The point is well intentioned people can put in factually incorrect information and it may not be corrected. Wikipedia is a nice toy but can't be trusted.
I haven't been watching the debate, but surely a top concern is developer pool? C# and Java are both widely used languages, Eiffel is rarely (although not never) seen outside academia. Surely a large OSS project can't afford to be alienating such a large % of the developer community? There is little incentive to learn Eiffel either - even if you don't know C#/Java, learning them will probably increasing your chances of getting more $ at your day gig, but Eiffel?
... which is fine for a small number of deployments. Once you have thousands of deployments, and thousands of checkbooks all rushing off to the plone developer list, suddenly development grinds to a halt as they are too busy answering calls to write new code. There's a reason we have helpdesks - maybe you don't like dealing with them, but they are a fact of life.
RTFA. They haven't dropped WinFS, just reduced the scope of it.
BTW, if you think Avalon is just about "graphics effects like transparency" you obviously don't get it. I think Avalon is the single most exciting thing about Longhorn - the ability to break the link between screen resolution and size of items on screen is great.
Maybe you should read up more before you make your "bad code" comments. Here's a review of the source code: http://www.kuro5hin.org/story/2004/2/15/715 52/7795
I'll quote for you since you are on/.: "...the quality of the code is generally excellent. Modules are small, and procedures generally fit on a single screen. The commenting is very detailed about intentions, but doesn't fall into "add one to i" redundancy..."
"...Microsoft does not steal open-source code. Their older code is flaky, their modern code excellent. Their programmers are skilled and enthusiastic. Problems are generally due to a trade-off of current quality against vast hardware, software and backward compatibility..."
Correct me if I'm wrong, but the term evangelist was first invented by Apple. It's now standard across the industry, virtually all big tech companies have "evangelists". If you want to accuse Microsoft of being a religion, you need to look to the whole industry.
Microsoft bashers: your prompt for comments about copying Apple above.
I've been an RTS gamer for a while - Age of Empires series, C&C, Warcraft, Rise of Nation, etc. However, these games are all starting to get very same-y, seem to be just borrowing ideas from each other.
What I'm after is a game that really emphasises the strategy side, more than the "build this economic structure in this order and you can launch an attack at 3:45 into the game" that many RTSs have turned into. I want a multiplayer real time strategy game that really tests strategy - anyone know of something?
In every enterprise solution I've ever worked on, or heard about, the software licensing is typically a few % of the cost of the project. Once you get in an army of IBM/EDS/Accenture consultants at some ridiculous $/hour licensing costs become almost trivial.
The article doesn't say anything about "Microsoft has many more disruptive lawsuits planned up their sleeves".
It talk about lawsuits against Microsoft. RTFA: "In a world where there are $500 million dollar patent infringement lawsuits imposed on OS companies... I suspect Microsoft may have 50 or more of these lawsuits in the queue."
And further, how many lawsuits has Microsoft initiated (except piracy, which is justified IMHO)? There are probably some, but off the top of my head I can't think of a single one. They aren't the multi-headed legal beast attacking all over the place the/. "editors" would portray them to be.
How is this funding a university? The prize of $1m is unlikely to or perhaps only barely just cover the costs of any serious entry. People clearly aren't in it for the money.
"If nobody ever responded to spam, spammer wouldn't bother."
I've heard this argument a few times, I'm not sure that I buy it. Yes, some spammers would stop - consider the article on Balan where he was keeping the money from his spamming activities. No one clicks, he stops, simple. But I suspect a lot of spams are operating as an "agency" - eg, "here's $10,000, please send out a spam promoting my site SexyHorses.com". That spammer doesn't care if no one clicks. True, SexyHorses aren't likely to use his service again, but there's a sucker born every minute.
So, my guess is not clicking will reduce but not eliminate spam.
I actually made a minor change to an entry to test this. On a subject I'm quite familiar with, I added something that *sounded* credible and right, but I know isn't. (It was a list of people an artist has collaborated with, I added someone to that list who the artist has never worked with).
I think as long as it *sounds* right it will get through the review. I always thought wikipedia was not to be trusted, this confirmed it.
- I think there is a world market for mabye five computers. Thomas Watson
- Where a calculator on the ENIAC is equipped with 18,000 vacuum tubes and weighs 30 tons, computers in the future may have only 1,000 vacuum tubes and weigh only 1.5 tons. Popular Mechanics
- There is no reason anyone would want a computer in their home. Ken Olson
- What possible use could anybody have for wireless net access 24x7 in a localised area? Txiasaeia
(Note: some people report that the Thomas Watson quote is an urban myth. And before someone replies with the Bill Gates 640K quote, that's DEFINITELY an urban myth).
Since you read the article, you'd know the car was designed by woman. So, maybe the generalizations happen to be true for a significant group of women - certainly for those who designed it.
I once did this. I was interviewing a candidate for a job. He made the short list, so I googled him. Found out his pseudonym which he happened to use on/.. Some postings were consistent with some points on his CV, confirming it was him.
He also made a few posts about the technology we were chiefly hiring him to work with. The comments were rather negative (and against the broader view of the group he would be working in). I want people who can be passionate about what they do. No, I'm not just looking for "yes people" to maintain the status quo, but there is a certain base. Who is going to work harder and enjoy themselves more - someone who enjoys the technology or someone who doesn't?
While his/. profile definitely wasn't the only thing that had him eliminated from the shortlist (he probably would have been cut anyway), it was a factor.
Hate to break it to you, the SM57 and SM58 have different frequency responses. SM58 peaks around 3.5K, SM57 around 2 - 2.5K. There may be other differences, not sure. They are certainly *not* the same mic with a different end.
Live equipment has a whole different set of requirements than studio gear, so you can't say the standard is "higher", just different. Let's compare the top two mics, live is SM58, studio is U87. They are fundamentally different, SM58 is a dynamic mic, U87 is condenser. Dynamic mics tend to be less sensitive (a good thing on a loud stage), are very robust (it's live, stuff gets dropped & thrown around), have good feedback rejection, and a frequency response that gives them maximum cut through in a live mix. A u87 has none of these things. It is designed to be sensitive and sound beautiful. It is designed to be treated with kid gloves. Is $3000 a rip off? Maybe, maybe not. But if someone else comes up with a mic that sounds as good for less, I'm all ears.
Remember when you look around audio forums and look at what "most musicians" are using, remember that "most musicians" have little money and have either no ear or just never been exposed to high end gear to appreciate the real difference. Find a good shop and a helpful sales person, bring along a well mixed CD you know well, and listen to a few pairs of headphones - listen to the $50 ones and the $500 ones and make up your own mind. Personally, I have a set of Beyer DT770 headphones. Not the *best* sounding for the money, but good for studio work where isolation is also important. A good balance, around $220.
(Note: while I like it, the U87 isn't my favourite studio vocal mic. I prefer the TLM 170 - the warmth of a U87 but much clearer).
Most rock music with any budget would be done with a decent mic such as a U87 (I don't use the word exceptional as better mics are available). The difference between a U87 and an SM58 is enormous, can't even begin to compare the two. I wouldn't use an SM58 even for a demo tape. A rode would be good for a demo as another poster suggested.
Software is a trivial cost in the grand scheme of things. Mixing desks, monitors, amps, sound proofing, mics, and of course rent & engineer fees are far more.
For example, you can get a top of the line recording package such as Logic Audio for around $1000. However, a decent vocal microphone such as a Neumann U87 will set you back around $3000.
Slashdot Mirror
-- OR --
Install Windows XP SP2, which will allegedly stop a large percentage of these issues, especially worms.
The point is well intentioned people can put in factually incorrect information and it may not be corrected. Wikipedia is a nice toy but can't be trusted.
I haven't been watching the debate, but surely a top concern is developer pool? C# and Java are both widely used languages, Eiffel is rarely (although not never) seen outside academia. Surely a large OSS project can't afford to be alienating such a large % of the developer community? There is little incentive to learn Eiffel either - even if you don't know C#/Java, learning them will probably increasing your chances of getting more $ at your day gig, but Eiffel?
... which is fine for a small number of deployments. Once you have thousands of deployments, and thousands of checkbooks all rushing off to the plone developer list, suddenly development grinds to a halt as they are too busy answering calls to write new code. There's a reason we have helpdesks - maybe you don't like dealing with them, but they are a fact of life.
RTFA. They haven't dropped WinFS, just reduced the scope of it.
BTW, if you think Avalon is just about "graphics effects like transparency" you obviously don't get it. I think Avalon is the single most exciting thing about Longhorn - the ability to break the link between screen resolution and size of items on screen is great.
Maybe you should read up more before you make your "bad code" comments. Here's a review of the source code:5 52/7795
/.:
http://www.kuro5hin.org/story/2004/2/15/71
I'll quote for you since you are on
"...the quality of the code is generally excellent. Modules are small, and procedures generally fit on a single screen. The commenting is very detailed about intentions, but doesn't fall into "add one to i" redundancy..."
"...Microsoft does not steal open-source code. Their older code is flaky, their modern code excellent. Their programmers are skilled and enthusiastic. Problems are generally due to a trade-off of current quality against vast hardware, software and backward compatibility..."
Correct me if I'm wrong, but the term evangelist was first invented by Apple. It's now standard across the industry, virtually all big tech companies have "evangelists". If you want to accuse Microsoft of being a religion, you need to look to the whole industry.
Microsoft bashers: your prompt for comments about copying Apple above.
From what I've seen of teen chat these days, all you need is a bot that says
ASL? LOL
evey minute or so and you've covered about 80% of all conversation.
I've been an RTS gamer for a while - Age of Empires series, C&C, Warcraft, Rise of Nation, etc. However, these games are all starting to get very same-y, seem to be just borrowing ideas from each other.
What I'm after is a game that really emphasises the strategy side, more than the "build this economic structure in this order and you can launch an attack at 3:45 into the game" that many RTSs have turned into. I want a multiplayer real time strategy game that really tests strategy - anyone know of something?
In every enterprise solution I've ever worked on, or heard about, the software licensing is typically a few % of the cost of the project. Once you get in an army of IBM/EDS/Accenture consultants at some ridiculous $/hour licensing costs become almost trivial.
"Microsoft has many more disruptive lawsuits planned up their sleeves".
It talk about lawsuits against Microsoft. RTFA:
"In a world where there are $500 million dollar patent infringement lawsuits imposed on OS companies
And further, how many lawsuits has Microsoft initiated (except piracy, which is justified IMHO)? There are probably some, but off the top of my head I can't think of a single one. They aren't the multi-headed legal beast attacking all over the place the /. "editors" would portray them to be.
How is this funding a university? The prize of $1m is unlikely to or perhaps only barely just cover the costs of any serious entry. People clearly aren't in it for the money.
I've heard this argument a few times, I'm not sure that I buy it. Yes, some spammers would stop - consider the article on Balan where he was keeping the money from his spamming activities. No one clicks, he stops, simple. But I suspect a lot of spams are operating as an "agency" - eg, "here's $10,000, please send out a spam promoting my site SexyHorses.com". That spammer doesn't care if no one clicks. True, SexyHorses aren't likely to use his service again, but there's a sucker born every minute.
So, my guess is not clicking will reduce but not eliminate spam.
I actually made a minor change to an entry to test this. On a subject I'm quite familiar with, I added something that *sounded* credible and right, but I know isn't. (It was a list of people an artist has collaborated with, I added someone to that list who the artist has never worked with).
I think as long as it *sounds* right it will get through the review. I always thought wikipedia was not to be trusted, this confirmed it.
Get your priorities straight... as long as they have high quality booth babes, I'm there.
An "average joe" (or a reporter masquerading as one) had a problem. Therefore it's a problem.
We have a new one for the list.
- I think there is a world market for mabye five computers. Thomas Watson
- Where a calculator on the ENIAC is equipped with 18,000 vacuum tubes and weighs 30 tons, computers in the future may have only 1,000 vacuum tubes and weigh only 1.5 tons. Popular Mechanics
- There is no reason anyone would want a computer in their home. Ken Olson
- What possible use could anybody have for wireless net access 24x7 in a localised area? Txiasaeia
(Note: some people report that the Thomas Watson quote is an urban myth. And before someone replies with the Bill Gates 640K quote, that's DEFINITELY an urban myth).
30 posts so far, not one from anyone saying "I was wrong about the comments I made about Microsoft in the previous thread".
And I'm not expecting any.
Since you read the article, you'd know the car was designed by woman. So, maybe the generalizations happen to be true for a significant group of women - certainly for those who designed it.
I once did this. I was interviewing a candidate for a job. He made the short list, so I googled him. Found out his pseudonym which he happened to use on /.. Some postings were consistent with some points on his CV, confirming it was him.
/. profile definitely wasn't the only thing that had him eliminated from the shortlist (he probably would have been cut anyway), it was a factor.
He also made a few posts about the technology we were chiefly hiring him to work with. The comments were rather negative (and against the broader view of the group he would be working in). I want people who can be passionate about what they do. No, I'm not just looking for "yes people" to maintain the status quo, but there is a certain base. Who is going to work harder and enjoy themselves more - someone who enjoys the technology or someone who doesn't?
While his
Hate to break it to you, the SM57 and SM58 have different frequency responses. SM58 peaks around 3.5K, SM57 around 2 - 2.5K. There may be other differences, not sure. They are certainly *not* the same mic with a different end.
Live equipment has a whole different set of requirements than studio gear, so you can't say the standard is "higher", just different. Let's compare the top two mics, live is SM58, studio is U87.
They are fundamentally different, SM58 is a dynamic mic, U87 is condenser. Dynamic mics tend to be less sensitive (a good thing on a loud stage), are very robust (it's live, stuff gets dropped & thrown around), have good feedback rejection, and a frequency response that gives them maximum cut through in a live mix. A u87 has none of these things. It is designed to be sensitive and sound beautiful. It is designed to be treated with kid gloves. Is $3000 a rip off? Maybe, maybe not. But if someone else comes up with a mic that sounds as good for less, I'm all ears.
Remember when you look around audio forums and look at what "most musicians" are using, remember that "most musicians" have little money and have either no ear or just never been exposed to high end gear to appreciate the real difference. Find a good shop and a helpful sales person, bring along a well mixed CD you know well, and listen to a few pairs of headphones - listen to the $50 ones and the $500 ones and make up your own mind. Personally, I have a set of Beyer DT770 headphones. Not the *best* sounding for the money, but good for studio work where isolation is also important. A good balance, around $220.
(Note: while I like it, the U87 isn't my favourite studio vocal mic. I prefer the TLM 170 - the warmth of a U87 but much clearer).
Most rock music with any budget would be done with a decent mic such as a U87 (I don't use the word exceptional as better mics are available). The difference between a U87 and an SM58 is enormous, can't even begin to compare the two. I wouldn't use an SM58 even for a demo tape. A rode would be good for a demo as another poster suggested.
Software is a trivial cost in the grand scheme of things. Mixing desks, monitors, amps, sound proofing, mics, and of course rent & engineer fees are far more.
For example, you can get a top of the line recording package such as Logic Audio for around $1000. However, a decent vocal microphone such as a Neumann U87 will set you back around $3000.
- Hotmail spends millions combatting the vast amounts of incoming spam & dictionary attacks
- Spam tarnishes the experience people have on the internet. Less fun = less likely to use = less likely to upgrade software/buy new PC
- Battling spams costs businesses money that could be spent elsewhere in the IT budget
- Lots of mum & dad users think Microsoft is the internet. Therefore, spam is Microsofts problem. Perception is reality
It makes sense for Microsoft to fight this - good business, looking after their user base and, yes, good PR.