Seems a little misplaced to excoriate a country which has lifted more than 200 million people out of unimaginable poverty in the last 20 years. I suppose it's preferable to leave our gentle sensibilities in place and pave the streets with the corpses of those who starved.
Between an agreed upon set of circumstances generally conceived as fact or at least factually based, a set which is therefore possible to have a discussion, and the vague opinions and feelings of the discussion itself? That's pathetic.
Julius Caesar invented the artesian well, I guess because it is my sense of it that that statement is true.
If I wanted a quick reference for Boyle's Law or Newton's gravitational constant or the average number of young in a litter of hedgehogs I could probably find some fairly undisputed sources for that practically anywhere. But clearly the intent of Wiki is to add 'currency' to things which are in fact, current. And that is the great danger, isn't it?
Else I could fire all the professional historians in the world who's job it is to evaluate and vett the facts and simply toss everything up to whomever thinks they have a credible opinion.
Imagine if MS went to all hardware vendors and told them that the only drivers that could be distributed had to go through MS's DRM gateway. Or, to put a friendly face on it, in order to distribute drivers they had to go exclusively through MS's DRM gateway and while of course those vendors were free to create open source drivers, there would be no mechanism for thoe OS drivers to validate and therefore pass through the MS DRM gateway. This would quickly squash the
Since Wiki can be updated by whomever has the greatest degree of brute force, it has changed the very nature of what truth, and accuracy are. One can reshape 'truth' and remake it in just about any image one desires. If for example one wanted to delegitimize evolution or uplift suicide bombing as a noble endevor one would be free to rewrite history as one saw fit. And the idea that there are even competing points of view would be driven by the sheer signal to noise ratio those competing points of view could drive through the Wiki system. Wiki is the perfect embodiment of our post modern view of the world where everything is everything, all values, ideas and beliefs are equally fair and might makes right.
If desktop APPLICATIONS are 15 minutes ago then companies like MS that rely on the desktop will toss more applications into the desktop. This is really the root of things like Vista that will attempt to remake the PC over as your TV, gaming, home networking, DRM platform of choice. MS and it's pilot fish will attempt to replace your DVD player, TiVO, iPod, PDA and will attempt to insert themselves between your cell phone and cell phone carrier.
See in the end what we were good at was high profile single purpose missions because we convinced ourselves we could spend and do whatever it took to get there. But now we see that the Amerikanskis are rather bad at the utilitarian aspects of space engineering.
I understand this is snarkiness central and making snotticisms is sometimes more important that actually thinking but if you have ever tried to shift an entire corporate culture, organization and all of the underlying processes you'll discover that statements like the Doctrine of Allchin are generally whitewash. I'm sure the powers that be in Microsoft believe in their new world and I'm sure that the underlings that report directly to them do as well. Beyond that, at the layers of the organization where the work gets done it's nothing like that. They'll have the same change control the same management metrics and so on.
Even if these revelations are true is the fix any better or is it just more patched together pasta code? I mean it's the same culture using ostensibly the same tools and processes.
Why? Because a typically IBM problem with the TPs and every other line was model-subtype explosion. IBM was constantly changing the model types and features which lead to basic QA and compatibility problems. It also meant that lots of models were test beds that were quickly abandoned. By the time the People's Republic of Lenovo bought IBM's PCD there were probably more than 100 different TP model subtypes in production more than 300 being supported. We were looking for Lenovo to apply somc commonsense to that and reduce the model diversity. This would lead to better focus and support and fewer evolutionary dead ends. If they're going to make pretty colors and all sorts of neato gewgaws then that's going to be a problem.
It's part of their annual management revolution exercise. They all do it, they hire a bunch of consultants who pretend to interview people with anonymity and those people pretend to answer honestly. Then they collect all their surveys and determine that
a) everything is fine and management had it right all along
b) there is little that management is prepared to change let alone pay for
c) people need to figure out how to motivate themselves better
d) there was another 5-7% of the workforce that needs to get cut quietly
e) 3 or 4 key executives will collect larger fiefdoms as a result of this reorg
f) mean employee tenure will drop another 6 months and management will spin turnover as 'recharging the organization.
Sure it's entirely possible that OsX and Firefox could be exposed to potentially harmful risks going forward. But that in no way means that the vendors or communities responsible for them will respond in the same kind of highhanded way that MS makes its business model either. Let's face facts, MS code problems don't spawn just from bad design choices. They spawn from poor change management, poor development techniques and a business model that puts bells and whistles above basic reliable functionality. Everyday day some wonks at MS look over a portfolio of 'must-dos' for Windows and for the most part address the security issues that people scream about and that's it. Tomorrow there will be more fires to fight more snakes to kill.
But there is no guaranty that everyone else will respond this way. So far there is no indication that Apple for example has chosen this business model. It may very well be that companies decide that better security is a real value add. After all companies like Argus exist for a reason. It's possible that a company the size of Apple could put its weight into making an Argus like system as easy to use as a Mac.
I think what the RIAA is experiencing is the inevitable backlash of randomly suing people for any reason or no reason at all. And let's be clear, randomly suing people is merely a business angle, another revenue stream. It has nothing at all to do with so called rights. That of course is laughable.
No what the recording industry is experimenting with is suing their customer base randomly as a new source of revenue in and of itself. It's like local police departments that periodically grind out thousands of traffic tickets. Fair? Of course not. Business as usual? Sure.
Have you ever tried to 'implement' any of the following:
Tivoli Oracle financials Any help desk Peoplesoft Websphere
NONE of them have purported architectural purity and ALL of them are basically toolkits strapped together by whatever scripting code the consultants you last hired were able to cobble together.
Open source, closed source, it makes little difference.
Doesn't anyone remember that when MS caught the dotcom bug and made instant millionaires out of several hundred or thousand employees they couldn't wait to jump ship. I think MS has probably always been both a rewarding and difficult place to work and people will leave as soon as the opportunity arises. Of course we're talking about the most highly skilled and placed employees and let's face it, MS hasn't had any serious competition for top flight employees for many years - now that Google is around it's likely they'll leave.
With 4 billion dollars, 5 years and 575 project managers matrixed over a 700,000 step process. I'm sure that the day they succeeded they would all be downsized anyway.
See for all its tough talk about innovation, IBM and I suspect any other large command and control organization that's tried to outmanage and outprocess itself out of every dilemna by becoming even more bureaucratic really can't move quickly to do the right thing. And even when it succeeds at moving at all, it's typically the wrong solution poorly executed and overloaded with everyone's personal agenda items.
Moving to a company like Intel which for the most part makes chips and nothing but chips is usually the wise choice for a company looking to use chips. At best IBM's chip division, while capable and smart is only a division and one that gets the shaft more often than not because it's a supplier to all of the other IBM hardware units which are themselves victims of their own bureaucracies.
And if truth were told, if IBM thought there was money to be made in low power chips they would have done it already. Clearly IBM made a decision that Apple's goals did not fit with their own business model.
Slashdot Mirror
Sufficient people instituted The Inquisition based on their common sense understanding of the world around them, too.
Seems a little misplaced to excoriate a country which has lifted more than 200 million people out of unimaginable poverty in the last 20 years. I suppose it's preferable to leave our gentle sensibilities in place and pave the streets with the corpses of those who starved.
Between an agreed upon set of circumstances generally conceived as fact or at least factually based, a set which is therefore possible to have a discussion, and the vague opinions and feelings of the discussion itself? That's pathetic.
Julius Caesar invented the artesian well, I guess because it is my sense of it that that statement is true.
If I wanted a quick reference for Boyle's Law or Newton's gravitational constant or the average number of young in a litter of hedgehogs I could probably find some fairly undisputed sources for that practically anywhere. But clearly the intent of Wiki is to add 'currency' to things which are in fact, current. And that is the great danger, isn't it?
Else I could fire all the professional historians in the world who's job it is to evaluate and vett the facts and simply toss everything up to whomever thinks they have a credible opinion.
Imagine if MS went to all hardware vendors and told them that the only drivers that could be distributed had to go through MS's DRM gateway. Or, to put a friendly face on it, in order to distribute drivers they had to go exclusively through MS's DRM gateway and while of course those vendors were free to create open source drivers, there would be no mechanism for thoe OS drivers to validate and therefore pass through the MS DRM gateway. This would quickly squash the
Since Wiki can be updated by whomever has the greatest degree of brute force, it has changed the very nature of what truth, and accuracy are. One can reshape 'truth' and remake it in just about any image one desires. If for example one wanted to delegitimize evolution or uplift suicide bombing as a noble endevor one would be free to rewrite history as one saw fit. And the idea that there are even competing points of view would be driven by the sheer signal to noise ratio those competing points of view could drive through the Wiki system. Wiki is the perfect embodiment of our post modern view of the world where everything is everything, all values, ideas and beliefs are equally fair and might makes right.
If Y2K finally came to us in the form of management indifference and negligence on the altar of efficiency?
Is the last gasp of the Enlightenment. Will the last person please knock the rust off the switch and turn out the lights.
If desktop APPLICATIONS are 15 minutes ago then companies like MS that rely on the desktop will toss more applications into the desktop. This is really the root of things like Vista that will attempt to remake the PC over as your TV, gaming, home networking, DRM platform of choice. MS and it's pilot fish will attempt to replace your DVD player, TiVO, iPod, PDA and will attempt to insert themselves between your cell phone and cell phone carrier.
No joke, they are.
See in the end what we were good at was high profile single purpose missions because we convinced ourselves we could spend and do whatever it took to get there. But now we see that the Amerikanskis are rather bad at the utilitarian aspects of space engineering.
Slashdot is an echo chamber where unless you agree with the inplied sentiment of the article you are therefore called a troll
All I can say to the RIAA is I hope the last thing you see before you sizzle in hell for eternity is your entire family sexually tortured to death.
Yes let's all weep for the poor poor Chinese.
I understand this is snarkiness central and making snotticisms is sometimes more important that actually thinking but if you have ever tried to shift an entire corporate culture, organization and all of the underlying processes you'll discover that statements like the Doctrine of Allchin are generally whitewash. I'm sure the powers that be in Microsoft believe in their new world and I'm sure that the underlings that report directly to them do as well. Beyond that, at the layers of the organization where the work gets done it's nothing like that. They'll have the same change control the same management metrics and so on.
Even if these revelations are true is the fix any better or is it just more patched together pasta code? I mean it's the same culture using ostensibly the same tools and processes.
Why? Because a typically IBM problem with the TPs and every other line was model-subtype explosion. IBM was constantly changing the model types and features which lead to basic QA and compatibility problems. It also meant that lots of models were test beds that were quickly abandoned. By the time the People's Republic of Lenovo bought IBM's PCD there were probably more than 100 different TP model subtypes in production more than 300 being supported. We were looking for Lenovo to apply somc commonsense to that and reduce the model diversity. This would lead to better focus and support and fewer evolutionary dead ends. If they're going to make pretty colors and all sorts of neato gewgaws then that's going to be a problem.
I just punched "Elvis" into the search box and got 404 lines of output back almost instantly.
It's part of their annual management revolution exercise. They all do it, they hire a bunch of consultants who pretend to interview people with anonymity and those people pretend to answer honestly. Then they collect all their surveys and determine that
a) everything is fine and management had it right all along
b) there is little that management is prepared to change let alone pay for
c) people need to figure out how to motivate themselves better
d) there was another 5-7% of the workforce that needs to get cut quietly
e) 3 or 4 key executives will collect larger fiefdoms as a result of this reorg
f) mean employee tenure will drop another 6 months and management will spin turnover as 'recharging the organization.
Sure it's entirely possible that OsX and Firefox could be exposed to potentially harmful risks going forward. But that in no way means that the vendors or communities responsible for them will respond in the same kind of highhanded way that MS makes its business model either. Let's face facts, MS code problems don't spawn just from bad design choices. They spawn from poor change management, poor development techniques and a business model that puts bells and whistles above basic reliable functionality. Everyday day some wonks at MS look over a portfolio of 'must-dos' for Windows and for the most part address the security issues that people scream about and that's it. Tomorrow there will be more fires to fight more snakes to kill.
But there is no guaranty that everyone else will respond this way. So far there is no indication that Apple for example has chosen this business model. It may very well be that companies decide that better security is a real value add. After all companies like Argus exist for a reason. It's possible that a company the size of Apple could put its weight into making an Argus like system as easy to use as a Mac.
I think what the RIAA is experiencing is the inevitable backlash of randomly suing people for any reason or no reason at all. And let's be clear, randomly suing people is merely a business angle, another revenue stream. It has nothing at all to do with so called rights. That of course is laughable.
No what the recording industry is experimenting with is suing their customer base randomly as a new source of revenue in and of itself. It's like local police departments that periodically grind out thousands of traffic tickets. Fair? Of course not. Business as usual? Sure.
Have you ever tried to 'implement' any of the following:
Tivoli
Oracle financials
Any help desk
Peoplesoft
Websphere
NONE of them have purported architectural purity and ALL of them are basically toolkits strapped together by whatever scripting code the consultants you last hired were able to cobble together.
Open source, closed source, it makes little difference.
Doesn't anyone remember that when MS caught the dotcom bug and made instant millionaires out of several hundred or thousand employees they couldn't wait to jump ship. I think MS has probably always been both a rewarding and difficult place to work and people will leave as soon as the opportunity arises. Of course we're talking about the most highly skilled and placed employees and let's face it, MS hasn't had any serious competition for top flight employees for many years - now that Google is around it's likely they'll leave.
With 4 billion dollars, 5 years and 575 project managers matrixed over a 700,000 step process. I'm sure that the day they succeeded they would all be downsized anyway.
See for all its tough talk about innovation, IBM and I suspect any other large command and control organization that's tried to outmanage and outprocess itself out of every dilemna by becoming even more bureaucratic really can't move quickly to do the right thing. And even when it succeeds at moving at all, it's typically the wrong solution poorly executed and overloaded with everyone's personal agenda items.
Moving to a company like Intel which for the most part makes chips and nothing but chips is usually the wise choice for a company looking to use chips. At best IBM's chip division, while capable and smart is only a division and one that gets the shaft more often than not because it's a supplier to all of the other IBM hardware units which are themselves victims of their own bureaucracies.
And if truth were told, if IBM thought there was money to be made in low power chips they would have done it already. Clearly IBM made a decision that Apple's goals did not fit with their own business model.