This is what MS is doing -- investing in new software for new, undeveloped markets, even if they aren't profiting from it.
But the author's point was that MS should just stop trying to cram windows onto every device that comes along. Cramming windows doesn't equal innovation, unless you believe that the definition of innovation is "protect your cash cow".
Perhaps the author has made the assumption that Linux dominating the handheld market is inevitable. If that actually happens, his suggestions make sense.
I think the assumption that the author makes is that Windows won't dominate the handheld market.
But it hasn't happened yet. Microsoft is fighting to get Windows onto every kind of handheld device, as my earlier post pointed out. Given the resources they have, I think they have a chance at gaining yet another monopoly, and companies like RIM will be screwed.
And they've been doing this for how many years? How old is windows CE? Their success so far is mixed at best.
IBM can cooperate with open-source software because they are in different fields, it's not like IBM has an OS competing with Linux. Microsoft on the other hand would have nothing to gain from lending a hand to its competitors.
*cough* AIX.
IBM saw the writing on the wall and acted. It's pretty impressive how IBM basically stopped on a dime and did a 90 degree turn. But they understood the implications of a commodity *nix, and rather than fight it, they switched.
Perhaps it would have been different if their entire business was based on AIX.
The point is that OSes and applications are even more susceptible to the fate of cameras and typewriters unless they are protected by monopoly status. And with the rise of F/OSS, MS's monopoly is at it's weakest, and will only get weaker.
"History is full of companies who fell out of the limelight because they couldn't or wouldn't adapt to new technology."
What new technology has MS failed to adopt? It can't be Linux because Unix is essentially 1970's technology. That's not to say that there hasn't been improvements since then, but there's hardly any cutting-edge technology that's unique to Linux.
The internet. You can say that Linux is a 70s technology, but where would Linux be today without the collaborative and distribution environment of the internet. People like Linus T. instinctively knew how to leverage this technology to develop, market, and distribute a product. Open Source has been around for a while, heck it didn't even have a name in the old days. It took the internet to turn it into a social movement.
MS doesn't get the internet. Still doesn't. One example of this failure to understand I can come up with off the top of my head: Sender ID.
Maybe individuals here and there within MS fully understand all the implications of the internet, but top management doesn't.
One of the hardest things in the world is to convince the brainwashed that they are brainwashed. It's just about impossible to get a person who has never really questioned anything to begin to question themselves, especially if the answers might reveal them as being less intelligent as they'd like to believe they are.
But I think Tucker Carlson was hoping to ambush Jon. Remember, he not only tried to put Jon on the spot over the Kerry interview, he had a graphic prepared! Maybe someone tipped Jon off about this ambush, and Jon turned the tables on Tucker. The best defense is a good offense.
Also, after Tucker (the dick wearing the bowtie) had called him a buttboy. Given Tucker's rude comments, calling him a dick wasn't out of line. I'm glad he took the boy genius down a few pegs.
Hey, I like Lou Dobbs, too! Yes, he's extremely stiff, and I think he is a little too fixated and one-sided on immigration issues, but he is at least sincere about it.
On the day of the Arizona debate, he had representatives from both campaigns on to discuss immigration, and it was pretty funny watching him press the Bush guy about the term "undocumented worker". He made the guy squirm, but Lou couldn't make him say "Illegal Alien".
Anyway, I think Lou will come around eventually from being anti-immigration to something more reasonable, so long as the system gets fixed and our borders secured. Part of the problem with being anti-immigration is that most of the groups agitating against immigrants are hard core white supremacist groups. I think they'll be the ones that drive Lou to a sane middle ground.
You're assuming we live in a pure capitalist system. We don't. There are laws against certain behavior, such as murder and drug dealing, and there used to be laws that governed broadcast media.
The rationale behind the the laws that governed broadcast media were as follows: Because the the broadcast media were using the public airwaves, they were to devote a certain amount of programming to serve the public interest. This included having a certain amount of news, and that news was to be presented in a fair manner.
There were also laws that governed how much of the airwaves any one company could control.
These laws worked quite well for a long time, but under deregulation, sponsored by the Reagan administration, they were changed to favor large media companies that wanted to control the markets.
Walter Cronkite did not reach the apex of his career by unscrupulous behavior, then decide to be a public servant. Cronkite began his career as a war correspondent in 1942 and worked as a journalist until his retirement from the CBS Evening News in 1981 at the age of 65. I would hardly call that early retirement. He continues to write (a syndicated column) and to broadcast occasionally.
Incidentally, Cronkite was originally supportive of the Vietnam War. It wasn't until after the Tet offensive that he had a clear change of heart. Yet he didn't minimize or quash stories that went against his views on the war before his change of opinion.
I don't think I've seen anyone before seriously say that Cronkite "almost singlehandedly collapsed support" for the Vietnam War. I'm certain he was a major influence, but you're engaging in hyperbole.
Have you watched McLaughlin lately? The show hasn't changed, and now seems quaint. John McLaughlin is still great, though. The biggest difference between McLaughlin and Crossfire is that McLaughlin and company actually deal with substantive issues, and when one of the panel sticks to their talking points, they get made fun of and chided.
I said it was quaint, but it's still light years better than Crossfire or O'Reilly.
John Madden style commentary would actually be an improvement. Also, Madden doesn't try to tell me that the team that lost actually won. He would have been a tonic if he had been calling the debates.
Which allows me to segue gracefully back to Jon Stewart's point: Crossfire would be a much more honest show if they had Madden and Terry Bradshaw hosting instead of Paul and Tucker or Carville and Novak. (Oh, and by the way, in case you didn't know, while Carville is probably the most obnoxious blowhard on the planet, Novak is a criminal and traitorous douche bag, and should be in prison.
I agree completely. I don't know of anyone who still uses the word "Postmodern" outside of art historians and psuedo-intellectuals. The problem with the word is it really doesn't say anything. A better word is usually "post-structural".
Now, the word reify usually brings to my mind what you would want do with the concept of Natalie Portman covered in hot grits.
I always felt that Communism, as originally formulated by Marx, was more of a theology than an ideology. Those who came later, and tried to impose this theology as an ideology by means of (premature) revolution and force failed to bring about anything approaching Marx's Communist Utopia, and little wonder. The conditions Marx set forth had not (and still have not, and might never) become ripe.
I'd still prefer to live under Communism than to see the extreme Christian right succeed in putting their theology into ideological practice, however. According to these loons, we must all be destroyed before their utopian kingdom comes about. And they don't even think they're going to stick around for the destruction part. By the way, in case you haven't noticed, they managed to get a true believer elected President.
Worst case scenario, he's STILL gone in 4 years, max.
Apparently, I've got a much more morbid imagination than you do. Given the accelerating rate of erosion of our civil liberties, a lot can happen in 4 years. Our collective wiener might fall off.
I consider him to be independent because of the hardline he took during Monicagate. His position from fairly early on was that the President should resign, and he was pretty forceful in voicing this opinion.
Now, for what reasons would you classify him as a liberal? For his associations? Are you one of those who uses the word liberal as a name calling tactic, so anyone left of you is a liberal and any democrat is a liberal?
"Liberal" has become a trigger word, used to elicit an emotional response. If you want to accuse Matthews of bias, then accuse him of moderate bias. He doesn't seem to hold any extreme views, nor does he engage in extreme partisanship. The worst you can say about the guy is that he's a whiney asshole who likes to mix it up with guests and likes his guests to mix it up with each other.
Yeah, I've heard that clip, and I disagree, Stewart avoids being unkind while being completely incredulous. And believe me, it's not easy to be polite to someone who looks you in the eye and spews bullshit.
And I know that the Republicans will beat people over the head with it, and I know that they don't even know what they're quoting! The same is true for Democrats, as well (God, I've heard enough Democrat rhetoric to make me sick).
Sounds like you watch too much Cable News. =)
I think you've hit on something. Rhetoric has become a disease as has partisanship. If you watch those that engage in this disease without getting caught up in their words, you can see that they are experiencing something approaching a high or sexual arousal. And judging by the effects, this is an infectious disease. These people need to be quarantined!
I think one way to inoculate oneself against this disease is to become aware of the trigger words and phrases, which seem to act as vectors for the disease. Words and phrases such as Liberal, Tax Cut, Tax Cut for the Rich, Terrorism, Spreading Liberty and Freedom thru the World and many others are used to turn of your capacity for analysis. But we can reprogram ourselves to respond to such triggers with increased skepticism and increased vigilance.
Slashdot Mirror
Except if you don't have that itch, how are you going to scratch it?
Which is a breach of contract.
Where did you or the gp pick up the idea that a license is a contract? If you do not understand business law, please don't post as if you do.
Are the soccer hooligans' activities coordinated by the owners and the management of the soccer teams?
This is what MS is doing -- investing in new software for new, undeveloped markets, even if they aren't profiting from it.
But the author's point was that MS should just stop trying to cram windows onto every device that comes along. Cramming windows doesn't equal innovation, unless you believe that the definition of innovation is "protect your cash cow".
Perhaps the author has made the assumption that Linux dominating the handheld market is inevitable. If that actually happens, his suggestions make sense.
I think the assumption that the author makes is that Windows won't dominate the handheld market.
But it hasn't happened yet. Microsoft is fighting to get Windows onto every kind of handheld device, as my earlier post pointed out. Given the resources they have, I think they have a chance at gaining yet another monopoly, and companies like RIM will be screwed.
And they've been doing this for how many years? How old is windows CE? Their success so far is mixed at best.
IBM can cooperate with open-source software because they are in different fields, it's not like IBM has an OS competing with Linux. Microsoft on the other hand would have nothing to gain from lending a hand to its competitors.
*cough* AIX.
IBM saw the writing on the wall and acted. It's pretty impressive how IBM basically stopped on a dime and did a 90 degree turn. But they understood the implications of a commodity *nix, and rather than fight it, they switched.
Perhaps it would have been different if their entire business was based on AIX.
The point is that OSes and applications are even more susceptible to the fate of cameras and typewriters unless they are protected by monopoly status. And with the rise of F/OSS, MS's monopoly is at it's weakest, and will only get weaker.
"History is full of companies who fell out of the limelight because they couldn't or wouldn't adapt to new technology."
What new technology has MS failed to adopt? It can't be Linux because Unix is essentially 1970's technology. That's not to say that there hasn't been improvements since then, but there's hardly any cutting-edge technology that's unique to Linux.
The internet. You can say that Linux is a 70s technology, but where would Linux be today without the collaborative and distribution environment of the internet. People like Linus T. instinctively knew how to leverage this technology to develop, market, and distribute a product. Open Source has been around for a while, heck it didn't even have a name in the old days. It took the internet to turn it into a social movement.
MS doesn't get the internet. Still doesn't. One example of this failure to understand I can come up with off the top of my head: Sender ID.
Maybe individuals here and there within MS fully understand all the implications of the internet, but top management doesn't.
I can't tell if the GP was being serious or funny. If serious, he obviously didn't RTFA, or didn't read for comprehension.
Just so you know, competitivity isn't a word. The word you want is competitiveness I think.
That is all.
s/becuase/because
s/your/you're
need sleep..
s/sleep/life
Joking!! I joke because I love. And probably because I need to get my own life.
One of the hardest things in the world is to convince the brainwashed that they are brainwashed. It's just about impossible to get a person who has never really questioned anything to begin to question themselves, especially if the answers might reveal them as being less intelligent as they'd like to believe they are.
But I think Tucker Carlson was hoping to ambush Jon. Remember, he not only tried to put Jon on the spot over the Kerry interview, he had a graphic prepared! Maybe someone tipped Jon off about this ambush, and Jon turned the tables on Tucker. The best defense is a good offense.
Also, after Tucker (the dick wearing the bowtie) had called him a buttboy. Given Tucker's rude comments, calling him a dick wasn't out of line. I'm glad he took the boy genius down a few pegs.
Hey, I like Lou Dobbs, too! Yes, he's extremely stiff, and I think he is a little too fixated and one-sided on immigration issues, but he is at least sincere about it.
On the day of the Arizona debate, he had representatives from both campaigns on to discuss immigration, and it was pretty funny watching him press the Bush guy about the term "undocumented worker". He made the guy squirm, but Lou couldn't make him say "Illegal Alien".
Anyway, I think Lou will come around eventually from being anti-immigration to something more reasonable, so long as the system gets fixed and our borders secured. Part of the problem with being anti-immigration is that most of the groups agitating against immigrants are hard core white supremacist groups. I think they'll be the ones that drive Lou to a sane middle ground.
You're assuming we live in a pure capitalist system. We don't. There are laws against certain behavior, such as murder and drug dealing, and there used to be laws that governed broadcast media.
The rationale behind the the laws that governed broadcast media were as follows: Because the the broadcast media were using the public airwaves, they were to devote a certain amount of programming to serve the public interest. This included having a certain amount of news, and that news was to be presented in a fair manner.
There were also laws that governed how much of the airwaves any one company could control.
These laws worked quite well for a long time, but under deregulation, sponsored by the Reagan administration, they were changed to favor large media companies that wanted to control the markets.
Walter Cronkite did not reach the apex of his career by unscrupulous behavior, then decide to be a public servant. Cronkite began his career as a war correspondent in 1942 and worked as a journalist until his retirement from the CBS Evening News in 1981 at the age of 65. I would hardly call that early retirement. He continues to write (a syndicated column) and to broadcast occasionally.
Incidentally, Cronkite was originally supportive of the Vietnam War. It wasn't until after the Tet offensive that he had a clear change of heart. Yet he didn't minimize or quash stories that went against his views on the war before his change of opinion.
I don't think I've seen anyone before seriously say that Cronkite "almost singlehandedly collapsed support" for the Vietnam War. I'm certain he was a major influence, but you're engaging in hyperbole.
Have you watched McLaughlin lately? The show hasn't changed, and now seems quaint. John McLaughlin is still great, though. The biggest difference between McLaughlin and Crossfire is that McLaughlin and company actually deal with substantive issues, and when one of the panel sticks to their talking points, they get made fun of and chided.
I said it was quaint, but it's still light years better than Crossfire or O'Reilly.
John Madden style commentary would actually be an improvement. Also, Madden doesn't try to tell me that the team that lost actually won. He would have been a tonic if he had been calling the debates.
Which allows me to segue gracefully back to Jon Stewart's point: Crossfire would be a much more honest show if they had Madden and Terry Bradshaw hosting instead of Paul and Tucker or Carville and Novak. (Oh, and by the way, in case you didn't know, while Carville is probably the most obnoxious blowhard on the planet, Novak is a criminal and traitorous douche bag, and should be in prison.
I agree completely. I don't know of anyone who still uses the word "Postmodern" outside of art historians and psuedo-intellectuals. The problem with the word is it really doesn't say anything. A better word is usually "post-structural".
Now, the word reify usually brings to my mind what you would want do with the concept of Natalie Portman covered in hot grits.
I always felt that Communism, as originally formulated by Marx, was more of a theology than an ideology. Those who came later, and tried to impose this theology as an ideology by means of (premature) revolution and force failed to bring about anything approaching Marx's Communist Utopia, and little wonder. The conditions Marx set forth had not (and still have not, and might never) become ripe.
I'd still prefer to live under Communism than to see the extreme Christian right succeed in putting their theology into ideological practice, however. According to these loons, we must all be destroyed before their utopian kingdom comes about. And they don't even think they're going to stick around for the destruction part. By the way, in case you haven't noticed, they managed to get a true believer elected President.
Why was this modded as flamebait?
Do you know how embarrassing it is to have to go to the ER, stuck in a test tube? Or vice versa?
Worst case scenario, he's STILL gone in 4 years, max.
Apparently, I've got a much more morbid imagination than you do. Given the accelerating rate of erosion of our civil liberties, a lot can happen in 4 years. Our collective wiener might fall off.
buy!=by
Boy is my face red! Pretty embarrassing to make a typo like that when criticizing someone's grammar.
Sincerely,
The Real Assbite
I consider him to be independent because of the hardline he took during Monicagate. His position from fairly early on was that the President should resign, and he was pretty forceful in voicing this opinion.
Now, for what reasons would you classify him as a liberal? For his associations? Are you one of those who uses the word liberal as a name calling tactic, so anyone left of you is a liberal and any democrat is a liberal?
"Liberal" has become a trigger word, used to elicit an emotional response. If you want to accuse Matthews of bias, then accuse him of moderate bias. He doesn't seem to hold any extreme views, nor does he engage in extreme partisanship. The worst you can say about the guy is that he's a whiney asshole who likes to mix it up with guests and likes his guests to mix it up with each other.
Yeah, I've heard that clip, and I disagree, Stewart avoids being unkind while being completely incredulous. And believe me, it's not easy to be polite to someone who looks you in the eye and spews bullshit.
And I know that the Republicans will beat people over the head with it, and I know that they don't even know what they're quoting! The same is true for Democrats, as well (God, I've heard enough Democrat rhetoric to make me sick).
Sounds like you watch too much Cable News. =)
I think you've hit on something. Rhetoric has become a disease as has partisanship. If you watch those that engage in this disease without getting caught up in their words, you can see that they are experiencing something approaching a high or sexual arousal. And judging by the effects, this is an infectious disease. These people need to be quarantined!
I think one way to inoculate oneself against this disease is to become aware of the trigger words and phrases, which seem to act as vectors for the disease. Words and phrases such as Liberal, Tax Cut, Tax Cut for the Rich, Terrorism, Spreading Liberty and Freedom thru the World and many others are used to turn of your capacity for analysis. But we can reprogram ourselves to respond to such triggers with increased skepticism and increased vigilance.
It's Jon's job to perpetuate absurdity, not CNN's.
No, it's Jon's job to point out the absurdity of the system in a funny way, which he does successfully.