1. Sell a new TLD to millions 2. Overcharge behaving customers 3. Create a fee for running a mail server 4. Make unwanted $big-company-name email legit
That principle is true in any type of job - retail, office, manufacturing, etc. Think about going to the store and asking the sales clerk about an item you are interested in buying. When that sales clerk can meet your interest with his/her's, you two have connected and you both get something out of the exchange. The sales clerk likes talking about the item and you like to get information about it for your use.
In a teamwork environment this dynamic can be incredible. Work can be done magnitudes faster, communication can be fluid, designs and ideas can evolve before your eyes into elegant solutions, and everyone can feel satisfaction. Why? When people are interested, they 1)have grounds to interpersonally connect (at some level), 2)effectively share information (communicate), and 3)volunteer better effort (usually towards a common goal).
People who don't care and have no interest in their work or the people they interact with detract from this phenomena. They don't have a relevant connection to other people, don't usually share much information, and almost never volunteer effort (forget a common goal).
I'm not entirely sure the majority of America cares what the general opinion of their leaders are in Europe. Not saying that this is a good or bad thing or that it even matters, though I would imagine Europeans are the same way (do not care what Americans think of their leaders).
I can understand why Americans can hate Bush. What are the particular reasons Europeans hate Bush? Could anyone be fairly explicit and mature in their response?
Was Windows made for ATM's? Why would anyone, as a developer, choose Windows for an ATM? I don't understand the technical reasoning, let alone the economics of the decision.
People who think for themselves (ask questions) are always a potential risk to control systems. Information is something like power and such a system is explicity designed to keep a monopoly of power and information.
Funny that some of the people who design said "easy to use systems" sometimes become victims of engineer's disease (Just because you know a lot about one or more things does not mean you know a lot about everything).
It is good to be able to fiddle with (some)things, but it is better to be able to ignore details and get something else done.
Seriously though, look at the rise in personals on popular websites (/. included), dating services, and things like shopping on eBay (39,000 hits for "shoes"! - wonder whose wife is buying all those).
You make an excellent point, but I don't think that this initiative is targeted for right now or even anytime soon. It is true that the military probably needs more technical staff, but this is not a measure to deal with the peace-time problem. Rather I believe this planned policy is simply a response to the realization that if technical staff are needed in peace time, more and better educated staff may be needed in war-time.
"officials at the Selective Service System...stress that the possibility of a so-called "special skills draft" is likely far off."
"A targeted registration and draft is "is strictly in the planning stage," said Flahavan, adding that "the whole thing is driven by what appears to be the more pressing and relevant need today"
So this is planning. As with most planning, you realize what could happen when you look at your current situation.
The timeframe this plan is working with will probably outlive you and the current generation of leadership (if successful). It targets the need to get qualified people as needed in draft situations. You can't afford to keep everyone you may ever need employed in all technical areas, all the time. The idea is foresight - if the current technical base is not enough (or not educated/specializing) in the right thing or the situation requires incredible resources in a short amount of time (wars may be different), there is policy in place to manage the need.
I think this is completely seperate policy from the current need for technical staff. True, keeping technical staff could affect this policy's implementation, but it still is effective to have the policy in place (regardless of the condition of existing technical staff). This proposed plan seems to answer both possible situations (if the military does keep qualified individuals or if it does not). That's probably why it is being considered - it gives options to the military. A war and draft could easily change the situation.
From the article:
"The packet network paradigm probably needs to change..."
"Another aspects of the networking that DARPA wants to revise is the seven-layer OSI stack, long held as the basic foundation for building network protocols. "
"Is it time to scrap the von Neumann architecture?"
This could be a hard, practical look at networking and computer network applications in general. IPv6 presents changes which are designed to improve but not break. DARPA seems willing to break compatibility if they can get what they want. They are looking at the big picture - not just at what the next CCNA exam will look like. The military is looking for a complete solution to their needs - not just a new protocol or an upgrade really. They want automatic configurations (I assume intrinsic to the network model, not a tack-on feature), hardware reliability in software (maybe make software engineering like an engineering discipline), authorization on levels below the application level (which is why the OSI model is being looked at), and integrity in communication (certainty that messages are sent, recieved - by default).
Japan has become a classic example of protectionism to the extreme (not that other countries don't have similar measures). The government heavily protects certain industries, rice farmers for example, for political support domestically. Japan has no comparative advantage in agriculture. Rice can be as much as 5x the global market price in Japan, because the government actively encourages and shelters domestic producers. And this is Asia - rice is everywhere in the region.
When Japan had a rice shortage a while ago ('93), they actually mixed the imported rice with Japanese rice so that consumers could not easily tell the difference - so their preferences for the different size grains (and some taste) would not sway toward foreign rice. There is some outside criticism that Japanese rice is bland, which may be true (to the extent that plain rice can have exceptional flavor).
All industrialized nations have these sorts of practices. Everyone wants globalization to be a one-way street to their nation-state. We'll all learn the hard way (no one really knows what that entails).
Pirated game roms are just as common as emulators, and are basically illegal. "Archival purposes only" is a complete joke with digital content.
Still, selling an emulator is asking for trouble. What are you making money off of? You are selling a software representation of the system vs. the hardware system. Which is cheaper? - So you are competition for the hardware platform. It doesn't matter if the emulator is legal or not, the company will take you to court over it and you will be a small world of hurt (even if you win). As a business, a paid-for emulator is encroaching upon the turf of the emulated machine and whoever owns it. Naturally, this turf will be protected in the interest of the company and shareholders.
Isn't it true most every business to do with a console has to pay royalties to the console's maker (company who controls the platform)? So the company is going to go after you if you are trying to make money off their platform without royalties.
I think you are right, but Parrot is not in the same game with Java and.NET., yet.
Even/. has gotten over (most of) its.NET trolling and is starting to look at the platform in a practical, even positive light. There are coding projects well into production, some are finished, and surely there are some in maintenance stages. By the time Longhorn rolls out, the.NET runtime will probably be on the majority of active Windows systems. Mono may be an even bigger contender in the near future.
Meanwhile, programmers are waiting, many patiently, for Parrot which is just at 0.1.0. As an equivalent, Parrot isn't really in the race yet. Everyone would love to seriously consider it, but it's not a contender (in the same way.NET and JVM are) to technically consider yet. I hear things like mod_parrot are still in need of work, though there are related projects coming about.
Hopefully Parrot will become adopted over projects like Mono, not just in concept and ideology but in a practical platform. I think Python support may be critical, even more so than Perl6. Let's hope Parrot's maturity doesn't need to wait for Perl6.
Recent developement summaries on Parrot and other Perl-related things. Is there a timeline for Parrot? I haven't seen it.
Sounds like FUD, but I am not a lawyer (even on/.). These things were addressed, informally, on the Mono-list at Ximian a while ago. The questions were asked here, and the relevant responses are here and here.
Google sells a search appliance which also includes a (presumably) customized implementation of their searching algorithms. Basically any geeks dream - their own little Google. I read that base price is $28,000 (seems to be a hardware/software bundle).
You can keep the tin foil hat on, because this has been sold to government intelligence services.
It's not just the security per-se. All code has security flaws somewhere - we can live with this. But MS has some special sins, which they will not confess or provide restitution for:
1) There are some obvious security problems with the OS and some applications. Obvious like allowing MSHTML in Outlook. Allowing MSHTML in anything with admin priveleges is bad.
2) Windows in a default installation leaves thing waiting to be maliciously altered. Most users don't need admin priveleges, so why give them to everyone? There are other examples (like no default passwords on user accounts - admin accounts).
3) MS doesn't like fixing things. They seem to avoid it. IE is the classic example. MS has the largest installed browser base, and IE is one of the worst browsers. They are just screwing their customers there. MS: Just buy out Opera and use that, please.
4) Windows and most (if not?) everything MS owned is closed source. So not only does/. not like it, but geeks can't have their special way with their computer. There are huge benefits to open source of course, besides our curiousity and fetish for improvement.
5) MS doesn't patch security concerns or general bugs, and then goes around and tells people they have extremely fast return on necessary patchs and that their focus is on security. Well nobody really believes that, so MS is talking to itself and paying people to say it back to them.
6) MS is a big, rich corporation who has tried to take over a few industries at least.
"at 210Mb I can't see the majority of systems out there that really need it getting the whole thing downloaded"
Doesn't MS have all legal copies registered? A CD in the mail shouldn't be too much of an expense. Heck, one CD to every home address that signs up wouldn't even trump AOL's CD spamming. MS could use some good PR and sending out free updates in the mail, maybe with a some advertising telling users what's coming, would be good for company image and users.
Flash is a problem in my mind because it is not configurable for the client. It gives complete control to the creators, which sounds all wonderful, but the creators do not have my interest in mind. I have to either block it or watch it. Can I set a Flash window not to loop by default? Can I turn off sound for all instances of the player? Can I limit the amount of data the player can download?
I get your point, but you might be missing the joke. It is actually not the reference to common parts, at least for me, but rather the elements in combination. A nonsensical character revealing their character.
The post was somewhat ironic. Bigots, those that hate Canadians and a bigot in general, usually have no actual reasons to hate their targets. Bigotry is an example of ignorance. So a bigot is ranting about how petrol is really gas, which reveals another level of ignorance. Finally, there is the added and crude gloss to the joke that this particular bigot also happens to be a "hick" or "yokel", which is the favorite American character (aside from GWBush) who embodies ignorance. Geeks particularly like including ignorant characters in their jokes.
Note the American character was ranting about the Canadians, which is a little joke for the Americans and Canadian readers. I suspect the joke was moderated funny because of the Canadian reference. I like it.
I think a lot of people are lonely (maybe don't have children, a SO, a happy relationship, etc.) for whatever reason and bored. I know people who spend enormous sums of money on their single (in some cases multiple) animal(s), have pictures of them throughout their house, buy them special food, all manner of toys and accessories, have their pet professionally cleaned/manicured, and will pay medical bills akin to that of a sickly child*. They also like to talk to other people about their $PET's, they help out at rescue shelters, and get to know the area vets and other owners.
Not only are $PET's like a serious hobby, they are also a way to socialize and gain some identity (some people really see themselves as $PET people). Not my thing, but then again I am posting on/. so not too much room for criticism.
*You would simply not believe the specialist vets that exist - you can get your dog a dermatologist, optometrist, etc. These doctors specialize in just certain organs of a few animals.
The only alternative to branding is a market with extremely high barriers to entry (maybe something like airlines), where licensing and government oversight (inspections and a chain of regulations) are required to operate. In such a market, products can be expected to meet certain standards, so the lowest priced option should be satisfactory if you consider those standards to be valuable (what you want). Note, this takes large scale government involvement and standards do not encompass all the needs/desires of the consumer - usually they only outline major needs and leave desire for the seller to detail. The government however, does not keep apace with a changing world as fast as a completely free market would, so innovation is not always invited and sometimes fought. Plus, all taxpayers (let's assume most of the market or consumer base for that market) pay taxes to sustain government regulation. So really, those standards are a tax in themselves.
But ultimately, brands still win because trust, whether the buyer identifies it as such or not, plays a role in economics. A brand functions similar to, but much more effectively, than a price. A brand can identify quality, a consistent product, past experience (HUGE+), and a host of other factors which can be unique or generic to that product. Similarly, price abstracts the value of something in terms which the buyer and seller can quickly relate ("Do I want to spend $x on this?", for example). Competitive price and recognized brand are a proven combination for success.
I believe the point was that software and image have created a perceptional gulf between PPC and x86, when in fact core hardware and software are the big differences (not huge proprietary hurdles, like days of yore). These differences can largely be met with portable software.
Slashdot Mirror
Sometimes I get the feeling a language is using different syntax just to be different. That and buzzwords are real turn-offs.
This plan serves several purposes:
1. Sell a new TLD to millions
2. Overcharge behaving customers
3. Create a fee for running a mail server
4. Make unwanted $big-company-name email legit
That principle is true in any type of job - retail, office, manufacturing, etc. Think about going to the store and asking the sales clerk about an item you are interested in buying. When that sales clerk can meet your interest with his/her's, you two have connected and you both get something out of the exchange. The sales clerk likes talking about the item and you like to get information about it for your use.
In a teamwork environment this dynamic can be incredible. Work can be done magnitudes faster, communication can be fluid, designs and ideas can evolve before your eyes into elegant solutions, and everyone can feel satisfaction. Why? When people are interested, they 1)have grounds to interpersonally connect (at some level), 2)effectively share information (communicate), and 3)volunteer better effort (usually towards a common goal).
People who don't care and have no interest in their work or the people they interact with detract from this phenomena. They don't have a relevant connection to other people, don't usually share much information, and almost never volunteer effort (forget a common goal).
I'm not entirely sure the majority of America cares what the general opinion of their leaders are in Europe. Not saying that this is a good or bad thing or that it even matters, though I would imagine Europeans are the same way (do not care what Americans think of their leaders).
I can understand why Americans can hate Bush. What are the particular reasons Europeans hate Bush? Could anyone be fairly explicit and mature in their response?
Was Windows made for ATM's? Why would anyone, as a developer, choose Windows for an ATM? I don't understand the technical reasoning, let alone the economics of the decision.
People who think for themselves (ask questions) are always a potential risk to control systems. Information is something like power and such a system is explicity designed to keep a monopoly of power and information.
"We can't all be experts at *everything.*"
Funny that some of the people who design said "easy to use systems" sometimes become victims of engineer's disease (Just because you know a lot about one or more things does not mean you know a lot about everything).
It is good to be able to fiddle with (some)things, but it is better to be able to ignore details and get something else done.
Seriously though, look at the rise in personals on popular websites (/. included), dating services, and things like shopping on eBay (39,000 hits for "shoes"! - wonder whose wife is buying all those).
Where is the technology that allows me to focus vs. distract me? Sometimes our efforts seem, literally, counter-productive.
You make an excellent point, but I don't think that this initiative is targeted for right now or even anytime soon. It is true that the military probably needs more technical staff, but this is not a measure to deal with the peace-time problem. Rather I believe this planned policy is simply a response to the realization that if technical staff are needed in peace time, more and better educated staff may be needed in war-time.
"officials at the Selective Service System...stress that the possibility of a so-called "special skills draft" is likely far off."
"A targeted registration and draft is "is strictly in the planning stage," said Flahavan, adding that "the whole thing is driven by what appears to be the more pressing and relevant need today"
So this is planning. As with most planning, you realize what could happen when you look at your current situation.
The timeframe this plan is working with will probably outlive you and the current generation of leadership (if successful). It targets the need to get qualified people as needed in draft situations. You can't afford to keep everyone you may ever need employed in all technical areas, all the time. The idea is foresight - if the current technical base is not enough (or not educated/specializing) in the right thing or the situation requires incredible resources in a short amount of time (wars may be different), there is policy in place to manage the need.
I think this is completely seperate policy from the current need for technical staff. True, keeping technical staff could affect this policy's implementation, but it still is effective to have the policy in place (regardless of the condition of existing technical staff). This proposed plan seems to answer both possible situations (if the military does keep qualified individuals or if it does not). That's probably why it is being considered - it gives options to the military. A war and draft could easily change the situation.
I get this feeling you didn't RTFA.
From the article:
"The packet network paradigm probably needs to change..."
"Another aspects of the networking that DARPA wants to revise is the seven-layer OSI stack, long held as the basic foundation for building network protocols. "
"Is it time to scrap the von Neumann architecture?"
This could be a hard, practical look at networking and computer network applications in general. IPv6 presents changes which are designed to improve but not break. DARPA seems willing to break compatibility if they can get what they want. They are looking at the big picture - not just at what the next CCNA exam will look like. The military is looking for a complete solution to their needs - not just a new protocol or an upgrade really. They want automatic configurations (I assume intrinsic to the network model, not a tack-on feature), hardware reliability in software (maybe make software engineering like an engineering discipline), authorization on levels below the application level (which is why the OSI model is being looked at), and integrity in communication (certainty that messages are sent, recieved - by default).
Japan has become a classic example of protectionism to the extreme (not that other countries don't have similar measures). The government heavily protects certain industries, rice farmers for example, for political support domestically. Japan has no comparative advantage in agriculture. Rice can be as much as 5x the global market price in Japan, because the government actively encourages and shelters domestic producers. And this is Asia - rice is everywhere in the region.
When Japan had a rice shortage a while ago ('93), they actually mixed the imported rice with Japanese rice so that consumers could not easily tell the difference - so their preferences for the different size grains (and some taste) would not sway toward foreign rice. There is some outside criticism that Japanese rice is bland, which may be true (to the extent that plain rice can have exceptional flavor).
All industrialized nations have these sorts of practices. Everyone wants globalization to be a one-way street to their nation-state. We'll all learn the hard way (no one really knows what that entails).
Pirated game roms are just as common as emulators, and are basically illegal. "Archival purposes only" is a complete joke with digital content.
Still, selling an emulator is asking for trouble. What are you making money off of? You are selling a software representation of the system vs. the hardware system. Which is cheaper? - So you are competition for the hardware platform. It doesn't matter if the emulator is legal or not, the company will take you to court over it and you will be a small world of hurt (even if you win). As a business, a paid-for emulator is encroaching upon the turf of the emulated machine and whoever owns it. Naturally, this turf will be protected in the interest of the company and shareholders.
Isn't it true most every business to do with a console has to pay royalties to the console's maker (company who controls the platform)? So the company is going to go after you if you are trying to make money off their platform without royalties.
I think you are right, but Parrot is not in the same game with Java and .NET., yet.
/. has gotten over (most of) its .NET trolling and is starting to look at the platform in a practical, even positive light. There are coding projects well into production, some are finished, and surely there are some in maintenance stages. By the time Longhorn rolls out, the .NET runtime will probably be on the majority of active Windows systems. Mono may be an even bigger contender in the near future.
.NET and JVM are) to technically consider yet. I hear things like mod_parrot are still in need of work, though there are related projects coming about.
Even
Meanwhile, programmers are waiting, many patiently, for Parrot which is just at 0.1.0. As an equivalent, Parrot isn't really in the race yet. Everyone would love to seriously consider it, but it's not a contender (in the same way
Hopefully Parrot will become adopted over projects like Mono, not just in concept and ideology but in a practical platform. I think Python support may be critical, even more so than Perl6. Let's hope Parrot's maturity doesn't need to wait for Perl6.
Recent developement summaries on Parrot and other Perl-related things. Is there a timeline for Parrot? I haven't seen it.
Sounds like FUD, but I am not a lawyer (even on /.). These things were addressed, informally, on the Mono-list at Ximian a while ago. The questions were asked here, and the relevant responses are here and here.
What about a hardware glitch/failure?
Finally, a reason to blame the hardware!
Google sells a search appliance which also includes a (presumably) customized implementation of their searching algorithms. Basically any geeks dream - their own little Google. I read that base price is $28,000 (seems to be a hardware/software bundle).
You can keep the tin foil hat on, because this has been sold to government intelligence services.
The cost of rule of law is power for lawmakers, law experts, and the rich who can afford both (in different ways).
1) There are some obvious security problems with the OS and some applications. Obvious like allowing MSHTML in Outlook. Allowing MSHTML in anything with admin priveleges is bad.
2) Windows in a default installation leaves thing waiting to be maliciously altered. Most users don't need admin priveleges, so why give them to everyone? There are other examples (like no default passwords on user accounts - admin accounts).
3) MS doesn't like fixing things. They seem to avoid it. IE is the classic example. MS has the largest installed browser base, and IE is one of the worst browsers. They are just screwing their customers there. MS: Just buy out Opera and use that, please.
4) Windows and most (if not?) everything MS owned is closed source. So not only does /. not like it, but geeks can't have their special way with their computer. There are huge benefits to open source of course, besides our curiousity and fetish for improvement.
5) MS doesn't patch security concerns or general bugs, and then goes around and tells people they have extremely fast return on necessary patchs and that their focus is on security. Well nobody really believes that, so MS is talking to itself and paying people to say it back to them.
6) MS is a big, rich corporation who has tried to take over a few industries at least.
"at 210Mb I can't see the majority of systems out there that really need it getting the whole thing downloaded"
Doesn't MS have all legal copies registered? A CD in the mail shouldn't be too much of an expense. Heck, one CD to every home address that signs up wouldn't even trump AOL's CD spamming. MS could use some good PR and sending out free updates in the mail, maybe with a some advertising telling users what's coming, would be good for company image and users.
"Flash isn't the problem, it's how it's used."
Flash is a problem in my mind because it is not configurable for the client. It gives complete control to the creators, which sounds all wonderful, but the creators do not have my interest in mind. I have to either block it or watch it. Can I set a Flash window not to loop by default? Can I turn off sound for all instances of the player? Can I limit the amount of data the player can download?
"Gas makes the least sence"
I get your point, but you might be missing the joke. It is actually not the reference to common parts, at least for me, but rather the elements in combination. A nonsensical character revealing their character.
The post was somewhat ironic. Bigots, those that hate Canadians and a bigot in general, usually have no actual reasons to hate their targets. Bigotry is an example of ignorance. So a bigot is ranting about how petrol is really gas, which reveals another level of ignorance. Finally, there is the added and crude gloss to the joke that this particular bigot also happens to be a "hick" or "yokel", which is the favorite American character (aside from GWBush) who embodies ignorance. Geeks particularly like including ignorant characters in their jokes.
Note the American character was ranting about the Canadians, which is a little joke for the Americans and Canadian readers. I suspect the joke was moderated funny because of the Canadian reference. I like it.
I think a lot of people are lonely (maybe don't have children, a SO, a happy relationship, etc.) for whatever reason and bored. I know people who spend enormous sums of money on their single (in some cases multiple) animal(s), have pictures of them throughout their house, buy them special food, all manner of toys and accessories, have their pet professionally cleaned/manicured, and will pay medical bills akin to that of a sickly child*. They also like to talk to other people about their $PET's, they help out at rescue shelters, and get to know the area vets and other owners.
/. so not too much room for criticism.
Not only are $PET's like a serious hobby, they are also a way to socialize and gain some identity (some people really see themselves as $PET people). Not my thing, but then again I am posting on
*You would simply not believe the specialist vets that exist - you can get your dog a dermatologist, optometrist, etc. These doctors specialize in just certain organs of a few animals.
The only alternative to branding is a market with extremely high barriers to entry (maybe something like airlines), where licensing and government oversight (inspections and a chain of regulations) are required to operate. In such a market, products can be expected to meet certain standards, so the lowest priced option should be satisfactory if you consider those standards to be valuable (what you want). Note, this takes large scale government involvement and standards do not encompass all the needs/desires of the consumer - usually they only outline major needs and leave desire for the seller to detail. The government however, does not keep apace with a changing world as fast as a completely free market would, so innovation is not always invited and sometimes fought. Plus, all taxpayers (let's assume most of the market or consumer base for that market) pay taxes to sustain government regulation. So really, those standards are a tax in themselves.
But ultimately, brands still win because trust, whether the buyer identifies it as such or not, plays a role in economics. A brand functions similar to, but much more effectively, than a price. A brand can identify quality, a consistent product, past experience (HUGE+), and a host of other factors which can be unique or generic to that product. Similarly, price abstracts the value of something in terms which the buyer and seller can quickly relate ("Do I want to spend $x on this?", for example). Competitive price and recognized brand are a proven combination for success.
I believe the point was that software and image have created a perceptional gulf between PPC and x86, when in fact core hardware and software are the big differences (not huge proprietary hurdles, like days of yore). These differences can largely be met with portable software.