You don't have to beat Microsoft and win (your words, not mine) to make a great deal of money.
Cite an example of somebody who threatened Microsoft Windows directly and walked away with "a great deal of money", please. I can count Geoworks, Be, Stac, and Netscape as counterexamples. Why would Apple incur anything except the full wrath of Microsoft if it challenges the monopoly in the mainstream desktop OS market?
Software has a fixed cost of creation. You make your money in volume!
Exactly, and Microsoft Windows has perhaps 20 times the volume on day zero. In a legitimate (still selling above cost) price war Microsoft would win easily.
it would be entirely possible to only provide support for "approved" hardware.
Sure, in the sense that you might avoid a lawsuit if the user can't get unapproved hardware to work. It's not likely to avoid a return, and it's certainly not the same as "just works".
Solaris-x86 is hardly a model of success. Linux, on the other hand, already has over a decade of headstart in terms of PC hardware support, plus some users who are philosophically devout, not to mention a zero price tag, yet has not grabbed significant market share on the desktop.
That doesn't mean Apple can't succeed, because MacOS X has strengths that neither Solaris nor Linux has (and weaknesses that they don't have), but it does mean that your examples don't exactly point the way to "Profit!!!".
What does that have to do with my contention that there are many non-trivial tasks that can be accomplished more quickly by a machine using far less processing power than the brain has?
So a computer can "remember" more things because it can write it down and then look it up later? I do that all the time and thus can remember all sorts of things.
But you can't look them up quickly enough for practical purposes, just as a massive book of chess moves will not help you when faced with Kasparov in a real (timed) game.
That's very impressive of a computer.
Stop anthropomorphizing. Whatever is cool about a computer is better attributed to its creators: us. But yes, it is impressive how a cheap little device can remember more telephone numbers than you can with your massive (I'm not being sarcastic) brain with billions of neurons.
However it does the job, all I really care is if it's doing something better than a human can. Why do you really care if it "learned" your phone number or just "remembered" it? Just to feel superior to a machine we created? Are you bothered that a forklift can carry more weight than you can?
But the computer has to be given the algorithm to solve these puzzles, which must be written by a human.
Sure, but when you compare the complexity of the completed machines with that of the human brain, it's clear that the machine is more efficient (same work in less time using fewer "parts"). That doesn't take away anything from the human brain, because as you say we created it. I see it as akin to creating hydraulic equipment that can lift far more weight than we ever can.
even the most basic attempts at simulating intelligence in machines makes us realize how vastly superior Nature's machines are.
Depends on the task at hand. We are the only species we know of that can reliably do arithmetic, yet a computer chip that literally costs cents can do it faster and more accurately. A relatively complex (only by today's standards) computer can regularly defeat grandmasters in chess, nevermind the rest of us. Machines also don't get tired or bored, and can remember many things more exactly. If you open a book of puzzles, you will realize how many of them are trivially solved by a computer.
Of course, the intelligence involved in inventing these wonderful machines is astounding, and we are by no means obsolete. That's probably the "vastly superior" part you're talking about. For quite a few tasks, however, what we are realizing is that the human brain isn't particularly efficient.
I wouldn't appreciate someone using my blood, sweat and tears (always available at work) for testing purposes, but what can I do?
You don't trade away all your privacy rights when you step into your office. For one, your employer better not put a camera in the toilet, or tap into a call you make on your own cell phone. If enough people are uncomfortable about this as you are, then it's a matter of writing it into law.
why would it not want to avoid workers who won't be able to effectively perform certain tasks, or workers who statistically may become liabilities in the future?
You mean like black people, who are statistically more likely to get pulled over when driving? Or perhaps like women, who are statistically more likely to become pregnant and cause downtime at work?
The first observation might concern a trucking or taxi business more, while the second one concerns nearly every industry, but society forbids this sort of discrimination. Generally, we allow an employer to make decisions based on what the employee or applicant has done (prior arrests, bad credit, etc.), not what they are statistically likely to do in the future.
Not all laws should be written for the maximum convenience of corporations. We require them to do all sorts of things, from cleaning up their toxic waste to giving a mother some time with her newborn baby without losing her job. As long as a significant portion of people with such genetic dispositions do not actually develop the illness or can be effectively treated, I expect discrimination to remain illegal.
One of the things I've heard from an Engineering professor is that you want to make a sketch, preliminary descriptions, make copies and mail it to yourself by certified mail, and leave it sealed. That is considered sufficient proof of date should it be challenged in court.
Your professor is seriously misinformed. It's trivial to mail yourself an unsealed envelope, and later seal it with whatever "invention" you like. The USPTO has a service called "Disclosure Document Program" that "should provide a more credible form of evidence than that provided by the mailing of a disclosure to oneself or another person by registered mail." Another acceptable form of proof is "the conventional, witnessed, permanently bound, and page-numbered laboratory notebook or notarized records."
Eventually even PHBs and marketing-types will grasp Dilbert (and boy will they be pissed when they do!)
No, they won't be. The one manager I've come across whom we all thought was most like the PHB turned out to be the biggest Dilbert fan. He even decorated his office with Dilbert finger puppets when the most we'd do would be to post up a printout or two of a favorite strip.
Why? Because he though he was Dilbert. On the plus side, it means that everybody has to deal with some crap. On the minus side, the power of self-delusion is terrifying.
That person must get a benefit above and beyond the additional price of the gas, otherwise, they would have chosen differently.
That person most likely did not consider the full cost of that decision, which includes American involvement in wars, pollution and related diseases, costs of building and maintaining highways, medical and insurance costs of car accidents, and others. These costs are well hidden from the common citizen.
Even if that person did consider all costs, it still does not mean that the decision was not wasteful and selfish. Each opinion on what is necessary and what is wasteful is not equally valid as any other.
Bill Gates reputed has about $40 billion. If he used it to buy 20 billion gallons of gasoline and burned it all in a huge bonfire, by your argument it would not be wasteful as long as he thought it was worth it. Right?
There are foreseeable needs, and there are unforeseeable needs. A good organization should be able to accurately predict what costs it will incur in the next few months or years, and be flexible enough to respond to unforeseen expenses.
Not knowing where the money will come from shouldn't stop one from knowing ahead of time what will be needed and budgeting for it. If cash is a big variable, then your budget has to be more flexible and perhaps conservative. I don't understand how your management can tell how much the business costs to run if it just gets receipts to reimburse. Do you hire employees that way as well? If not, what makes IT expenses so special?
It would improve my life to get from point A to point B. I can do so in an SUV, or I can do so in a car that uses half as much gasoline. Conservation is to use the least amount of resources to accomplish the same goal. Conservation is not the opposite of need, but the opposite of waste.
Personally I like SUVs because there are numerous times I find the cargo capacity to be invaluable
How many times, and could you have rented a truck or SUV for those instances? Obviously that will cost extra money, but that cost is offset against improved gas mileage of a smaller car. From my personal impression, most trucks I see on the road are empty.
Let me be clear: some people really need bigger vehicles. My question is whether you've actually done the math and come to the right conclusion, or whether the "cargo capacity" is just an excuse for something less rational. That is, how much money did you save by buying an SUV instead of renting one when you needed it?
Anyway, what is not okay is parking a truck in a space clearly marked "compact only", or driving recklessly knowing that you won't suffer as badly in a collision with a smaller vehicle. I'm sure you don't do that, but please don't say it doesn't happen a lot. With the greater weight and power of these vehicles comes greater responsibility on the road.
Note, finally, that I have not used foul language. If you decide to use any in response to this post, there will not be a discussion.
The question was actually rhetorical, because I have an allergy to "there are two types of people" statements.
But to answer your second point, school proved to have filled in huge gaps in my knowledge. Hobbyists, unsurprisingly, tend to dig much deeper into what they like than most schooling ever will, but it's also easy to ignore all else. Formal schooling gave me a more complete picture of what I knew well and what I was missing.
This system doesn't require the highest level of human ethical behavior. There is a wealth of information on the Internet about products, so people can check elsewhere to get a second opinion.
In other words, you are agreeing with me that the system of allowing retailer censorship in product reviews is unworkable unless it contains an external check? (What you did was refer to a different, bigger system than I was talking about.)
Your "wealth of information" is also a bit of an overstatement. There certainly is a large quantity of information on just about every product, but finding independent and fair opinions on the Internet is anything but simple. In the end, you probably have to rely on a reviewer's reputation, which nullifies the purpose of having random user reviews in the first place.
if they don't like it they'll return it (added cost for the company) or go somewhere else next time (lost customer).
Many items, including movies and computer software, cannot be returned just because the buyer didn't like it. Secondly, from my personal experience, the threat of going elsewhere is not a big concern for many merchants. As long as every retailer lies equally much (think cellular phone carriers, for example), where are you going to go?
Your argument is still too difficult, requiring an appreciation of infinity that many don't have. The simplest one I've encountered I will echo here: if inexplicable complexity on earth necessarily implies a creator God, then the inexplicable complexity of our creator God must also imply yet another one, which must imply another one, and so on. There is no reason for the chain of implications to end at the creator of our known world.
In other words, if you accept Intelligent Design, you must reject Christianity because somebody must then have created your God.
No, it's not a good thing. The interests of the retailer are tied together with the interests of the makers of these products, so they are not a neutral third party that should be trusted to make censorship decisions on product reviews. I'm sure some retailers manage to stay ethical, just as you might grow up to be an upstanding citizen in a mob family, but any system that requires the highest level of ethical human behavior is not a good system.
Most of the good free software projects are cheap and of high quality. The ones that have lots of features added quickly tend to have full-time employees of some company working on them.
A 10% risk is nothing to the kinds of people who are cut out for even going in the first place.
Perhaps, but what you wrote was: "I think any first travelers to Mars would have far more impressive ways to die than a 10% chance of radiation damage" and then proceeding to list some cases, including hypothetical engines that have yet to be invented, undiscovered aliens with death rays, and slipping in zero gravity. Do you seriously believe that astronauts care about any of your examples, if you don't think they even care about a 10% chance of death?
Just to remind you, the Apollo 1 crew died because the cabin was filled with pure oxygen and because the door was too hard to open. The Challenger crew died because of a faulty O-ring. The Columbia crew died because of some foam that fell off. All of these are mundane parts of engineering.
In any case, how the hell do you slip in zero gravity anyway?
It's only a significant problem for the pussies who complain about how expensive it is, pointless it is, or would otherwise not go and want to ruin it for everyone else who does.
If the "pussies" are being asked to pay for it with their taxes, then they certainly get to express their opinions on whether it is too expensive or pointless. If you don't want this sort of scrutiny, fund it privately.
Food managment and psychologial stability becomes a MAJOR problem if we are talkin in years of traveltime.
Since we never had humans that far away from earth, their psychological stability is certainly a major unknown that we can only guess at based on experiences with the space station and other remote explorations. The Columbus sailors, if I understand correctly, did start to get upset at sea. But neither I nor the original poster was talking about psychological stability.
Food management is a matter of math. How much food and water you need is a function of how long your trip will be, and that's no different whether you're going into the desert, the Himalayas, or Mars.
In any case, are you asserting that food management problems are likely to kill 10% of the astronauts? If not, then perhaps my point stands.
From decades of experience, that happens about 1% or 2% of the time.
they could run out of food,
Never happened yet, in perhaps two hundred missions.
they could hit any of the various bits of rock out there,
Never lost a ship to that yet.
they could get abducted by the aliens that live on the other side of the moon,
There are no aliens on the other side of the moon that we have detected.
they could slip and fall while getting out the shower cracking their skulls open,
I don't have numbers, but I would guess this would happen in less than 1% of the cases.
In other words, a 10% risk of loss of life is significant and worth thinking about. It is far more of a risk than anything you've listed. I'm not saying we shouldn't go to space, but that your dismissive arguments are not mathematically sound.
Slashdot Mirror
Cite an example of somebody who threatened Microsoft Windows directly and walked away with "a great deal of money", please. I can count Geoworks, Be, Stac, and Netscape as counterexamples. Why would Apple incur anything except the full wrath of Microsoft if it challenges the monopoly in the mainstream desktop OS market?
Exactly, and Microsoft Windows has perhaps 20 times the volume on day zero. In a legitimate (still selling above cost) price war Microsoft would win easily.
it would be entirely possible to only provide support for "approved" hardware.
Sure, in the sense that you might avoid a lawsuit if the user can't get unapproved hardware to work. It's not likely to avoid a return, and it's certainly not the same as "just works".
That doesn't mean Apple can't succeed, because MacOS X has strengths that neither Solaris nor Linux has (and weaknesses that they don't have), but it does mean that your examples don't exactly point the way to "Profit!!!".
What does that have to do with my contention that there are many non-trivial tasks that can be accomplished more quickly by a machine using far less processing power than the brain has?
But you can't look them up quickly enough for practical purposes, just as a massive book of chess moves will not help you when faced with Kasparov in a real (timed) game.
That's very impressive of a computer.
Stop anthropomorphizing. Whatever is cool about a computer is better attributed to its creators: us. But yes, it is impressive how a cheap little device can remember more telephone numbers than you can with your massive (I'm not being sarcastic) brain with billions of neurons.
However it does the job, all I really care is if it's doing something better than a human can. Why do you really care if it "learned" your phone number or just "remembered" it? Just to feel superior to a machine we created? Are you bothered that a forklift can carry more weight than you can?
Sure, but when you compare the complexity of the completed machines with that of the human brain, it's clear that the machine is more efficient (same work in less time using fewer "parts"). That doesn't take away anything from the human brain, because as you say we created it. I see it as akin to creating hydraulic equipment that can lift far more weight than we ever can.
Depends on the task at hand. We are the only species we know of that can reliably do arithmetic, yet a computer chip that literally costs cents can do it faster and more accurately. A relatively complex (only by today's standards) computer can regularly defeat grandmasters in chess, nevermind the rest of us. Machines also don't get tired or bored, and can remember many things more exactly. If you open a book of puzzles, you will realize how many of them are trivially solved by a computer.
Of course, the intelligence involved in inventing these wonderful machines is astounding, and we are by no means obsolete. That's probably the "vastly superior" part you're talking about. For quite a few tasks, however, what we are realizing is that the human brain isn't particularly efficient.
You don't trade away all your privacy rights when you step into your office. For one, your employer better not put a camera in the toilet, or tap into a call you make on your own cell phone. If enough people are uncomfortable about this as you are, then it's a matter of writing it into law.
You mean like black people, who are statistically more likely to get pulled over when driving? Or perhaps like women, who are statistically more likely to become pregnant and cause downtime at work?
The first observation might concern a trucking or taxi business more, while the second one concerns nearly every industry, but society forbids this sort of discrimination. Generally, we allow an employer to make decisions based on what the employee or applicant has done (prior arrests, bad credit, etc.), not what they are statistically likely to do in the future.
Not all laws should be written for the maximum convenience of corporations. We require them to do all sorts of things, from cleaning up their toxic waste to giving a mother some time with her newborn baby without losing her job. As long as a significant portion of people with such genetic dispositions do not actually develop the illness or can be effectively treated, I expect discrimination to remain illegal.
Your professor is seriously misinformed. It's trivial to mail yourself an unsealed envelope, and later seal it with whatever "invention" you like. The USPTO has a service called "Disclosure Document Program" that "should provide a more credible form of evidence than that provided by the mailing of a disclosure to oneself or another person by registered mail." Another acceptable form of proof is "the conventional, witnessed, permanently bound, and page-numbered laboratory notebook or notarized records."
No, they won't be. The one manager I've come across whom we all thought was most like the PHB turned out to be the biggest Dilbert fan. He even decorated his office with Dilbert finger puppets when the most we'd do would be to post up a printout or two of a favorite strip.
Why? Because he though he was Dilbert. On the plus side, it means that everybody has to deal with some crap. On the minus side, the power of self-delusion is terrifying.
That person most likely did not consider the full cost of that decision, which includes American involvement in wars, pollution and related diseases, costs of building and maintaining highways, medical and insurance costs of car accidents, and others. These costs are well hidden from the common citizen.
Even if that person did consider all costs, it still does not mean that the decision was not wasteful and selfish. Each opinion on what is necessary and what is wasteful is not equally valid as any other.
Bill Gates reputed has about $40 billion. If he used it to buy 20 billion gallons of gasoline and burned it all in a huge bonfire, by your argument it would not be wasteful as long as he thought it was worth it. Right?
Not knowing where the money will come from shouldn't stop one from knowing ahead of time what will be needed and budgeting for it. If cash is a big variable, then your budget has to be more flexible and perhaps conservative. I don't understand how your management can tell how much the business costs to run if it just gets receipts to reimburse. Do you hire employees that way as well? If not, what makes IT expenses so special?
It would improve my life to get from point A to point B. I can do so in an SUV, or I can do so in a car that uses half as much gasoline. Conservation is to use the least amount of resources to accomplish the same goal. Conservation is not the opposite of need, but the opposite of waste.
How many times, and could you have rented a truck or SUV for those instances? Obviously that will cost extra money, but that cost is offset against improved gas mileage of a smaller car. From my personal impression, most trucks I see on the road are empty.
Let me be clear: some people really need bigger vehicles. My question is whether you've actually done the math and come to the right conclusion, or whether the "cargo capacity" is just an excuse for something less rational. That is, how much money did you save by buying an SUV instead of renting one when you needed it?
Anyway, what is not okay is parking a truck in a space clearly marked "compact only", or driving recklessly knowing that you won't suffer as badly in a collision with a smaller vehicle. I'm sure you don't do that, but please don't say it doesn't happen a lot. With the greater weight and power of these vehicles comes greater responsibility on the road.
Note, finally, that I have not used foul language. If you decide to use any in response to this post, there will not be a discussion.
VIsual Studio isn't tied to nmake. At my previous job we used jam, which can take advantage of multiple CPUs.
But to answer your second point, school proved to have filled in huge gaps in my knowledge. Hobbyists, unsurprisingly, tend to dig much deeper into what they like than most schooling ever will, but it's also easy to ignore all else. Formal schooling gave me a more complete picture of what I knew well and what I was missing.
In other words, you are agreeing with me that the system of allowing retailer censorship in product reviews is unworkable unless it contains an external check? (What you did was refer to a different, bigger system than I was talking about.)
Your "wealth of information" is also a bit of an overstatement. There certainly is a large quantity of information on just about every product, but finding independent and fair opinions on the Internet is anything but simple. In the end, you probably have to rely on a reviewer's reputation, which nullifies the purpose of having random user reviews in the first place.
if they don't like it they'll return it (added cost for the company) or go somewhere else next time (lost customer).
Many items, including movies and computer software, cannot be returned just because the buyer didn't like it. Secondly, from my personal experience, the threat of going elsewhere is not a big concern for many merchants. As long as every retailer lies equally much (think cellular phone carriers, for example), where are you going to go?
In other words, if you accept Intelligent Design, you must reject Christianity because somebody must then have created your God.
No, it's not a good thing. The interests of the retailer are tied together with the interests of the makers of these products, so they are not a neutral third party that should be trusted to make censorship decisions on product reviews. I'm sure some retailers manage to stay ethical, just as you might grow up to be an upstanding citizen in a mob family, but any system that requires the highest level of ethical human behavior is not a good system.
I'm a hobbying programmer who later got a lot of formal schooling. What does that make me?
Most of the good free software projects are cheap and of high quality. The ones that have lots of features added quickly tend to have full-time employees of some company working on them.
Perhaps, but what you wrote was: "I think any first travelers to Mars would have far more impressive ways to die than a 10% chance of radiation damage" and then proceeding to list some cases, including hypothetical engines that have yet to be invented, undiscovered aliens with death rays, and slipping in zero gravity. Do you seriously believe that astronauts care about any of your examples, if you don't think they even care about a 10% chance of death?
Just to remind you, the Apollo 1 crew died because the cabin was filled with pure oxygen and because the door was too hard to open. The Challenger crew died because of a faulty O-ring. The Columbia crew died because of some foam that fell off. All of these are mundane parts of engineering.
In any case, how the hell do you slip in zero gravity anyway?
It's only a significant problem for the pussies who complain about how expensive it is, pointless it is, or would otherwise not go and want to ruin it for everyone else who does.
If the "pussies" are being asked to pay for it with their taxes, then they certainly get to express their opinions on whether it is too expensive or pointless. If you don't want this sort of scrutiny, fund it privately.
Since we never had humans that far away from earth, their psychological stability is certainly a major unknown that we can only guess at based on experiences with the space station and other remote explorations. The Columbus sailors, if I understand correctly, did start to get upset at sea. But neither I nor the original poster was talking about psychological stability.
Food management is a matter of math. How much food and water you need is a function of how long your trip will be, and that's no different whether you're going into the desert, the Himalayas, or Mars.
In any case, are you asserting that food management problems are likely to kill 10% of the astronauts? If not, then perhaps my point stands.
From decades of experience, that happens about 1% or 2% of the time.
they could run out of food,
Never happened yet, in perhaps two hundred missions.
they could hit any of the various bits of rock out there,
Never lost a ship to that yet.
they could get abducted by the aliens that live on the other side of the moon,
There are no aliens on the other side of the moon that we have detected.
they could slip and fall while getting out the shower cracking their skulls open,
I don't have numbers, but I would guess this would happen in less than 1% of the cases.
In other words, a 10% risk of loss of life is significant and worth thinking about. It is far more of a risk than anything you've listed. I'm not saying we shouldn't go to space, but that your dismissive arguments are not mathematically sound.