow big Brother to watch over us, threaten the entire civilized world, and be a excellent tool to oppress people. And what happens if your boss finds out about it? Walla, a time and attendance system your boss can use to prove you are where you say you are.
Then I thought: hang on. We could use this in a better way. Let's stick one of these to all UK and US politicians' and police officers head with an audio feed and display all the footage on the Internet with a 72-hour delay. Bwahaha!
1. How do we make sure that EV is secure?
2. How do we make sure that EV is reliable?
3. How do we make sure that EV is accurate?
EV needs to be seen to work as well as paper based alternatives. This is hard to do when the BBC has reported security violations by hackers, the florida fiasco, various interesting comments by Diebold employees etc.
Personally, in the UK I can't see EV catching on unless there is a paper trail, faultless physical security, and no chance of hackers breaking into the system. Which would make it cost about as much as the paper systems.
IANAL but IIRC trademark doesn't have to be smart or special. To be valid, a trademark needs to uniquly identify a particular product or service within a limited business context.
Because people are stupid enough to let them in. Even the police can't enter your property without either your concent or a warrant (with limited exceptions such as entering during a chase, or when they believe human life is in danger). The BSA can not enter your property without concent PERIOD.
If they accuse you of any crime inform them that you will sue them for slander if they make false allegations, that if they continue to harass you you will take legal action, that you will call the police immediately if they do no leave your property, and remind them that any action will require them to make a full disclosure in front of a court.
"I think if it was good, integrating an antivirus product into Windows would be damn responsible"
So every microsoft computer in the world would have the same virus checker? Great. That would make the virus writers job so much easier. All you would have to do is break one program...
"In fact, there had already been a physical exchange between the guy and his daughter."
The only physical exchange between the guy and his daughter that I am aware of was when his daughter hit him.
"That the officer was responding to a report (eg, some other citizen called the police) of domestic violence "
1. It was an Anony-mouse tip. Not probable cause.
2. The police officer did not attempt to find out if violence had been used before the time of the arrest.
3. The police officer did not ask the name, which is a question that would have been reasonable. He asked for proof of identity, which without probable cause was not reasonable.
4. In any case, the identity of the suspect was not particularly relevant since the tip did not include the name of an individual.
5. According to state law, there is a requirement to give ID if there is probable suspicion. However, previous judgements suggest that the constitutional situation is that ID can only be required if their is probable cause.
6. The police officer had inadequate evidence at the time the man was arrested of any crime except refusing to give an ID.
After all, speed limiters have been available for many years, and they still let people drive cars on the road capable of going a 100 miles an hour faster than the legal limit.
Being a bit suspicious, I'd say the reason is that the UK government makes mucho 's from speeding fines. They won't want to give that up; they'll only use it on people dodging their road tax.
I'm not sure how a post about whether Office tools have actually improved enough for it to be worth upgrading should produce a post that argues that you "have" to use visual programming tools to produce good programs. Hint: I have been known to use visual programming tools.
I have also worked on large-scale projects with little more than a debugger, compiler, and Visio (for basic design drawing). In order to say, "rich visual debugging and design tools are a MUST" you need to furnish us with some evidence, sir. You need to show at a minimum that programmer productivity has significantly improved as a result of introducing such a tool. This would be hard to do. Current evidence suggests that the value from a dollar spent on software has remained nearly static.
And, as a general observation, advances in computing have not yet provided a substantial productivity increase. As Robert Solow says, "you can see computers everywhere but in the productivity statistics." One of the main hold-ups in benefits from computing seems to be software production. Simply put, current advances in tools have not produced a real advantage where it matters: software is still hard to construct, and no amount of tools will guarantee that the software you produce will actually work in a way that benefits the clients. You need good people to do that. Tools can help, but people can produce good programs without the tools, and tools won't produce good programs without the people.
Frankly, as a software engineer VI, word 6, Mozilla and a compiler (GNU?) would give me everything I really need.
As a writer / novelist I find that Word 2000 etc is so helpful that it gets in my way. My productivity is WAY higher using word 6. I've got everything set up just fine; why move all my macros?
There is another level of mastry above the common programmer, consisting of such people as linguists, program language desginers, and ISO Standards writters.
Slashdot Mirror
Actually, for the last couple of decades the proportion of cost of a computer system which is represented by hardware has been falling, and that of software rising.
Neither is the cost of replicating software (putting it onto some media) any large proportion of the cost of developing it (which is largely determined by the people writing it).
Now for a fundamental economics lessons: the price of something is dependant on what people will pay for it and not what it cost to produce it. This is more often a factor of perception than reality. Example: if I tried to sell you a new BMW for $100, would you buy it? Many people would not, because they would perceive it to be a con or stolen.
The reason that hardware is declining as a cost factor in the cost of computing is that people don't buy a computer for itself. (The exception is MAC users). Given any three computers, users will generally buy the system that (a) runs the programs they want and (b) is cheapest. Hardware is a commodity.
Software is different. Any given program can be produced by only one vendor (the software owner). While similar programs may exist, no two programs can be exactly the same. In many ways this is an absolute barrier to entry. People want software they can trust, that is intuitive, that looks and works in exactly the same way their existing software does. People have historically paid large quantities of money to fulfil these criteria.
We can get calculators for ten pounds that can do calculations as fast as a mainframe that costs millions in World War II. Hardware isn't going to become more expensive than software in the near future.
I've heard a lot about component-based software engineering. And, yes, it might help programmers become more productive. As might visual programming. Generally, the results of all other improvements in programming technology have resulted in increased productivity that is then spent on creating more complex programs.
First, it will force Microsoft to raise prices in other ways, so the fine is a hidden tax on consumers.
Thereby increasing the price of the product and making it less competitive against rivals. *cough* apple. *cough* unix.
Second, it does not change the underlying problem, which is that Microsoft have been allowed over the last decade to establish a position from which they can control prices in a market almost devoid of real competition.
But establishing that microsoft is a monopoly in court creates a landslide of other regulations and potential liabilities. e.g. (a) the UK and other EU governments can order products to be sold on fixed terms at a reasonable price. (b) any purchase by microsoft of other companies will be reviewed by government organisations (c) any release of a new product that is supported by the existing monopoly may be a breach of the law (d) Refusal to give vital information about microsoft API's, software code, document formats may constitute anticompetitive behaviour. & etc.
Third, the timing is poor, since the EU and US are on the edge of a trade war, and the US will certainly use this as an excuse to raise barriers on EU businesses.
Lets face it: The US was always going to try to raise trade barriers against the EU because it's trade balance is so poor. Let them. It will give the UK and other EU nations a good excuse to get out of the daft war on terror
Lastly, Microsoft will appeal and this will take years, during which there will be much argument and hostility, with no positive changes to show for it.
Fines and remedies can go up as well as down in the EU appeal process. And I would like to know how doing nothing against microsoft would result in positive changes?
The antitrust trial has gone by.
One antitrust trial has gone. But Microsoft is still a proven monopoly, and is therefore subject to US monopoly laws. If it breaks them in future, then there can be a new case. Microsoft has to be careful in future. Plus, if Microsoft can be brought to court over netscape, why can't it be brought to court on Media Player too? or past offences?
Microsoft is now a proven monopoly in the EU. (subject to appeal). That is far more significent than a fine of 300 million euro would suggest. For example, copyright law in the UK includes limitations on protection for monopoly's that allow the UK government to require a monopoly to distribute copyrightable material at a fixed price on fixed conditions.
This reminds me a bit of the tobacco trials. All it needs is one big verdict, and Microsoft could find itself against hundreds of golddiggers and class actions.
Run Windows.
are MEPs even elected?
Yes. But they're like local councillors, very few people bother to vote.
It depends on the OS. In Windows I would be dead in the water without a GUI, but in a Unix-based OS I would be quite happy.
As an anecdotal point my dad used to teach computing to kids, and was fairly good at it (not a GURU but a capable user). Once the GUI came in, Dads computing knowledge gained a half-life of every 2 years. Every time a new OS comes out, everything looks different. And he has to learn it all again. Whereas all command prompts look the same. And all you needed was a list of the appropriate commands, rather than a 200 page "how to" book. Now he can barely open a word document. How intuitive is that?
I was going to post a rant about how this would destroy privacy, allow big Brother to watch over us, threaten the entire civilized world, and be a excellent tool to oppress people. And what happens if your boss finds out about it? Walla, a time and attendance system your boss can use to prove you are where you say you are.
Then I thought: hang on. We could use this in a better way. Let's stick one of these to all UK and US politicians' and police officers head with an audio feed and display all the footage on the Internet with a 72-hour delay. Bwahaha!
Just lie on your Resume, then. You spent the last year in a Unix / C shop. Bwahahah!
IMHO in the UK the questions are:
1. How do we make sure that EV is secure?
2. How do we make sure that EV is reliable?
3. How do we make sure that EV is accurate?
EV needs to be seen to work as well as paper based alternatives. This is hard to do when the BBC has reported security violations by hackers, the florida fiasco, various interesting comments by Diebold employees etc.
Personally, in the UK I can't see EV catching on unless there is a paper trail, faultless physical security, and no chance of hackers breaking into the system. Which would make it cost about as much as the paper systems.
Actually, if you read the article you'll find that he did point his browser at localhost:631, and was stopped at the password prompt.
IANAL but IIRC trademark doesn't have to be smart or special. To be valid, a trademark needs to uniquly identify a particular product or service within a limited business context.
Wouldn't the screenshots infringe copyright? Sue !
Because people are stupid enough to let them in. Even the police can't enter your property without either your concent or a warrant (with limited exceptions such as entering during a chase, or when they believe human life is in danger). The BSA can not enter your property without concent PERIOD.
If they accuse you of any crime inform them that you will sue them for slander if they make false allegations, that if they continue to harass you you will take legal action, that you will call the police immediately if they do no leave your property, and remind them that any action will require them to make a full disclosure in front of a court.
"I think if it was good, integrating an antivirus product into Windows would be damn responsible"
So every microsoft computer in the world would have the same virus checker? Great. That would make the virus writers job so much easier. All you would have to do is break one program...
"In fact, there had already been a physical exchange between the guy and his daughter."
The only physical exchange between the guy and his daughter that I am aware of was when his daughter hit him.
"That the officer was responding to a report (eg, some other citizen called the police) of domestic violence "
1. It was an Anony-mouse tip. Not probable cause.
2. The police officer did not attempt to find out if violence had been used before the time of the arrest.
3. The police officer did not ask the name, which is a question that would have been reasonable. He asked for proof of identity, which without probable cause was not reasonable.
4. In any case, the identity of the suspect was not particularly relevant since the tip did not include the name of an individual.
5. According to state law, there is a requirement to give ID if there is probable suspicion. However, previous judgements suggest that the constitutional situation is that ID can only be required if their is probable cause.
6. The police officer had inadequate evidence at the time the man was arrested of any crime except refusing to give an ID.
or:
Programer Missed Brackets
Software Worked Correctly
Too Late.
Empty Cups On Office Table, Sound Of Programmers Swearing, Confusion.
Damn! The yanks have caught onto our secret plot!
After all, speed limiters have been available for many years, and they still let people drive cars on the road capable of going a 100 miles an hour faster than the legal limit.
Being a bit suspicious, I'd say the reason is that the UK government makes mucho 's from speeding fines. They won't want to give that up; they'll only use it on people dodging their road tax.
What ever happened to research for the good of mankind, and academic recognition?
Reality.
I'm not sure how a post about whether Office tools have actually improved enough for it to be worth upgrading should produce a post that argues that you "have" to use visual programming tools to produce good programs. Hint: I have been known to use visual programming tools.
h ives/001084.html
f
I have also worked on large-scale projects with little more than a debugger, compiler, and Visio (for basic design drawing). In order to say, "rich visual debugging and design tools are a MUST" you need to furnish us with some evidence, sir. You need to show at a minimum that programmer productivity has significantly improved as a result of introducing such a tool. This would be hard to do. Current evidence suggests that the value from a dollar spent on software has remained nearly static.
http://www.j-bradford-delong.net/movable_type/arc
The productivity trends from the time that these tools started to be introduced showed a reduction in productivity
http://ftp.starbase.com/pdf/productivitytrends.pd
And, as a general observation, advances in computing have not yet provided a substantial productivity increase. As Robert Solow says, "you can see computers everywhere but in the productivity statistics." One of the main hold-ups in benefits from computing seems to be software production. Simply put, current advances in tools have not produced a real advantage where it matters: software is still hard to construct, and no amount of tools will guarantee that the software you produce will actually work in a way that benefits the clients. You need good people to do that. Tools can help, but people can produce good programs without the tools, and tools won't produce good programs without the people.
which means he's spending MORE on basic living essentials than he did last year
But not necessarily more as a percentage of income, as income can (generally does) rise faster than inflation.
Nine Ladies Dancing
10 Lords-a-Leaping
11 Pipers Piping
12 Drummers Drumming
personally, I think we should outsource these roles to India for the price of an big mac...
Problem Solved!
Frankly, as a software engineer VI, word 6, Mozilla and a compiler (GNU?) would give me everything I really need.
As a writer / novelist I find that Word 2000 etc is so helpful that it gets in my way. My productivity is WAY higher using word 6. I've got everything set up just fine; why move all my macros?
do you get any geekier than programmers, mathematicians etc ?
Believe it or not, there is a distinct hierarchy to programmers.Not exagerating it a little, they are:
GURU - Programs ancient calculators using switches in morse code (not assembly!) to produce sentiant lifeforms.
MASTER - once programmed a binary sort algorithm in less than 7 bits of memory.
JOURNEYMAN - anyone who has programmed in an open source project that was not written in VB, unless they are in the MASTER or GURU category.
C++ Programmer
Java Programmer
RPG / SQL / DB programmer
Pascal / Delphi Programmer
APPRENTICE - once programmed a hangman program using ASCII characters
Modula-2 Programmer
Script kiddie
VB Programmer
Web Developer (HTML)
VBA Programmer
There is another level of mastry above the common programmer, consisting of such people as linguists, program language desginers, and ISO Standards writters.