Actually, I inadvertently found out how to get the Best Buy sales folks to clam up and stop bothering me. I went in to a store to look at the DVD players. A guy came over to "assist" and I asked if they had any "region free" players. He said no, and shrinked off, and noone got near me after that. Not sure why that would have triggered such a response, but it sure seemed to. Maybe they figured I was an MPAA plant, looking to get on their case for telling customers how to pick a region free "capable" player, etc. In any event, it worked great, I was then able to browse unannoyed.
on this 32M W98 machine. I tried firefox, it's unusably slow on this machine, I gave up on it in frustration. Looked at "onebyone" to find something with a smaller footprint, but it doesn't do enough to get into hotmail. IE performs perfectly well on this thing as far as I can tell, so I'll be looking forward to whatever configuration options and/or fixes MS can come up with.
On the other hand, my own work/home systems are a w2k where firefox runs fine, and a linux box where I'm not sure what brower I'm using but it obviously is not IE. Too bad I'll have to leave this system with IE as it is. (a box I setup for a friend).
Sorry Microsoft, you need Google's technology to compete with Google.
That's what they said about the Mac when MSFT came out with Windows. It wasn't true then and it's not true now.
What they do need is a hook. With Windows/Mac it was price. With IE/Netscape it was an OS tie-in and web page generation software that crept in incompatibilities with Netscape. Not sure what the one here will be, but it's clear that MSFT has a long history of "competing" by tilting the playing field, which is interesting because it's a tacit admission that they do not consider themselves capable of competing on a level field.
After a closer look, this really must be a gag. I mean, is it really possible they are that clueless? And some of the items seem just a little too self-parodying.
Reread the paragraph "Don't go dark." This one's got to be the most obfuscated in the bunch-- in other words, the darkest of the bunch...
What do you expect? Give them a couple of years, they're only up to a triangle as of yet, it takes time to get all the way to the quadrilateral when you're inventing all of this from scratch in a complete vacuum...
Yeah, this one was truly moronic. Portability often positively contributes to maintainability. That is, unless you are really bad at it. And it doesn't inherently increase development time, uh, that is, unless you are really bad at it.
Hope these guys don't look too surprised when they find themselves painted into a corner.
Now I understand more about why Microsofts software products are relative crap compared with most any of the software corporations of note out there. They've missed one of the most important items (I'd put it as number 1), and I think it could very well be intentional:
1. Learn from those who have gone before you-- do not operate in a vacuum. This is not the first time such a project has come about, nor the first time such a product has been developed. Remember that if you ignore the mistakes of the past, you are very likely to repeat them.
Note that there are NO references to any historicity of the problems in any way-- its clear the entire list of development dos and don'ts here were crafted from scratch completely within the information vacuum of Microsoft. It is as if it were the first time such things have ever been done. Of course, by ignoring other similar developments, I suppose you can then say you are "innovating," but only from ignorance-- it is as "innovating" for someone kept in isolation to invent the wheel as it was for the original cave-man(?) to do it I suppose, but what does it really mean to be such an innovator in a world where everyone else have been travelling on wheels for centuries?
Newspaper sites that require registration just don't get it-- they're far from the only game in town by any means, and if they're that clueless I see no reason I would want to read anything they have to say. There's plenty more sources I can get the same information from, and chances are even their own articles are mirrored somewhere, if I cared. Its quite convenient that Google news informs you right at the link that reg is required, so I don't even have to waste my time on them.
Makes it easy to critique a straw opponent when you redefine the terms to mean what you want them to mean. Microsoft defines "free" as in "beer" and anyone who knows much of anything about Linux knows the "free" aspect of Linux that represents the most value, is the "freedom" aspect of the OS, not the purchase cost.
As long as Microsoft is comparing based on cost, they either just don't get it, or think they can bamboozle their audience.
On the other hand, anyone who is interested in a comparison based on the "free"dom-ness of the two OSes, will find the Microsoft presentation a complete non-sequitur.
Even if you aren't using it or don't really need it. Even if there is an X that has a direct-to-framebuffer mode (is there?), there's still all that code designed to push it over a network. Of course, NOONE I know is actually USING a GUI remotely, and while it's nice to know you can, I still think the fact that it is there by default is a serious flaw in Linux GUI's that will always put it at a performance/size disadvantage over MS and MAC GUIs (at least the older MAC, haven't seen a new one since OS-X, so I don't know what that does...).
Consequently, I still use SVGALIB/console windows, even for viewing images and web surfing for info (using lynx). Don't like a mouse anyway, as I have 10 working fingers and know how to touchtype, not just a couple. Also, I happen to like the feature of "typeahead" which you don't get in a GUI.../p>
Seems to me, one way to pump up the visibility of this particular problem is to generate bogus copyright complaints on a couple of choice items that would cause a rucus-- though I can't think of one offhand, I'll bet a little thought would produce some interesting potential candidates. Having some Microsoft marketing announcements pulled, for example, might cause some force to be exerted on the problem.
Of course, there is the slight problem of the liability it might expose the claimer to (fraudulent claims), but I would imagine there are probably a few ways to circumvent that...
Disclaimer: I am not recommending illegal activity here, just pointing out the effect a few targeted cases of fraudulent IP claims might have.
They're ROBOTS people... You could use an old speech synthesizer like Steven Hawking's and it would pass for a robot voice, so what's the big deal? Sounds like the human characters in this movie might not even make actual screen appearances. Or maybe you get to see their feet like some of the old animal cartoons.
But I guess the fact that it is fully "artificial" is the best thing one can think to say about it, which actually says a LOT...
DVDs are cheaper because generally people don't play DVDs as often as they play CDs. How many times do you watch a movie? Many people buy a DVD, watch it once, and it goes on the shelf and the don't watch it again. DVDs are far more likely to be rentals. CDs get played a lot, often in the car where it's heard over and over again. The percieved value of a DVD is less than that of a music CD, which is a far greater influence on the price than the cost to produce. When DVDs cost more, people don't buy them. How many VHS movies did you buy when the average cost was around $50? How many DVDs are you buying now?
And at the moment, the time and trouble to burn a bootleg DVD is often more than its worth when you can buy a prepackaged DVD with cover and case and booklet, etc., for under $20. The DVD content that gets downloaded is more often material you can't get on DVD because it hasn't been released yet.
CD customers however, have a long history of mistreatment by the manufacturing corporations. LPs were under $8 when CDs came out. Just before CDs came out, we started hearing about how much cheaper they were to produce. Then we end up with $15 CDs, lose the nice big picture, liner notes and lyric sheets and other extras (remember the gatefold covers?), and eventually end up re-buying all our favorites for the convenience of not having to maintain an extra set of playback equipment. Who got the extra profit? How were the customers treated? Who's the "crook" here? It's not all that hard to tell. And who was in control? The consumer can stop buying music in protest, but who does that really penalize?
In some areas, taxes on blank media were levied to cover copying. But what if you used blank media to record a demo for your garage band? Aren't you paying your competition for the right to record your own music? You've paid for copying, do you not then have the right to actually do it?
The RIAA corporations are soon-to-be-extinct Neanderthal bums that have lost control of the distribution channel, control of which was what provided the sole reason for their existence. DRM is a time and money wasting diversion that will only hasten their demise. They've painted themselves into a corner and now refuse to leave. One might feel sorry for them if they didn't fully deserve what they are getting.
The question is then, does anyone actually know how to write Java correctly?
Every once in awhile I figure I'll give Java another chance and try running a Java app. Every one I've ever seen runs like a three legged dog. Based on comments I've seen I get the impression that the runtimes vary widely, and those who are claiming how great it runs must be using something other than what I'm running-- in which case they are rather out of touch with their users. I don't know that in fact this is the problem, as I am not interested enough to diagnose what's wrong-- all I can say is, if what you say is true, most Java authors don't know how to write it "correctly."
Even badly written C++ apps at least run on your machine with characteristics that are pretty similar to those experienced by the developer. Consequently, the developer's experience is a little better connected with the users, and therefore the result is a little more tolerable.
IBM certainly has had a history of taking market-capturing monopolistic moves not terribly different than some of the stuff Microsoft has been pulling. The difference though, between IBM and Microsoft is that for the most part, IBM's products don't suck.
Think for a moment-- if Microsoft's products were anywhere near as well designed as, say Apple's, do you really think they'd be getting the kind of flak they're getting now over their monopolistic practices? Linux would have a much harder time of it if most Windows users actually liked Windows.
And that's not to say that IBM can't produce junk, I'm sure there's plenty of examples people could point to. Generally though, IBM is capable of recognizing, admitting and/or correcting the problem when it occurs. But Microsoft's FLAGSHIP product is junk, it's been junk for its entire lifespan, and it would appear that not only is Microsoft incapable of competing on quality, they are completely aware of that fact and therefore resort to the most underhanded means of lock-in and other consumer-unfriendly market protections (either that, or they simply prefer to do things in an underhanded way-- a distinct possiblity).
Because of that, I'm inclined to give IBM far more slack with regards to it's "selfish" efforts to steal market share away from Microsoft...
I stopped using Realplayer on Windows not because of adware or spyware, but because the players at the time, hijacked your settings. Quicktime did it too, and there was this war going on in my system for awhile for which would be the "default" player for the various audio formats, that didn't include me in any of the decisions. I don't know if either of them still do that, but it moved them both to the very bottom of the priority list, and so far, I haven't found the need to bubble them up to the point where I figure it's worth the trouble installing them to find out.
I figure Real's days are numbered anyway, any business model that's survival depends on either priviledged IP or being the only game in town is inherently devalued by information exchange (i.e., the internet), not to mention that it tends to make them less than trustworthy.
Hey-- that does suggest a possible anti-SPAM strategy-- wasn't it Yahoo that got the idea of giving you a bank of mailboxes so you could give a different one to each commercial service you use that require one and then shut it down when they give it to spammers?
What about "use once" accounts that dissappear after the first mail they recieve-- it forwards you the one confirmation mail you need and then goes away. Or perhaps for a limited time-- a day, week, month, etc. then auto-self-destructs?
How about placing bogus email links on pages everywhere that are constantly changing to a new random bogus address to keep filling up the spammers lists that use spiderbots with mountains of useless addresses...
Slashdot Mirror
Actually, I inadvertently found out how to get the Best Buy sales folks to clam up and stop bothering me. I went in to a store to look at the DVD players. A guy came over to "assist" and I asked if they had any "region free" players. He said no, and shrinked off, and noone got near me after that. Not sure why that would have triggered such a response, but it sure seemed to. Maybe they figured I was an MPAA plant, looking to get on their case for telling customers how to pick a region free "capable" player, etc. In any event, it worked great, I was then able to browse unannoyed.
Poetic justice...
on this 32M W98 machine. I tried firefox, it's unusably slow on this machine, I gave up on it in frustration. Looked at "onebyone" to find something with a smaller footprint, but it doesn't do enough to get into hotmail. IE performs perfectly well on this thing as far as I can tell, so I'll be looking forward to whatever configuration options and/or fixes MS can come up with.
On the other hand, my own work/home systems are a w2k where firefox runs fine, and a linux box where I'm not sure what brower I'm using but it obviously is not IE. Too bad I'll have to leave this system with IE as it is. (a box I setup for a friend).
Sorry Microsoft, you need Google's technology to compete with Google.
That's what they said about the Mac when MSFT came out with Windows. It wasn't true then and it's not true now.
What they do need is a hook. With Windows/Mac it was price. With IE/Netscape it was an OS tie-in and web page generation software that crept in incompatibilities with Netscape. Not sure what the one here will be, but it's clear that MSFT has a long history of "competing" by tilting the playing field, which is interesting because it's a tacit admission that they do not consider themselves capable of competing on a level field.
Actually, if these guys really have identified a set of bugs in common, they've already done way more legal homework than SCO ever has.
Yep, they've come a long way, pardner.
After a closer look, this really must be a gag. I mean, is it really possible they are that clueless? And some of the items seem just a little too self-parodying.
Reread the paragraph "Don't go dark." This one's got to be the most obfuscated in the bunch-- in other words, the darkest of the bunch...
Gotta be a gag, I'm tellin ya...
Didn't "Barbarians Led By Bill Gates" mention that MS finally created a QA department around the late '80s or early '90s?
Simply amazing. What'll they think of next?
What do you expect? Give them a couple of years, they're only up to a triangle as of yet, it takes time to get all the way to the quadrilateral when you're inventing all of this from scratch in a complete vacuum...
Clearly an accurate representation of their thinking process.
Yeah, this one was truly moronic. Portability often positively contributes to maintainability. That is, unless you are really bad at it. And it doesn't inherently increase development time, uh, that is, unless you are really bad at it.
Hope these guys don't look too surprised when they find themselves painted into a corner.
Now I understand more about why Microsofts software products are relative crap compared with most any of the software corporations of note out there. They've missed one of the most important items (I'd put it as number 1), and I think it could very well be intentional:
1. Learn from those who have gone before you-- do not operate in a vacuum. This is not the first time such a project has come about, nor the first time such a product has been developed. Remember that if you ignore the mistakes of the past, you are very likely to repeat them.
Note that there are NO references to any historicity of the problems in any way-- its clear the entire list of development dos and don'ts here were crafted from scratch completely within the information vacuum of Microsoft. It is as if it were the first time such things have ever been done. Of course, by ignoring other similar developments, I suppose you can then say you are "innovating," but only from ignorance-- it is as "innovating" for someone kept in isolation to invent the wheel as it was for the original cave-man(?) to do it I suppose, but what does it really mean to be such an innovator in a world where everyone else have been travelling on wheels for centuries?
No security = useless
No compatibility = useless
Newspaper sites that require registration just don't get it-- they're far from the only game in town by any means, and if they're that clueless I see no reason I would want to read anything they have to say. There's plenty more sources I can get the same information from, and chances are even their own articles are mirrored somewhere, if I cared. Its quite convenient that Google news informs you right at the link that reg is required, so I don't even have to waste my time on them.
Makes it easy to critique a straw opponent when you redefine the terms to mean what you want them to mean. Microsoft defines "free" as in "beer" and anyone who knows much of anything about Linux knows the "free" aspect of Linux that represents the most value, is the "freedom" aspect of the OS, not the purchase cost.
As long as Microsoft is comparing based on cost, they either just don't get it, or think they can bamboozle their audience.
On the other hand, anyone who is interested in a comparison based on the "free"dom-ness of the two OSes, will find the Microsoft presentation a complete non-sequitur.
Even if you aren't using it or don't really need it. Even if there is an X that has a direct-to-framebuffer mode (is there?), there's still all that code designed to push it over a network. Of course, NOONE I know is actually USING a GUI remotely, and while it's nice to know you can, I still think the fact that it is there by default is a serious flaw in Linux GUI's that will always put it at a performance/size disadvantage over MS and MAC GUIs (at least the older MAC, haven't seen a new one since OS-X, so I don't know what that does...).
Consequently, I still use SVGALIB/console windows, even for viewing images and web surfing for info (using lynx). Don't like a mouse anyway, as I have 10 working fingers and know how to touchtype, not just a couple. Also, I happen to like the feature of "typeahead" which you don't get in a GUI.../p>
Seems to me, one way to pump up the visibility of this particular problem is to generate bogus copyright complaints on a couple of choice items that would cause a rucus-- though I can't think of one offhand, I'll bet a little thought would produce some interesting potential candidates. Having some Microsoft marketing announcements pulled, for example, might cause some force to be exerted on the problem.
Of course, there is the slight problem of the liability it might expose the claimer to (fraudulent claims), but I would imagine there are probably a few ways to circumvent that...
Disclaimer: I am not recommending illegal activity here, just pointing out the effect a few targeted cases of fraudulent IP claims might have.
They're ROBOTS people... You could use an old speech synthesizer like Steven Hawking's and it would pass for a robot voice, so what's the big deal? Sounds like the human characters in this movie might not even make actual screen appearances. Or maybe you get to see their feet like some of the old animal cartoons.
But I guess the fact that it is fully "artificial" is the best thing one can think to say about it, which actually says a LOT...
No you don't. With those kind of claims, the answer to the question is obvious.
DVDs are cheaper because generally people don't play DVDs as often as they play CDs. How many times do you watch a movie? Many people buy a DVD, watch it once, and it goes on the shelf and the don't watch it again. DVDs are far more likely to be rentals. CDs get played a lot, often in the car where it's heard over and over again. The percieved value of a DVD is less than that of a music CD, which is a far greater influence on the price than the cost to produce. When DVDs cost more, people don't buy them. How many VHS movies did you buy when the average cost was around $50? How many DVDs are you buying now?
And at the moment, the time and trouble to burn a bootleg DVD is often more than its worth when you can buy a prepackaged DVD with cover and case and booklet, etc., for under $20. The DVD content that gets downloaded is more often material you can't get on DVD because it hasn't been released yet.
CD customers however, have a long history of mistreatment by the manufacturing corporations. LPs were under $8 when CDs came out. Just before CDs came out, we started hearing about how much cheaper they were to produce. Then we end up with $15 CDs, lose the nice big picture, liner notes and lyric sheets and other extras (remember the gatefold covers?), and eventually end up re-buying all our favorites for the convenience of not having to maintain an extra set of playback equipment. Who got the extra profit? How were the customers treated? Who's the "crook" here? It's not all that hard to tell. And who was in control? The consumer can stop buying music in protest, but who does that really penalize?
In some areas, taxes on blank media were levied to cover copying. But what if you used blank media to record a demo for your garage band? Aren't you paying your competition for the right to record your own music? You've paid for copying, do you not then have the right to actually do it?
The RIAA corporations are soon-to-be-extinct Neanderthal bums that have lost control of the distribution channel, control of which was what provided the sole reason for their existence. DRM is a time and money wasting diversion that will only hasten their demise. They've painted themselves into a corner and now refuse to leave. One might feel sorry for them if they didn't fully deserve what they are getting.
The question is then, does anyone actually know how to write Java correctly?
Every once in awhile I figure I'll give Java another chance and try running a Java app. Every one I've ever seen runs like a three legged dog. Based on comments I've seen I get the impression that the runtimes vary widely, and those who are claiming how great it runs must be using something other than what I'm running-- in which case they are rather out of touch with their users. I don't know that in fact this is the problem, as I am not interested enough to diagnose what's wrong-- all I can say is, if what you say is true, most Java authors don't know how to write it "correctly."
Even badly written C++ apps at least run on your machine with characteristics that are pretty similar to those experienced by the developer. Consequently, the developer's experience is a little better connected with the users, and therefore the result is a little more tolerable.
Yes, and we know they can't compete on quality, so they're SOL...
IBM certainly has had a history of taking market-capturing monopolistic moves not terribly different than some of the stuff Microsoft has been pulling. The difference though, between IBM and Microsoft is that for the most part, IBM's products don't suck.
Think for a moment-- if Microsoft's products were anywhere near as well designed as, say Apple's, do you really think they'd be getting the kind of flak they're getting now over their monopolistic practices? Linux would have a much harder time of it if most Windows users actually liked Windows.
And that's not to say that IBM can't produce junk, I'm sure there's plenty of examples people could point to. Generally though, IBM is capable of recognizing, admitting and/or correcting the problem when it occurs. But Microsoft's FLAGSHIP product is junk, it's been junk for its entire lifespan, and it would appear that not only is Microsoft incapable of competing on quality, they are completely aware of that fact and therefore resort to the most underhanded means of lock-in and other consumer-unfriendly market protections (either that, or they simply prefer to do things in an underhanded way-- a distinct possiblity).
Because of that, I'm inclined to give IBM far more slack with regards to it's "selfish" efforts to steal market share away from Microsoft...
I stopped using Realplayer on Windows not because of adware or spyware, but because the players at the time, hijacked your settings. Quicktime did it too, and there was this war going on in my system for awhile for which would be the "default" player for the various audio formats, that didn't include me in any of the decisions. I don't know if either of them still do that, but it moved them both to the very bottom of the priority list, and so far, I haven't found the need to bubble them up to the point where I figure it's worth the trouble installing them to find out.
I figure Real's days are numbered anyway, any business model that's survival depends on either priviledged IP or being the only game in town is inherently devalued by information exchange (i.e., the internet), not to mention that it tends to make them less than trustworthy.
Hey-- that does suggest a possible anti-SPAM strategy-- wasn't it Yahoo that got the idea of giving you a bank of mailboxes so you could give a different one to each commercial service you use that require one and then shut it down when they give it to spammers?
What about "use once" accounts that dissappear after the first mail they recieve-- it forwards you the one confirmation mail you need and then goes away. Or perhaps for a limited time-- a day, week, month, etc. then auto-self-destructs?
How about placing bogus email links on pages everywhere that are constantly changing to a new random bogus address to keep filling up the spammers lists that use spiderbots with mountains of useless addresses...