If I were an executive for an enterprise that had the choice of investing X dollars into building an open source groupware solution that met my needs or buy one, such as Exchange, that came pretty darn close... MS would get the money every time unless I was in the software business.
10% of what I'd buy Exchange for ends up costing more than 10%. You have the cash investment, you have the time spent trying to put input into the software requirements, you have the time that you're waiting for th solution rather than using the solution. Not a go forward proposition if technology weren't my core competency. I'd spend that kind of investment on software more central to business.
If I had a solution that was 90% there and only needed to come 10% of the way and I could get it done and developed and rolled out in the same time frame as an existing commercial groupware product... I'd take a serious look. Business wants to have freedom of software I assure you, but not at any cost or risk.
So far I haven't seen anything that can take on the Exchange/Outlook combination even for the most basic features. And, yes, user experience, ease of use and all the little hand-holding bloat that much of open source avoids actually makes a difference to the highly non-techie user crowd and ultimately becomes a success factor for the implementation.
I once was hired to record Novell's "Brain Share" users conference back in the early 90s. One of the speakers actually said in one of the sessions that, (paraphrasing a bit) "We've reached a point where Microsoft has conceded the network server space to us just as we don't try to challenge them on the desktop." What the speaker was implying was that Novell and Microsoft had found a way to co-exist. He said it so convincingly I can't help to think to this day that the poor guy actually believed it... and that may well have been why Novell is where it's at today rather than the dominant postition they had at the time in PC networking.
My exemplar doesn't matter if it is not the whole Southern UK. Indeed, the fact that the population density is less throughout the South of England means that you should expect a better mass transit system. It is precisely the higher population density spread so evenly over such a large geographical area that makes mass transit problematic in a place like LA.
Have you ever been to Los Angeles or are you really just speaking out your ass on the subject? Having lived in LA for 10 years, worked for 6 different companies, and lived and worked in other cities where public transportation really does work, I think I'm more qualified to speak on the matter.
The whole of the UK... no. Actually lets run some numbers... but population density alone is a naive metric by which to judge mass transit feasibility, though in combination with other facts it becomes relevant. The greater Los Angeles metro area has approximately 18,000,000 people. Los Angeles County alone has over 4000 square miles (and this does not include Orange, Ventura, nor Riverside counties... all commuting destinations one way or the other.) Compare this to London with a greater metro area of just more than 600 square miles and a population of about 7,500,000. (FYI, I'm pulling these numbers from Wikipedia for better or worse). So, ~10 Million of the 18 live in LA county so lets just stick with that... people/sq. miles for LA county is 2500 people per square mile. Lets apply this to London... 12500 people per sq. mile. Of the people in the country side in the UK, I imagine that most of them live in areas where there is countryside-town-countryside-town such that the rail system allows for more (relatively) distant stations to population centers and fewer overall lines than if the entire thing were a least houses on 1/4 acre lots or 3 family houses etc.
Rail lines like those that connect outlying areas with the Urban centers exist in LA already and are used... the problem is there is no real 'Urban Center'. Indeed when we hear about someone going 'downtown' we have to ask the question...'downtown? why would anyone go there' That's the crux of the transportation problem in Los Angeles... there is no one business/commercial/very high denisty residential districts (or adjacent districts) or decidedly residential districts such as there are with a city like New York. Within LA county people commute to centers like downtown (contradiction I know) or Century City which is ~20 miles away from downtown, or Santa Monica another 10 or Glendale's downtown with is 12 or so the other direction or Universal City... indeed within Los Angeles county there are probably 12-20 areas that would be considered 'downtown' centers in many other cities. When I worked for Virgin, the fresh arrivals from the UK were often astounded, shocked and disturbed at the size and geography of the city. The way to think about it is that greater LA metro area is one giant suburb spread over 6000 or so square miles.
As for cost, a single 17.4 mile line of our subway system cost more than 4.5 billion dollars to build... to provide adequate coverage for just the 4000 square miles is not only is it expensive it is not viable. Not recognizing the scale of the project is more denial than anything. Another example... in 1995 an extention of one of the light rail lines of 10 miles, on existing track, took $1 Billion dollars. We're a big city but the investment would likely be on the order of 100's of billions of dollars to put in an effective system
Now a city like New York... trains and subways work briliantly there; same with Boston. Indeed a car is almost a harm in these cities and I got around easier without them (nevermind that Bostonians are lucky if they make it out of their driveways without hitting something.)
Finally, I am one of the few people in the U.S. that has both driven, and trained across the country, coast-to-coast. Trains would not work outside of 100 miles or so of any reasonable city here. Consider that from LA to Boston is about the distance from Helsinki to Rome... and much, much less densly populated than Europe or the UK.
"Hillary is not a socialist." I think if you look back at the early '90s, you'll find that the health care reforms she was spearheading on behalf of her husband in essence was a de facto nationalization of the health care system in the U.S. By using high degrees of government regulation or ownership to rectify perceived unfairness in the distribution of health care by definition is a socialist policy position. Your other characterizations I agree with. Look, even my side of the political spectrum has its own whack jobs: think Pat Robertson. Nonetheless, is some key ways Pat Robertson and I do agree and I can't disavow that to make me look more correct. I have to take it for what it is and take faith that even whack jobs may get some things right; anything else is artificial and hypocrisy.
"Socialists do not love big or powerful government" First, socialist policies require extensive legislative power in order to enforce the key proposition that distinguishes it from the opposing conservative ideology: namely that wealth and power should be distributed in some sort of 'fair' arrangement. Without extensive legislative power, and the government bureaucracy to enforce it, people would not be forced to comply with the taxation, the social policy, the powersharing or anything else and largely socialist policy would be little more than banter on Slashdot. So when you say, "Socialists are concerned with balancing all the ill effects of capitalism (as it has many of them, regardless of its positive ones) with some sort of communal social conscience," I would contend you can do none of those things without big government. Whether you love it or not is up to you, but you need it to have your desire.
You go on to add from the point of the last paragraph, "(on the contrary, it seems that neo-cons do [love big government], just look at the size and deficits of that thing now!) This is just political sophistry aimed at painting the Bush administration with the dirty phrase 'neo-con' much the same way conservatives turned 'liberal' into an undesirable label (thereby causing the American Left to search for more palatable monikers such as 'progressive'). Couple things we should get straight... my understanding of neo-conservatism (speaking now as one that hold many of these ideologies) is primarily focused on the foreign policy of the country not so much the domestic agenda. Admittly I may be wrong on the formal definition (I don't get too caught up with trendy labels), but if we broaden your statement to be 'conservative' ideology your argument couldn't be more flawed. I would suggest that the Bush Administration is not conservative at all nor representative of conservative thought. I think the recent Cato Institute conference generally got it right; Bush and his administration are Christian Socialists. Congress, too, has largely been made up of RINOs (republicans in name only) since the fall of Gingrich. The ideas of small government conservativism died at about the same time as their greatest champion, Ronald Reagan, did.
But be a Socialist after Marx or be one after Christ, the two have a few things in common. The notion that they have been appointed (one by God the other by ???) to determine what is right and wrong for the rest of us is proof of their kinship. Economic inequalities between me and my fellow man? So what. Many more poor than rich? So long as the rule of law is paramount and that law establishes nothing more than a level playing field in terms of opportunity, let the poor be poor and the rich be rich. Within the nation so long as there are the minimal constraints to prevent monopoly amongst competitors be they companies or ethnic/religious groups there should be no one to make such decisions as, "you are too rich," or, "you are too powerful". Only if you can make the argument that by force (exercised throug
I live in the city/metro-area that is the king of suburban sprawl in the US (Los Angeles). To suggest that 60-90 minute commutes each way are not taxing because they don't cost enough per mile is pure foolishness. Given the population distribution, effective mass transit is virtually impossible as well. Even well meaning efforts like high occupancy lanes end up contributing more to pollution than ensuring adequate capacity on the freeways in a place like LA. As for real pollution, yes LA is bad, but often time the central valley (the large agricultural area north of LA and southish of San Francisco) has worse air quality... primarily growing food. Better nail them too. Actually, that really makes me wonder what the cost of producing nitrogen based fertilizers that make the current world population possible should -really- cost.
Make fuel prices rise and you are right: people will drive less. But in LA they won't move into the city, at least until the high fuel prices have dragged the economy down to the point where there aren't jobs enough to keep people in the city at living wages to begin with.
And so we beat up that old evil U.S. Then what? Do we slap down India and China since their consumption is growing to the point where it might not be so long until both countries catch up to Uncle Sam? Many of the people that want to stop the US from burning fuel argue that 'developing' countries should get a pass... but it's the same environment no mstter who's burning it. So how should we make it taxing on the third world? And one we decide how to stop the engines of civilization, how to you intend to get people to buy in.
Look, nuclear power is a part... and important part, of a larger picture. But just because it doesn't do all things for all people and solve all problems doesn't mean we shouldn't pursue it agressively. Greater fuel efficiency in cars is considered a prime way to reduce emissions, but that won't solve the larger issues alone either.
I don't know about this being the wrong approach from the retailer side.
The biggest downside, as you say, is the customer service perspective. If a customer wants a receipt right then and there, you (as retailer) had better be ready to provide it. Having said that, most people probably just buy into the process and go with it. If you look at that customer service risk compared to the aggregate savings in store labor hours in the big picture, this is probably very smart for the retailer. The customer usually will get their product faster, the stores will be able to process more transactions with less cashier time dedicated to each transaction.
For the consumer, the possibility of problem is not the same as having a problem. Airplanes are rife with opportunity to fail (with much greater consequence), but such failures are so rare that air travellers discount them. The originally planned baggage system at Denver Int. Airport, however, was so unreliable that they ended up having to decomission it altogether (as I recall). The success or failure of Apple's approach really will depend on how reliable it is.
This isn't too different than want most chain retailers do today with gift cards. They suffer all the same problems and even more than this quick check out. Even if you have a printed receipt with a gift card, the receipt will not tell you how much value is on the card at a given point in time. If we accept that computers make mistakes, then yes, there will be times when the value the computer says is on the card does not reflect reality. What the retailer does in these cases is this: they deal with it; usually not with technology, but very manually. At some point when the one offs happen you have to allow the skills of your store managers and staff shine through.
What I find compelling is that this is one of the first times the much vaunted 'multi-channel retailer' concepts has been put into practice. Esp. the part about linking in existing Apple accounts into the bricks and mortar retail environment. THe promise has been there for a long time, and implemented to varying degrees; just most chains having been willing to shell out the $$$ to do the inegration required to make it really happen. It will be interesting to see how they can grow the concept.
But this is the best part. The promise of all of this is to commoditize the labor and the IP at the same time. From a business perspective, I can't help but win. Since open source is just that, open, I can find the best developers at the lowest cost to get the job done, not just the original vendor that I am held hostage to. If I want to take it to India, China, Vietnam, or do it in house; my choices are more open that before.
It worked with televisions, why not computer software?
That's for sure. I'm on my second or third copy (can't remember I've needed them for so long) the 'Real Book'. There's also the derivatives, like the 'Real Book II', etc. When I was in music school, long ago, I remember you use to have to get it from this guy that was like homeless (or something like that) who always had a dog that wore a bandana with him. Every once in a while you'd see the cops chasing him. These were the illegal ones, the Real real books that have been used for years & years. What was really wild was that it was required for some classes and a professor or two had tunes ripped off in the Real Book.
Of course in the early '90s legit publishing companies started to try and take advantage of the name (like 'the legal real book', etc.). You really just couldn't take them on pickup gigs though because everyone else had the illegal ones if a tune came up that not everybody knew.
I'm not sure what they are smoking in the executive boardroom either.
What expertise do they have?
HOW does this fit into what they are doing now?
You know... that's what a lot of people once said about a guy that owned a chain of record stores and a record label when he tried to get into the airline business. At the end of the day, Richard Branson's Virgin Atlantic hasn't done too bad over the years. Of course, I haven't tracked it since I worked for Virgin (record stores), but I believe the airline is still around today.
Chances are that if you get to 'legally correct', you will prompt the other side that they need a lawyer, too. Under those circumstances you may find that the company lawyer has enough objections that you end up without your code (or contract if that's your choice). If the company is small, you may just scare them off altogether.
I agree, you should consult an attorney (probably labor atty before IP atty), but if the contract is truly informal all the way around (you and company) then take the advice, but don't destroy the spirit of the informality... unless you feel it's the only way to accomplish your goal.
Keep in mind, too, that you should probably address the company's competitors and how you would treat them if they approached you for anything that could be even construed as business sensitive. If your employer gets to the lawyer phase, this will almost surely come up.
Cheers! SCB
Re:Why work to shut down discussion?
on
Drafting GPL3
·
· Score: 1
On an aside... I wonder how much GPL software is licensed as such simply because it is the most popular license in open source?
I can see some developers writing GPL code without really understanding the consequences for their work simply because "it's the one they've heard of". Popularity does have a momentum all its own.
Here in California it's primarily an immigration law issue, in addition to the legitimate security issues the bill seeks to cover.
There are strong political constituencies in our state's legislature to provide de facto legalization to individuals coming into the country illegally by giving them state driver licenses that are indistinguishable from those provided to legal citizens and residents. The Real ID amendment, by setting out guidelines including proof of legal residency to obtain state issued identification, effectively pre-empts these ill-conceived state efforts.
Generally my preference is to have these issues sorted out at the state level, however there are very real security concerns for the nation at large that I think makes Federal intervention warranted in this case. I have no example, for instance, that the California state government will take appropriate measures to validate backgrounds for those receiving driver licenses illegal or not whereas, say, Arizona may have appropriate policies. In this case, Real ID would ensure that a standard level of assurance would be enforced (theoretically) across the board. Of course there are laws about immigration itself not being enforced, so this may well end up in that category.
The legislation was actually going to be part of different, more contextually appropriate piece of legislation last session. Because the inclusion of this measure threatened that bill, they (the provision's supporters)removed it promising to introduce it as an amendment to the first major piece of legislation this year... which happened to be this military funding bill.
Actually, this was quite above board (meaning public) as these sorts of things go. Especially here in California where there are real issues that this bill will help solve.
That so many talented, skilled workers not take their future into their own hands? Especially when forced to do so by being laid off, etc.
It seems to me that if I were a victim of programmer off-shoring, yes, I would look for a job... but in the meantime I would work to build a coalition of my fellow unemployed talented, skilled works to build some new product, create some new consulting firm, or find some way to bring these talents to bear in the marketplace.
We're not talking about building cars here with a large initial investment in raw materials. Coders are incredibly well placed to take their destiny into their own hands.
Maybe it's social skills, or the independent nature of coders that prevent them from coalescing into groups of economically viable businesses... just so strange from my perspective that this doesn't happen more often.
In addressing my second point you 1) betray your political leanings (before your ad hominem closing statements confirms it), 2) prove my point. Look at what you're saying: at every step you postulate that somehow this question cannot apply to blacks because they are too different, too complex... but somehow you fail to recognize that we are all complicated and we all have our pet issues. I would submit that I've merely taken the question to places where you are uncomfortable with it going.
Let me suggest this then as an approach to the study. First the article (which I have now read... and then some) asserts that amygdala is more active in processing political images in Democrats vs. Republicans. Seems to me that this can be measured without any special consideration being given to specific social circumstances, unless it also follows that amygdala function is primarily determined by the immediate social circumstances of the study subject. So the first question I would try to answer experimentally is: Is there a correlation of increased amygdala activity amongst Democrat blacks vs. Republican blacks (if you insist, of the same socio-economic group). From this dataset, we can test for socio-economic differences by testing a different group of Republican and Democrat blacks from different socio-economic groups; if amygdala activity is still a statistically relevant determinant, I can have some reason to believe that biological factors are significant enough to predict political disposition. The third test is to take a group of blacks from differing political affiliations and socio-economic backgrounds, submit them to the visuals and the MRI, and then based on the results of amygdala activity, predict their political affiliations (or more appropriately, political leanings). Notice to this point that in all my tests I've not consider one white person or person of another race than black. I should (if the authors of the study are correct) be able to show a biological connection to political leanings amongst blacks and avoiding the 'comparative' factors you cite as not being able to prove the connection in blacks. Now, assuming I establish the biological predisposition, I can start to compare amygdala activity amongst races (since that seems to be where you wanted me to go in the first place) as a predictor for political leanings DESPITE other socio-economic factors. So I disagree, if a mere non-scientist such as myself can envision ways to test the hypothesis without resorting to simple racial comparisons I well imagine that those wiser than I could construct quite good studies to determine if a biological predictor that coincides with race happens to exist.
A stronger point to refute my race question would have been to cite the growing concern on the left that the traditionally solid black base is showing signs that it is eroding. Be it black Democrat leaders starting to complain that the Democrat party has only delivered promises rather than results or an increasingly large black middle class that is waking up to the fact that self-reliance, not government sponsored dependency, is the true path to success: the black base is increasingly not the single-minded block it once was. Don't get me wrong... I'm not exactly holding my breath for a huge Republican victory in the black vote anytime soon, but all things with time.;-)
Personally, while there may be subtle differences in reactions to political messages due to biology, However, I suspect that we all come to our decisions based on our specific circumstances, logic, and clung to axioms. Which brings me to my original point: that the UCLA study was really a useless exercise. I think your wiser path would have been simply to agree, the study is silly.
More amusingly, my ad hominem closer, you know, the one about engineering liberal support? Well, turns out I was so far from the mark: Another article about this study.
You know, of all the studies I can think of as being worth while, this really isn't one of them. And no I didn't read the article... the premise itself is flawed.
First, I've never known the leadership of any political movement, liberal or conservative, to have deep felt compassion, fear, or anything else. I have known political leaders of many shades of belief to be calculating, selfish and manipulative. The simple fact is they wouldn't be leaders if they held the traits attributed to 'liberals'. Are my observations scentific? No, they are completely anecdotal, but i don't believe they're that off base.
Second. I wonder what would happen if the sages of the New York Times or the researchers they are reporting on next asked the question: 'Why do blacks tend to align themselves with the Democrats (in the U.S. of course).' After all, if there are biological precursors to political affiliation, and blacks tend to overwhelmingly support democrats doesn't this express, at the very least, a correlation worth looking into? Maybe I'm being too cold and calculating because clearly such questions are, no doubt, not asked with appropriate sensitivity to the history of western culture's suppression of non-white races and cultures. In short the premise of the study, in a slightly different context, violates the taboos of those reporting on it... I guess this is why so many liberals indulge in moral relativism.
Finally, who the hell cares? What does it matter? What does knowing this crucial fact change? Unless, we're talking about manufacturing people that are pre-wired for a certain political disposition, I suspect nothing... of course, maybe that's why liberal voices seem to be drawn to this story: if you can't beat 'em on ideas, engineer 'em!
I knew of Einstein's, Schwarzchild's, Chandrasekhar's, and Hawking's contributions in this area of study... along with others like Thorne and Wheeler (all from a layman's perspective, of course), but had never heard of 'black hole' like concepts prior to the advent of general relativity.
I appreciate the science history lesson and context!
For over 200 years, scientists have puzzled over black holes, which form when stars burn all their fuel and collapse, creating a huge gravitational pull.
Now I'm no scientist, but 200 years of black holes seems like they're giving the issue more duration than history warrants. I thought the concept of a 'black hole' was a consequence of Einstein's relativity work (general, special I can never remember which is which... think it's general).
Am I wrong and just missed a whole bunch of science history?
I am someone that is less interested in the technological elegance of any solution and more interested in how the solution empowers ordinary people to work, or even play. I think you address the issues generally right on (even if not 100% correct on every detail). I think the typical Slashdot user may miss the bigger picture: just because you can do something with a system is different than being able to do it well or easily.
I've read through a number of the comments and many are missing this big picture; many are getting it, too. Hopefully the more serious members of the open source community will hear this and respond, not with flames but with better solutions.
Thanks again! SCB
Re:Funny timing
on
P2P Bits
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
Actually, the labels want to keep you in the haze of "I've made it" long after the dotted line is signed.
Ultimately, as long as the perks keep flowing (and yes the band pays, but usually doesn't notice), the band will produce good work, not question the deal as time goes by because they're living the high life, and they keep the carefree/rebel image that is demanded by popular music.
Once the sales have stopped (and the royalties), so do the advances and everything else. But until they decide not to release or the sales stop, they want to foster the rockstar lifestyle in their acts: it's in the label's benefit.
Even large once established acts are like this. I know a guy that was a guitarist for a big name, 80s band (one album went platinum more than several times over). After a time in the spotlight and enjoying the rock'n'roll way, let's just say I've got a nicely surfaced kitchen table right now because the guy's got to make a living one way or another. The royalties? Mechanical Syncronization rights and publishing? HA! That's all for the label.
This is why I got out of music as a profession. There were better ways to make money and I can write the music I want and not be beholden to anyone.
Managers should be cautious assigning anyone to places of high responsibility. Malicious young workers, incompetant old managers..."
I'm not missing your point at all, I'm simply taking it for granted. Perhaps if I state my hypothesis as: 'All other things being equal, you are more likely to see a statistically greater number of younger workers make judgment errors than older workers; including judgment errors resulting in criminal behavior.' So, if you make bad hiring decisions generally or good hiring decisions generally, as long as you are consistent in your criteria... age becomes a statistically relevant predictor. What I am not saying is that bad decisions won't result in bad results. If you hire a crook that is 50 years old, you will get the bad results same as if you hired a 25 year old crooks.
Given that, I urge managers to apply caution to every hiring decision for important roles and that extra caution is warranted in evaluating a young person for the same role.
"Sitting on this stereotype[...]"
Lets stop right there. There's an old saying that goes something like, "Just because you're paranoid it doesn't mean they aren't out to get you." Just because it's a stereotype doesn't mean it's not true. I agree it is a stereotype and one that is earned. However, my hypothesis is testable and there are even studies that can provide insight. Just for shits and giggles (and the fact I believe security and technology management issues are important) I did a little looking around and pulled some crime statistics.
Lets start with a look at all crime broken up into 5 years per age group. (I'd do a full APA bibliographic citation, but I'm old & tired... oops! another stereotype) BTW, all stats are from the 2002 Crime in the United States report from the FBI (available here); the most recent year published (or that I could find in 5 minutes).
Age 20-24: 19.8% Age 25-29: 12.3% Age 30-34: 10.9% Age 35-39: 10.4% Age 40-44: 8.9% Age 45-49: 5.5% Age 50-55: 2.9%
(NOTE: I've not put all ages in these so don't expect to get to 100%.)
Interesting, but this is all crime. These stats don't address cybercrime specifically, but we can take a look at fraud and embezzlement numbers as in the same basic class of crime as the AOL guy committed. At least we won't pollute the numbers with sex, drugs, and murder that way:
Age 20-24: 20.0% Age 25-29: 16.7% Age 30-34: 16.1% Age 35-39: 14.0% Age 40-44: 10.8% Age 45-49: 6.4% Age 50-55: 3.3%
Wow. Of course, there were other non-violent crimes in that report other than fraud and embezzlement and they may well shift the numbers (stuff like forgery and gambling). But even eyeballing those the young are less trustworthy. The only place were older people seemed to be worse was sex crimes (which doesn't surprise me). There are crime stats for cybercrime, but I couldn't find any study regarding perp age. It is interesting that the vast majority of computer crime is from within, the same class that the AOL guy was.
Naturally my little study was quick and dirty and may not stand a deep look, but it's close enough for government work (but you'd know more about that than I). It certainly supports my premise however; more successfully than I thought. Indeed it's a shame you and I are the only ones watching this thread at this point (slashdot attention being as fleeting as it is). Of course, presenting actual facts might throw the average Slashdotter for a loop.
"[...]just makes you seem like an asshole with a grudge who responds with arrogance, even if your observations are reasonable."
Get this straight: I am an asshole and I am arrogant and I could care less who thinks that I am either; I leave such worries to the unexceptional, fashion whores and the middle class sensibilities that m
Slashdot Mirror
You're OK... from what we've seen so far. ;-)
If I were an executive for an enterprise that had the choice of investing X dollars into building an open source groupware solution that met my needs or buy one, such as Exchange, that came pretty darn close... MS would get the money every time unless I was in the software business.
10% of what I'd buy Exchange for ends up costing more than 10%. You have the cash investment, you have the time spent trying to put input into the software requirements, you have the time that you're waiting for th solution rather than using the solution. Not a go forward proposition if technology weren't my core competency. I'd spend that kind of investment on software more central to business.
If I had a solution that was 90% there and only needed to come 10% of the way and I could get it done and developed and rolled out in the same time frame as an existing commercial groupware product... I'd take a serious look. Business wants to have freedom of software I assure you, but not at any cost or risk.
So far I haven't seen anything that can take on the Exchange/Outlook combination even for the most basic features. And, yes, user experience, ease of use and all the little hand-holding bloat that much of open source avoids actually makes a difference to the highly non-techie user crowd and ultimately becomes a success factor for the implementation.
Why? You think socialism has a monopoly on that?
I once was hired to record Novell's "Brain Share" users conference back in the early 90s. One of the speakers actually said in one of the sessions that, (paraphrasing a bit) "We've reached a point where Microsoft has conceded the network server space to us just as we don't try to challenge them on the desktop." What the speaker was implying was that Novell and Microsoft had found a way to co-exist. He said it so convincingly I can't help to think to this day that the poor guy actually believed it... and that may well have been why Novell is where it's at today rather than the dominant postition they had at the time in PC networking.
You're reading but not thinking.
My exemplar doesn't matter if it is not the whole Southern UK. Indeed, the fact that the population density is less throughout the South of England means that you should expect a better mass transit system. It is precisely the higher population density spread so evenly over such a large geographical area that makes mass transit problematic in a place like LA.
Have you ever been to Los Angeles or are you really just speaking out your ass on the subject? Having lived in LA for 10 years, worked for 6 different companies, and lived and worked in other cities where public transportation really does work, I think I'm more qualified to speak on the matter.
The whole of the UK... no. Actually lets run some numbers... but population density alone is a naive metric by which to judge mass transit feasibility, though in combination with other facts it becomes relevant. The greater Los Angeles metro area has approximately 18,000,000 people. Los Angeles County alone has over 4000 square miles (and this does not include Orange, Ventura, nor Riverside counties... all commuting destinations one way or the other.) Compare this to London with a greater metro area of just more than 600 square miles and a population of about 7,500,000. (FYI, I'm pulling these numbers from Wikipedia for better or worse). So, ~10 Million of the 18 live in LA county so lets just stick with that... people/sq. miles for LA county is 2500 people per square mile. Lets apply this to London... 12500 people per sq. mile. Of the people in the country side in the UK, I imagine that most of them live in areas where there is countryside-town-countryside-town such that the rail system allows for more (relatively) distant stations to population centers and fewer overall lines than if the entire thing were a least houses on 1/4 acre lots or 3 family houses etc.
Rail lines like those that connect outlying areas with the Urban centers exist in LA already and are used... the problem is there is no real 'Urban Center'. Indeed when we hear about someone going 'downtown' we have to ask the question...'downtown? why would anyone go there' That's the crux of the transportation problem in Los Angeles... there is no one business/commercial/very high denisty residential districts (or adjacent districts) or decidedly residential districts such as there are with a city like New York. Within LA county people commute to centers like downtown (contradiction I know) or Century City which is ~20 miles away from downtown, or Santa Monica another 10 or Glendale's downtown with is 12 or so the other direction or Universal City... indeed within Los Angeles county there are probably 12-20 areas that would be considered 'downtown' centers in many other cities. When I worked for Virgin, the fresh arrivals from the UK were often astounded, shocked and disturbed at the size and geography of the city. The way to think about it is that greater LA metro area is one giant suburb spread over 6000 or so square miles.
As for cost, a single 17.4 mile line of our subway system cost more than 4.5 billion dollars to build... to provide adequate coverage for just the 4000 square miles is not only is it expensive it is not viable. Not recognizing the scale of the project is more denial than anything. Another example... in 1995 an extention of one of the light rail lines of 10 miles, on existing track, took $1 Billion dollars. We're a big city but the investment would likely be on the order of 100's of billions of dollars to put in an effective system
Now a city like New York... trains and subways work briliantly there; same with Boston. Indeed a car is almost a harm in these cities and I got around easier without them (nevermind that Bostonians are lucky if they make it out of their driveways without hitting something.)
Finally, I am one of the few people in the U.S. that has both driven, and trained across the country, coast-to-coast. Trains would not work outside of 100 miles or so of any reasonable city here. Consider that from LA to Boston is about the distance from Helsinki to Rome... and much, much less densly populated than Europe or the UK.
I must take issue with some of your positions.
"Hillary is not a socialist." I think if you look back at the early '90s, you'll find that the health care reforms she was spearheading on behalf of her husband in essence was a de facto nationalization of the health care system in the U.S. By using high degrees of government regulation or ownership to rectify perceived unfairness in the distribution of health care by definition is a socialist policy position. Your other characterizations I agree with. Look, even my side of the political spectrum has its own whack jobs: think Pat Robertson. Nonetheless, is some key ways Pat Robertson and I do agree and I can't disavow that to make me look more correct. I have to take it for what it is and take faith that even whack jobs may get some things right; anything else is artificial and hypocrisy.
"Socialists do not love big or powerful government" First, socialist policies require extensive legislative power in order to enforce the key proposition that distinguishes it from the opposing conservative ideology: namely that wealth and power should be distributed in some sort of 'fair' arrangement. Without extensive legislative power, and the government bureaucracy to enforce it, people would not be forced to comply with the taxation, the social policy, the powersharing or anything else and largely socialist policy would be little more than banter on Slashdot. So when you say, "Socialists are concerned with balancing all the ill effects of capitalism (as it has many of them, regardless of its positive ones) with some sort of communal social conscience," I would contend you can do none of those things without big government. Whether you love it or not is up to you, but you need it to have your desire.
You go on to add from the point of the last paragraph, "(on the contrary, it seems that neo-cons do [love big government], just look at the size and deficits of that thing now!) This is just political sophistry aimed at painting the Bush administration with the dirty phrase 'neo-con' much the same way conservatives turned 'liberal' into an undesirable label (thereby causing the American Left to search for more palatable monikers such as 'progressive'). Couple things we should get straight... my understanding of neo-conservatism (speaking now as one that hold many of these ideologies) is primarily focused on the foreign policy of the country not so much the domestic agenda. Admittly I may be wrong on the formal definition (I don't get too caught up with trendy labels), but if we broaden your statement to be 'conservative' ideology your argument couldn't be more flawed. I would suggest that the Bush Administration is not conservative at all nor representative of conservative thought. I think the recent Cato Institute conference generally got it right; Bush and his administration are Christian Socialists. Congress, too, has largely been made up of RINOs (republicans in name only) since the fall of Gingrich. The ideas of small government conservativism died at about the same time as their greatest champion, Ronald Reagan, did.
But be a Socialist after Marx or be one after Christ, the two have a few things in common. The notion that they have been appointed (one by God the other by ???) to determine what is right and wrong for the rest of us is proof of their kinship. Economic inequalities between me and my fellow man? So what. Many more poor than rich? So long as the rule of law is paramount and that law establishes nothing more than a level playing field in terms of opportunity, let the poor be poor and the rich be rich. Within the nation so long as there are the minimal constraints to prevent monopoly amongst competitors be they companies or ethnic/religious groups there should be no one to make such decisions as, "you are too rich," or, "you are too powerful". Only if you can make the argument that by force (exercised throug
I live in the city/metro-area that is the king of suburban sprawl in the US (Los Angeles). To suggest that 60-90 minute commutes each way are not taxing because they don't cost enough per mile is pure foolishness. Given the population distribution, effective mass transit is virtually impossible as well. Even well meaning efforts like high occupancy lanes end up contributing more to pollution than ensuring adequate capacity on the freeways in a place like LA. As for real pollution, yes LA is bad, but often time the central valley (the large agricultural area north of LA and southish of San Francisco) has worse air quality... primarily growing food. Better nail them too. Actually, that really makes me wonder what the cost of producing nitrogen based fertilizers that make the current world population possible should -really- cost.
Make fuel prices rise and you are right: people will drive less. But in LA they won't move into the city, at least until the high fuel prices have dragged the economy down to the point where there aren't jobs enough to keep people in the city at living wages to begin with.
And so we beat up that old evil U.S. Then what? Do we slap down India and China since their consumption is growing to the point where it might not be so long until both countries catch up to Uncle Sam? Many of the people that want to stop the US from burning fuel argue that 'developing' countries should get a pass... but it's the same environment no mstter who's burning it. So how should we make it taxing on the third world? And one we decide how to stop the engines of civilization, how to you intend to get people to buy in.
Look, nuclear power is a part... and important part, of a larger picture. But just because it doesn't do all things for all people and solve all problems doesn't mean we shouldn't pursue it agressively. Greater fuel efficiency in cars is considered a prime way to reduce emissions, but that won't solve the larger issues alone either.
I don't know about this being the wrong approach from the retailer side.
The biggest downside, as you say, is the customer service perspective. If a customer wants a receipt right then and there, you (as retailer) had better be ready to provide it. Having said that, most people probably just buy into the process and go with it. If you look at that customer service risk compared to the aggregate savings in store labor hours in the big picture, this is probably very smart for the retailer. The customer usually will get their product faster, the stores will be able to process more transactions with less cashier time dedicated to each transaction.
For the consumer, the possibility of problem is not the same as having a problem. Airplanes are rife with opportunity to fail (with much greater consequence), but such failures are so rare that air travellers discount them. The originally planned baggage system at Denver Int. Airport, however, was so unreliable that they ended up having to decomission it altogether (as I recall). The success or failure of Apple's approach really will depend on how reliable it is.
This isn't too different than want most chain retailers do today with gift cards. They suffer all the same problems and even more than this quick check out. Even if you have a printed receipt with a gift card, the receipt will not tell you how much value is on the card at a given point in time. If we accept that computers make mistakes, then yes, there will be times when the value the computer says is on the card does not reflect reality. What the retailer does in these cases is this: they deal with it; usually not with technology, but very manually. At some point when the one offs happen you have to allow the skills of your store managers and staff shine through.
What I find compelling is that this is one of the first times the much vaunted 'multi-channel retailer' concepts has been put into practice. Esp. the part about linking in existing Apple accounts into the bricks and mortar retail environment. THe promise has been there for a long time, and implemented to varying degrees; just most chains having been willing to shell out the $$$ to do the inegration required to make it really happen. It will be interesting to see how they can grow the concept.
Cheers,
Steve
But this is the best part. The promise of all of this is to commoditize the labor and the IP at the same time. From a business perspective, I can't help but win. Since open source is just that, open, I can find the best developers at the lowest cost to get the job done, not just the original vendor that I am held hostage to. If I want to take it to India, China, Vietnam, or do it in house; my choices are more open that before.
It worked with televisions, why not computer software?
That's for sure. I'm on my second or third copy (can't remember I've needed them for so long) the 'Real Book'. There's also the derivatives, like the 'Real Book II', etc. When I was in music school, long ago, I remember you use to have to get it from this guy that was like homeless (or something like that) who always had a dog that wore a bandana with him. Every once in a while you'd see the cops chasing him. These were the illegal ones, the Real real books that have been used for years & years. What was really wild was that it was required for some classes and a professor or two had tunes ripped off in the Real Book.
Of course in the early '90s legit publishing companies started to try and take advantage of the name (like 'the legal real book', etc.). You really just couldn't take them on pickup gigs though because everyone else had the illegal ones if a tune came up that not everybody knew.
I'm not sure what they are smoking in the executive boardroom either.
What expertise do they have?
HOW does this fit into what they are doing now?
You know... that's what a lot of people once said about a guy that owned a chain of record stores and a record label when he tried to get into the airline business. At the end of the day, Richard Branson's Virgin Atlantic hasn't done too bad over the years. Of course, I haven't tracked it since I worked for Virgin (record stores), but I believe the airline is still around today.
Chances are that if you get to 'legally correct', you will prompt the other side that they need a lawyer, too. Under those circumstances you may find that the company lawyer has enough objections that you end up without your code (or contract if that's your choice). If the company is small, you may just scare them off altogether.
I agree, you should consult an attorney (probably labor atty before IP atty), but if the contract is truly informal all the way around (you and company) then take the advice, but don't destroy the spirit of the informality... unless you feel it's the only way to accomplish your goal.
Keep in mind, too, that you should probably address the company's competitors and how you would treat them if they approached you for anything that could be even construed as business sensitive. If your employer gets to the lawyer phase, this will almost surely come up.
Cheers!
SCB
On an aside... I wonder how much GPL software is licensed as such simply because it is the most popular license in open source?
I can see some developers writing GPL code without really understanding the consequences for their work simply because "it's the one they've heard of". Popularity does have a momentum all its own.
Here in California it's primarily an immigration law issue, in addition to the legitimate security issues the bill seeks to cover.
There are strong political constituencies in our state's legislature to provide de facto legalization to individuals coming into the country illegally by giving them state driver licenses that are indistinguishable from those provided to legal citizens and residents. The Real ID amendment, by setting out guidelines including proof of legal residency to obtain state issued identification, effectively pre-empts these ill-conceived state efforts.
Generally my preference is to have these issues sorted out at the state level, however there are very real security concerns for the nation at large that I think makes Federal intervention warranted in this case. I have no example, for instance, that the California state government will take appropriate measures to validate backgrounds for those receiving driver licenses illegal or not whereas, say, Arizona may have appropriate policies. In this case, Real ID would ensure that a standard level of assurance would be enforced (theoretically) across the board. Of course there are laws about immigration itself not being enforced, so this may well end up in that category.
The legislation was actually going to be part of different, more contextually appropriate piece of legislation last session. Because the inclusion of this measure threatened that bill, they (the provision's supporters)removed it promising to introduce it as an amendment to the first major piece of legislation this year... which happened to be this military funding bill.
Actually, this was quite above board (meaning public) as these sorts of things go. Especially here in California where there are real issues that this bill will help solve.
That so many talented, skilled workers not take their future into their own hands? Especially when forced to do so by being laid off, etc.
It seems to me that if I were a victim of programmer off-shoring, yes, I would look for a job... but in the meantime I would work to build a coalition of my fellow unemployed talented, skilled works to build some new product, create some new consulting firm, or find some way to bring these talents to bear in the marketplace.
We're not talking about building cars here with a large initial investment in raw materials. Coders are incredibly well placed to take their destiny into their own hands.
Maybe it's social skills, or the independent nature of coders that prevent them from coalescing into groups of economically viable businesses... just so strange from my perspective that this doesn't happen more often.
In addressing my second point you 1) betray your political leanings (before your ad hominem closing statements confirms it), 2) prove my point. Look at what you're saying: at every step you postulate that somehow this question cannot apply to blacks because they are too different, too complex... but somehow you fail to recognize that we are all complicated and we all have our pet issues. I would submit that I've merely taken the question to places where you are uncomfortable with it going.
;-)
Let me suggest this then as an approach to the study. First the article (which I have now read... and then some) asserts that amygdala is more active in processing political images in Democrats vs. Republicans. Seems to me that this can be measured without any special consideration being given to specific social circumstances, unless it also follows that amygdala function is primarily determined by the immediate social circumstances of the study subject. So the first question I would try to answer experimentally is: Is there a correlation of increased amygdala activity amongst Democrat blacks vs. Republican blacks (if you insist, of the same socio-economic group). From this dataset, we can test for socio-economic differences by testing a different group of Republican and Democrat blacks from different socio-economic groups; if amygdala activity is still a statistically relevant determinant, I can have some reason to believe that biological factors are significant enough to predict political disposition. The third test is to take a group of blacks from differing political affiliations and socio-economic backgrounds, submit them to the visuals and the MRI, and then based on the results of amygdala activity, predict their political affiliations (or more appropriately, political leanings). Notice to this point that in all my tests I've not consider one white person or person of another race than black. I should (if the authors of the study are correct) be able to show a biological connection to political leanings amongst blacks and avoiding the 'comparative' factors you cite as not being able to prove the connection in blacks. Now, assuming I establish the biological predisposition, I can start to compare amygdala activity amongst races (since that seems to be where you wanted me to go in the first place) as a predictor for political leanings DESPITE other socio-economic factors. So I disagree, if a mere non-scientist such as myself can envision ways to test the hypothesis without resorting to simple racial comparisons I well imagine that those wiser than I could construct quite good studies to determine if a biological predictor that coincides with race happens to exist.
A stronger point to refute my race question would have been to cite the growing concern on the left that the traditionally solid black base is showing signs that it is eroding. Be it black Democrat leaders starting to complain that the Democrat party has only delivered promises rather than results or an increasingly large black middle class that is waking up to the fact that self-reliance, not government sponsored dependency, is the true path to success: the black base is increasingly not the single-minded block it once was. Don't get me wrong... I'm not exactly holding my breath for a huge Republican victory in the black vote anytime soon, but all things with time.
Personally, while there may be subtle differences in reactions to political messages due to biology, However, I suspect that we all come to our decisions based on our specific circumstances, logic, and clung to axioms. Which brings me to my original point: that the UCLA study was really a useless exercise. I think your wiser path would have been simply to agree, the study is silly.
More amusingly, my ad hominem closer, you know, the one about engineering liberal support? Well, turns out I was so far from the mark: Another article about this study.
Cheers!
SCB
You know, of all the studies I can think of as being worth while, this really isn't one of them. And no I didn't read the article... the premise itself is flawed.
First, I've never known the leadership of any political movement, liberal or conservative, to have deep felt compassion, fear, or anything else. I have known political leaders of many shades of belief to be calculating, selfish and manipulative. The simple fact is they wouldn't be leaders if they held the traits attributed to 'liberals'. Are my observations scentific? No, they are completely anecdotal, but i don't believe they're that off base.
Second. I wonder what would happen if the sages of the New York Times or the researchers they are reporting on next asked the question: 'Why do blacks tend to align themselves with the Democrats (in the U.S. of course).' After all, if there are biological precursors to political affiliation, and blacks tend to overwhelmingly support democrats doesn't this express, at the very least, a correlation worth looking into? Maybe I'm being too cold and calculating because clearly such questions are, no doubt, not asked with appropriate sensitivity to the history of western culture's suppression of non-white races and cultures. In short the premise of the study, in a slightly different context, violates the taboos of those reporting on it... I guess this is why so many liberals indulge in moral relativism.
Finally, who the hell cares? What does it matter? What does knowing this crucial fact change? Unless, we're talking about manufacturing people that are pre-wired for a certain political disposition, I suspect nothing... of course, maybe that's why liberal voices seem to be drawn to this story: if you can't beat 'em on ideas, engineer 'em!
Cheers!
SCB
I appreciate the response.
I knew of Einstein's, Schwarzchild's, Chandrasekhar's, and Hawking's contributions in this area of study... along with others like Thorne and Wheeler (all from a layman's perspective, of course), but had never heard of 'black hole' like concepts prior to the advent of general relativity.
I appreciate the science history lesson and context!
SCB
From the Rueters article pubished by wired...
For over 200 years, scientists have puzzled over black holes, which form when stars burn all their fuel and collapse, creating a huge gravitational pull.
Now I'm no scientist, but 200 years of black holes seems like they're giving the issue more duration than history warrants. I thought the concept of a 'black hole' was a consequence of Einstein's relativity work (general, special I can never remember which is which... think it's general).
Am I wrong and just missed a whole bunch of science history?
Cheers!
SCB
Well said and a well written article.
I am someone that is less interested in the technological elegance of any solution and more interested in how the solution empowers ordinary people to work, or even play. I think you address the issues generally right on (even if not 100% correct on every detail). I think the typical Slashdot user may miss the bigger picture: just because you can do something with a system is different than being able to do it well or easily.
I've read through a number of the comments and many are missing this big picture; many are getting it, too. Hopefully the more serious members of the open source community will hear this and respond, not with flames but with better solutions.
Thanks again!
SCB
Actually, the labels want to keep you in the haze of "I've made it" long after the dotted line is signed.
Ultimately, as long as the perks keep flowing (and yes the band pays, but usually doesn't notice), the band will produce good work, not question the deal as time goes by because they're living the high life, and they keep the carefree/rebel image that is demanded by popular music.
Once the sales have stopped (and the royalties), so do the advances and everything else. But until they decide not to release or the sales stop, they want to foster the rockstar lifestyle in their acts: it's in the label's benefit.
Even large once established acts are like this. I know a guy that was a guitarist for a big name, 80s band (one album went platinum more than several times over). After a time in the spotlight and enjoying the rock'n'roll way, let's just say I've got a nicely surfaced kitchen table right now because the guy's got to make a living one way or another. The royalties? Mechanical Syncronization rights and publishing? HA! That's all for the label.
This is why I got out of music as a profession. There were better ways to make money and I can write the music I want and not be beholden to anyone.
Cheers!
SCB
" And you completely missed my point...
Managers should be cautious assigning anyone to places of high responsibility. Malicious young workers, incompetant old managers..."
I'm not missing your point at all, I'm simply taking it for granted. Perhaps if I state my hypothesis as: 'All other things being equal, you are more likely to see a statistically greater number of younger workers make judgment errors than older workers; including judgment errors resulting in criminal behavior.' So, if you make bad hiring decisions generally or good hiring decisions generally, as long as you are consistent in your criteria... age becomes a statistically relevant predictor. What I am not saying is that bad decisions won't result in bad results. If you hire a crook that is 50 years old, you will get the bad results same as if you hired a 25 year old crooks.
Given that, I urge managers to apply caution to every hiring decision for important roles and that extra caution is warranted in evaluating a young person for the same role.
"Sitting on this stereotype[...]"
Lets stop right there. There's an old saying that goes something like, "Just because you're paranoid it doesn't mean they aren't out to get you." Just because it's a stereotype doesn't mean it's not true. I agree it is a stereotype and one that is earned. However, my hypothesis is testable and there are even studies that can provide insight. Just for shits and giggles (and the fact I believe security and technology management issues are important) I did a little looking around and pulled some crime statistics.
Lets start with a look at all crime broken up into 5 years per age group. (I'd do a full APA bibliographic citation, but I'm old & tired... oops! another stereotype) BTW, all stats are from the 2002 Crime in the United States report from the FBI (available here); the most recent year published (or that I could find in 5 minutes).
Age 20-24: 19.8%
Age 25-29: 12.3%
Age 30-34: 10.9%
Age 35-39: 10.4%
Age 40-44: 8.9%
Age 45-49: 5.5%
Age 50-55: 2.9%
(NOTE: I've not put all ages in these so don't expect to get to 100%.)
Interesting, but this is all crime. These stats don't address cybercrime specifically, but we can take a look at
fraud and embezzlement numbers as in the same basic class of crime as the AOL guy committed. At least we won't pollute the numbers with sex, drugs, and murder that way:
Age 20-24: 20.0%
Age 25-29: 16.7%
Age 30-34: 16.1%
Age 35-39: 14.0%
Age 40-44: 10.8%
Age 45-49: 6.4%
Age 50-55: 3.3%
Wow. Of course, there were other non-violent crimes in that report other than fraud and embezzlement and they may well shift the numbers (stuff like forgery and gambling). But even eyeballing those the young are less trustworthy. The only place were older people seemed to be worse was sex crimes (which doesn't surprise me). There are crime stats for cybercrime, but I couldn't find any study regarding perp age. It is interesting that the vast majority of computer crime is from within, the same class that the AOL guy was.
Naturally my little study was quick and dirty and may not stand a deep look, but it's close enough for government work (but you'd know more about that than I). It certainly supports my premise however; more successfully than I thought. Indeed it's a shame you and I are the only ones watching this thread at this point (slashdot attention being as fleeting as it is). Of course, presenting actual facts might throw the average Slashdotter for a loop.
"[...]just makes you seem like an asshole with a grudge who responds with arrogance, even if your observations are reasonable."
Get this straight: I am an asshole and I am arrogant and I could care less who thinks that I am either; I leave such worries to the unexceptional, fashion whores and the middle class sensibilities that m
I just remembered the jargon I was looking for: compulsory mechanical licensing.