The boss over at Sun has a really bad attitude, from a couple of articles I've read. In Business Week, a year or two ago, he was quoted as saying he often feels like retiring, but can't bare the thought of leaving the next generation in a world controlled by Microsoft.
In a symposium, about a year ago, on Web services, both Microsoft and Sun representatives were invited to speak. Microsoft (and I am no great fan of theirs) gave an informative presentation, admittedly biased to their products. Sun basically bitched to the audience, asking them if they could trust Microsoft!
I ask you, just what the hell is going on over there at Sun? Some of their comments make them sound like disgruntled adolescents. Is that any way to market themselves? Does their attitude provide any reason for their employees to get up in the morning to do a day's work?
Granted, I don't know more about their corporate culture, so my insight is necessarily incomplete.
Congratulations on the most original bit of computing insight I've seen yet regarding what Apple should do. This even beats Dvorak.
In all seriousness, what advantage would people have in paying considerably more for a slower machine with less usability and stability?
Perhaps it's because I'm a Mac person, but please, explain again why people wouldn't just buy a PC? It can't be that people would pay Apple for style only; after all, Dell has those cool, all-black units.
Suppose these kind of "security measures," delaying people at airports because their name is on a list, become commonplace in other areas of life: say, bank loans, college applications, flags on credit reports, applying for any kind of license, and so forth. Now, suppose the government leaks to the media the various "reasons" people get on The List.
Using PGP
Knowledge of computer security
Attending a political protest
Writing a "politically incorrect" letter to the editor
Regular phone calls to the Middle East
Listing your occupation as "clerk" on your tax return
Regular surfing to Web sites which have been flagged as "subversive"
Writing cranky posts to Slashdot
Okay, it sickens me to go on, so use your imagination.
How will something like this affect the actions of the general population (a.k.a. "sheep")? People will become afraid to do anything that may get them on the list of people subject to legal, unrelenting harrassment.
People will even be afraid to be friends with such people.
The kind of character this instills in a citizenry is kafkaesque. People fear do anything "out of the ordinary" for fear that some nameless, intractable and omniscient power will make their lives miserable.
It's frightening that so many accept these changes as a fait accompli.
Bound documentation is easier to read in many cases, though I find I still use online docs.
For me, I would rather have the documentation bound separately: say, a multi volume set of Java API's, with J2SE in one volume, and others grouped logically.
Any amount of time I can spend reading something other than a computer screen is welcome. I find I can get hypnotized by the screen after a while, and I swear, I think my eyes are going.
For me, the most interesting part of the article concerns the pricing of the new machines as the real question. According to the author, the chip will make Apple machines technologically competitive. The question is, will Apple price them to gain market share, or continue to sell to a disappearing niche of luxury computer buyers.
Maybe Apple's concentration on developing software, and selling that software (rather than giving it away), along with its new business ventures, such as.Mac and the new iTunes online music store, point to a new business model that can afford to cut the margins on hardware.
If they don't lower the price of their machines -- the top ones, namely -- they will suffer, long-term. I don't think they need to be on par with PC's; I just think they cannot be too much more expensive than the PC's.
Well, I'm not exactly a native speaker, but in other languages they put the article where we would not. My sense of the language led me to putting it there.
Didn't realize you were a French grammarian. I'll have my corrections on your desk, Monday morning.
It is a sad testament to what Motorola's snail-slow chip hath wrought, that this movie was apparently done on a Wintel machine (judging from the screen shots).
As a long time Mac user, I can only hope the IBM chips save the day. It seems Apple is fading from the graphics scene, and no doubt because of rendering times.
I can't argue with you, and of course, I'm using the term "piracy" as loosely as the article.
No, illegal copies aren't being made and sold (piracy); and yes, illegal copies are being made, as I said.
And as to your point comparing RPI to other campuses, I agree. But, I don't think that's a good thing. It seems the "kids today" will not pay for music on principle! And just what kind of principle is that?
For what it's worth, I lived down the street from RPI for two years, and it is a "hotbed for piracy," however the kid's father may protest.
What you have, basically, is a campus full of geeks and alpha geeks, and the half-secretive tradition of cracking that goes with it. Years ago it was phreaking the telephones for long-distance calls (I got this straight from an alumnus), and people I know who still go there have told me that tons of students ("everyone" is the phrase he used) have hard drives full of MP3's.
However one feels about so-called "sharing," it's only honest to admit that plenty of it goes on at RPI.
So, let me see if I get this straight. This little gadget is going to interact with whatever computer happens to be around it, providing that computer is set up for this. Well, what exactly will that "set up" entail?
I see this little device as necessarily incorporating Palladium (or whatever the hell they're calling it these days). How else can these computers play with strangers?
When Microsoft, Intel, et al, roll out their trusted computing initiative, they're going to have to get us all to buy into it. The main inroad is going to be nifty, little gadgets like these. People will just "have to have them," and they will not come without various "security" measures built in.
Re:Great production design. Other than that, what?
on
Harry Potter with Guns
·
· Score: 1
When I saw it, what struck me was that none of the elements in the movie were original; rather, well-understood elements (for sci-fi geeks) were put together in an original manner. That's what I liked about it.
Basically, all these themes have appeared in other movies, and in most cases weren't even original then.
Machines overthrow humanity (Terminator)
A "nobody" has a special gift that when revealed will save us all (Star Wars)
Our enemy are really illusions and can be beaten only if we master ourselves and recognize them as such (think illusions in Dungeon & Dragons)
Add to that "love conquers" (the kiss at the end), the betrayal of Judas, oracles, kung fu fights and what not, and what have you got that hasn't been beaten to death a million times before.
I never watched the movie until I happend on it flipping through the cable channels (mainly because of Keanu -- who I can't stand). I did really enjoy it though, once I saw it.
The scientists are missing the whole point of their research.
[T]he team hope their results will help women match men in virtual-reality training situations... which are often used in firefighting and armed-services training.
What would really help would be to enlarge burning buildings and battlefields by 30-70%.
Okay, here I quote the most deliberate piece of misinformation and propaganda:
"According to Craig Mundie, Microsoft's chief technical officer, as the open-source movement grows, it will get better at producing free clones of commercial software. [...] Such products reduce the incentive for commercial firms to innovate...."
In short, competition from quality products stifles innovation -- according to Microsoft. Commercial firms have no incentive to actually come up with products having more features, more stability, better documentation and ease of use than open source products because no one is willing to pay for such benefits?
Well, as they must be fond of saying over at Microsoft, "If you believe that, I've got an operating system to sell you."
I agree with you, and these kinds of tips and tricks certainly belong in such a book. It's the obvious stuff that I find not only unnecessary, but even tedious.
Okay, as a word of warning, my comments are based on looking through the book at a local bookstore, and confirming my conclusions by reading the review. I agree with the "Bad."
In aiming a book at the power user for Mac OS X, it's safe to omit almost everything about the GUI. It's not too difficult to learn the GUI in the first place (after all, it's supposed to be intuitive). I think what would most interest the power user is the UNIX underneath.
Now, the so-called "power user" really comes in two forms: one, power users coming from the old Mac OS, and two, UNIX power users. Both of these groups could benefit from a book that concentrates on how OS X's UNIX works. (Note, I'm not talking about an introduction to UNIX, covering grep and piping one command into another, and so forth.)
Besides on essentially wasting so many pages on the GUI (in my opinion), the book falls short in just the way the reviewer noted: namely, thin documentation of the UNIX base and how it differs from others. There is some good coverage; but what is needed is more than a "nutshell"; what is needed is a fuller explanation of the commands.
What is needed is more than what goes only slightly beyond being printed manpages.
Okay, pal, first off fuck you for that "you ass" comment. It's totally inappropriate.
Now, in the same way that all the land in the mid and western United States was distributed for free to those that could develop it, so too could ownership of the airwaves be distributed. The airwaves should be owned privately.
Right now, they are being held by the public: that is to say, the public is acting as custodian, not owner. I'll admit that not everyone subscribes to this political-economic view (it's called capitalism). I have no problem "grasping" the idea of public resources, however -- I grasp the concept, as you conceive of it, and reject it.
With respect to releasing that resource that the public holds as custodian, we can follow the same principle behind the Homestead Act of 1862. Those that can develop a resource receive ownership of it: note, you must develop it, not merely hoard it to keep others out.
Do yourself a favor: learn something about economics, and good manners, while you're at it.
All the FCC rules for divying up the airwaves is based on the notion that bandwidth is a very scarce resource, and ultimately owned by the public. This "extreme scarcity" however is changing.
Once television stations are transmitted digitially, there will be far, far more bandwidth available. There will no longer be these so-called "natural monopolies" in each locality, encouraging government regulation of the resource.
When we go digital, there is no longer even any half-justifiable reason for restricting who gets what. There is plenty more to be gotten, and far more oportunity for competition.
Moreover, freedom of speech does not require restrictions placed on the private sphere -- just the opposite. If anything, government restricting who is allowed to run a media outlet in a free market is an attack on the first amendment.
Slashdot Mirror
Oops! Of course I meant "bear the thought."
McNealy "bares" his thoughts on Microsoft every opportunity he gets.
The boss over at Sun has a really bad attitude, from a couple of articles I've read. In Business Week, a year or two ago, he was quoted as saying he often feels like retiring, but can't bare the thought of leaving the next generation in a world controlled by Microsoft.
In a symposium, about a year ago, on Web services, both Microsoft and Sun representatives were invited to speak. Microsoft (and I am no great fan of theirs) gave an informative presentation, admittedly biased to their products. Sun basically bitched to the audience, asking them if they could trust Microsoft!
I ask you, just what the hell is going on over there at Sun? Some of their comments make them sound like disgruntled adolescents. Is that any way to market themselves? Does their attitude provide any reason for their employees to get up in the morning to do a day's work?
Granted, I don't know more about their corporate culture, so my insight is necessarily incomplete.
Congratulations on the most original bit of computing insight I've seen yet regarding what Apple should do. This even beats Dvorak.
In all seriousness, what advantage would people have in paying considerably more for a slower machine with less usability and stability?
Perhaps it's because I'm a Mac person, but please, explain again why people wouldn't just buy a PC? It can't be that people would pay Apple for style only; after all, Dell has those cool, all-black units.
Exactly what biometric data would a guest be leaving: fingerprints, retina scans, blood samples?
Why you would want to leave any of this behind on any odd server in any odd place in the world is beyond me.
Apple keyboards are unsuitable for UNIX users!
(That's just my little joke for those of you who remember that crank from about a year back!)
Suppose these kind of "security measures," delaying people at airports because their name is on a list, become commonplace in other areas of life: say, bank loans, college applications, flags on credit reports, applying for any kind of license, and so forth. Now, suppose the government leaks to the media the various "reasons" people get on The List.
Okay, it sickens me to go on, so use your imagination.
How will something like this affect the actions of the general population (a.k.a. "sheep")? People will become afraid to do anything that may get them on the list of people subject to legal, unrelenting harrassment.
People will even be afraid to be friends with such people.
The kind of character this instills in a citizenry is kafkaesque. People fear do anything "out of the ordinary" for fear that some nameless, intractable and omniscient power will make their lives miserable.
It's frightening that so many accept these changes as a fait accompli.
Bound documentation is easier to read in many cases, though I find I still use online docs.
For me, I would rather have the documentation bound separately: say, a multi volume set of Java API's, with J2SE in one volume, and others grouped logically.
Any amount of time I can spend reading something other than a computer screen is welcome. I find I can get hypnotized by the screen after a while, and I swear, I think my eyes are going.
For me, the most interesting part of the article concerns the pricing of the new machines as the real question. According to the author, the chip will make Apple machines technologically competitive. The question is, will Apple price them to gain market share, or continue to sell to a disappearing niche of luxury computer buyers.
Maybe Apple's concentration on developing software, and selling that software (rather than giving it away), along with its new business ventures, such as .Mac and the new iTunes online music store, point to a new business model that can afford to cut the margins on hardware.
If they don't lower the price of their machines -- the top ones, namely -- they will suffer, long-term. I don't think they need to be on par with PC's; I just think they cannot be too much more expensive than the PC's.
I saw the little "x" in the upper right corner (close box).
Well, I'm not exactly a native speaker, but in other languages they put the article where we would not. My sense of the language led me to putting it there.
Didn't realize you were a French grammarian. I'll have my corrections on your desk, Monday morning.
It is a sad testament to what Motorola's snail-slow chip hath wrought, that this movie was apparently done on a Wintel machine (judging from the screen shots).
As a long time Mac user, I can only hope the IBM chips save the day. It seems Apple is fading from the graphics scene, and no doubt because of rendering times.
Wiser words are seldom spoken.
ABC News did a show about this a while ago.
Story here.
P.S.
;-)
Parent beat me to it, I was hoping to make the first post on this
I can't argue with you, and of course, I'm using the term "piracy" as loosely as the article.
No, illegal copies aren't being made and sold (piracy); and yes, illegal copies are being made, as I said.
And as to your point comparing RPI to other campuses, I agree. But, I don't think that's a good thing. It seems the "kids today" will not pay for music on principle! And just what kind of principle is that?
For what it's worth, I lived down the street from RPI for two years, and it is a "hotbed for piracy," however the kid's father may protest.
What you have, basically, is a campus full of geeks and alpha geeks, and the half-secretive tradition of cracking that goes with it. Years ago it was phreaking the telephones for long-distance calls (I got this straight from an alumnus), and people I know who still go there have told me that tons of students ("everyone" is the phrase he used) have hard drives full of MP3's.
However one feels about so-called "sharing," it's only honest to admit that plenty of it goes on at RPI.
You are absolutely right, that's just what I was thinking. I was about to enter my own post, but figured I'd do a search for "Palladium."
Aside from the telephone and the shiny, new keyboard, this "new architecture" is nothing but a chance to work in "trustworthy" computing.
So, let me see if I get this straight. This little gadget is going to interact with whatever computer happens to be around it, providing that computer is set up for this. Well, what exactly will that "set up" entail?
I see this little device as necessarily incorporating Palladium (or whatever the hell they're calling it these days). How else can these computers play with strangers?
When Microsoft, Intel, et al, roll out their trusted computing initiative, they're going to have to get us all to buy into it. The main inroad is going to be nifty, little gadgets like these. People will just "have to have them," and they will not come without various "security" measures built in.
When I saw it, what struck me was that none of the elements in the movie were original; rather, well-understood elements (for sci-fi geeks) were put together in an original manner. That's what I liked about it.
Basically, all these themes have appeared in other movies, and in most cases weren't even original then.
Add to that "love conquers" (the kiss at the end), the betrayal of Judas, oracles, kung fu fights and what not, and what have you got that hasn't been beaten to death a million times before.
I never watched the movie until I happend on it flipping through the cable channels (mainly because of Keanu -- who I can't stand). I did really enjoy it though, once I saw it.
The scientists are missing the whole point of their research.
What would really help would be to enlarge burning buildings and battlefields by 30-70%.
Okay, here I quote the most deliberate piece of misinformation and propaganda:
In short, competition from quality products stifles innovation -- according to Microsoft. Commercial firms have no incentive to actually come up with products having more features, more stability, better documentation and ease of use than open source products because no one is willing to pay for such benefits?
Well, as they must be fond of saying over at Microsoft, "If you believe that, I've got an operating system to sell you."
I agree with you, and these kinds of tips and tricks certainly belong in such a book. It's the obvious stuff that I find not only unnecessary, but even tedious.
Okay, as a word of warning, my comments are based on looking through the book at a local bookstore, and confirming my conclusions by reading the review. I agree with the "Bad."
In aiming a book at the power user for Mac OS X, it's safe to omit almost everything about the GUI. It's not too difficult to learn the GUI in the first place (after all, it's supposed to be intuitive). I think what would most interest the power user is the UNIX underneath.
Now, the so-called "power user" really comes in two forms: one, power users coming from the old Mac OS, and two, UNIX power users. Both of these groups could benefit from a book that concentrates on how OS X's UNIX works. (Note, I'm not talking about an introduction to UNIX, covering grep and piping one command into another, and so forth.)
Besides on essentially wasting so many pages on the GUI (in my opinion), the book falls short in just the way the reviewer noted: namely, thin documentation of the UNIX base and how it differs from others. There is some good coverage; but what is needed is more than a "nutshell"; what is needed is a fuller explanation of the commands.
What is needed is more than what goes only slightly beyond being printed manpages.
Okay, pal, first off fuck you for that "you ass" comment. It's totally inappropriate.
Now, in the same way that all the land in the mid and western United States was distributed for free to those that could develop it, so too could ownership of the airwaves be distributed. The airwaves should be owned privately.
Right now, they are being held by the public: that is to say, the public is acting as custodian, not owner. I'll admit that not everyone subscribes to this political-economic view (it's called capitalism). I have no problem "grasping" the idea of public resources, however -- I grasp the concept, as you conceive of it, and reject it.
With respect to releasing that resource that the public holds as custodian, we can follow the same principle behind the Homestead Act of 1862. Those that can develop a resource receive ownership of it: note, you must develop it, not merely hoard it to keep others out.
Do yourself a favor: learn something about economics, and good manners, while you're at it.
All the FCC rules for divying up the airwaves is based on the notion that bandwidth is a very scarce resource, and ultimately owned by the public. This "extreme scarcity" however is changing.
Once television stations are transmitted digitially, there will be far, far more bandwidth available. There will no longer be these so-called "natural monopolies" in each locality, encouraging government regulation of the resource.
When we go digital, there is no longer even any half-justifiable reason for restricting who gets what. There is plenty more to be gotten, and far more oportunity for competition.
Moreover, freedom of speech does not require restrictions placed on the private sphere -- just the opposite. If anything, government restricting who is allowed to run a media outlet in a free market is an attack on the first amendment.
That's a great quote! Is it yours?