Banks get fees for non-customer use of ATM's, anyway. The reason that your bank charges you a slight fee for usage of other banks' ATM's is that your bank has to pay a fee to the network (Cirrus, MAC, Jeanie, etc.), and part of the network fee goes to the other bank.
I hate to see a free market interfered with, however, banks have been operating as oligopoly for a long time with little or none of the free market forces at work, so legislation is the only way to curtail such abuses.
Seriously, Washington is becoming more oppressive, tax hungry, and legislation happy every day. What is required to become a citizen (or at least a legal resident) of Canada?
Not much, just give up your right to freedom of the press and get ready for a shock anytime you try to bring your new Canadian money back into the U.S.
While Tim tells us about how scary it would be to have Microsoft in control of the Internet, he fails to discuss the even scarier proposition: Netscape in control of the Internet. For all the evil that Microsoft has perpetrated, at least they were able to break Netscape's monopolistic control of the HTML and HTTP standards.
Had Microsoft not "beaten" Netscape (at their own game, no less) God only knows what kind of mess we'd be in now.
Are you insane? What planet do you live on? I hope Microsoft never points it's big guns at you. Gee... lets see.. I'm going to put out some software, try and make some money one so I can eat. Microsoft comes along, throws 100 million at their own version, and gives it away for free. Gee... big suprise when my company goes down the toilet.
My guess is that people like you have a short memory. Netscape built their market share by giving the browser away on their website. Oh, sure, you had to pay after 90 days [nudge nudge wink wink]. I downloaded it a few times myself. Never reminded me to pay, never quit working (besides the hideous bugs).
At the time, Netscape had around 95% of the browser market (and Microsoft is a monopoly because of their current 60% share) and used that monopoly to wield control over the web. They created new tags, javascript (sorry, it's not a "standard"), and cookies. They owned it.
Now, you tell us, genius, how in the hell was Microsoft supposed to compete against a monopoly that gave its software away? The only choice they had was to do the same.
I hate to defend Microsoft, but at least they're honest about wanting to rule the world.
The good thing about Larry is.....ummmm...well....he, uh.....wait one minute.....ok....I've got *one thing*, Larry hates Bill.
Larry Ellison/Oracle is no better than Bill Gates/Microsoft. Oracle has done nothing, nada, zilch for open source/free software. Nothing. Ellison, like his friend Scott McNealy (rhymes with Mr. McFeely) likes to give us lip service, but they never get past it.
Oracle has a monopoly in the database server market, which they wield to set standards and prices. Larry Ellison hates Bill Gates, but it's simply jealousy.
As for these NC's, sounds better than the last bunch of jokes. The last set were going to run on the vaporware JavaOS product, but that never materialized (gee, I thought it was Microsoft that did the vaporware thing, silly me). And I pity anyone who has to use Netscape Navigator on anything less than an Athlon 1000 with a dedicated gigabit fiber optic net connection straight to each individual website that they'll ever visit.
So, if I cut and paste the latest press release from Oracle/Sun, I can get moderated up to a 4? How in the world does this happen?
At any rate, I've been seeing this same BS for a few years now. Despite all the worst intentions of Scott McNealy (rhymes with "Mr. McFeely") and Larry Ellison, big servers with thin clients aren't the big thing yet or in the foreseeable future.
PC sales are still growing strong, with people looking for beefier machines at lower prices. People like power on their desktop, and not just for game playing.
While I keep hearing about how ubiquitous computing is on the way, and it'll be so much better, the brain-dead proponents of such fail to see two very important facts. First, it already is here in many ways. I interact with a lot of little computers, such as the one in my microwave, everyday. Second, many common tasks, such as word processing, spreadsheet manipulation, etc., lend themselves very very well to a computer with (now, write these down) a monitor, a keyboard, and a mouse. That's not because I'm accustomed to that and have no future vision, it's because those tasks involve typing stuff in (keyboard) and manipulating it (keyboard & mouse) and, of course, viewing it (monitor).
As for printers going away and becoming unneccessary, I'm laughing. Yeah right! Printers' popularity is directly tied to that of computers; regardless of how damned "wired" we all get, we still like to print stuff out.
The point is that the future of computing is both bigger, better, and flashier, and completely transparent. There is already a huge amount of transparent out there, and it'll just keep growing. But the current "multi-purpose" machines aren't going away, they're getting bigger and more powerful.
Oh, and they're not as bad as some folks make them out to be.
The real key here is to beat IE on it's own turf. Until _Mozilla/StarOffice/Whatever-Program_ does that, you will continue to see MS dominating. The REAL key is to forget this childish "let's beat Microsoft" crap. What we need is a decent open source (preferably GPL'd) browser for Linux & the BSD variants. If the goal is to beat Microsoft, then it just isn't worth it. That's not because Microsoft is unbeatable or that the goal is unattainable, it's just that it's a very poor goal with no real focus. (As a side note, this is why Sun has been unable to "beat" Microsoft; wrong goal) A good goal is to produce the world's best browser. If you do that, then Microsoft will be "beaten", but better yet, you'll have a good browser. Michael
If _I_ spend a lot of money developing something, I'm well right entitled to do anything I want, including: 1. Let you use it for free, but not redistributing it. 2. Not allowing you to sell or give away support patches. 3. Accept your contributions with your implicit acknowledgement that you decline to sue me in relation to it. 4. Establishing in the license how I'll be allowed to reuse your stuff, eg: non-exclusive license, copyright sharing, etc. Sure, you have a right to do all that. Just don't act like you're part of the Linux community. The problem that I (and many others) have with Sun isn't their business practices, per se, but rather the attempt to be Microsoft while acting like they're far above such practices. At least Microsoft isn't dishonest...
>Sun is dumping this office suite in the market >to hurt Microsoft sales. Yes, I KNOW they did >that with explorer, and THAT is why they are in >a tangle with the DOJ. Two wrongs don't make a >right.
Actually, Microsoft was responding to Netscape dumping their browser. People seem to have forgotten that Netscape gained a 90%+ share of the browser market by making their browser free on their website. They subsequently gained the most-visited web page on the internet, and leveraged that for its marketing value.
I'm not sure what else Microsoft could do to compete with a free product.
But is Sun really planning on "dumping" StarOffice?
>You also forget that Sun DOES have a vested >interest in Star Office. First off, it is Sun's >corporate philosophy that systems be non- >proprietary and open.
Yeah, right. Sun was doing the "embrace and extend" thing with Unix before Microsoft even thought of it. It's difficult for a company to truly push non-proprietary products and still maximize their profit. Sun has chosen the next best thing, which is to act like they're all into the "open" philosophy while hoping that their mindless zealots will remain too dumb to see the truth.
Sun's "Community License" BS is just the latest.
>Second is the "network is the computer" and "run >anything, any time, anywhere, on any device" >(Microsoft has also taken up the latter, but >that is besides the point.)
Sorry, Sun may jump up and down yelling about the network is the computer and the run anything anywhere BS, but it's just that: BS. Has anyone else noted the nonsense of Sun's answer to Microsoft everywhere? It's "Java anywhere". Wait, Java is a proprietary technology (language and libs) owned by Sun. So, I'm to believe that Sun having the monopoly now held by Microsoft is somehow better?
You have me laughing at this point. I love watching a Sun zealot parrot Scott McNealy's (note: rhymes with "Mr. McFeely") maniacal rantings.
>80% of the traffic on the Internet runs on >Sun machines,
Hey, the College of Cardinals just called. Seems they're looking for a new Pope and I'm it.
That statement is far closer to reality than teh 80% figure that you quote.
>if more people start using the internet and >ISPs and others have more uses for servers, >Sun will make money on the deal. Sun is planning >on offering Star Portal, which will be able to >be used on the thin-client model. Thin clients >run well on what... Sun servers. I think that is >a vested interest, don't you agree?
Wow, so I can use hilarilously expensive proprietary Sun hardware (oh, bonus, I get to also be locked in to their proprietary OS) as a server. Sorry, I'll go with Linux, the number one web service platform on the internet. Linux actually is the whatever behind dot com.
NASE got a bad review in Consumer Reports a few months ago, and I understand why. The rates start out fairly low to bring you in, but they raise them quickly after you're on. My rates went up by $30/month (that's a 30% increase) over the course of just two years.
Do what I did, marry a nurse. The hospital has excellent health benefits, and it's dirt cheap.
I generally agree with Fred Moody, but this article smells like Scott McNealy's maniacal rants than something Fred would write. The idea that we have a paradox here, or dumber yet, that it's caused by Windows crashing "daily", is ludicrous.
I don't even care to defend Windows; suffice it to say that I use it more heavily than anyone that I know (Win98) and I've had it BSOD 1 time in the last 3 months, and I leave it on continually, rebooting once every few weeks.
The real "culprit" is simply the fact that pretty much every company out there is using similar technology, so nobody can get ahead. Workers do very different jobs nowadays.
Ever notice that no matter how many union jobs go "south of the border", we still are at full employment in this country. People do different, more complex things. Compare marketing now to 50 years ago. It's not uncommon to target mailing lists based on 10 or more criteria, and one person can do that- with the aid of a computer. Before computers, it couldn't have been done.
Are car factories *still* turning out the same number of cars/worker as they were 50 years ago? So what? Can somebody compare a car of 50 years ago to a modern car with a straight face? We have more design work going into a steering wheel now than the entirety of the Model T had.
The idea that we have a paradox here can only be born in the minds of someone who watched too much of the Jetson's when they were younger. We aren't progressing toward a society where computers and robots take care of all of our needs, leaving we humans with nothing better to do than sit around all day. Rather, technology allows each of us to do far more complex tasks than we are capable of by ourselves.
If someone wishes to simply measure the number of units coming out the back door of the factory, then, sure, probably about the same. But it good research would consider the quality and complexity of the product. And it would consider what the workers are doing now vs. what they were doing 50 years ago. To ignore those variables makes no sense.
>Is there anything anywhere which says all geeks >have to be libertarians, totally opposed to all >forms of restriction?
It's unfortunate that being against restrictions means that we have to be against restrictions placed on theatres, not just restrictions created by theatres. Although I agree with the original article that it's unfortunate that theatres find it necessary to police their customers, I would be really disturbed by laws which detail how a private business must conduct itself and its relationships with customers or potential customers. That's quite against the libertarian viewpoint, too.
This isn't as cut and dry as many other cases, since theatres tend to monopolistic, or oligopolistic (just a few different owners, is this a word?), in a given area. The point is that, if we were talking about Wal-Mart or Blockbuster, it's generally not a problem since most of us can go elsewhere, and ultimately the free market fixes the problem. Theatres historically have had nothing to do with free markets.
Same in the US. No need to record it, just write down the date and time that it happened, and be sure to request a copy of the company's "do not call list" policy, which they have to send you by law.
I'm cruel, though. When I am called, my goal is twofold. First, to keep the other person on the phone as long as possible. Second, I want to get them off the script. I find that much more amusing personally.
Moving static requests back up into the kernel is a neat trick, to be sure. But I'd rather have web serving where it belongs: user space. The idea of being able to serve a page to every user on the planet five times over on a given day from my web server sounds nice on paper, but not very useful in real life.
Having a bit of up close and personal AIX experience, I feel they should work on making their kernel a bit more stable, anyway. This is simply posturing for a benchmark, probably not real useful in a real-world scenario, and to be frank, I think IBM knows better.
Their first "customer" was touted as Larry Wilcox. If the name doesn't ring a bell, then how about "the white guy on CHiPs"?
If their "hypercomputer" was as good as they're saying, it's likely that they'd have somebody who is both famous and technically competent speaking for them. Not Eric Estrada's old cohort.
Slashdot Mirror
Banks get fees for non-customer use of ATM's, anyway. The reason that your bank charges you a slight fee for usage of other banks' ATM's is that your bank has to pay a fee to the network (Cirrus, MAC, Jeanie, etc.), and part of the network fee goes to the other bank.
I hate to see a free market interfered with, however, banks have been operating as oligopoly for a long time with little or none of the free market forces at work, so legislation is the only way to curtail such abuses.
Seriously, Washington is becoming more oppressive, tax hungry, and legislation happy every day. What is required to become a citizen (or at least a legal resident) of Canada?
Not much, just give up your right to freedom of the press and get ready for a shock anytime you try to bring your new Canadian money back into the U.S.
While Tim tells us about how scary it would be to have Microsoft in control of the Internet, he fails to discuss the even scarier proposition: Netscape in control of the Internet. For all the evil that Microsoft has perpetrated, at least they were able to break Netscape's monopolistic control of the HTML and HTTP standards.
Had Microsoft not "beaten" Netscape (at their own game, no less) God only knows what kind of mess we'd be in now.
-Michael
Are you insane? What planet do you live on? I hope Microsoft never points it's big guns at you. Gee... lets see.. I'm going to put out some software, try and make some money one so I can eat. Microsoft comes along, throws 100 million at their own version, and gives it away for free. Gee... big suprise when my company goes down the toilet.
My guess is that people like you have a short memory. Netscape built their market share by giving the browser away on their website. Oh, sure, you had to pay after 90 days [nudge nudge wink wink]. I downloaded it a few times myself. Never reminded me to pay, never quit working (besides the hideous bugs).
At the time, Netscape had around 95% of the browser market (and Microsoft is a monopoly because of their current 60% share) and used that monopoly to wield control over the web. They created new tags, javascript (sorry, it's not a "standard"), and cookies. They owned it.
Now, you tell us, genius, how in the hell was Microsoft supposed to compete against a monopoly that gave its software away? The only choice they had was to do the same.
I hate to defend Microsoft, but at least they're honest about wanting to rule the world.
The good thing about Larry is.....ummmm...well....he, uh.....wait one minute.....ok....I've got *one thing*, Larry hates Bill.
Larry Ellison/Oracle is no better than Bill Gates/Microsoft. Oracle has done nothing, nada, zilch for open source/free software. Nothing. Ellison, like his friend Scott McNealy (rhymes with Mr. McFeely) likes to give us lip service, but they never get past it.
Oracle has a monopoly in the database server market, which they wield to set standards and prices. Larry Ellison hates Bill Gates, but it's simply jealousy.
As for these NC's, sounds better than the last bunch of jokes. The last set were going to run on the vaporware JavaOS product, but that never materialized (gee, I thought it was Microsoft that did the vaporware thing, silly me). And I pity anyone who has to use Netscape Navigator on anything less than an Athlon 1000 with a dedicated gigabit fiber optic net connection straight to each individual website that they'll ever visit.
Michael
So, if I cut and paste the latest press release from Oracle/Sun, I can get moderated up to a 4? How in the world does this happen?
At any rate, I've been seeing this same BS for a few years now. Despite all the worst intentions of Scott McNealy (rhymes with "Mr. McFeely") and Larry Ellison, big servers with thin clients aren't the big thing yet or in the foreseeable future.
PC sales are still growing strong, with people looking for beefier machines at lower prices. People like power on their desktop, and not just for game playing.
While I keep hearing about how ubiquitous computing is on the way, and it'll be so much better, the brain-dead proponents of such fail to see two very important facts. First, it already is here in many ways. I interact with a lot of little computers, such as the one in my microwave, everyday. Second, many common tasks, such as word processing, spreadsheet manipulation, etc., lend themselves very very well to a computer with (now, write these down) a monitor, a keyboard, and a mouse. That's not because I'm accustomed to that and have no future vision, it's because those tasks involve typing stuff in (keyboard) and manipulating it (keyboard & mouse) and, of course, viewing it (monitor).
As for printers going away and becoming unneccessary, I'm laughing. Yeah right! Printers' popularity is directly tied to that of computers; regardless of how damned "wired" we all get, we still like to print stuff out.
The point is that the future of computing is both bigger, better, and flashier, and completely transparent. There is already a huge amount of transparent out there, and it'll just keep growing. But the current "multi-purpose" machines aren't going away, they're getting bigger and more powerful.
Oh, and they're not as bad as some folks make them out to be.
-Michael
The real key here is to beat IE on it's own turf. Until _Mozilla/StarOffice/Whatever-Program_ does that, you will continue to see MS dominating. The REAL key is to forget this childish "let's beat Microsoft" crap. What we need is a decent open source (preferably GPL'd) browser for Linux & the BSD variants. If the goal is to beat Microsoft, then it just isn't worth it. That's not because Microsoft is unbeatable or that the goal is unattainable, it's just that it's a very poor goal with no real focus. (As a side note, this is why Sun has been unable to "beat" Microsoft; wrong goal) A good goal is to produce the world's best browser. If you do that, then Microsoft will be "beaten", but better yet, you'll have a good browser. Michael
If _I_ spend a lot of money developing something, I'm well right entitled to do anything I want, including: 1. Let you use it for free, but not redistributing it. 2. Not allowing you to sell or give away support patches. 3. Accept your contributions with your implicit acknowledgement that you decline to sue me in relation to it. 4. Establishing in the license how I'll be allowed to reuse your stuff, eg: non-exclusive license, copyright sharing, etc. Sure, you have a right to do all that. Just don't act like you're part of the Linux community. The problem that I (and many others) have with Sun isn't their business practices, per se, but rather the attempt to be Microsoft while acting like they're far above such practices. At least Microsoft isn't dishonest...
>It's called "Illegal Dumping" and is not legal.
Hence the "illegal" in "Illegal Dumping".
>Sun is dumping this office suite in the market
>to hurt Microsoft sales. Yes, I KNOW they did
>that with explorer, and THAT is why they are in
>a tangle with the DOJ. Two wrongs don't make a
>right.
Actually, Microsoft was responding to Netscape dumping their browser. People seem to have forgotten that Netscape gained a 90%+ share of the browser market by making their browser free on their website. They subsequently gained the most-visited web page on the internet, and leveraged that for its marketing value.
I'm not sure what else Microsoft could do to compete with a free product.
But is Sun really planning on "dumping" StarOffice?
TT
>You also forget that Sun DOES have a vested
>interest in Star Office. First off, it is Sun's
>corporate philosophy that systems be non-
>proprietary and open.
Yeah, right. Sun was doing the "embrace and extend" thing with Unix before Microsoft even thought of it. It's difficult for a company to truly push non-proprietary products and still maximize their profit. Sun has chosen the next best thing, which is to act like they're all into the "open" philosophy while hoping that their mindless zealots will remain too dumb to see the truth.
Sun's "Community License" BS is just the latest.
>Second is the "network is the computer" and "run
>anything, any time, anywhere, on any device"
>(Microsoft has also taken up the latter, but
>that is besides the point.)
Sorry, Sun may jump up and down yelling about the network is the computer and the run anything anywhere BS, but it's just that: BS. Has anyone else noted the nonsense of Sun's answer to Microsoft everywhere? It's "Java anywhere". Wait, Java is a proprietary technology (language and libs) owned by Sun. So, I'm to believe that Sun having the monopoly now held by Microsoft is somehow better?
You have me laughing at this point. I love watching a Sun zealot parrot Scott McNealy's (note: rhymes with "Mr. McFeely") maniacal rantings.
>80% of the traffic on the Internet runs on
>Sun machines,
Hey, the College of Cardinals just called. Seems they're looking for a new Pope and I'm it.
That statement is far closer to reality than teh 80% figure that you quote.
>if more people start using the internet and
>ISPs and others have more uses for servers,
>Sun will make money on the deal. Sun is planning
>on offering Star Portal, which will be able to
>be used on the thin-client model. Thin clients >run well on what... Sun servers. I think that is
>a vested interest, don't you agree?
Wow, so I can use hilarilously expensive proprietary Sun hardware (oh, bonus, I get to also be locked in to their proprietary OS) as a server. Sorry, I'll go with Linux, the number one web service platform on the internet. Linux actually is the whatever behind dot com.
You Sun zealots crack me up!
TT
NASE got a bad review in Consumer Reports a few months ago, and I understand why. The rates start out fairly low to bring you in, but they raise them quickly after you're on. My rates went up by $30/month (that's a 30% increase) over the course of just two years.
Do what I did, marry a nurse. The hospital has excellent health benefits, and it's dirt cheap.
-TT
I generally agree with Fred Moody, but this article smells like Scott McNealy's maniacal rants than something Fred would write. The idea that we have a paradox here, or dumber yet, that it's caused by Windows crashing "daily", is ludicrous.
I don't even care to defend Windows; suffice it to say that I use it more heavily than anyone that I know (Win98) and I've had it BSOD 1 time in the last 3 months, and I leave it on continually, rebooting once every few weeks.
The real "culprit" is simply the fact that pretty much every company out there is using similar technology, so nobody can get ahead. Workers do very different jobs nowadays.
Ever notice that no matter how many union jobs go "south of the border", we still are at full employment in this country. People do different, more complex things. Compare marketing now to 50 years ago. It's not uncommon to target mailing lists based on 10 or more criteria, and one person can do that- with the aid of a computer. Before computers, it couldn't have been done.
Are car factories *still* turning out the same number of cars/worker as they were 50 years ago? So what? Can somebody compare a car of 50 years ago to a modern car with a straight face? We have more design work going into a steering wheel now than the entirety of the Model T had.
The idea that we have a paradox here can only be born in the minds of someone who watched too much of the Jetson's when they were younger. We aren't progressing toward a society where computers and robots take care of all of our needs, leaving we humans with nothing better to do than sit around all day. Rather, technology allows each of us to do far more complex tasks than we are capable of by ourselves.
If someone wishes to simply measure the number of units coming out the back door of the factory, then, sure, probably about the same. But it good research would consider the quality and complexity of the product. And it would consider what the workers are doing now vs. what they were doing 50 years ago. To ignore those variables makes no sense.
>Is there anything anywhere which says all geeks
>have to be libertarians, totally opposed to all
>forms of restriction?
It's unfortunate that being against restrictions means that we have to be against restrictions placed on theatres, not just restrictions created by theatres. Although I agree with the original article that it's unfortunate that theatres find it necessary to police their customers, I would be really disturbed by laws which detail how a private business must conduct itself and its relationships with customers or potential customers. That's quite against the libertarian viewpoint, too.
This isn't as cut and dry as many other cases, since theatres tend to monopolistic, or oligopolistic (just a few different owners, is this a word?), in a given area. The point is that, if we were talking about Wal-Mart or Blockbuster, it's generally not a problem since most of us can go elsewhere, and ultimately the free market fixes the problem. Theatres historically have had nothing to do with free markets.
TT
Wow, you English people could learn a thing or two from us Americans. The problem isn't "Rambo", it's the gun's fault.
This is old news, why is it being reported again?
>how about writing a browser that reads a standard called HTML properly?
They have one. We're waiting for Netscape to join in.
>or how about one called JavaScript?
That's a standard? How so? It was created by Netscape.
Same in the US. No need to record it, just write down the date and time that it happened, and be sure to request a copy of the company's "do not call list" policy, which they have to send you by law.
I'm cruel, though. When I am called, my goal is twofold. First, to keep the other person on the phone as long as possible. Second, I want to get them off the script. I find that much more amusing personally.
-TT
Moving static requests back up into the kernel is a neat trick, to be sure. But I'd rather have web serving where it belongs: user space. The idea of being able to serve a page to every user on the planet five times over on a given day from my web server sounds nice on paper, but not very useful in real life.
Having a bit of up close and personal AIX experience, I feel they should work on making their kernel a bit more stable, anyway. This is simply posturing for a benchmark, probably not real useful in a real-world scenario, and to be frank, I think IBM knows better.
Their first "customer" was touted as Larry Wilcox. If the name doesn't ring a bell, then how about "the white guy on CHiPs"?
If their "hypercomputer" was as good as they're saying, it's likely that they'd have somebody who is both famous and technically competent speaking for them. Not Eric Estrada's old cohort.
Food for thought.