I purchased an HDTV about 6 months ago, and have not subscribed to receive any HD broadcasting, or purchased an HD PVR or receiver.
The *instant* Apple begins selling pay-per-season subscriptions to HD quality programming, I'll be purchasing whatever equipment from Apple required to play the shows I want to watch (Battlestar Galactica, The Unit, House, and a few others). I think that Steve Jobs is the only person in the industry who seems to have a clue, and is trying hard to deliver what people want -- and I intend to reward him for that.
If broadcasters haven't figured out that there is a market of people that are willing to pay them -- directly -- whatever amount that the advertisers are currently paying them to deliver my personal household's advertising impressions (a few $ per season per program, I would guess), then they are not paying attention to their marketplace, and deserve to get blind-sided by Steve Jobs, Disney, or whoever else gets a clue first.
Hmmm. I'm not certain how dozens of hours of unpaid labour cleaning up the *same* problem, time after time, could be considered "selfish behavior".
Addictive behavior that that leads to bad decisions and yields poor results, whether it is poor eating decisions, poor exercise habits, self-destructive computer software decisions, are often blamed on those who are expected to "fix" the mess (parents, educators, government, computer-savvy people).
Well, if I had to clean up the mess every time you got sick and puked on my doorstep, then I'd probably want to influence your dietary decisions.
*That* is why there is Linux zealotry. Because we are expected to clean up your (Windows virus-ridden, crashing) mess, but keep our noses out of your (poor) decision making.
To all you who say "Ya, but you were using a pre-SP2 Windows CD! How silly!"
You have NO CHOICE. Microsoft makes it impossible to obtain a newer ISO image of ANY of their OS installers, even though you have the license (and therefore the right) to install it.
Obtaining a brand new, fresh up-to-the-second ISO image of any of a dozen Linux distros is as simple as running a Bittorrent client, and buring the ISO (oh, right -- can't do that from Windows, without installing a third-party ISO burner).
LIke many of you, I'm the guy saddle with maintaining (and repeatedly re-installing) the wonderful "Windows Experience" for all my relatives. And as much as I swear I'll never do it again, I always relent and fix their damn Windows box.
I've (re)installed Windows (from Windows 2.0 (really!), 3.X, 98, 98SE, ME, 2k, XP) at least 100 times, and I've built up many more Linux machines. I can guarantee you one thing. As bad as Linux is for driver support, Windows is *far worse*. It HAS no driver support.
Try to scrabble together the bloody third-party drivers from a dozen different websites scattered around the planet, for hardware long considered ancient (but which everyone wants to continue using, because they are too cheap to get a new PC, let along spring 100 bucks for a non-OEM version of the latest Windows). You know I'm right. We've all done it, dozens of times. What a pain.
Or, just download and pop in the latest Ubuntu or whatever. It's a dream compared to the "Windows Experience". Even better, try to install Windows from the CD that Uncle Fred has (remember, he can't get the latest XP-SP2, even though he has the licence!), without the benefit of a hardware firewall between the Windows box and his internet connection. 15 seconds -- that's how long the box lives before it gets slammed by some virus.
So, next comes the part where you boot Knoppix, download a Windows software firewall, burn it, reformat and reinstall Windows (Again!), install the software firewall -- all so you can just bloody run Windows Update!
It is inevitable, really. Apple's spike in sales for OS X is just the beginning of the end for bloody insolent Microsoft, I think...
For the first time in my 40 year life, I am proud to be a Canadian. We have a leader who doesn't spout mealy-mouthed political double-speak, and is willing to go in person to collect his citizens from danger.
However, there are still issues that you from the U.S.A. may find surprising. Such as a maniac marching up a Montreal street and into a school, shooting innocents as he goes, while the entire free public runs squealing before him.
I daresay that there are some areas of the U.S. where he would have been dropped in his tracks by some free citizen who cares enough about his freedom, and the freedom of other innocent citizens, to legally carry a weapon.
But in Canada, the government has succeeded in stripping virtually every free citizen of the capability to exercise what I believe is their responsibility to protect the innocent, even if they are able (it is my understanding that the use of lethal force is illegal unless you are being personally attacked).
So, if you don't believe that attempting to protect the innocent is worth dying for, you might just fit right in. After all, who cares if Afghani girls ever get to have an education? And if they have the temerity to admin that they were raped, why not just let the males in their family slaughter them in an "Honour Killing"? After all, its their culture -- who are we to judge? Just give the country back to the Taliban! After all, they were there first, and they did choose their own government...
Ya, the machine doesn't crash every day, just reading email on it; remote desktop access (Terminal Services, is it called?) just stops working (doesn't refresh properly, making it impossible to use. Refreshes fine for about 24 hours, then just stops working...). So, it is a feature that most people don't use, and probably hasn't been very well tested by Microsoft -- so it's busted.
I have to say, however, that I have never been able to use a Windows machine for anything like software development; On my Linux box, I have 2 21" LCD flat panels, with 3 or 4 tasks I'm working on, in parallel, with clusters of windows open using various applications simultaneously (it was *way* worse, before tabbed browing...) If I try to do anything *remotely* like that with Windows (*any* Windows version I've tried, and much less agressively actually, since I only waste one monitor on the Windows box;), it'll crash within hours; often, within a few minutes. At least XP doesn't routinely crash and hang solid trying to restart like Windows 98/Me does.
My wife says its because I'm too "agressive" with it; pushing buttons too fast, opening/closing/clicking things before screen redraws are complete, etc. But, crikey! If it can't handle that (and I do things more "agressively" on my Linux boxes!), then how can people claim it is "stable"?
Do people just do one thing at a time, and carefully read every screen, and wait for everything to be just so, before carefully clicking one thing at a time, and waiting for it to finish before moving on to something else? If so, *why*?
Hmmm. It's unfortunate that you had such a poor experience; care to share what distribution of Linux you were using? There are dozens, and your experience with the issues you described would be completely different with each one.
Having used Linux almost exclusively for many years, for both personal, employment and our own business, and having used both Open Office and Word/Excel extensively for business and personal communications and analytics, I can say without reservation that Word is a steaming heap of dung (random crashes, formatting corruption, etc. when used for long documents, such as technical papers), and that Open Office Writer and Calc are easily capable of anything that 99.9% of business users could imagine using them for.
I admit that I am biased against Windows; I run dozens of remote Linux servers, under spectacularly heavy and varying use, running everything from 2.4.18 to 2.6.16 kernels, for months at a time -- I have only rarely used a Windows machine that has been able to stay up for over a day, and then under very light use. I've used every version of windows since the one before the 3.x series (did they call it 2.0? I don't remember). My current XP machine, "professionally" managed and maintained by a battalion of Windows maintenance guys, with the very latest patches and virus scanners, must be rebooted daily -- and I use it to read email. Go figure...
I can't afford that for my own business. No business can, really; most just haven't had the opportunity to discover that, yet. Perhaps when times get a little leaner (or the Trojans get a little nastier!), other business owners will figure that out, too.
So, I say "Go, Microsoft, Go!". I have no doubt that they will turn out the same calibre of software they have in the past.
I think that we will look back in history, and see this whole 15-year "Windows" thing as an unfortunate hiatus in the overall advancement of the art and practice of computation. Too bad so many billions (trillions?) of dollars had to be flushed down the Microsoft toilet; we could have, instead, become a spacefaring civilisation by now...
Hmmm. You mean, what do they have to do with Focus Groups, *other* than the obvious?
I doubt Kalashnikov had a "focus group" help him design the AK-47. He just flat out *knew* what a grunt lying in the mud would want. I'll bet that some focus group would have complained that the AK-47s mechanisms seemed sloppy... "Ya, but this here M-16's receiver mechanism is so crisp and light! Much better!!" Great, Mr. Focus Group -- except when its packed with mud...
Likewise with the whole Media PC. What do they even DO with a Focus Group? "But, what if I *want* to play my video on my on my (whatever, not equipped with DRM).
"Uh, well, you don't want to. See the shiny VIIV sticker? Isn't it nice?"
"Ya, it is kinda nice. OK, I guess I don't want to. Where's the sodas?"
Crikey; its like MBAs must have a pool of spineless people, just for use in Focus Groups, to get whatever pap they want to sell "approved".
Re:same old story
on
Viiv Falls Flat
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
Focus groups? FOCUS GROUPS?
If you want watered down, sugared up, luke-warm pap, then ya, you just go run a company using Focus Groups to help you "focus" your products.
Focus them right down the drain.
The problem is, what people say they want, and what they will really enjoy over the long term are usually completely different. You have to have vision and guts, and give people what you know they *need*, to love your product over the long term.
That's why Coke (in all its throat-burning, belch inducing glory) beats Pepsi (flat, watered down, and super-sweet, just like the Focus Groups like it!) -- year after year.
That's why Ford Mustang (loud, brash, cheap, plentiful, and easy to tear down and build up) kicked Camaro -- right out of the industry.
That's why American servicemen pry AK-47s out of dead Iraqi fingers, and toss their M-16s in the back of the HMV. Drop the AK-47 in the sand, kick it around a bit, pick it up -- it goes "bang" every time.
So, keep your "Focus Group" Clippy-ridden, DRM-stuffed, memory-hungry spyware-addled, VIIV-infested tripe. I'll keep my bullet-proof network of trivially remotely maintained servers, not paying a red CENT to any of these MBA winners and their lame "Focus Group". Thanks, Linus.
Thank you for your attention; you may return to your regularly scheduled program...
A mysterious force-field, consisting of... (wait for it!)... a radar-triggered cannon firing a bunch of fragments (that would be "pebbles", for the non-technical reader) in the general direction of incoming explosive ordnance. Ordnance hits pebbles. Ka-Boom!
Dude; you gotta learn to read, before submitting articles with "Man Bites Dog" headlines...
Hmm. Most people I know will choose to purchase something instead of swipe it, if given the choice. Even if its easy and safe to rip it off. Many people won't; these people are not likely to be good clients anyway.
Problem is, there is presently NO WAY for me to legally purchase uncrippled digital content. Sure, I can go download whatever I want to, ripped of, for free. I don't want to. Believe it or not, I actually went out and bought (Bought!) 2 (not one, but TWO) copies of Window's frickin' ME (no less!), because we had 2 computers in our office. I felt soiled. But, I did it anyway, because I wanted to be legal.
So, is it in the best interests of (say) the holder's of the copyright to the new Battlestar Galactica series that I cannot pay to see the series? I would pay, in a *heartbeat*.
I think that a million paying clients is better than 10 million non-paying clients. However, there is no money in it for the "DRM Experts".
...Safe Candy Bars of America has announced that 7-11 is doomed to fail, unless it implements DCM (Digital Candy-bar Management).
"After all, what candy-bar maker is going to ship candy bars to a 7-11, when any client can come in and just put one in his pocket? It's impossible to make money in such an environment. It's just... Un-American!"
says Hugh Bluehose, CEO of Safe Candy Bars.
"7-11 had better get their act together. We're working with our friends in Congress, who we've helped to really understand this whole industry, to ensure that Americans are protected from the scourge of illegal dealing in plastic-wrapped, un-protected candy bars. We're committed to putting companies based on criminal candy-bar infringement strategies out of business, and behind bars."
Later, when chatting with Bat Fridwig, technical lead of Microsofts EatsForSure project, we were informed that:
"There is just no market for un-protected candy-bars. It's not possible for any company to make money selling such unsafe candy-bars, long term. Why would anyone buy a candy bar, when they can just go swipe one? I mean, really..."
If you run an internet facing bind9 DNS server, you may want to allow recursion (caching) to your internal clients, while continuing to serve DNS requests to external clients for your domains (those for which you are "authoritative").
Lets say that your local LAN and WLAN networks are 192.168.0/24 and 192.168.1/24, respectively. Make the following additions to your/etc/bind/named.conf.options (or equivalent):
Adding to the difficulty, the contest requires that mugs be dropped on their sides. But the sacrificial bomb -- which weighs more than the mug on top -- and gravity take care of that, Price said.
Hmm. Unfortunately, they've mastered crumple zones at the expense of understanding basic laws of physics...
That would be "aerodynamics", not "gravity", that might help the mug to align its top side above the "heavier" sacrificial bomb side. After all, I think that Galileo confirmed that the heavier cannonball doesn't fall faster than the light one, at the Tower of Pisa.
60,000+ lines of communications protocol and remote industrial control and telemetry code. No memory leaks, and less than 5 defects installed into production.
The reasons? A unit test suite that implements several million test cases (mostly pseudo-random probes -- the actual test code is about 1/3 the size of the functional code). In fact, the "defects" that hit production were more "oversights"; stuff that didn't get accounted for and hence didn't get implemented.
Just as importantly; every dynamically allocated object just got assigned to a "smart pointer" (see Boost's boost::shared_ptr implementation).
Quite frankly, compared to any Java implementation I've seen, I can't say that "Garbage Collection" would give me anything I didn't get from smart pointers -- and I had sub-millisecond determinism, and objects that destructed precisely when the last reference to them was discarded. The only drawback: loops of self-referencing objects, which are very simple to avoid, and dead trivial if you use Boost's Weak Pointer implementation.
We didn't have access to Boost (which I Highly Recommend using, instead of our reference counted pointer) when we first started the project, so we implemented our own Smart Pointers and Unit Testing frameworks.
I've since worked on "Traditional" C++ applications, and it is literally "night and day" different; trying to do raw dynamic memory allocation without reference counting smart pointers is just insane (for anything beyond the most trivial algorithm). And developing with Unit Testing feels like being beaten with a bat, with a sack tied around your head...
One thing that differentiates an excellent tool from a poor tool is that the excellent tool handles and "feels" better the more proficient the tool user becomes.
Among all the programming languages I've used over the last 25 years (6502/6809/m68k/... assembly, Prolog/Miranda/... functional, Perl/Tcl/Python/Lisp/Java/... interpreted, C/C++/PL-1/... compiled), only 2 really stand out as "excellent" tools:
C++ and Python. I really have to struggle picking which one I love to write programs in more. They both have their place, and they are both lovely in their own way.
As far as C++ goes, since it exposes all the "knobs and dials" of the underlying computing architecure, it does have a very long learning curve. However, Template Metaprogramming is unlike anything, available anywhere, in any other language.
Listening to all these Java/C# fanboys flame C++ templates, and compare them to "Generics" etc., is like listening to guys compare their cool Ox-Cart wheel mods, while saying how much that new-fan-dangled "ferr-ar-eee" Sucks...
Yes, it took *years* for me to master C++. Someone smarter, and/or with better (read: any) instruction would -- and should -- do better. But, being able to express an algorithm purely, which will compile efficiently to process *any* type(s), stored in *any* container, accross *any* architecture, with full static type checking and bare-metal hand-coded assembly language efficiency, is something truly unique in the programming language world today.
When some other language comes out with something better and more efficient than Template Metaprogramming, let me know. 'Til then, its C++, baby!
It's called "ndiswrapper". You can install your nice, closed binary network device drivers, and get all the wonderful stability of Windows, with all the benefits of closed source software, such as being completely impossible to debug.
So, instead of complaining, these companies can simply decide to implement an Open Source kernel module that implements the full binary Windows driver interface, and then ship just one driver -- the Windows one -- for Linux.
Of course, they can keep their hardware, because I certainly won't be buying it. I buy hardware that is SUPPORTABLE -- and this means something COMPLETELY DIFFERENT than "supported". Because, hardware that is "supported" by a company that no longer exists is NOT useful to me. And all hardware will eventually be in that category.
So, by definition, any piece of hardware that doesn't come with Open Source drivers is not welcome in my home or business.
Other symptoms also related to this defect?
on
Digital Camera Failures
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
We have a Canon digital ELPH SD100; excellent camera, and very sturdy (survived several rough week-long back-country expeditions with no problems).
However, lately the camera has developed strange circles in some of its images, especially in certain lighting conditions, or certain atmospheric conditions that we have not been able to really pin down. Most of the time, the images are clear.
The circles or rings seem similar to what you might get with dust somewhere in the lens system near the focal plane; the each circle covers perhaps up to 1/10th of the image area, but many of them are smaller, and some dimmer than others. The next time we use the camera, they don't appear at all!
Could thse perhaps be explained by condensation on the inside of the CCD's window, which only appears in certain temperature or atmospheric pressure situations?
purchase access to precisely the media I want to see/hear/whatever. Nothing more. Nothing less.
Dear RIAA/MPAA/whoever;
Please, please, PLEASE, let me pay you money? Won't you, just? This once?
I want to watch Battlestar Galactica (the new series). It's awesome. I love it. But, you won't let me.
I want to pay you 100% of every cent you would earn for my individual viewership of this program. From advertisers. Plus, what you would earn from your distribution agreements with the TV/Cable/Satellite networks. Plus, what you would earn from syndication. Plus, what you would earn from DVD distribution. For MYINDIVIDUAL viewership.
But, you don't want my money. You don't even give me the choice to give you my money, because you simply, arbitrarily, choose not to distribute Battlestar Galactica (or whatever) here in Canada.
So, what am I supposed to do? Wait around, quivering with excitement, with bated breath, for you to decide to belch and toss me a scrap from your groaning table?
No, sir. You simply cancel good shows (such as Firefly), to produce garbage (such as whatever show Paris Hilton, et. al. might show up on). You produce garbage music, and then to add insult to injury, pay the artist beholden to you $0.15 for a $20 CD. And, you don't produce good artists, at all. And, you prevent them from every showing up in record stores, by forcing these stores into restrictive agreements.
Should I not be insulted, by this behavior? Should I not find other avenues to watch/hear what I want?
Sincerely, Thank you.
Your adoring public.
Re:Do they have a strategy behind this?
on
Google Hires Vint Cerf
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
Very, very few truly inventive poeple find money (eg. personal enrichment, leisure, prestige, etc.) an incentive.
Name two.
Isaac Newton
Francis Bacon
Claude Shannon. Father of modern information theory. Published (Not Patented) "A Mathematical Theory of Communication" in 1948. Died a Professor Emeritus.
Nicola Tesla -- Modern multi-phase power systems. Edison was a puny shadow ofthe same era. Slaved for 10 years as a New York street cleaner to bring his 3-phase power system to reality, and then "gave away" the patents, worth Billions (perhaps even Trillions) in todays dollars, to Westinghouse.
Evariste Galois -- Galois fields (eg. Reed-Solomon encoding). Died in a duel protecting the honour of a woman.
Very, very few truly inventive poeple find money (eg. personal enrichment, leisure, prestige, etc.) an incentive.
The mere opportunity to wield resources sufficient to achieve their dream is usually sufficient. Google seems to have the three things required, to incent inventive behaviour; 1) the financial resources, 2) the will to use them, and 3) the leadership to know how to shut the f*** up and get out of the way.
Oh, and by the way -- to all those who brought up the "Au Contraire, Microsoft Research is doing this..." argument: Bill Gates and his plump minion have neither 2) nor 3).
Re:Do they have a strategy behind this?
on
Google Hires Vint Cerf
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
Non-linear, pure "invention" doesn't occur on a fixed time table. You cannot plan for it. You can't assemble a team, give them a deadline and some money, and say "OK, go invent the next great thing for me.".
All you can do is try to assemable the greatest group(s) of already provably inventive poeple you can find, put them in a positive, stimulating environment, and incent them to come up with something great.
That is what Google is doing. That is exactly NOT what Microsoft, HP, et. al. are doing.
Slashdot Mirror
I purchased an HDTV about 6 months ago, and have not subscribed to receive any HD broadcasting, or purchased an HD PVR or receiver.
The *instant* Apple begins selling pay-per-season subscriptions to HD quality programming, I'll be purchasing whatever equipment from Apple required to play the shows I want to watch (Battlestar Galactica, The Unit, House, and a few others). I think that Steve Jobs is the only person in the industry who seems to have a clue, and is trying hard to deliver what people want -- and I intend to reward him for that.
If broadcasters haven't figured out that there is a market of people that are willing to pay them -- directly -- whatever amount that the advertisers are currently paying them to deliver my personal household's advertising impressions (a few $ per season per program, I would guess), then they are not paying attention to their marketplace, and deserve to get blind-sided by Steve Jobs, Disney, or whoever else gets a clue first.
http://www.michaelrobertson.com/archive.php?minute _id=224
Or, skip straight to the "Free To Choose" show on: http://ideachannel.tv/
Addictive behavior that that leads to bad decisions and yields poor results, whether it is poor eating decisions, poor exercise habits, self-destructive computer software decisions, are often blamed on those who are expected to "fix" the mess (parents, educators, government, computer-savvy people).
Perhaps this is simply another example?
*That* is why there is Linux zealotry. Because we are expected to clean up your (Windows virus-ridden, crashing) mess, but keep our noses out of your (poor) decision making.
Wrong.
You have NO CHOICE. Microsoft makes it impossible to obtain a newer ISO image of ANY of their OS installers, even though you have the license (and therefore the right) to install it.
Obtaining a brand new, fresh up-to-the-second ISO image of any of a dozen Linux distros is as simple as running a Bittorrent client, and buring the ISO (oh, right -- can't do that from Windows, without installing a third-party ISO burner).
LIke many of you, I'm the guy saddle with maintaining (and repeatedly re-installing) the wonderful "Windows Experience" for all my relatives. And as much as I swear I'll never do it again, I always relent and fix their damn Windows box.
I've (re)installed Windows (from Windows 2.0 (really!), 3.X, 98, 98SE, ME, 2k, XP) at least 100 times, and I've built up many more Linux machines. I can guarantee you one thing. As bad as Linux is for driver support, Windows is *far worse*. It HAS no driver support.
Try to scrabble together the bloody third-party drivers from a dozen different websites scattered around the planet, for hardware long considered ancient (but which everyone wants to continue using, because they are too cheap to get a new PC, let along spring 100 bucks for a non-OEM version of the latest Windows). You know I'm right. We've all done it, dozens of times. What a pain.
Or, just download and pop in the latest Ubuntu or whatever. It's a dream compared to the "Windows Experience". Even better, try to install Windows from the CD that Uncle Fred has (remember, he can't get the latest XP-SP2, even though he has the licence!), without the benefit of a hardware firewall between the Windows box and his internet connection. 15 seconds -- that's how long the box lives before it gets slammed by some virus.
So, next comes the part where you boot Knoppix, download a Windows software firewall, burn it, reformat and reinstall Windows (Again!), install the software firewall -- all so you can just bloody run Windows Update!
It is inevitable, really. Apple's spike in sales for OS X is just the beginning of the end for bloody insolent Microsoft, I think...
However, there are still issues that you from the U.S.A. may find surprising. Such as a maniac marching up a Montreal street and into a school, shooting innocents as he goes, while the entire free public runs squealing before him.
I daresay that there are some areas of the U.S. where he would have been dropped in his tracks by some free citizen who cares enough about his freedom, and the freedom of other innocent citizens, to legally carry a weapon.
But in Canada, the government has succeeded in stripping virtually every free citizen of the capability to exercise what I believe is their responsibility to protect the innocent, even if they are able (it is my understanding that the use of lethal force is illegal unless you are being personally attacked).
So, if you don't believe that attempting to protect the innocent is worth dying for, you might just fit right in. After all, who cares if Afghani girls ever get to have an education? And if they have the temerity to admin that they were raped, why not just let the males in their family slaughter them in an "Honour Killing"? After all, its their culture -- who are we to judge? Just give the country back to the Taliban! After all, they were there first, and they did choose their own government...
I have to say, however, that I have never been able to use a Windows machine for anything like software development; On my Linux box, I have 2 21" LCD flat panels, with 3 or 4 tasks I'm working on, in parallel, with clusters of windows open using various applications simultaneously (it was *way* worse, before tabbed browing...) If I try to do anything *remotely* like that with Windows (*any* Windows version I've tried, and much less agressively actually, since I only waste one monitor on the Windows box ;), it'll crash within hours; often, within a few minutes. At least XP doesn't routinely crash and hang solid trying to restart like Windows 98/Me does.
My wife says its because I'm too "agressive" with it; pushing buttons too fast, opening/closing/clicking things before screen redraws are complete, etc. But, crikey! If it can't handle that (and I do things more "agressively" on my Linux boxes!), then how can people claim it is "stable"?
Do people just do one thing at a time, and carefully read every screen, and wait for everything to be just so, before carefully clicking one thing at a time, and waiting for it to finish before moving on to something else? If so, *why*?
Having used Linux almost exclusively for many years, for both personal, employment and our own business, and having used both Open Office and Word/Excel extensively for business and personal communications and analytics, I can say without reservation that Word is a steaming heap of dung (random crashes, formatting corruption, etc. when used for long documents, such as technical papers), and that Open Office Writer and Calc are easily capable of anything that 99.9% of business users could imagine using them for.
I admit that I am biased against Windows; I run dozens of remote Linux servers, under spectacularly heavy and varying use, running everything from 2.4.18 to 2.6.16 kernels, for months at a time -- I have only rarely used a Windows machine that has been able to stay up for over a day, and then under very light use. I've used every version of windows since the one before the 3.x series (did they call it 2.0? I don't remember). My current XP machine, "professionally" managed and maintained by a battalion of Windows maintenance guys, with the very latest patches and virus scanners, must be rebooted daily -- and I use it to read email. Go figure...
I can't afford that for my own business. No business can, really; most just haven't had the opportunity to discover that, yet. Perhaps when times get a little leaner (or the Trojans get a little nastier!), other business owners will figure that out, too.
So, I say "Go, Microsoft, Go!". I have no doubt that they will turn out the same calibre of software they have in the past.
I think that we will look back in history, and see this whole 15-year "Windows" thing as an unfortunate hiatus in the overall advancement of the art and practice of computation. Too bad so many billions (trillions?) of dollars had to be flushed down the Microsoft toilet; we could have, instead, become a spacefaring civilisation by now...
Well, according to Kalashnikov himself....
I doubt Kalashnikov had a "focus group" help him design the AK-47. He just flat out *knew* what a grunt lying in the mud would want. I'll bet that some focus group would have complained that the AK-47s mechanisms seemed sloppy... "Ya, but this here M-16's receiver mechanism is so crisp and light! Much better!!" Great, Mr. Focus Group -- except when its packed with mud...
Likewise with the whole Media PC. What do they even DO with a Focus Group? "But, what if I *want* to play my video on my on my (whatever, not equipped with DRM).
"Uh, well, you don't want to. See the shiny VIIV sticker? Isn't it nice?"
"Ya, it is kinda nice. OK, I guess I don't want to. Where's the sodas?"
Crikey; its like MBAs must have a pool of spineless people, just for use in Focus Groups, to get whatever pap they want to sell "approved".
If you want watered down, sugared up, luke-warm pap, then ya, you just go run a company using Focus Groups to help you "focus" your products.
Focus them right down the drain.
The problem is, what people say they want, and what they will really enjoy over the long term are usually completely different. You have to have vision and guts, and give people what you know they *need*, to love your product over the long term.
That's why Coke (in all its throat-burning, belch inducing glory) beats Pepsi (flat, watered down, and super-sweet, just like the Focus Groups like it!) -- year after year.
That's why Ford Mustang (loud, brash, cheap, plentiful, and easy to tear down and build up) kicked Camaro -- right out of the industry.
That's why American servicemen pry AK-47s out of dead Iraqi fingers, and toss their M-16s in the back of the HMV. Drop the AK-47 in the sand, kick it around a bit, pick it up -- it goes "bang" every time.
So, keep your "Focus Group" Clippy-ridden, DRM-stuffed, memory-hungry spyware-addled, VIIV-infested tripe. I'll keep my bullet-proof network of trivially remotely maintained servers, not paying a red CENT to any of these MBA winners and their lame "Focus Group". Thanks, Linus.
Thank you for your attention; you may return to your regularly scheduled program...
Dude; you gotta learn to read, before submitting articles with "Man Bites Dog" headlines...
Problem is, there is presently NO WAY for me to legally purchase uncrippled digital content. Sure, I can go download whatever I want to, ripped of, for free. I don't want to. Believe it or not, I actually went out and bought (Bought!) 2 (not one, but TWO) copies of Window's frickin' ME (no less!), because we had 2 computers in our office. I felt soiled. But, I did it anyway, because I wanted to be legal.
So, is it in the best interests of (say) the holder's of the copyright to the new Battlestar Galactica series that I cannot pay to see the series? I would pay, in a *heartbeat*.
I think that a million paying clients is better than 10 million non-paying clients. However, there is no money in it for the "DRM Experts".
"After all, what candy-bar maker is going to ship candy bars to a 7-11, when any client can come in and just put one in his pocket? It's impossible to make money in such an environment. It's just... Un-American!"
says Hugh Bluehose, CEO of Safe Candy Bars.
"7-11 had better get their act together. We're working with our friends in Congress, who we've helped to really understand this whole industry, to ensure that Americans are protected from the scourge of illegal dealing in plastic-wrapped, un-protected candy bars. We're committed to putting companies based on criminal candy-bar infringement strategies out of business, and behind bars."
Later, when chatting with Bat Fridwig, technical lead of Microsofts EatsForSure project, we were informed that:
"There is just no market for un-protected candy-bars. It's not possible for any company to make money selling such unsafe candy-bars, long term. Why would anyone buy a candy bar, when they can just go swipe one? I mean, really..."
Lets say that your local LAN and WLAN networks are 192.168.0/24 and 192.168.1/24, respectively. Make the following additions to your /etc/bind/named.conf.options (or equivalent):
Hmm. Unfortunately, they've mastered crumple zones at the expense of understanding basic laws of physics...
That would be "aerodynamics", not "gravity", that might help the mug to align its top side above the "heavier" sacrificial bomb side. After all, I think that Galileo confirmed that the heavier cannonball doesn't fall faster than the light one, at the Tower of Pisa.
(Freudian slip? Nah... ;)
The reasons? A unit test suite that implements several million test cases (mostly pseudo-random probes -- the actual test code is about 1/3 the size of the functional code). In fact, the "defects" that hit production were more "oversights"; stuff that didn't get accounted for and hence didn't get implemented.
Just as importantly; every dynamically allocated object just got assigned to a "smart pointer" (see Boost's boost::shared_ptr implementation).
Quite frankly, compared to any Java implementation I've seen, I can't say that "Garbage Collection" would give me anything I didn't get from smart pointers -- and I had sub-millisecond determinism, and objects that destructed precisely when the last reference to them was discarded. The only drawback: loops of self-referencing objects, which are very simple to avoid, and dead trivial if you use Boost's Weak Pointer implementation.
We didn't have access to Boost (which I Highly Recommend using, instead of our reference counted pointer) when we first started the project, so we implemented our own Smart Pointers and Unit Testing frameworks.
I've since worked on "Traditional" C++ applications, and it is literally "night and day" different; trying to do raw dynamic memory allocation without reference counting smart pointers is just insane (for anything beyond the most trivial algorithm). And developing with Unit Testing feels like being beaten with a bat, with a sack tied around your head...
Among all the programming languages I've used over the last 25 years (6502/6809/m68k/... assembly, Prolog/Miranda/... functional, Perl/Tcl/Python/Lisp/Java/... interpreted, C/C++/PL-1/... compiled), only 2 really stand out as "excellent" tools:
C++ and Python. I really have to struggle picking which one I love to write programs in more. They both have their place, and they are both lovely in their own way.
As far as C++ goes, since it exposes all the "knobs and dials" of the underlying computing architecure, it does have a very long learning curve. However, Template Metaprogramming is unlike anything, available anywhere, in any other language.
Listening to all these Java/C# fanboys flame C++ templates, and compare them to "Generics" etc., is like listening to guys compare their cool Ox-Cart wheel mods, while saying how much that new-fan-dangled "ferr-ar-eee" Sucks...
Yes, it took *years* for me to master C++. Someone smarter, and/or with better (read: any) instruction would -- and should -- do better. But, being able to express an algorithm purely, which will compile efficiently to process *any* type(s), stored in *any* container, accross *any* architecture, with full static type checking and bare-metal hand-coded assembly language efficiency, is something truly unique in the programming language world today.
When some other language comes out with something better and more efficient than Template Metaprogramming, let me know. 'Til then, its C++, baby!
So, instead of complaining, these companies can simply decide to implement an Open Source kernel module that implements the full binary Windows driver interface, and then ship just one driver -- the Windows one -- for Linux.
Of course, they can keep their hardware, because I certainly won't be buying it. I buy hardware that is SUPPORTABLE -- and this means something COMPLETELY DIFFERENT than "supported". Because, hardware that is "supported" by a company that no longer exists is NOT useful to me. And all hardware will eventually be in that category.
So, by definition, any piece of hardware that doesn't come with Open Source drivers is not welcome in my home or business.
However, lately the camera has developed strange circles in some of its images, especially in certain lighting conditions, or certain atmospheric conditions that we have not been able to really pin down. Most of the time, the images are clear.
The circles or rings seem similar to what you might get with dust somewhere in the lens system near the focal plane; the each circle covers perhaps up to 1/10th of the image area, but many of them are smaller, and some dimmer than others. The next time we use the camera, they don't appear at all!
Could thse perhaps be explained by condensation on the inside of the CCD's window, which only appears in certain temperature or atmospheric pressure situations?
Dear RIAA/MPAA/whoever;
Please, please, PLEASE, let me pay you money? Won't you, just? This once?
I want to watch Battlestar Galactica (the new series). It's awesome. I love it. But, you won't let me.
I want to pay you 100% of every cent you would earn for my individual viewership of this program. From advertisers. Plus, what you would earn from your distribution agreements with the TV/Cable/Satellite networks. Plus, what you would earn from syndication. Plus, what you would earn from DVD distribution. For MY INDIVIDUAL viewership.
But, you don't want my money. You don't even give me the choice to give you my money, because you simply, arbitrarily, choose not to distribute Battlestar Galactica (or whatever) here in Canada.
So, what am I supposed to do? Wait around, quivering with excitement, with bated breath, for you to decide to belch and toss me a scrap from your groaning table?
No, sir. You simply cancel good shows (such as Firefly), to produce garbage (such as whatever show Paris Hilton, et. al. might show up on). You produce garbage music, and then to add insult to injury, pay the artist beholden to you $0.15 for a $20 CD. And, you don't produce good artists, at all. And, you prevent them from every showing up in record stores, by forcing these stores into restrictive agreements.
Should I not be insulted, by this behavior? Should I not find other avenues to watch/hear what I want?
Sincerely, Thank you.
Your adoring public.
Isaac Newton
Francis Bacon
Claude Shannon. Father of modern information theory. Published (Not Patented) "A Mathematical Theory of Communication" in 1948. Died a Professor Emeritus.
Nicola Tesla -- Modern multi-phase power systems. Edison was a puny shadow ofthe same era. Slaved for 10 years as a New York street cleaner to bring his 3-phase power system to reality, and then "gave away" the patents, worth Billions (perhaps even Trillions) in todays dollars, to Westinghouse.
Evariste Galois -- Galois fields (eg. Reed-Solomon encoding). Died in a duel protecting the honour of a woman.
Need I go on?
Very, very few truly inventive poeple find money (eg. personal enrichment, leisure, prestige, etc.) an incentive.
The mere opportunity to wield resources sufficient to achieve their dream is usually sufficient. Google seems to have the three things required, to incent inventive behaviour; 1) the financial resources, 2) the will to use them, and 3) the leadership to know how to shut the f*** up and get out of the way.
Oh, and by the way -- to all those who brought up the "Au Contraire, Microsoft Research is doing this..." argument: Bill Gates and his plump minion have neither 2) nor 3).
All you can do is try to assemable the greatest group(s) of already provably inventive poeple you can find, put them in a positive, stimulating environment, and incent them to come up with something great.
That is what Google is doing. That is exactly NOT what Microsoft, HP, et. al. are doing.
And no, they don't expect you to understand this.