No, somebody gets the first move. I don't believe it has been proven whether this is necessarily an advantage, disadvantage, or absolutely not a factor.
What normally happens is that the country's central bank draws a line underneath a certain date, and says "from this day forth, only the new currency is legal tender. If you want to exchange the old currency for new currency, bring it to us or a big private bank".
They can also tell the banks to accept but not give out old bills. This eventually will take most of the old bills out of circulation, without having disruptive cut-off dates and irate citizens.
Who said anything about the source code? Just because it runs linux doesn't mean it has to be open source.
Yes, but because it runs Linux, it's easier to hack an exploit (say, intercept certain messages heading for a billing server) in, because the hardware and development software are readily available. By "easier", I'm comparing it to a commercial RTOS running on a custom board. If the application level sources are opened, then the vulnerability grows a bit more. Finally, as these low-cost base stations are intended for use in remote areas, the risk of a physical break-in is increased.
Nobody is talking about hooking this thing up to the Internet directly.
If the source code becomes publicly available, then it's not conceivable for somebody to hack a special version (that, for example, eavesdrops on certain calls, or bills certain calls to a different account), break in to a remote cellsite, and replace the running software unnoticed. Doing this today would not be impossible, but it's more difficult.
Remember, Risk = Likelihood * Damage. This new technology increased the Likelihood, and therefore the resulting Risk must be adequately addressed.
Can a guy off the street spend a few hundred and build his own phone network, or is the marginal cost still significant?
The hardware itself is not particularly expensive. Commercial cellular equipment are costly because they tend to be custom hardware with limited production runs. They are also subject to very high reliability requirements (a few hours of downtime per year), and have hardware-level redundancy. If you relax those requirements, an PC with appropriate I/O hardware (even better, additional DSPs) can certainly do the job.
Your bigger problem is software. Since you won't have access to the handset (Nokia is unlikely to help you), all debugging will be network-side only (and therefore that much harder). Simulators in this market easily cost tens of thousands of dollars per unit. Some aspects of the specs (encryption, in particular) are not easily accessible. Getting a real telephone switch to test against is essentially fantasy for your "guy off the street". There's also a pretty big database effort in the backend, if you want your "subscribers" to be able to roam into another network. The software mentioned in the article appears to solve a large number of these problems, but it's not clear how interoperable they are.
if it's cheap enough, I'll start my own wireless phone company:)
Unfortunately, this will likely remain capital intensive. You'll need a front office to deal with customer service, a back office to deal with subscriptions, and a technical crew to maintain the cell sites, not to mention getting rights to the build cell sites, acquire spectrum, etc.
I think it's more likely that this will be used by established telecommunications companies to lower their costs in areas where downtimes are less of a problem.
Gun laws, drug laws, parent surviellance, no freedom in school...these are the things that breed violence and crime among frustrated and stifled kids. Give them some slack!
That's why there are lots of school shootings in Singapore and China, right?
I don't have to be bitten by a dog to know that it hurts.
Except software development is not as simple. Do you claim to know the effectiveness of every software development proposal, without having tried it, as easily as you can tell me it hurts to get bitten?
Hell, it's hard enough to get people to keep comments in sync with code when it's in the same file
I agree. It's also terribly difficult to get people to shoot back, rather than duck behind something solid, when being shot at. Yet soldiers are trained to do this most unsensible thing.
You could always take ten minutes and update the comments on a day's work, so the programmer resistance to it was very low.
Make no mistake, I agree with this statement above. However...
Being that the simple answer works, why go looking to make it more complex?
the simple answer does not work, because poor software quality is a widespread problem. Therefore, I'm suggesting that the real solution may have to be annoying or even painful, a bit like the way a soldier has to risk his or her life to shoot back. I'm also suggesting that just because a proposal seems annoying, it doesn't mean that it's not the right thing to do.
A method that proposes comments that don't live in the code is broken. [...] A system that requires an extra annoying step for absolutely no gain is defective.
I hear this a lot. The question is, have you actually religiously followed all the recommendations of a formal method, and evaluated the product objectively through its lifecycle with various metrics available? How do you know that external documentation is necessarily broken? How do you know that it gives "absolutely no gain"? These are assertions that have to be based in fact, and frankly, individual anecdotes tend to have too many stray factors (programmer resistance, mismanagement, etc) to be relevant.
There are better ways
You can only conclude that after you are an expert in two ways, with objective evidence to perform the comparison with. Are you just advocating the less "annoying" approach? How could I know?
I hope you understand the point. It's not that you're wrong by avoiding the annoying practice and I'm right. I'm merely warning against dismissing a method (as "pathetic", in the case of the original post) just because it's "annoying" to change your habits. The point is, maybe, just maybe, the Right Method really is annoying to follow. As an industry we've searched decades for the easy solution, and yet here we still struggle.
More precisely, good external documentation can give a much better glimpse into what the original designer had in mind. It has space to discuss abandoned alternatives (and why). It has space for diagrams and drawings (even animation!), which can frequently be far more expressive than code or code comments. Even if the document does not match the actual code 100%, it may not be without value if done right. The point is, there are news stories better covered in a TV program (visual, animated) than in a newspaper (longer, more detailed) and vice versa. Put in code comments what are best put there, and put in external documentation what are best put there. Want to convince anybody that one completely replaces the other? Objective facts, please.
UML is pathetic. [...] The worst part is that as soon as the first byte of code gets written, it becomes out of date and misleading, because who the hell is going to maintain the UML fiction when there's code to be written??
In other words, you conclude that a method is poor because you can break its rules, or that the common engineer is likely to break its rules. Fine, but unless we start following rules, how's anything going to change?
Put another way, let's say the Right Method (which necessarily comes with a number of Right Rules) does come along. If you're just going to refuse to follow its rules, how can you possibly conclude anything except that it's also "pathetic"?
Re: Everything, including tools, in moderation!
on
Software Fashion
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
Design patterns and UML were designed as practical tools, not dogma. If they help you do what you were doing anyway (and they often do), then great: use 'em. But if they don't, then don't. They're there to serve you, not the other way around.
This is true, but note that the UML/patterns/OO newbie is in no position to determine that. One common mistake is to read the book, discard the parts you don't think is necessary, and then proceed with your design work. The rules that you chose to ignore were put there by pretty smart people, and there's a good chance they were put there for a good reason. When the design finally fails because you were missing something, the egotistical designer then blames the method.
The point is, I think the parent post was suggesting that the programmers in question may simply have broken the rules, and not actually found some instance where the methods really apply poorly. It's ego-boosting to think that what you do is unique and beyond the reach of old stuffy rules, but the truth is that most of us are doing things that have been done before.
This isn't to say that those cases don't exist, but that they're probably rarer than you think, especially if your team of programmers is trying it out for the first time, especially if you don't have a senior engineer already experienced in the method guiding your team. For the first time, at least, the instructions should be followed to the letter and strictly enforced. They should be dogma until you've at least went through a complete product life cycle with them.
What you suggest we've already tried for decades. The result is prevasively poor documentation and fragile designs.
Unfortunately, the OP's experience seems to be more the norm than the exception. Many foreign programmers (not just Indian but Russian, Chinese, etc) are all about banging out code. They don't strive for quality and they find it very hard to "think out of the box".
Your statement, if you realize it, is already a toned down version of "never", because only "many" foreign programmers are poor. Note that I'm arguing with the "never", not the general experience, which I actually share.
The question then becomes, do they not strive for quality because of something inherent (training, upbringing, culture, whatever), or something incidental (you didn't ask for it)? Do they not think outside the box because they don't know how, or because their US employers smack them down whenever they do anything off-spec?
Or maybe because they're smart enough to know they're being paid peanuts, that the only reason you're hiring them is because they're cheap? They're humans, too, and have morale issues just like your US employees. How about the specs? Are they even good specs?
Point is, I acknowledge that many have had poor experiences. However, I'm not nearly as ready as you seem to be to just blame it all on them. How much more effort has the US-based management exerted to ensure that the outsourcing is a success? If Russian, Indian, and Chinese programmers all have problems working with us, then maybe the problem is on our side!
One thing is clear: if US employers are planning to just fire all its developers and outsource abroad without changing anything else, the project is likely doomed. The big question is what they have to do differently to make it work.
Been there. Done that. Ended up with horrible code [...] I'll never outsource overseas again.
While I sympathize with your experience, your conclusion is rather extreme. Are there things you could have done better or differently that would make the project successful, particularly armed with the wisdom from your previous experience? Are your foreign subcontractors typical, or already the best of the bunch? Point is, outsourcing has an obvious benefit of lower cost, and "never" is a long time.
every time I see an exploit, it's after Microsoft has already issued a patch.
That's not a coincidence. A good way to find out where software are vulnerable is by examining the patch issued to fix it. It's only a matter of finishing that analysis and making the exploit before most people have patched, which can be months later.
If Microsoft can be held legally liable, then it's extremely likely that in the future patches would be automatic and not optional. It's also likely to be more expensive, to cover the cost of "malpractice" insurance.
Nobody complained anymore because the mirrors gave them something to do (fix their hair, etc) while waiting for the elevator. While the waiting time did not go away, users no longer feel they're waiting for something.
an extra minute or so each day isn't going to make a lot of difference.
Reminds me of an old story of somebody hired to improve the elevator waiting time that people had been complaining about. Instead of tinkering with elevator algorithms or making it run faster, he simply installed mirrors by the elevator. Nobody complained anymore.
It makes a difference, because it's something I'm waiting for. It's one more minute before I can read email, or search for something on Google, or whatever I turned on the computer to do.
An extra three minutes shutting down, on the other hand, isn't that important for a desktop, because I would probably have walked away to do something else. It might be for a laptop, however, because the user might be waiting to unplug it, etc.
The point is, it's not the amount of time, but whether I'm waiting for it or not. This means that one solution to the problem may simply be downloading Slashdot headlines and showing them while the system boots.
Just having access to the hardware and software isn't going to do it. How many new "van Goghs" do we have since the advent of Photoshop?
Your point is generally valid, but tools do lower the barrier to entry. Most computer users can easily be taught to remove specks and dust particles from scanned photographs, a task that used to require Real Skills. Some can even be taught to do rather advanced things like color correction. A nice and unique menu screen for your home-made DVD, for example, is entirely within the abilities of an interested amateur today.
On the audio front, Pro Tools Free is available for free download, but like you say it doesn't mean we can all suddenly be professional audio mixers. However, software like Sonic Foundry's ACID or Apple's new Soundtrack, which come with lots of pre-made audio "loops" that can be arranged into custom tunes, can provide unique background music for your projects.
So no, there may not be any more van Goghs (you set the bar rather high), but there are certainly more people cropping and editing photographs than before, which is something that used to require professional equipment and a lot more skill.
1. Novak looks into "yellow-cake" incident.
2. Novak wonders why a Clinton-appointee was sent on a highly sensitive mission.
3. Novak contacts Wilson and asks him why he was chosen.
4. Wilson says he was sent because of the influence of his wife - who is a WMD expert analyst for the CIA.
[...]
You should not list this timeline as a matter of fact, because it is in dispute. Wilson appeared on Nightline last night, and specifically said that:
His wife did not urge the CIA to send him (although he could not rule out if the CIA had asked his wife about it at all)
He is an expert, having served in several countries in the region. He also has contacts in the relevant branches of the Nigerian government
I'm not saying you're wrong and he's right, just that the timeline is in dispute, and you should not present it as fact. Also, consider the likelihood of readily admitting to a journalist that you got a job because of your wife's influence.
I don't think you appreciate the surface area of LEO. Are you worried about overcrowding the sea with wine corks?
Yes, if the corks move at hundreds of miles per hour, and are each capable of sinking a ship on collision.
Point is, while individual satellites are small, you cannot simply consider their size. If you were launching another vehicle through its orbit, and expect to cross it at exactly 5:03 pm plus or minus 10 minutes, then what you need to consider is an arc formed by the said satellite moving at high velocity for 20 minutes. Now repeat for each orbit you are likely to cross. A "crowded" orbit simply means that you have increasing difficulty scheduling a safe launch, because the overlapping arcs make your launch window very small. Finally, consider that satellites don't just orbit. Sometimes they fire their boosters to correct decays in their own orbit, each of which would throw off your timing somewhat. Consider also that while you may not care if your payload is destroyed in a collision, the US government might be rather irate if you destroyed a spy satellite of theirs, or bring down the International Space Station.
But mainly, any such accident would be so expensive (mostly in terms of money, but sometimes in terms of human lives) that even if the risk of collision is low, any potential spacefarer must still be very careful. It is certainly worth far more attention (and NASA does track objects and debris in orbit) than corks in the ocean.
explain how this makes me a "liar", or appologize for calling me one.
That's why I wrote "technically". Here's your original quote:
When iPod first came out it was amazing, but I never bought one because it wouldn't talk to my computer.
According to your reply, you didn't buy one initially because it wouldn't work with PCs. You didn't buy one later, because:
I'm tired of my 64 meg flash-based player, but my expectations are higher now.
which means you never bought an iPod because of at least two reasons. That's why I wrote "technically, you're lying". This distinction is important to understanding why you never bought an iPod, which forms the core of your criticisms against Apple.
I said it's why I didn't buy one when they first came out.
Read it again. You wrote that PC compatibility was why you never bought one. It may not be what you meant, but it's what you wrote. I can't apologize for not reading minds.
Everyone knows pay-for-music services are coming, but there aren't any available to me.
The iPod works with PCs right now, and Apple has announced iTunes for PCs, due out in a month or two. It's not exactly vaporware (given Apple's reputation, the lack of technical barriers, and the obvious business benefit), so I'm guessing there are reasons you still haven't listed yet. You certainly seem willing to give Dell (which has, I reiterate, issued absolutely zero details with just over two months left before actual launch) the benefit of the doubt, assuming they will grab "90% of the market".
If Apple were smart, they would have written a Windows client for iTunes first, and worried about niche markets (Apples, Linux, etc) later.
Why would people buy Macs, then, if even Apple's own services don't work with Macs?
Really? The general assumption, even among those who are defending Dell here, appears to be that Dell is reacting to Apple in this case. Apple announced the iTunes Music Store more than four months ago, and have been working on the PC version of iTunes at least since then. They thought they could get it ready by the end of the year when they announced it, which means Apple thinks it takes at least six months.
Since there are less then three months left (you can't finish it right on December 25 to make it to this Christmas shopping season), the Dell PC-side client likely has to be developed in more haste, and yet has to be deliberately somewhat different from iTunes. Dell is not known to have a proven server infrastructure for a music store ready. Dell is not known to have micropayments worked out with credit card companies. Dell hasn't announced the price, size of catalog (or even if any major labels have signed on!), battery life or capacity of the device, and you already think Apple is going to pay?
Let me ask you another question: how will the Dell device connect to the PC? If they use USB1, then it'll be significantly slower than the iPod, and "full sync" will be a real pain. If they use USB2 or Firewire, then they're limiting themselves to a much smaller set of PC customers with recent PCs (like Apple, except Apple has Mac users).
So unless you're a Dell insider and know all these details, how can you possibly pick a winner right now?
When iPod first came out it was amazing, but I never bought one because it wouldn't talk to my computer. Now iPods will work with PC's, but if you want the music service, it's Mac-only.
Technically, you're lying. As you point out, the new iPods now work with your PC (not to mention much more capacity), but you still haven't bought one. This means that "it wouldn't talk to my computer" is not the only reason you don't have one right now. You should cite these reasons, so we can tell if you'll ever buy an iPod at all.
In fact, it sounds like you want an equivalent level of service as an Apple customer of both iPods and Macs. That may never happen for you. Apple is likely to let PC-based services lag Mac-based services.
Inevitably there will be a PC version of iTunes -- after it's too late and someone like Dell has locked up a 90% market share
What we know as fact is that the success of an on-line music store depends heavily on a few factors:
Price
Size of catalog
DRM restrictions
Micropayments
Dell has not announced any information regarding these crucial points, and you can already decide who will win? Nevermind that all Apple is missing is PC client software (which consists of re-implementing the proven iTunes UI and design), and their experience running their music store for several months?
Not on capital gains. [...] The lower the tax, the greater chance the average return on investment will be positive. Just because for the most part only the wealthy pay cap gains taxes does not mean that it is a good tax.
It's hard to sell it to the average voter that the rich guy makes tax-free money just clicking on "Buy" and "Sell" buttons, while they have to work more than 13 hours a week (of a 40-hour work week) for the government.
You are correct that taxing capital gains dampens investments. However, consider also that making it too easy for capitalists (as opposed to laborers) can mean that nobody wants to be a laborer (I'm including white collar labor here) anymore. A healthy balance involves many willing to invest, and even more willing to be invested on.
luxury taxes are the best as they hit those who can afford it the hardest
So you make it really easy for the rich for earn money from investments (0% capital gains taxes), but really painful for them to spend (high luxury taxes). Do you realize you're almost forcing them to spend money outside the country?
taxes on food and gasoline the worst because they hit everybody equally hard
There's more to a society than just money. Gasoline taxes is an incentive to drive fuel efficient automobiles, for example. With obesity levels where they are, one must wonder if food is too cheap*.
* US food is "too cheap" not so much because of low taxes, but because of large subsidies to food producers. Removing subsidies to show consumers the true cost of food, for example, may cause many to think a bit more about what they eat.
It really makes me wonder why recording studios spend millions of dollars researching these things when all it takes is one person to post this to kazaa and defeat the whole purpose of the encryption.
You need to understand that the record label's biggest fear from P2P is if everybody does it. They couldn't possibly sue everybody, and everybody can vote to change copyright laws anyway. (Just imagine if the government suddenly decides to take speed limits literally and seriously.)
What you are seeing is another piece of the puzzle to ensure that only the most dedicated and technically adept individuals are able to rip music. The other piece of the puzzle is to make sure that only the philosophically dedicated will still risk an expensive lawsuit to share music (they spared the 12-year old; will they spare you?). The much smaller number of technically adept and philosophically dedicated sharers are much easier to sue into oblivion, drying up the well for the common music downloaders. Slashdot likes to make fun of various attempts at DRM, sometimes without realizing that each imperfect incarnation of DRM decreases the number of people who casually rip and share music. Until they can be all realistically stopped with lawsuits.
Why does everything have to be installed as a system upgrade?
Because right now there are 9 different versions of Jaguar out there: 10.2.0 through 10.2.8. Allowing piecemeal upgrades would result in many times more different configurations, all of which Apple must spend extra money to first test (SSH only, SSH+Sendmail, Sendmail only) and then support.
Slashdot Mirror
No, somebody gets the first move. I don't believe it has been proven whether this is necessarily an advantage, disadvantage, or absolutely not a factor.
Rats, a world ruled by Machines will be just like Soviet Russia?
They can also tell the banks to accept but not give out old bills. This eventually will take most of the old bills out of circulation, without having disruptive cut-off dates and irate citizens.
Yes, but because it runs Linux, it's easier to hack an exploit (say, intercept certain messages heading for a billing server) in, because the hardware and development software are readily available. By "easier", I'm comparing it to a commercial RTOS running on a custom board. If the application level sources are opened, then the vulnerability grows a bit more. Finally, as these low-cost base stations are intended for use in remote areas, the risk of a physical break-in is increased.
If the source code becomes publicly available, then it's not conceivable for somebody to hack a special version (that, for example, eavesdrops on certain calls, or bills certain calls to a different account), break in to a remote cellsite, and replace the running software unnoticed. Doing this today would not be impossible, but it's more difficult.
Remember, Risk = Likelihood * Damage. This new technology increased the Likelihood, and therefore the resulting Risk must be adequately addressed.
The hardware itself is not particularly expensive. Commercial cellular equipment are costly because they tend to be custom hardware with limited production runs. They are also subject to very high reliability requirements (a few hours of downtime per year), and have hardware-level redundancy. If you relax those requirements, an PC with appropriate I/O hardware (even better, additional DSPs) can certainly do the job.
Your bigger problem is software. Since you won't have access to the handset (Nokia is unlikely to help you), all debugging will be network-side only (and therefore that much harder). Simulators in this market easily cost tens of thousands of dollars per unit. Some aspects of the specs (encryption, in particular) are not easily accessible. Getting a real telephone switch to test against is essentially fantasy for your "guy off the street". There's also a pretty big database effort in the backend, if you want your "subscribers" to be able to roam into another network. The software mentioned in the article appears to solve a large number of these problems, but it's not clear how interoperable they are.
if it's cheap enough, I'll start my own wireless phone company :)
Unfortunately, this will likely remain capital intensive. You'll need a front office to deal with customer service, a back office to deal with subscriptions, and a technical crew to maintain the cell sites, not to mention getting rights to the build cell sites, acquire spectrum, etc.
I think it's more likely that this will be used by established telecommunications companies to lower their costs in areas where downtimes are less of a problem.
That's why there are lots of school shootings in Singapore and China, right?
Except software development is not as simple. Do you claim to know the effectiveness of every software development proposal, without having tried it, as easily as you can tell me it hurts to get bitten?
Hell, it's hard enough to get people to keep comments in sync with code when it's in the same file
I agree. It's also terribly difficult to get people to shoot back, rather than duck behind something solid, when being shot at. Yet soldiers are trained to do this most unsensible thing.
You could always take ten minutes and update the comments on a day's work, so the programmer resistance to it was very low.
Make no mistake, I agree with this statement above. However...
Being that the simple answer works, why go looking to make it more complex?
the simple answer does not work, because poor software quality is a widespread problem. Therefore, I'm suggesting that the real solution may have to be annoying or even painful, a bit like the way a soldier has to risk his or her life to shoot back. I'm also suggesting that just because a proposal seems annoying, it doesn't mean that it's not the right thing to do.
I hear this a lot. The question is, have you actually religiously followed all the recommendations of a formal method, and evaluated the product objectively through its lifecycle with various metrics available? How do you know that external documentation is necessarily broken? How do you know that it gives "absolutely no gain"? These are assertions that have to be based in fact, and frankly, individual anecdotes tend to have too many stray factors (programmer resistance, mismanagement, etc) to be relevant.
There are better ways
You can only conclude that after you are an expert in two ways, with objective evidence to perform the comparison with. Are you just advocating the less "annoying" approach? How could I know?
I hope you understand the point. It's not that you're wrong by avoiding the annoying practice and I'm right. I'm merely warning against dismissing a method (as "pathetic", in the case of the original post) just because it's "annoying" to change your habits. The point is, maybe, just maybe, the Right Method really is annoying to follow. As an industry we've searched decades for the easy solution, and yet here we still struggle.
More precisely, good external documentation can give a much better glimpse into what the original designer had in mind. It has space to discuss abandoned alternatives (and why). It has space for diagrams and drawings (even animation!), which can frequently be far more expressive than code or code comments. Even if the document does not match the actual code 100%, it may not be without value if done right. The point is, there are news stories better covered in a TV program (visual, animated) than in a newspaper (longer, more detailed) and vice versa. Put in code comments what are best put there, and put in external documentation what are best put there. Want to convince anybody that one completely replaces the other? Objective facts, please.
In other words, you conclude that a method is poor because you can break its rules, or that the common engineer is likely to break its rules. Fine, but unless we start following rules, how's anything going to change?
Put another way, let's say the Right Method (which necessarily comes with a number of Right Rules) does come along. If you're just going to refuse to follow its rules, how can you possibly conclude anything except that it's also "pathetic"?
This is true, but note that the UML/patterns/OO newbie is in no position to determine that. One common mistake is to read the book, discard the parts you don't think is necessary, and then proceed with your design work. The rules that you chose to ignore were put there by pretty smart people, and there's a good chance they were put there for a good reason. When the design finally fails because you were missing something, the egotistical designer then blames the method.
The point is, I think the parent post was suggesting that the programmers in question may simply have broken the rules, and not actually found some instance where the methods really apply poorly. It's ego-boosting to think that what you do is unique and beyond the reach of old stuffy rules, but the truth is that most of us are doing things that have been done before.
This isn't to say that those cases don't exist, but that they're probably rarer than you think, especially if your team of programmers is trying it out for the first time, especially if you don't have a senior engineer already experienced in the method guiding your team. For the first time, at least, the instructions should be followed to the letter and strictly enforced. They should be dogma until you've at least went through a complete product life cycle with them.
What you suggest we've already tried for decades. The result is prevasively poor documentation and fragile designs.
Your statement, if you realize it, is already a toned down version of "never", because only "many" foreign programmers are poor. Note that I'm arguing with the "never", not the general experience, which I actually share.
The question then becomes, do they not strive for quality because of something inherent (training, upbringing, culture, whatever), or something incidental (you didn't ask for it)? Do they not think outside the box because they don't know how, or because their US employers smack them down whenever they do anything off-spec?
Or maybe because they're smart enough to know they're being paid peanuts, that the only reason you're hiring them is because they're cheap? They're humans, too, and have morale issues just like your US employees. How about the specs? Are they even good specs?
Point is, I acknowledge that many have had poor experiences. However, I'm not nearly as ready as you seem to be to just blame it all on them. How much more effort has the US-based management exerted to ensure that the outsourcing is a success? If Russian, Indian, and Chinese programmers all have problems working with us, then maybe the problem is on our side!
One thing is clear: if US employers are planning to just fire all its developers and outsource abroad without changing anything else, the project is likely doomed. The big question is what they have to do differently to make it work.
While I sympathize with your experience, your conclusion is rather extreme. Are there things you could have done better or differently that would make the project successful, particularly armed with the wisdom from your previous experience? Are your foreign subcontractors typical, or already the best of the bunch? Point is, outsourcing has an obvious benefit of lower cost, and "never" is a long time.
That's not a coincidence. A good way to find out where software are vulnerable is by examining the patch issued to fix it. It's only a matter of finishing that analysis and making the exploit before most people have patched, which can be months later.
If Microsoft can be held legally liable, then it's extremely likely that in the future patches would be automatic and not optional. It's also likely to be more expensive, to cover the cost of "malpractice" insurance.
Nobody complained anymore because the mirrors gave them something to do (fix their hair, etc) while waiting for the elevator. While the waiting time did not go away, users no longer feel they're waiting for something.
Reminds me of an old story of somebody hired to improve the elevator waiting time that people had been complaining about. Instead of tinkering with elevator algorithms or making it run faster, he simply installed mirrors by the elevator. Nobody complained anymore.
It makes a difference, because it's something I'm waiting for. It's one more minute before I can read email, or search for something on Google, or whatever I turned on the computer to do.
An extra three minutes shutting down, on the other hand, isn't that important for a desktop, because I would probably have walked away to do something else. It might be for a laptop, however, because the user might be waiting to unplug it, etc.
The point is, it's not the amount of time, but whether I'm waiting for it or not. This means that one solution to the problem may simply be downloading Slashdot headlines and showing them while the system boots.
Your point is generally valid, but tools do lower the barrier to entry. Most computer users can easily be taught to remove specks and dust particles from scanned photographs, a task that used to require Real Skills. Some can even be taught to do rather advanced things like color correction. A nice and unique menu screen for your home-made DVD, for example, is entirely within the abilities of an interested amateur today.
On the audio front, Pro Tools Free is available for free download, but like you say it doesn't mean we can all suddenly be professional audio mixers. However, software like Sonic Foundry's ACID or Apple's new Soundtrack, which come with lots of pre-made audio "loops" that can be arranged into custom tunes, can provide unique background music for your projects.
So no, there may not be any more van Goghs (you set the bar rather high), but there are certainly more people cropping and editing photographs than before, which is something that used to require professional equipment and a lot more skill.
1. Novak looks into "yellow-cake" incident.
2. Novak wonders why a Clinton-appointee was sent on a highly sensitive mission.
3. Novak contacts Wilson and asks him why he was chosen.
4. Wilson says he was sent because of the influence of his wife - who is a WMD expert analyst for the CIA.
[...]
You should not list this timeline as a matter of fact, because it is in dispute. Wilson appeared on Nightline last night, and specifically said that:
- His wife did not urge the CIA to send him (although he could not rule out if the CIA had asked his wife about it at all)
- He is an expert, having served in several countries in the region. He also has contacts in the relevant branches of the Nigerian government
I'm not saying you're wrong and he's right, just that the timeline is in dispute, and you should not present it as fact. Also, consider the likelihood of readily admitting to a journalist that you got a job because of your wife's influence.Yes, if the corks move at hundreds of miles per hour, and are each capable of sinking a ship on collision.
Point is, while individual satellites are small, you cannot simply consider their size. If you were launching another vehicle through its orbit, and expect to cross it at exactly 5:03 pm plus or minus 10 minutes, then what you need to consider is an arc formed by the said satellite moving at high velocity for 20 minutes. Now repeat for each orbit you are likely to cross. A "crowded" orbit simply means that you have increasing difficulty scheduling a safe launch, because the overlapping arcs make your launch window very small. Finally, consider that satellites don't just orbit. Sometimes they fire their boosters to correct decays in their own orbit, each of which would throw off your timing somewhat. Consider also that while you may not care if your payload is destroyed in a collision, the US government might be rather irate if you destroyed a spy satellite of theirs, or bring down the International Space Station.
But mainly, any such accident would be so expensive (mostly in terms of money, but sometimes in terms of human lives) that even if the risk of collision is low, any potential spacefarer must still be very careful. It is certainly worth far more attention (and NASA does track objects and debris in orbit) than corks in the ocean.
That's why I wrote "technically". Here's your original quote:
When iPod first came out it was amazing, but I never bought one because it wouldn't talk to my computer.
According to your reply, you didn't buy one initially because it wouldn't work with PCs. You didn't buy one later, because:
I'm tired of my 64 meg flash-based player, but my expectations are higher now.
which means you never bought an iPod because of at least two reasons. That's why I wrote "technically, you're lying". This distinction is important to understanding why you never bought an iPod, which forms the core of your criticisms against Apple.
I said it's why I didn't buy one when they first came out.
Read it again. You wrote that PC compatibility was why you never bought one. It may not be what you meant, but it's what you wrote. I can't apologize for not reading minds.
Everyone knows pay-for-music services are coming, but there aren't any available to me.
The iPod works with PCs right now, and Apple has announced iTunes for PCs, due out in a month or two. It's not exactly vaporware (given Apple's reputation, the lack of technical barriers, and the obvious business benefit), so I'm guessing there are reasons you still haven't listed yet. You certainly seem willing to give Dell (which has, I reiterate, issued absolutely zero details with just over two months left before actual launch) the benefit of the doubt, assuming they will grab "90% of the market".
If Apple were smart, they would have written a Windows client for iTunes first, and worried about niche markets (Apples, Linux, etc) later.
Why would people buy Macs, then, if even Apple's own services don't work with Macs?
Really? The general assumption, even among those who are defending Dell here, appears to be that Dell is reacting to Apple in this case. Apple announced the iTunes Music Store more than four months ago, and have been working on the PC version of iTunes at least since then. They thought they could get it ready by the end of the year when they announced it, which means Apple thinks it takes at least six months.
Since there are less then three months left (you can't finish it right on December 25 to make it to this Christmas shopping season), the Dell PC-side client likely has to be developed in more haste, and yet has to be deliberately somewhat different from iTunes. Dell is not known to have a proven server infrastructure for a music store ready. Dell is not known to have micropayments worked out with credit card companies. Dell hasn't announced the price, size of catalog (or even if any major labels have signed on!), battery life or capacity of the device, and you already think Apple is going to pay?
Let me ask you another question: how will the Dell device connect to the PC? If they use USB1, then it'll be significantly slower than the iPod, and "full sync" will be a real pain. If they use USB2 or Firewire, then they're limiting themselves to a much smaller set of PC customers with recent PCs (like Apple, except Apple has Mac users).
So unless you're a Dell insider and know all these details, how can you possibly pick a winner right now?
Technically, you're lying. As you point out, the new iPods now work with your PC (not to mention much more capacity), but you still haven't bought one. This means that "it wouldn't talk to my computer" is not the only reason you don't have one right now. You should cite these reasons, so we can tell if you'll ever buy an iPod at all.
In fact, it sounds like you want an equivalent level of service as an Apple customer of both iPods and Macs. That may never happen for you. Apple is likely to let PC-based services lag Mac-based services.
Inevitably there will be a PC version of iTunes -- after it's too late and someone like Dell has locked up a 90% market share
What we know as fact is that the success of an on-line music store depends heavily on a few factors:
- Price
- Size of catalog
- DRM restrictions
- Micropayments
Dell has not announced any information regarding these crucial points, and you can already decide who will win? Nevermind that all Apple is missing is PC client software (which consists of re-implementing the proven iTunes UI and design), and their experience running their music store for several months?It's hard to sell it to the average voter that the rich guy makes tax-free money just clicking on "Buy" and "Sell" buttons, while they have to work more than 13 hours a week (of a 40-hour work week) for the government.
You are correct that taxing capital gains dampens investments. However, consider also that making it too easy for capitalists (as opposed to laborers) can mean that nobody wants to be a laborer (I'm including white collar labor here) anymore. A healthy balance involves many willing to invest, and even more willing to be invested on.
luxury taxes are the best as they hit those who can afford it the hardest
So you make it really easy for the rich for earn money from investments (0% capital gains taxes), but really painful for them to spend (high luxury taxes). Do you realize you're almost forcing them to spend money outside the country?
taxes on food and gasoline the worst because they hit everybody equally hard
There's more to a society than just money. Gasoline taxes is an incentive to drive fuel efficient automobiles, for example. With obesity levels where they are, one must wonder if food is too cheap*.
* US food is "too cheap" not so much because of low taxes, but because of large subsidies to food producers. Removing subsidies to show consumers the true cost of food, for example, may cause many to think a bit more about what they eat.
You need to understand that the record label's biggest fear from P2P is if everybody does it. They couldn't possibly sue everybody, and everybody can vote to change copyright laws anyway. (Just imagine if the government suddenly decides to take speed limits literally and seriously.)
What you are seeing is another piece of the puzzle to ensure that only the most dedicated and technically adept individuals are able to rip music. The other piece of the puzzle is to make sure that only the philosophically dedicated will still risk an expensive lawsuit to share music (they spared the 12-year old; will they spare you?). The much smaller number of technically adept and philosophically dedicated sharers are much easier to sue into oblivion, drying up the well for the common music downloaders. Slashdot likes to make fun of various attempts at DRM, sometimes without realizing that each imperfect incarnation of DRM decreases the number of people who casually rip and share music. Until they can be all realistically stopped with lawsuits.
Because right now there are 9 different versions of Jaguar out there: 10.2.0 through 10.2.8. Allowing piecemeal upgrades would result in many times more different configurations, all of which Apple must spend extra money to first test (SSH only, SSH+Sendmail, Sendmail only) and then support.