I saw this on PBS one night when they were talking about Monty Python et al.:-)
Spam contains (again according to Hormel) all of those little bits and pieces of meat which are left over after cutting up hams, beef, chicken, pork, and anything else that stands still long enough for them to cut it up. The stuff goes through a special processing that allows the machines to press it all back together and make it stay together. The pinkish color is from food coloring and not because of any one particularly large ingredient(like ham).
Like Pringles (which got its start because the US Government wanted to get rid of the excess freeze dried potatoes it had stocked since World War II almost thirty years earlier), SPAM got its origin because Hormel (and other meat packing companies) were trying to figure out a way to get rid of the bits and pieces they were left with when producing such things as steaks, hams, and such. By themselves, they were too small to package and sell, but by the addition of some simple ingredients, they were able to create a paste-like consistency which could then be molded, have the excess water removed, and then packed into cans. Pringles, BTW, were made by adding water to the freeze dried potatoes, and then spraying the cookie sheets with a potatoe chip shape which was then baked, salted, and packed. That is why they look so perfectly shaped and all taste the same. There is no frying - only baking and they are each paper thin slices. So a Pringle's can can actually contain as many (if not more) potatoe chips than a regular bag of potatoe chips. It is just that much more efficient.
...it's at least partly motivated by CNet's self-serving sensationalist style...
And can you name any magazine that doesn't twist the truth?
Example: When the branch Dividians camp was attacked I just happened to know a person who worked for the ATF. When I went over to his house after he'd gotten back from having been at the camp when the attack happened; he had the actual report given to the Sec. of the Treasury (and why ATF reports to them I have no idea). I read most of the report (it was quite large - about four inches thick if I remember correctly) and then he gave me six magazines and two newspaper reports to read. Not a single one accurately reported what was in the report. Not one.
They publish a biased hatchet-job article...
Yeah? So? It is what we are moving towards which may not be the best thing in the world but obviously the information was available to everyone before CNet decided to glorify it. If the CEO had not wanted his information so readily available why didn't he have his team just remove all references to himself?
They publish personal information about someone...
Isn't that what I said when I said:...It's ok to do anything you want so long as it doesn't involve me...???
Or, in other words, it is ok to pull up all sorts of information about Benjamin Franklin, Paul Reveree, Mao Tsi Tung, and others (or maybe even Steve Jobs) - but it isn't ok to pull up information about the CEO of Google? And yes - they went a little far by talking about his wife, his pets, his eating habits, and where would be a good place to kidnap him. I grant you that. And yes! They should have allowed him to at least respond to the article. But it is their paper and they can do whatever they want to with it. Just like Google can do whatever they want to with Google. Google wants to sell ads and make money. CNet wants to sell ads and make money. Although most probably accidental - it probably has centered attention onto CNet like never before. Which is good for business. Bad for reputation - but generally speaking it is good for business. And PLEASE! Don't misconstrue that this is an endorsement of CNet's actions! It is just that I know enough about business to realize that anything that gets your company's name out there is ultimately good for business. (Unless you are engaged in criminal activity, subversion, or anything else that is illegal. Oh wait that would mean....;-) )
In response...
Yeah, and look at how that response was taken. Blown all out of porportion to its actual size.
I don't know why some...
It is simple. The response is a knee-jerk reaction on the part of the CEO. Just like Congress passing the Patriot Act was a knee-jerk reaction to 9/11. Knee-jerk reactions are usually bad. The absolute worst in some cases. (Like the Armadillo's reaction to surprise. It leaps into the air and curls up into a ball. This defense works great against predators - but not so great against vehicles travelling 60-70-80mph. They tend to go splat.)
The current message from ZDNet is yet another knee-jerk reaction to Google's action with an attempt at British humor. (Which, it must be said, does not always go over well with Americans since we do now have over 200 years of differences between us.) Believe me - it will all eventually blow over/out and things will return to their mundane ways very soon.:-)
I fail to see why the CEO should have his panties in a bunch.
It is because it wasn't his hand that was in his panties!:-P
Truthfully though, this is one of those "It's ok to do anything you want so long as it doesn't involve me," kind of things. It is pretty much the same with anyone. So long as it is so-and-so over there it is ok but when it hits home base people get upset. You know - the right to privacy (yeah right! In this day and age that is all but gone) thing lawyers and civil rights people keep yelling about. It is one of those things people like the CEO of Google never gave a second thought too. After all - information wants to be free, free beer, free sex, free......hmmmmmmmmmmmm. Actually - none of it is free. Somebody is always paying in some way if you think about it and in this case - it's the CEO who is paying. In bad publicity and (possibily) in other ways as well. It probably would have done him a lot more good to just have played it down. Like "Yeah, so what?" and gone on. Dead panning it would have made it a non-issue. Instead, now it is a world wide issue.:-/
1. A human being is born, lives, and then dies. 2. A corporation is born, may be revived many times (by changing those who run it), and can eventually die.
1. If a human being kills another human being it is called murder. 2. If a corporation kills another corporation it is called a take-over, buy-out, etc... and is perfectly legal. Even though the other corporation dies a (sometimes) violent death. (Like being driven into bankruptcy.)
1. If a human being talks about shortcomings of someone else - it is not considered slander or terms for legal battles (for the most part) so long as it is truthful. 2. If a human being (or corporation) talks about shortcomings of another corporation - it IS grounds for legal battles of all sorts and kinds even if what the person/company is talking about IS the truth. (As the recent Mike Lyons problems can attest to.)
1. A single human being does NOT usually have enough money to influence the government to get unhealthy, stupid, ignorant, laws passed that would take away a fellow citizen's rights. 2. A corporation can draw upon millions (and sometimes billions) of dollars to hire lobbiests, create fake companies which will write fake letters using dead people's names and addresses to make local, state, and federal legislators think that what people want is what is being written to them. (And even though the act of writing fake letters falls under mail fraud - no one seems to be prosecuted for it. And companies justify doing this "because everyone else is doing it and we have to protect ourselves from this kind of chicanery.")
Seems to me that as long as you own a business - anything goes.
If the Corvette can't stop, Darwin will notify the next of kin.
Too true.:-)
And simply saying that researchers...
True again - but! Just dumping problem into other's laps and making them run around like an ant's nest that we disturbed is not the act of a rational person thinking logically. It is the emotional response of someone who (in some cases) just wants the attention. The question is harm or help. Which does it do? Since just dumping can create panic I do not see a lot of help being generated here. Especially with those who just dump the problem without providing a solution.
I didn't ask the question about how long...
Got it.
So I don't have an answer...
I agree. There will always be people who act without thinking first. It is a part of life.
Better late than never doesn't apply in many cases...
Here, I beg to differ. We are not talking atomic bombs, arson, terrorist attacks, or anything outside of dealing with software problems. Software problems have been around for decades now and it isn't, in many cases, going to mean all routers, programs, or other software related programs are going to stop working because of the bug. It is just that there is a bug and how do you handle pointing out that there is a bug. Now, if the bug causes entire cities to go haywire - that would be pretty important. If the bug derailed trains - that would be really important. But if something like a router will continue to work while the company works on the problem - that is something else. The magnitude of the problem is also an issue. Something that endangers life (human or otherwise) should be disclosed as soon as possible so the fewest number of people are affected by it. Something that has no effect on living creatures should be something that can be held back a bit. And yeah - what about bank accounts, checking accounts, credit cards, and the like. Those affect living creatures but not directly. To put that another way - you could lose money (but your bank is covered by FDIC right?) but you won't lose your life. Unless you owed money to be mob or something.
If Cisco can't or won't adapt...
Here is actually the crux of the matter. It isn't that Cicso, Yahoo, Google, The New York Times, or any other company doesn't want to change - it is that it is just a problem of numbers. Past a certain point a corporation has too many people doing too many things to halt the entire process and go in a different direction. Which is where the problem comes in.
In any case you wish to talk about - the larger any organism becomes the slower it becomes as well. (Even in reproduction - which is why it has to be pumped up.;-) ) Bulls start off as calves. Quarterbacks as little kids. (Think about watching a game on TV - how many times do you see the Quarterback crash into walls, people on the sidelines, etc.... - it is because he can't stop on a dime.) Nothing, once it gets past a certain point/age can stop like little kids, colts, calfs, and the like can do. And that reason is because the older creatures have more mass. Just like companies tend to become bigger. The more mass (people) you add, the slower it (the company) goes and the harder it is to change directions.
So it isn't a matter of "can't" or "won't" - it is just simple common sense. Which is why the Corvette scenario just doesn't work. You are trying to make a charging bull back into a baby calf and I can not see that ever happening. Especially if you want a product that is both cheap to make/sell and works reasonably well. It has to be mass produced, which means thousands of units stored in warehouses around the world and even if an update were ready the instant a problem were found you would still have the mass distribution problems equa
Here is one of the many e-mails I do on a weekly basis. This one was to LinkSys (Cisco) routers which, since it ties in with this discussion, I thought I'd post so you can see what I mean by talking to the company. Granted - this is NOT an earth shattering exploit - but it is still along the same lines as what is being talked about here.
Thank you very much for taking the time to give us such valuable feedback. Rest assured that we shall continue to exert our best efforts in order to meet and even exceed your needs and expectations. Please feel free to get in touch with us again should you have other queries. I will forward this concern to the appropriate department as well.
Thank you once again for contacting Linksys Customer Support.
If you have further questions, please send us an E-mail at support@linksys.com so that we may further assist you.
Sincerely,
Christian Lara C. Diamante Linksys - A Division of Cisco Systems, Inc. Product Support Specialist 1-800-326-7114 support@linksys.com
Customer 07/27/2005 10:14 AM
I just purchased a LinkSys wireless router (WRT54G) and everything came up fine and works fine (although someone should check the English on some of the sentences). Anyway, I was using an SMC wireless router and there is one thing missing from the LinkSys web page: logout. I know - you just go to where ever else it is you wish to go. Think of it as closure. You open the web page, do whatever, and then you close the web page. Only, with LinkSys - you don't close the web page. So that makes people wonder if they've left the web pages open to anyone who wants to just come in and muck around with their system.
You see, with a login and logout you have a flag which says someone either has or they have not logged in to the box. If someone logs out of the box and then someone else tries to read the history of the web browser or even just tries to use the back button, the box would know if the person was still logged in or not and could just put up a blank web page with something like "You are not logged in" or something like that. That would give peace of mind to everyone who owns a LinkSys router.
Just a thought.
BTW: I just noticed that your comment web page does not have a "Preview" button so someone can make sure that what they typed and how they typed it could be reviewed before sending it on. Again, I know you can just scroll back - but why do you think all of the forums on the net have this capability? Because people need and use it - that's why. Another "Just a thought" thing.:-)
Notice that I do not attack them, condemn them, or anything like that. I tell them the facts of what the current set up is, I tell them what I think will improve things, say thank you, and leave. And you know what - this method works very well. I have seen more positive things happen using the above method than when someone has screamed, ranted, raved, or tried to grab their fifteen seconds of fame. And I have done the above for LOTS of companies and gotten LOTS of things done. And for my time and patience in these matters I've been given free programs, extra time on leased programs, and acknowlegements in programs going all the way back to the 1980s. That's what doing things this way will get you. Lots of fame and nice benefits sometimes. Not always - but sometimes.
Yes! Two years is way too long. 3-6 months or up to 18 months on something that would require rewriting huge chunks of code (like maybe 3/4 of a given application). But for the norm - 3-6 months or maybe a year.
Our software cycle runs at a six month cycle. Every six months we pump out another release/update/changes. One of the three. Every two years we do major changes like complete rewrites of interfaces and such.
So unless it was a really big change (like the entire interface had to be rewritten) - two years is way too long. So they were justified in taking them to task.
1. You can't use a Corvette because a Corvette only holds two people. That would mean that you are dealing with a small company of less than twenty people (probably). So yes, a Corvette could stop. (Although at a 1/4 of a mile it would be really close still.)
1a. The reason I said a bus, train, or plane is because they are all representative of large corporations (which was in the original message). Large coporations contain hundreds if not thousands of people. Like Cisco Corporation has in it. Thus, it is like a bus, train, or plane. But let's examine your analogy of the Corvette. Let's see - you are 1/4 of a mile away from the bridge, and let's say there are six people hanging on to the back of the Corvette. You are talking to them and not really paying any attention to the road when one of them begins to scream at you. You still have less than 10 seconds to respond but it takes you nine of those seconds to just get the person to stop screaming. It take another couple of seconds for them to say the bridge is out and another two seconds for you to turn around and stomp your foot on the brake. At 100mph it still takes the Corvette approximately 146ft to come to a complete stop. That means that the screamer would have to start screaming 3/4 of a mile away from the bridge. Or to put that another way - they'd have to be psychic because the bridge isn't in view until you are almost at the 1/4 of a mile mark. This doesn't also mention that all of those people who were hanging on to the Corvette would be dead. Thrown from the car as it tries to go from 100mph to 0mph as quickly as possible. (And not to mention that Corvettes are notorious for flipping in these types of situations because they are so heavy in the front and light in the back.) So even your fast, sexy Corvette isn't much better. Unless you just like sacrificing your employees (ie: making them take the blame for the bad software your hotrod company produced). It's not quite so good of an analogy now - is it?
2. It may take a blackhat 5 minutes to develop and release an exploit. Especially when someone who is acting like a two year old goes out and starts screaming about how to do the exploit. Grown-ups try to work with other grown-ups to produce something to help others. Children throw temper tantrums.
2a. The one question/statement you didn't ask was - how long should someone wait before exposing a problem. My answer would be eight to ten months minimum. So long as the company isn't BS'ing you and is working with you - then help them. When they stop trying to help - you should re-evaluate. But so long as they are willing to work with you or keep you informed of their progress - then I'd work with them rather than against them.
2b. It is a given that a blackhat can (and usually does) find and then exploit problems. The thing is though that if you keep your e-mails where you have warned a company about an exploit and the company does nothing - then you can come out and show everyone that the company was warned about the problem but did nothing. That shows negligence on the part of the company and opens them to lawsuits. Companies (for the most part) hate lawsuits because they cost time and money. That is why companies try to fix whatever problem a user brings to their attention. It is in their best interest to do so. But! Just as in Jesus Christ Superstar where Christ sings
"Surely your not saying we have the resources to take the poor from their lot. There will be poor always, pathetically struggling, look at the good things we've got."
I say "Surely your not saying companies have the resources to cure all evil plots. There will be blackhats always, trying to write code that, will steal all that we've got. Think - about upgrades. Keep, your passwords safe. Or you'll be lost, and you'll be sorry, when everything's gone!"
Conclusion:
While it is true methodologies are changing - they are not changing
I meant - you have to give them enough time to make the changes. If you jump in front of the bus in the last ten feet you and them will get killed. If you jump up and down at 1/4 of a mile they'd not be able to do anything about the oncoming disaster. 1/2 a mile and maybe they'd survive. One mile and they would survive.
The same holds true for how you approach trying to get a problem fixed in software and hardware. Give a company a day, week, or even half a month and they can't fix anything. Give them a month and they may be able to come up with a spitwad fix. Give them a few months (like three) and maybe they can do a bit better. Six months will probably mean a fix.
Heard of both of them. We deliver to the aerospace industry. We've used Oracle before but use our own db written inhouse. (Although we are looking at MySQL as a possible alternative.) Speaking of which:
Oracle => MySQL? IBM's DB2? Sequel? and the others who deliver via Linux VmWare => Can't say. Have never had to use it. I just usually dual boot.
Loki => SDL maybe? But truly, even though I own four games put out by Loki; the gaming market under Linux is more geared towards MMORPGs than Heroes of Might & Magic. Windows, being the larger market for games sort of meant that Loki was doomed unless it came out with its own game(s). Instead, they decided to go with conversion of games to the Linux desktop. Unfortunately, most people already had all of the games they converted which meant that few, if any, people would buy those games. Not that the market wasn't there but there just were not enough people who only had Linux and so needed everything Loki had to offer.
Loki was ahead of its time in some ways (like SDL) - they just needed to come up with some unique things to use the SDL with so only Loki was doing the selling rather than software which was on the downside of the bell curve.
All corporations (I'm talking about large corporations with hundreds or thousands of employees) are like trains, planes, or other large pieces of equipment. They can not stop and/or turn on a dime. (As the saying goes.)
As in my previous posting on this subject - think of a bus which is going madly down the road at 100mph. Within a mile of where the bus (ie: the company) is is a bridge which has collapsed (ie: the problem). If you start a mile back from the bridge you can easily stop the bus and save everyone (ie: anyone who uses the company's product). If you wait until there is only 1/2 of a mile the bus can still be saved but they might have to slow down a lot faster and they could blow some tires and maybe have an accident. (Thus hurting some of their customers.) Or you could wait until there is only 1/4 of a mile and try to stop the bus. Here, since a bus travelling 100mph travels 100 * (5280ft/60/60) = 146.6666ft per second. It means that the bus has less than 10 seconds to stop. Most porbably, unless the bus driver causes the bus to fall over onto its side - the bus will most likely go over the bridge and kill everyone.
The same holds true for talking about problems in ANY WAY, SHAPE, or FORM when it comes to computer software or computer hardware. You can't just jump out there and start screaming there is a problem because the bus can't stop that fast to prevent disaster. Nor can you tell a company about a problem, wait a couple of hours, days, or even weeks and get mad because nothing has been done. It takes a while to bring the bus to a stop, pick up on what you have to say, and then to start back up again.
What's a good rule of thumb? Three to six months minimum depending upon how severe the problem is. If it is just a one or two line coding problem - three months. If it is a major change due to parts of a program having to be either completely re-written or major portions having to be changed - six months. And remember - that is a MINIMUM requirement. Normal length of time to fix? More probably two to three times those minimums. That's because you are not the only person who may have found a problem as well as the fact that they are trying to put in new features that have been requested. The same people work on both things at the same time.
So people who find problems need to think in months - not weeks, days, hours, minutes, or seconds. Because that is how long it will take to fix a problem. In fact, sometimes something that looks really simple turns out to be a real mess to fix. It all depends upon the way in which some software was originally written. So you can't base how fast the company fixes something by what you may think is a fair amount of time. You just need to be patient while the company does what it can to fix the problem.
Now, as for the company - it is extremely important for companies to keep everyone up-to-date on any/all progress made to fix a certain problem. This can even be automated somewhat. But it is very important not to try to hide the problem because as anyone knows - that is what gets a company in trouble. Trying to hide things that is.
We have done this. There were two ways we went about doing this for everyone (windows and linux):
1. Use static libraries (bigger executable) 2. Put all shared libraries in with the package in the same directory as the executable and only reference those libraries. (Larger distribution but smaller program.)
Those are the only two ways I know to distribute an application that is of a commercial nature.:-/
(Now, is that a sarcastic remark about the sarcasm? I forget if sarcasm can be recursive or if it is only curses which are recursive. And yes - that's a joke! )
After reading the article and some of the feedback, a few thoughts came to me:
Not only is this probably because of the short sightedness of those now in command of HP (just like there have been one or two short sighted leaders/workers at Apple and other companies), but I also have to wonder if this isn't one of those things the OSS movement has impacted. (Not to mention the big move to have everything done in a third world country where labor is cheap.)
Now, before anyone starts screaming here - think about it. To a business person not in the know (that being that many major corporations are pouring millions into OSS software because the returns are great when everything is done correctly) see OSS as free programmers. That all of those dollars that HP has been spending on research can now be done for free because any project they come up with and put out there will be worked on by hundreds, thousands, or even millions of people without HP ever having to pay a red cent for the work. In a weird, mixed up way, they are right. They are wrong only because it places them at the mercy of anyone and everyone - but so long as the current OSS outlook is maintained - then HP really does not need researchers for a lot of things software wise. (After all, remember that HP has switched to Linux for their main OS.)
And then there is the third world thing. On the average, the wages paid in a country like India is one half to one tenth of what is paid to someone here in America. So what if one person is brilliant? If there are billions of people living in a country then there will probably be at least one or two people living there who can do the same job as that one person in America. (After all, the US only has around 300 million people living in it and India has around 4 billion so the odds are good there are at least two people who can do the same kind of work.) As many software companies are finding out - in America you can hire twenty people to work on a software project - OR - you can hire two hundred to three hundred people to work on the same project in a third world country like India.
So there are three things working against America retaining its position as a leader in research: 1)Cost, 2)availability of people willing to work at low wages (ie: the grunts needed to carry out the tedious jobs as well as the advanced research), and 3)OSS Software.
Last, but not least, the motto of businesses everywhere is: If it ain't broke - don't fix it! The printers work - so why make them better? (After all, they can do photo quality now - who needs holographic capabilities?) The computers work - so why worry about making them better. Let someone else do that and then just include the new components in to the new machines. Ah! Mediocrity. The thing most businesses and governments are full of. (Mediocrity is also why we are not in space yet in a big way. Just let things float along. Don't make waves. Don't spill the cart. Let inertia take over. Ahhhhhhhhhh.)
Printers have had built-in print heads for a while. HP originally had their printers made with built-in print heads. Then, when deskjets came along HP et al decided to separate the print head from the printer because after a while the holes would clog up from dried ink. If you read up on these Refill the Ink Cartridge sites you will see that even they say to only refill the ink cartridge three or four times. This is because, just like with any tank, there is a build up of junk in the bottom of the tank which will eventually clog up the print head.
Which means keeping the print head separate from the printer is a better idea than putting the print head back in to the printer and just selling the ink. UNLESS they have come up with some way to flush the print head and thus clean it out. (And I mean really flush the print heads - not the Clean the Print Head kind of thing.)
If you were to ask me how HP could improve on its printers my #1 suggestion would be for them to increase the height of the printer by about three inches and to use this additional space to make the ink cartridges larger. Ink cartridges are rigged (by their overall size) to fail after a ream of paper. Some even earlier. This is a stupid, arbitrary limitation imposed by the manufacturers so they can sell more goods and make money. (ie: Planned obsolescence.) There are times when I am working on a document and I have to print it all out for review. These documents are sometimes two or three inches thick. This means I go through an ink cartridge in one setting sometimes. And sometimes I go through two cartridges. (Luckily a lot of times I can just send the document electronically now so this need is going down but then there is always the one or two managers who still want to read an actual document.)
In any event, a greatly expanded (like two to three times the current size) cartridge (especially the color cartridges) would improve everyone's thoughts about printing and I know I (as well as a couple of my other graphic artist friends) would jump on being able to buy a printer which had extra large ink cartridges.
My second wish would be for a cartridge which was made to be refilled. HP might want everyone to buy their ink, but whatever company comes out with a refillable cartridge that can be refilled easily (like how some copiers are easily refilled) would really make my day.
So here is my revolutionary idea: (Yeah - right!):-)
Let's say there is something called a print head.
Let's also say that there is something called a color cartridge.
Let's also say that the two are separate entities. That the color cartridge is the container for the ink that we use to print (No matter the color.), and the print head does all of the printing.
Let's say that the print head has some sort of part to it that allows a user/customer to screw the color cartridge on to (or off of) the print head. (In other words - it is not all one unit like it is now, but two separate units.)
Ok. Given the above, the way in which you change a color cartridge is by removing both the print head and the color cartridge from the printer, unscrew the color cartridge, and replace it with a new color cartridge. If the print head begins to print badly, you buy a new print head only, remove the color cartridge from the old print head, and put it on the new print head.
The manufacturer only guarantees that the ink they sell will work with their printer and that if stupid people unscrew the print head without first turning the thing upside down (so the ink doesn't run out all over the place) - it is their own fault.
With this idea, HP (or whoever) would only have to sell an initial print head and color cartridge (or maybe four print heads and color cartridges). All of the print heads would be the same size et al. Only the size of the color cartridge would change. Further, ink refills could come in cheap plastic squeeze me container
Actually, the statement is made based upon friends and family who live on farms here and the people I know who have traveled to China (recently and not like twenty years ago). Although there are a lot of people living in the cities (just like in the US), there are still a lot of people who live outside of the cities. (And I believe the tally is that there are still more people living outside of the major cities than within the major cities at this point.)
As a "for instance" kind of remark - you state that "Did you know the total number of cellphones sold in China last year was 60 million?" The answer would be no - I did not. However, even out of the 1.3B, 60M is not even half of the people. It is 1/50th of the people there. Even the "We're talking about a country who's number [of] Internet users just hit 130million and whose purchasing power will soon rival the top developed-countries." Again, 130M versus 1.3B is only 1/10th of all of the people in China. Further, the 130M people probably overlap the 60M cellphone buyers meaning that only about 1/10th of all of the people in China need or can use the products.
Now, don't get me wrong. China is trying its best to yank itself out of the medieval period (or maybe I should say the Mao Tsi Tung era [and I hope I spelled that correctly!]) and into a better way of life for its people. But just because a few million people over there have bought electronic gadgets doesn't mean everyone there can (or will) do so.
In the US, of the almost 300M people living here, only about 20M people work on farms across the US. And no - I haven't gone to the USG site for the statistics. It is just a best guess based upon most farmers being husband and wife, two kids, and farm hands (maybe around two or three). Further thinking that probably around 10% of the people living in an industrialized country being the ones who supply all of the food (livestock and grains), clothing, textiles, and the like. I believe that in China the reverse is still true. That being that the majority of people still work in or around a farm. Now - that doesn't mean poverty. It doesn't mean no electricity and it doesn't mean some of these people would not want a computer, phone, and the like. But what it does mean is that for each farm they may only buy one phone or one tv or one whatever and share it between themselves. And they do that not only because these devices are expensive to buy - but because that is how farm-life is many times. Everyone shares everything. Which is a lot different than big city life usually. (And if you don't believe me try to go borrow your neighbor's car or maybe even a lamp for usage. Unless they are really good friends with you they will usually say no.)
According to the map you pointed to I notice that it shows only major and minor cities - not towns and villages. China is a big place. Any idea how well the electric grid works in the smaller areas?
I'm in agreement with the other posters in that if China wants a really cheap PC to be both the entertainment center as well as the TV center - then let them use a cheap PC with a TV video card in it. After all, you can get a PC for around $200.00 now on-line and a cheap monitor (CRT at least) on-line as well. The whole thing can sit in the entertainment center or shelves and then they'd have a decent picture as well as a way to play games if they wanted.
There are only a few problems with this though:
1. China still has a huge number of farmers who do not have electricity. 2. Most of the people living outside of the major cities have hardly any money at all and get most of their news from radios or TVs which are run by generator and are communal radios/TVs. 3. Unlike the US - the people of China do not have the "I've gotta have it!" kind of outlook. It is more like how the US used to be. The "If it won't solve my problems I don't want it." kind of outlook. And their major problems are food, clean water, medicines, and shelter. Electricity would be nice but just having enough fuel to keep the fire burning is better in some areas. (I'm not saying all of China is backwards or anything like that. Just that in some areas they live with the land and have more basic needs than some electronic gadget.)
There was a story about Africa from some years back. (I know a couple of them actually.) Anyway, people thought that it would be a great idea to send tractors over so the people of Africa could plow the fields and produce more goods. Only they forgot that there weren't any oil refineries, gas stations, and the like in place yet. So all of the equipment just sat and rusted away. This situation is similar to that problem (IMHO). There are huge numbers of people who live so far below the poverty line that we tend to just push them out of our minds. So a few million people in China may be able to buy a box to watch TV and play games with. Well, what about the other 3.5 Billion people who are just trying to make it day by day? They aren't going to buy anything.
Unless we treat them like we do some of the other countries. Where we give them our money so they can buy our products. Sounds crazy I know, but the US does that to several countries. As far as I can tell, we do that to help jumpstart those countries' economies. But that's just my opinion. What's yours?
I would have to agree. Where I work I needed to have the cross platform skills since I worked on Windows95, Windows98se, WindowsNT, Windows2000, and now WindowsXP. I also had to port programs from HP machines to Macintoshes and then to SGIs running Unix. Or try the Perkin-Elmer to Vax 11/780 via Intergraph's 68K Dual projection Micro Workstation. We had to be able to both program as well as run these systems and integrate communications between them.
Presently, we are just doing Windows 2000/XP with SGIs and Suns but we are considering getting some Macs with OS X on them because we are beginning to have some requests for those to run our software. (This is not to mention all of the hundreds of laptops we have to support.)
Heh. At least I'm not having to support the old Univacs, Honeywell 66/60 systems, and NAS9000s we used to have to support. Those were a lot harder to maintain.:-)
But yes. The more systems you know how to use, keep up and running, and even program on - the better it is for you. The fewer systems you know the easier it is for your boss to say "Ok, nice to have worked with you - NEXT!" In this case it truly is that "more is better". Just like programming languages. More is better because each language has its special things it can do. And in some cases you need to know different languages so you can draw upon what you learned using those other languages and so you can apply it to a given problem.
(Remember the old problem with FTP and trying to transfer binary files? People consistently forgot to tell FTP these were binary files. Or the problem where ascii files were transferred as binary files but the endianness of binary files would make the ascii files not view properly. This is only one of the things system admins used to have to worry about. (In the pre-Netscape et al days.) Now it is more like why someone can not see a given site or other computer on the network. Or what part of a Linux update have we not downloaded yet? Or even "Ya got another virus? Ok, be right over." [There is one person whom I've de-virused many times and I have threatened to just take them off of the net if they muck around with the virus detection software again!])
Anyway, as I've said - my vote would be that "yes, you need to know multiple systems and OSs as well as multiple languages (scripting or otherwise)."
Actually, my question is: Why does it cost $1,800.00 per month?
Whatever happened to tapping into the already existing T1 line the city uses, connect it to a router (ie: 1 TCP/IP address), and then just setting up a bunch of sub-routers with the 192.168.2.XXX ids? At today's prices it should only cost about $100.00 max per wireless unit. These are set up a block apart (so say a 10 block area which means 10 routers or a one time fee of $1,000.00).
Once set up it can't cost them $1,800.00 a month to run the routers. After all, the most costly consumer DSL system costs only around $60.00 a month and that includes service to the house. Since this isn't a service the city is doing for big business (after all - big businesses will get their own routers et al); it doesn't have to be a multibillion gigawatt service. Just a standard DSL type service which is going to be shared by all of the users.
If Orlando assigned whoever it is that does the city's router control to begin with to also work on this when something goes down - there shouldn't be any cost increase in that area either. Provided the person knows what they are doing in the first place.
So the city of Orlando saying it costs them $1,800.00 a month is a heads-up to say that Orlando did not do the more cost effective method and instead went for something a bit more fancy than just a standard DSL setup to some wireless routers.
And truth to tell - this is the kind of BS that people who do not have a clue in government positions do all of the time. It is a means to justify them not having free wireless. They do these things in such a way that the results make it look like they tried when in truth - they didn't. Then they go "But we tried and it just doesn't work." Well, that's just BS. They didn't try - they probably didn't want to do it really but were being forced by some voters to try and this is how they plan to just get around the whole problem. There is also probably some company behind this farce that is afraid their little slice of the pie is going to be threatened by free wireless access. Well, they should get a clue. The free and for sale usage of the internet can co-exist easily and they do not impact each other at all. Because those who are not going to buy internet usage are just going to get it in some other way and will probably never pay for it. While those who do want their own interface will get their own private lines for personal use (like me and like the millions of others who do this). If you want my honest opinion (and you wouldn't be reading this otherwise) - I think the people of Orlando should ask their mayor why the city of Orlando is mismanaging the free wireless DSL setup so badly. Here is a hint:After initial costs it shouldn't cost more than around $300.00 a month to run the entire thing and that includes the additional cost of having someone check the wireless DSL setup once a day and includes a new unit once a month as well. (Remember that the checking of the network can be automated so an e-mail is sent to the manager if a node goes down and only one division is probably responsible for keeping the lines up. Further, if setup properly, the subnet should run by itself and stay up without a lot of maintenance.)
For reference - check out the numerous Google incidents (sp?) of people setting up free wireless networks in other cities, for schools, and for blocks of people. Heck, Slashdot has had numerous articles on people setting up wireless networks and it costing almost nothing for everyone. Further, do you really think that McDonald's would set up wireless access points in their restuarants if it cost them all that much? What about Starbucks? Burger King? Think about it. All of these places are putting in standard DSL lines. Nothing fancy. Probably costs them less than $50.00 a month and they are probably tapping into a pre-existing DSL line they use to report income back to the home office. Same set-up as Orlando should be doing.
My question in all of this is - why not go buy a cheap water pump for a fish tank and just recycle the water? After all, if the water were pumped back in to the large garbage can with ice in it - it would cool back down again. (Although - granted - not as much as it was maybe.)
Further, if plastic tubing were used instead of switching to copper the cooling would be less overall, but the plastic tubing could be threaded in and out of the wire mesh on the fan (so you don't need the tie-wraps). Because less cooling was being done it would mean the water would retain its coolness longer and thus this should offset the rate at which the ice in the garbage can melts.
Last, but not least - if you look at the picture on the site - the garbage can has bottles with ice in them. Which means that the bottles were frozen. Something you don't usually buy at a store. So they must have come from the guy's freezer.
Still, let's look at a different scenario: The kitchen area has a door maybe which can be closed or blocked off and maybe there is a window in that room where the heat generated by the freezer can be dissipated. So all the guy really needs to do is to cool down a part of the apartment rather than the entire apartment. This would allow for the ice maker to make ice in the kitchen while the other part of the house is cooled by the ice that was made.
Last, but not least, A/Cs are not all that expensive anymore. For instance Home Depot has an a/c on sale for $80.00 which is only a little more than three times the cost for this guy's system (and doesn't have all of the mess). Lowes has one for around $79.00. The lowest price (I'm sorry, but I forget where I saw it - maybe Walgreens) for an air conditioner was around $60.00 for a 3,000BTU unit which would cool a regular sized room quite well.
This is a nice experiment - but if you could get a few friends to chip in - then everyone could have a cool summer.:-)
Slashdot Mirror
Specially
Prepared
Assorted
Meats
I saw this on PBS one night when they were talking about Monty Python et al.
Spam contains (again according to Hormel) all of those little bits and pieces of meat which are left over after cutting up hams, beef, chicken, pork, and anything else that stands still long enough for them to cut it up. The stuff goes through a special processing that allows the machines to press it all back together and make it stay together. The pinkish color is from food coloring and not because of any one particularly large ingredient(like ham).
Like Pringles (which got its start because the US Government wanted to get rid of the excess freeze dried potatoes it had stocked since World War II almost thirty years earlier), SPAM got its origin because Hormel (and other meat packing companies) were trying to figure out a way to get rid of the bits and pieces they were left with when producing such things as steaks, hams, and such. By themselves, they were too small to package and sell, but by the addition of some simple ingredients, they were able to create a paste-like consistency which could then be molded, have the excess water removed, and then packed into cans. Pringles, BTW, were made by adding water to the freeze dried potatoes, and then spraying the cookie sheets with a potatoe chip shape which was then baked, salted, and packed. That is why they look so perfectly shaped and all taste the same. There is no frying - only baking and they are each paper thin slices. So a Pringle's can can actually contain as many (if not more) potatoe chips than a regular bag of potatoe chips. It is just that much more efficient.
...it's at least partly motivated by CNet's self-serving sensationalist style...
...It's ok to do anything you want so long as it doesn't involve me...???
;-) )
:-)
And can you name any magazine that doesn't twist the truth?
Example: When the branch Dividians camp was attacked I just happened to know a person who worked for the ATF. When I went over to his house after he'd gotten back from having been at the camp when the attack happened; he had the actual report given to the Sec. of the Treasury (and why ATF reports to them I have no idea). I read most of the report (it was quite large - about four inches thick if I remember correctly) and then he gave me six magazines and two newspaper reports to read. Not a single one accurately reported what was in the report. Not one.
They publish a biased hatchet-job article...
Yeah? So? It is what we are moving towards which may not be the best thing in the world but obviously the information was available to everyone before CNet decided to glorify it. If the CEO had not wanted his information so readily available why didn't he have his team just remove all references to himself?
They publish personal information about someone...
Isn't that what I said when I said:
Or, in other words, it is ok to pull up all sorts of information about Benjamin Franklin, Paul Reveree, Mao Tsi Tung, and others (or maybe even Steve Jobs) - but it isn't ok to pull up information about the CEO of Google? And yes - they went a little far by talking about his wife, his pets, his eating habits, and where would be a good place to kidnap him. I grant you that. And yes! They should have allowed him to at least respond to the article. But it is their paper and they can do whatever they want to with it. Just like Google can do whatever they want to with Google. Google wants to sell ads and make money. CNet wants to sell ads and make money. Although most probably accidental - it probably has centered attention onto CNet like never before. Which is good for business. Bad for reputation - but generally speaking it is good for business. And PLEASE! Don't misconstrue that this is an endorsement of CNet's actions! It is just that I know enough about business to realize that anything that gets your company's name out there is ultimately good for business. (Unless you are engaged in criminal activity, subversion, or anything else that is illegal. Oh wait that would mean....
In response...
Yeah, and look at how that response was taken. Blown all out of porportion to its actual size.
I don't know why some...
It is simple. The response is a knee-jerk reaction on the part of the CEO. Just like Congress passing the Patriot Act was a knee-jerk reaction to 9/11. Knee-jerk reactions are usually bad. The absolute worst in some cases. (Like the Armadillo's reaction to surprise. It leaps into the air and curls up into a ball. This defense works great against predators - but not so great against vehicles travelling 60-70-80mph. They tend to go splat.)
The current message from ZDNet is yet another knee-jerk reaction to Google's action with an attempt at British humor. (Which, it must be said, does not always go over well with Americans since we do now have over 200 years of differences between us.) Believe me - it will all eventually blow over/out and things will return to their mundane ways very soon.
I fail to see why the CEO should have his panties in a bunch.
:-P
:-/
It is because it wasn't his hand that was in his panties!
Truthfully though, this is one of those "It's ok to do anything you want so long as it doesn't involve me," kind of things. It is pretty much the same with anyone. So long as it is so-and-so over there it is ok but when it hits home base people get upset. You know - the right to privacy (yeah right! In this day and age that is all but gone) thing lawyers and civil rights people keep yelling about. It is one of those things people like the CEO of Google never gave a second thought too. After all - information wants to be free, free beer, free sex, free......hmmmmmmmmmmmm. Actually - none of it is free. Somebody is always paying in some way if you think about it and in this case - it's the CEO who is paying. In bad publicity and (possibily) in other ways as well. It probably would have done him a lot more good to just have played it down. Like "Yeah, so what?" and gone on. Dead panning it would have made it a non-issue. Instead, now it is a world wide issue.
If I were a programmer - I'd use an abstract class for the abstract term. ;-)
Obligatory plug for wxWidgets. :-)
Where the license is free, it works on all platforms, and you can do lots of things with graphics, buttons, dials, etc.... - Just like Qt!
Yes, it is.
For instance:
1. A human being is born, lives, and then dies.
2. A corporation is born, may be revived many times (by changing those who run it), and can eventually die.
1. If a human being kills another human being it is called murder.
2. If a corporation kills another corporation it is called a take-over, buy-out, etc... and is perfectly legal. Even though the other corporation dies a (sometimes) violent death. (Like being driven into bankruptcy.)
1. If a human being talks about shortcomings of someone else - it is not considered slander or terms for legal battles (for the most part) so long as it is truthful.
2. If a human being (or corporation) talks about shortcomings of another corporation - it IS grounds for legal battles of all sorts and kinds even if what the person/company is talking about IS the truth. (As the recent Mike Lyons problems can attest to.)
1. A single human being does NOT usually have enough money to influence the government to get unhealthy, stupid, ignorant, laws passed that would take away a fellow citizen's rights.
2. A corporation can draw upon millions (and sometimes billions) of dollars to hire lobbiests, create fake companies which will write fake letters using dead people's names and addresses to make local, state, and federal legislators think that what people want is what is being written to them. (And even though the act of writing fake letters falls under mail fraud - no one seems to be prosecuted for it. And companies justify doing this "because everyone else is doing it and we have to protect ourselves from this kind of chicanery.")
Seems to me that as long as you own a business - anything goes.
Ok :-) My responses are....
:-)
;-) ) Bulls start off as calves. Quarterbacks as little kids. (Think about watching a game on TV - how many times do you see the Quarterback crash into walls, people on the sidelines, etc.... - it is because he can't stop on a dime.) Nothing, once it gets past a certain point/age can stop like little kids, colts, calfs, and the like can do. And that reason is because the older creatures have more mass. Just like companies tend to become bigger. The more mass (people) you add, the slower it (the company) goes and the harder it is to change directions.
I understand where you are going and...
I agree completely with you.
If the Corvette can't stop, Darwin will notify the next of kin.
Too true.
And simply saying that researchers...
True again - but! Just dumping problem into other's laps and making them run around like an ant's nest that we disturbed is not the act of a rational person thinking logically. It is the emotional response of someone who (in some cases) just wants the attention. The question is harm or help. Which does it do? Since just dumping can create panic I do not see a lot of help being generated here. Especially with those who just dump the problem without providing a solution.
I didn't ask the question about how long...
Got it.
So I don't have an answer...
I agree. There will always be people who act without thinking first. It is a part of life.
Better late than never doesn't apply in many cases...
Here, I beg to differ. We are not talking atomic bombs, arson, terrorist attacks, or anything outside of dealing with software problems. Software problems have been around for decades now and it isn't, in many cases, going to mean all routers, programs, or other software related programs are going to stop working because of the bug. It is just that there is a bug and how do you handle pointing out that there is a bug. Now, if the bug causes entire cities to go haywire - that would be pretty important. If the bug derailed trains - that would be really important. But if something like a router will continue to work while the company works on the problem - that is something else. The magnitude of the problem is also an issue. Something that endangers life (human or otherwise) should be disclosed as soon as possible so the fewest number of people are affected by it. Something that has no effect on living creatures should be something that can be held back a bit. And yeah - what about bank accounts, checking accounts, credit cards, and the like. Those affect living creatures but not directly. To put that another way - you could lose money (but your bank is covered by FDIC right?) but you won't lose your life. Unless you owed money to be mob or something.
If Cisco can't or won't adapt...
Here is actually the crux of the matter. It isn't that Cicso, Yahoo, Google, The New York Times, or any other company doesn't want to change - it is that it is just a problem of numbers. Past a certain point a corporation has too many people doing too many things to halt the entire process and go in a different direction. Which is where the problem comes in.
In any case you wish to talk about - the larger any organism becomes the slower it becomes as well. (Even in reproduction - which is why it has to be pumped up.
So it isn't a matter of "can't" or "won't" - it is just simple common sense. Which is why the Corvette scenario just doesn't work. You are trying to make a charging bull back into a baby calf and I can not see that ever happening. Especially if you want a product that is both cheap to make/sell and works reasonably well. It has to be mass produced, which means thousands of units stored in warehouses around the world and even if an update were ready the instant a problem were found you would still have the mass distribution problems equa
Here is one of the many e-mails I do on a weekly basis. This one was to LinkSys (Cisco) routers which, since it ties in with this discussion, I thought I'd post so you can see what I mean by talking to the company. Granted - this is NOT an earth shattering exploit - but it is still along the same lines as what is being talked about here.
:-)
;-)
Thank you very much for taking the time to give us such valuable feedback. Rest assured that we shall continue to exert our best efforts in order to meet and even exceed your needs and expectations. Please feel free to get in touch with us again should you have other queries. I will forward this concern to the appropriate department as well.
Thank you once again for contacting Linksys Customer Support.
If you have further questions, please send us an E-mail at support@linksys.com so that we may further assist you.
Sincerely,
Christian Lara C. Diamante
Linksys - A Division of Cisco Systems, Inc.
Product Support Specialist
1-800-326-7114
support@linksys.com
Customer 07/27/2005 10:14 AM
I just purchased a LinkSys wireless router (WRT54G) and everything came up fine and works fine (although someone should check the English on some of the sentences). Anyway, I was using an SMC wireless router and there is one thing missing from the LinkSys web page: logout. I know - you just go to where ever else it is you wish to go. Think of it as closure. You open the web page, do whatever, and then you close the web page. Only, with LinkSys - you don't close the web page. So that makes people wonder if they've left the web pages open to anyone who wants to just come in and muck around with their system.
You see, with a login and logout you have a flag which says someone either has or they have not logged in to the box. If someone logs out of the box and then someone else tries to read the history of the web browser or even just tries to use the back button, the box would know if the person was still logged in or not and could just put up a blank web page with something like "You are not logged in" or something like that. That would give peace of mind to everyone who owns a LinkSys router.
Just a thought.
BTW: I just noticed that your comment web page does not have a "Preview" button so someone can make sure that what they typed and how they typed it could be reviewed before sending it on. Again, I know you can just scroll back - but why do you think all of the forums on the net have this capability? Because people need and use it - that's why. Another "Just a thought" thing.
Notice that I do not attack them, condemn them, or anything like that. I tell them the facts of what the current set up is, I tell them what I think will improve things, say thank you, and leave. And you know what - this method works very well. I have seen more positive things happen using the above method than when someone has screamed, ranted, raved, or tried to grab their fifteen seconds of fame. And I have done the above for LOTS of companies and gotten LOTS of things done. And for my time and patience in these matters I've been given free programs, extra time on leased programs, and acknowlegements in programs going all the way back to the 1980s. That's what doing things this way will get you. Lots of fame and nice benefits sometimes. Not always - but sometimes.
By the way - would you like fries with that?
Yes! Two years is way too long. 3-6 months or up to 18 months on something that would require rewriting huge chunks of code (like maybe 3/4 of a given application). But for the norm - 3-6 months or maybe a year.
Our software cycle runs at a six month cycle. Every six months we pump out another release/update/changes. One of the three. Every two years we do major changes like complete rewrites of interfaces and such.
So unless it was a really big change (like the entire interface had to be rewritten) - two years is way too long. So they were justified in taking them to task.
Ok, here are the problems with what you said:
1. You can't use a Corvette because a Corvette only holds two people. That would mean that you are dealing with a small company of less than twenty people (probably). So yes, a Corvette could stop. (Although at a 1/4 of a mile it would be really close still.)
1a. The reason I said a bus, train, or plane is because they are all representative of large corporations (which was in the original message). Large coporations contain hundreds if not thousands of people. Like Cisco Corporation has in it. Thus, it is like a bus, train, or plane. But let's examine your analogy of the Corvette. Let's see - you are 1/4 of a mile away from the bridge, and let's say there are six people hanging on to the back of the Corvette. You are talking to them and not really paying any attention to the road when one of them begins to scream at you. You still have less than 10 seconds to respond but it takes you nine of those seconds to just get the person to stop screaming. It take another couple of seconds for them to say the bridge is out and another two seconds for you to turn around and stomp your foot on the brake. At 100mph it still takes the Corvette approximately 146ft to come to a complete stop. That means that the screamer would have to start screaming 3/4 of a mile away from the bridge. Or to put that another way - they'd have to be psychic because the bridge isn't in view until you are almost at the 1/4 of a mile mark. This doesn't also mention that all of those people who were hanging on to the Corvette would be dead. Thrown from the car as it tries to go from 100mph to 0mph as quickly as possible. (And not to mention that Corvettes are notorious for flipping in these types of situations because they are so heavy in the front and light in the back.) So even your fast, sexy Corvette isn't much better. Unless you just like sacrificing your employees (ie: making them take the blame for the bad software your hotrod company produced). It's not quite so good of an analogy now - is it?
2. It may take a blackhat 5 minutes to develop and release an exploit. Especially when someone who is acting like a two year old goes out and starts screaming about how to do the exploit. Grown-ups try to work with other grown-ups to produce something to help others. Children throw temper tantrums.
2a. The one question/statement you didn't ask was - how long should someone wait before exposing a problem. My answer would be eight to ten months minimum. So long as the company isn't BS'ing you and is working with you - then help them. When they stop trying to help - you should re-evaluate. But so long as they are willing to work with you or keep you informed of their progress - then I'd work with them rather than against them.
2b. It is a given that a blackhat can (and usually does) find and then exploit problems. The thing is though that if you keep your e-mails where you have warned a company about an exploit and the company does nothing - then you can come out and show everyone that the company was warned about the problem but did nothing. That shows negligence on the part of the company and opens them to lawsuits. Companies (for the most part) hate lawsuits because they cost time and money. That is why companies try to fix whatever problem a user brings to their attention. It is in their best interest to do so. But! Just as in Jesus Christ Superstar where Christ sings
"Surely your not saying we have the resources to take the poor from their lot. There will be poor always, pathetically struggling, look at the good things we've got."
I say "Surely your not saying companies have the resources to cure all evil plots. There will be blackhats always, trying to write code that, will steal all that we've got. Think - about upgrades. Keep, your passwords safe. Or you'll be lost, and you'll be sorry, when everything's gone!"
Conclusion:
While it is true methodologies are changing - they are not changing
Obviously you missed the bus stop. :-)
:-)
I meant - you have to give them enough time to make the changes. If you jump in front of the bus in the last ten feet you and them will get killed. If you jump up and down at 1/4 of a mile they'd not be able to do anything about the oncoming disaster. 1/2 a mile and maybe they'd survive. One mile and they would survive.
The same holds true for how you approach trying to get a problem fixed in software and hardware. Give a company a day, week, or even half a month and they can't fix anything. Give them a month and they may be able to come up with a spitwad fix. Give them a few months (like three) and maybe they can do a bit better. Six months will probably mean a fix.
That - is what I meant and thought I had said.
Heard of both of them. We deliver to the aerospace industry. We've used Oracle before but use our own db written inhouse. (Although we are looking at MySQL as a possible alternative.) Speaking of which:
Oracle => MySQL? IBM's DB2? Sequel? and the others who deliver via Linux
VmWare => Can't say. Have never had to use it. I just usually dual boot.
Loki => SDL maybe? But truly, even though I own four games put out by Loki; the gaming market under Linux is more geared towards MMORPGs than Heroes of Might & Magic. Windows, being the larger market for games sort of meant that Loki was doomed unless it came out with its own game(s). Instead, they decided to go with conversion of games to the Linux desktop. Unfortunately, most people already had all of the games they converted which meant that few, if any, people would buy those games. Not that the market wasn't there but there just were not enough people who only had Linux and so needed everything Loki had to offer.
Loki was ahead of its time in some ways (like SDL) - they just needed to come up with some unique things to use the SDL with so only Loki was doing the selling rather than software which was on the downside of the bell curve.
(As I posted about a year or two ago...)
All corporations (I'm talking about large corporations with hundreds or thousands of employees) are like trains, planes, or other large pieces of equipment. They can not stop and/or turn on a dime. (As the saying goes.)
As in my previous posting on this subject - think of a bus which is going madly down the road at 100mph. Within a mile of where the bus (ie: the company) is is a bridge which has collapsed (ie: the problem). If you start a mile back from the bridge you can easily stop the bus and save everyone (ie: anyone who uses the company's product). If you wait until there is only 1/2 of a mile the bus can still be saved but they might have to slow down a lot faster and they could blow some tires and maybe have an accident. (Thus hurting some of their customers.) Or you could wait until there is only 1/4 of a mile and try to stop the bus. Here, since a bus travelling 100mph travels 100 * (5280ft/60/60) = 146.6666ft per second. It means that the bus has less than 10 seconds to stop. Most porbably, unless the bus driver causes the bus to fall over onto its side - the bus will most likely go over the bridge and kill everyone.
The same holds true for talking about problems in ANY WAY, SHAPE, or FORM when it comes to computer software or computer hardware. You can't just jump out there and start screaming there is a problem because the bus can't stop that fast to prevent disaster. Nor can you tell a company about a problem, wait a couple of hours, days, or even weeks and get mad because nothing has been done. It takes a while to bring the bus to a stop, pick up on what you have to say, and then to start back up again.
What's a good rule of thumb? Three to six months minimum depending upon how severe the problem is. If it is just a one or two line coding problem - three months. If it is a major change due to parts of a program having to be either completely re-written or major portions having to be changed - six months. And remember - that is a MINIMUM requirement. Normal length of time to fix? More probably two to three times those minimums. That's because you are not the only person who may have found a problem as well as the fact that they are trying to put in new features that have been requested. The same people work on both things at the same time.
So people who find problems need to think in months - not weeks, days, hours, minutes, or seconds. Because that is how long it will take to fix a problem. In fact, sometimes something that looks really simple turns out to be a real mess to fix. It all depends upon the way in which some software was originally written. So you can't base how fast the company fixes something by what you may think is a fair amount of time. You just need to be patient while the company does what it can to fix the problem.
Now, as for the company - it is extremely important for companies to keep everyone up-to-date on any/all progress made to fix a certain problem. This can even be automated somewhat. But it is very important not to try to hide the problem because as anyone knows - that is what gets a company in trouble. Trying to hide things that is.
We have done this. There were two ways we went about doing this for everyone (windows and linux):
:-/
1. Use static libraries (bigger executable)
2. Put all shared libraries in with the package in the same directory as the executable and only reference those libraries. (Larger distribution but smaller program.)
Those are the only two ways I know to distribute an application that is of a commercial nature.
Only in the last paragraph. :-)
(Now, is that a sarcastic remark about the sarcasm? I forget if sarcasm can be recursive or if it is only curses which are recursive. And yes - that's a joke! )
After reading the article and some of the feedback, a few thoughts came to me:
;-)
Not only is this probably because of the short sightedness of those now in command of HP (just like there have been one or two short sighted leaders/workers at Apple and other companies), but I also have to wonder if this isn't one of those things the OSS movement has impacted. (Not to mention the big move to have everything done in a third world country where labor is cheap.)
Now, before anyone starts screaming here - think about it. To a business person not in the know (that being that many major corporations are pouring millions into OSS software because the returns are great when everything is done correctly) see OSS as free programmers. That all of those dollars that HP has been spending on research can now be done for free because any project they come up with and put out there will be worked on by hundreds, thousands, or even millions of people without HP ever having to pay a red cent for the work. In a weird, mixed up way, they are right. They are wrong only because it places them at the mercy of anyone and everyone - but so long as the current OSS outlook is maintained - then HP really does not need researchers for a lot of things software wise. (After all, remember that HP has switched to Linux for their main OS.)
And then there is the third world thing. On the average, the wages paid in a country like India is one half to one tenth of what is paid to someone here in America. So what if one person is brilliant? If there are billions of people living in a country then there will probably be at least one or two people living there who can do the same job as that one person in America. (After all, the US only has around 300 million people living in it and India has around 4 billion so the odds are good there are at least two people who can do the same kind of work.) As many software companies are finding out - in America you can hire twenty people to work on a software project - OR - you can hire two hundred to three hundred people to work on the same project in a third world country like India.
So there are three things working against America retaining its position as a leader in research: 1)Cost, 2)availability of people willing to work at low wages (ie: the grunts needed to carry out the tedious jobs as well as the advanced research), and 3)OSS Software.
Last, but not least, the motto of businesses everywhere is: If it ain't broke - don't fix it! The printers work - so why make them better? (After all, they can do photo quality now - who needs holographic capabilities?) The computers work - so why worry about making them better. Let someone else do that and then just include the new components in to the new machines. Ah! Mediocrity. The thing most businesses and governments are full of. (Mediocrity is also why we are not in space yet in a big way. Just let things float along. Don't make waves. Don't spill the cart. Let inertia take over. Ahhhhhhhhhh.)
What? Me sarcastic? Nahhhhh! Not me!
Printers have had built-in print heads for a while. HP originally had their printers made with built-in print heads. Then, when deskjets came along HP et al decided to separate the print head from the printer because after a while the holes would clog up from dried ink. If you read up on these Refill the Ink Cartridge sites you will see that even they say to only refill the ink cartridge three or four times. This is because, just like with any tank, there is a build up of junk in the bottom of the tank which will eventually clog up the print head.
:-)
Which means keeping the print head separate from the printer is a better idea than putting the print head back in to the printer and just selling the ink. UNLESS they have come up with some way to flush the print head and thus clean it out. (And I mean really flush the print heads - not the Clean the Print Head kind of thing.)
If you were to ask me how HP could improve on its printers my #1 suggestion would be for them to increase the height of the printer by about three inches and to use this additional space to make the ink cartridges larger. Ink cartridges are rigged (by their overall size) to fail after a ream of paper. Some even earlier. This is a stupid, arbitrary limitation imposed by the manufacturers so they can sell more goods and make money. (ie: Planned obsolescence.) There are times when I am working on a document and I have to print it all out for review. These documents are sometimes two or three inches thick. This means I go through an ink cartridge in one setting sometimes. And sometimes I go through two cartridges. (Luckily a lot of times I can just send the document electronically now so this need is going down but then there is always the one or two managers who still want to read an actual document.)
In any event, a greatly expanded (like two to three times the current size) cartridge (especially the color cartridges) would improve everyone's thoughts about printing and I know I (as well as a couple of my other graphic artist friends) would jump on being able to buy a printer which had extra large ink cartridges.
My second wish would be for a cartridge which was made to be refilled. HP might want everyone to buy their ink, but whatever company comes out with a refillable cartridge that can be refilled easily (like how some copiers are easily refilled) would really make my day.
So here is my revolutionary idea: (Yeah - right!)
Let's say there is something called a print head.
Let's also say that there is something called a color cartridge.
Let's also say that the two are separate entities. That the color cartridge is the container for the ink that we use to print (No matter the color.), and the print head does all of the printing.
Let's say that the print head has some sort of part to it that allows a user/customer to screw the color cartridge on to (or off of) the print head. (In other words - it is not all one unit like it is now, but two separate units.)
Ok. Given the above, the way in which you change a color cartridge is by removing both the print head and the color cartridge from the printer, unscrew the color cartridge, and replace it with a new color cartridge. If the print head begins to print badly, you buy a new print head only, remove the color cartridge from the old print head, and put it on the new print head.
The manufacturer only guarantees that the ink they sell will work with their printer and that if stupid people unscrew the print head without first turning the thing upside down (so the ink doesn't run out all over the place) - it is their own fault.
With this idea, HP (or whoever) would only have to sell an initial print head and color cartridge (or maybe four print heads and color cartridges). All of the print heads would be the same size et al. Only the size of the color cartridge would change. Further, ink refills could come in cheap plastic squeeze me container
Actually, the statement is made based upon friends and family who live on farms here and the people I know who have traveled to China (recently and not like twenty years ago). Although there are a lot of people living in the cities (just like in the US), there are still a lot of people who live outside of the cities. (And I believe the tally is that there are still more people living outside of the major cities than within the major cities at this point.)
As a "for instance" kind of remark - you state that "Did you know the total number of cellphones sold in China last year was 60 million?" The answer would be no - I did not. However, even out of the 1.3B, 60M is not even half of the people. It is 1/50th of the people there. Even the "We're talking about a country who's number [of] Internet users just hit 130million and whose purchasing power will soon rival the top developed-countries." Again, 130M versus 1.3B is only 1/10th of all of the people in China. Further, the 130M people probably overlap the 60M cellphone buyers meaning that only about 1/10th of all of the people in China need or can use the products.
Now, don't get me wrong. China is trying its best to yank itself out of the medieval period (or maybe I should say the Mao Tsi Tung era [and I hope I spelled that correctly!]) and into a better way of life for its people. But just because a few million people over there have bought electronic gadgets doesn't mean everyone there can (or will) do so.
In the US, of the almost 300M people living here, only about 20M people work on farms across the US. And no - I haven't gone to the USG site for the statistics. It is just a best guess based upon most farmers being husband and wife, two kids, and farm hands (maybe around two or three). Further thinking that probably around 10% of the people living in an industrialized country being the ones who supply all of the food (livestock and grains), clothing, textiles, and the like. I believe that in China the reverse is still true. That being that the majority of people still work in or around a farm. Now - that doesn't mean poverty. It doesn't mean no electricity and it doesn't mean some of these people would not want a computer, phone, and the like. But what it does mean is that for each farm they may only buy one phone or one tv or one whatever and share it between themselves. And they do that not only because these devices are expensive to buy - but because that is how farm-life is many times. Everyone shares everything. Which is a lot different than big city life usually. (And if you don't believe me try to go borrow your neighbor's car or maybe even a lamp for usage. Unless they are really good friends with you they will usually say no.)
According to the map you pointed to I notice that it shows only major and minor cities - not towns and villages. China is a big place. Any idea how well the electric grid works in the smaller areas?
I'm in agreement with the other posters in that if China wants a really cheap PC to be both the entertainment center as well as the TV center - then let them use a cheap PC with a TV video card in it. After all, you can get a PC for around $200.00 now on-line and a cheap monitor (CRT at least) on-line as well. The whole thing can sit in the entertainment center or shelves and then they'd have a decent picture as well as a way to play games if they wanted.
There are only a few problems with this though:
1. China still has a huge number of farmers who do not have electricity.
2. Most of the people living outside of the major cities have hardly any money at all and get most of their news from radios or TVs which are run by generator and are communal radios/TVs.
3. Unlike the US - the people of China do not have the "I've gotta have it!" kind of outlook. It is more like how the US used to be. The "If it won't solve my problems I don't want it." kind of outlook. And their major problems are food, clean water, medicines, and shelter. Electricity would be nice but just having enough fuel to keep the fire burning is better in some areas. (I'm not saying all of China is backwards or anything like that. Just that in some areas they live with the land and have more basic needs than some electronic gadget.)
There was a story about Africa from some years back. (I know a couple of them actually.) Anyway, people thought that it would be a great idea to send tractors over so the people of Africa could plow the fields and produce more goods. Only they forgot that there weren't any oil refineries, gas stations, and the like in place yet. So all of the equipment just sat and rusted away. This situation is similar to that problem (IMHO). There are huge numbers of people who live so far below the poverty line that we tend to just push them out of our minds. So a few million people in China may be able to buy a box to watch TV and play games with. Well, what about the other 3.5 Billion people who are just trying to make it day by day? They aren't going to buy anything.
Unless we treat them like we do some of the other countries. Where we give them our money so they can buy our products. Sounds crazy I know, but the US does that to several countries. As far as I can tell, we do that to help jumpstart those countries' economies. But that's just my opinion. What's yours?
I would have to agree. Where I work I needed to have the cross platform skills since I worked on Windows95, Windows98se, WindowsNT, Windows2000, and now WindowsXP. I also had to port programs from HP machines to Macintoshes and then to SGIs running Unix. Or try the Perkin-Elmer to Vax 11/780 via Intergraph's 68K Dual projection Micro Workstation. We had to be able to both program as well as run these systems and integrate communications between them.
:-)
Presently, we are just doing Windows 2000/XP with SGIs and Suns but we are considering getting some Macs with OS X on them because we are beginning to have some requests for those to run our software. (This is not to mention all of the hundreds of laptops we have to support.)
Heh. At least I'm not having to support the old Univacs, Honeywell 66/60 systems, and NAS9000s we used to have to support. Those were a lot harder to maintain.
But yes. The more systems you know how to use, keep up and running, and even program on - the better it is for you. The fewer systems you know the easier it is for your boss to say "Ok, nice to have worked with you - NEXT!" In this case it truly is that "more is better". Just like programming languages. More is better because each language has its special things it can do. And in some cases you need to know different languages so you can draw upon what you learned using those other languages and so you can apply it to a given problem.
(Remember the old problem with FTP and trying to transfer binary files? People consistently forgot to tell FTP these were binary files. Or the problem where ascii files were transferred as binary files but the endianness of binary files would make the ascii files not view properly. This is only one of the things system admins used to have to worry about. (In the pre-Netscape et al days.) Now it is more like why someone can not see a given site or other computer on the network. Or what part of a Linux update have we not downloaded yet? Or even "Ya got another virus? Ok, be right over." [There is one person whom I've de-virused many times and I have threatened to just take them off of the net if they muck around with the virus detection software again!])
Anyway, as I've said - my vote would be that "yes, you need to know multiple systems and OSs as well as multiple languages (scripting or otherwise)."
As said many times in the past - the brain is willing to type correctly but sometimes the fingers are not. :-)
Actually, my question is: Why does it cost $1,800.00 per month?
Whatever happened to tapping into the already existing T1 line the city uses, connect it to a router (ie: 1 TCP/IP address), and then just setting up a bunch of sub-routers with the 192.168.2.XXX ids? At today's prices it should only cost about $100.00 max per wireless unit. These are set up a block apart (so say a 10 block area which means 10 routers or a one time fee of $1,000.00).
Once set up it can't cost them $1,800.00 a month to run the routers. After all, the most costly consumer DSL system costs only around $60.00 a month and that includes service to the house. Since this isn't a service the city is doing for big business (after all - big businesses will get their own routers et al); it doesn't have to be a multibillion gigawatt service. Just a standard DSL type service which is going to be shared by all of the users.
If Orlando assigned whoever it is that does the city's router control to begin with to also work on this when something goes down - there shouldn't be any cost increase in that area either. Provided the person knows what they are doing in the first place.
So the city of Orlando saying it costs them $1,800.00 a month is a heads-up to say that Orlando did not do the more cost effective method and instead went for something a bit more fancy than just a standard DSL setup to some wireless routers.
And truth to tell - this is the kind of BS that people who do not have a clue in government positions do all of the time. It is a means to justify them not having free wireless. They do these things in such a way that the results make it look like they tried when in truth - they didn't. Then they go "But we tried and it just doesn't work." Well, that's just BS. They didn't try - they probably didn't want to do it really but were being forced by some voters to try and this is how they plan to just get around the whole problem. There is also probably some company behind this farce that is afraid their little slice of the pie is going to be threatened by free wireless access. Well, they should get a clue. The free and for sale usage of the internet can co-exist easily and they do not impact each other at all. Because those who are not going to buy internet usage are just going to get it in some other way and will probably never pay for it. While those who do want their own interface will get their own private lines for personal use (like me and like the millions of others who do this). If you want my honest opinion (and you wouldn't be reading this otherwise) - I think the people of Orlando should ask their mayor why the city of Orlando is mismanaging the free wireless DSL setup so badly. Here is a hint:After initial costs it shouldn't cost more than around $300.00 a month to run the entire thing and that includes the additional cost of having someone check the wireless DSL setup once a day and includes a new unit once a month as well. (Remember that the checking of the network can be automated so an e-mail is sent to the manager if a node goes down and only one division is probably responsible for keeping the lines up. Further, if setup properly, the subnet should run by itself and stay up without a lot of maintenance.)
For reference - check out the numerous Google incidents (sp?) of people setting up free wireless networks in other cities, for schools, and for blocks of people. Heck, Slashdot has had numerous articles on people setting up wireless networks and it costing almost nothing for everyone. Further, do you really think that McDonald's would set up wireless access points in their restuarants if it cost them all that much? What about Starbucks? Burger King? Think about it. All of these places are putting in standard DSL lines. Nothing fancy. Probably costs them less than $50.00 a month and they are probably tapping into a pre-existing DSL line they use to report income back to the home office. Same set-up as Orlando should be doing.
Try AppleWorks and the Claris Office software.
I'm thinking the term "Numbers" is from the TV show of the same name which is a nice twist to a SpreadSheet name as well.
My question in all of this is - why not go buy a cheap water pump for a fish tank and just recycle the water? After all, if the water were pumped back in to the large garbage can with ice in it - it would cool back down again. (Although - granted - not as much as it was maybe.)
:-)
Further, if plastic tubing were used instead of switching to copper the cooling would be less overall, but the plastic tubing could be threaded in and out of the wire mesh on the fan (so you don't need the tie-wraps). Because less cooling was being done it would mean the water would retain its coolness longer and thus this should offset the rate at which the ice in the garbage can melts.
Last, but not least - if you look at the picture on the site - the garbage can has bottles with ice in them. Which means that the bottles were frozen. Something you don't usually buy at a store. So they must have come from the guy's freezer.
Still, let's look at a different scenario: The kitchen area has a door maybe which can be closed or blocked off and maybe there is a window in that room where the heat generated by the freezer can be dissipated. So all the guy really needs to do is to cool down a part of the apartment rather than the entire apartment. This would allow for the ice maker to make ice in the kitchen while the other part of the house is cooled by the ice that was made.
Last, but not least, A/Cs are not all that expensive anymore. For instance Home Depot has an a/c on sale for $80.00 which is only a little more than three times the cost for this guy's system (and doesn't have all of the mess). Lowes has one for around $79.00. The lowest price (I'm sorry, but I forget where I saw it - maybe Walgreens) for an air conditioner was around $60.00 for a 3,000BTU unit which would cool a regular sized room quite well.
This is a nice experiment - but if you could get a few friends to chip in - then everyone could have a cool summer.