Here's a good all-around book that I've had for at least 8 years. "Understanding Data Communications (7th Edition) by Gilbert Held.
It's good at explaining a lot of things, right down to decoding packet headers for various things. If you don't need that kind of detail, it's still a great book for the uninitiated. fitting it into the real world. I've got a dog-eared second edition that I've loaned to a number of people through the years.
Cisco has been good at training materials for quite some time. I sat through every Cisco class offered they had in 1995. The training materials were very good.
Yahoo news has been pretty good for quite awhile. MS is doing nothing but trying to "keep up with the Joneses." Most newspaper sites do the same thing. They just don't pay for as many newsfeeds.
MS has some really brainy product people:
"We need to do something."
"I can't think of anything."
"How about we copy google?"
"Too hard."
"Ok, how about we just copy parts of google?"
"Ok... news. We'll just aggregate."
"Cool... we'll just chip away at Google."
"We've got more money than god... they'll cave sooner or later."
MS buys a hundred Dell servers, hires a contractor to come in and set up the scripting. They hire 2 people to keep the 100 Dells running linux... I meant 50 people to keep the 100 Dell machines running Windows 2003.
MS starts issuing press releases before the contractor is ready. The advertising people have all of the Intel/MS cronies lined up for advertising spots. They start beating on the contractor when the site sucks.
MS starts reporting estimated revenue streams to Wall Street. Everyone is happy. The general public buys Windows XP, they aren't even asked if they'd like their default news page set to MS. It's just done.
Thinking like an economist? No... Dayton is thinking like a democrat. Taxes. Big government.
I read the article in the StarTribune.com. Dayton, like most politicians, doesn't have a clue. They listen to whoever gives them the most money to get re-elected.
We all want the gov't out of the internet. Stay away. Taxes? How would you enforce it? How would you bill? It's a ridiculous idea, but a perfect example of what runs through most of these pea-brained heads.
Where's Feinstein and the rest of the California politicians? Raising taxes is second nature to them.
I read the article in the StarTribune.com, and I see they included the obligatory "analysis", saying that email will become "unuseable" by 2005 or so.
Dayton doesn't have a clue. This will get him in more hot water. He's already back pedalling in the article... Paraphrasing starts here: "I was just considering it... you have to consider it as a possible solution."
Re:Thinking about this financially...
on
SCO News Roundup
·
· Score: 1
If I had a corporation w/ 100+ users, there's not a chance in hell that I'd pay $699 oer license, per user.
I'd have a tough time justifying the expense even if they chopped that number in 1/2.
If it was down to $100 per user per license, I might consider looking for the corporate checkbook.
I don't like taking tax dollars that could be used for other purposes just so I can subsidize someone's p0rn business.
Also, when was the gov't supposed to compete with private businesses? How would you like it if the government set up a business to compete against you?
Another money saver on this and other projects: Grey market equipment is at an all-time low. I've found Cisco DSLAMs completely carded for $1500. Optical equipment also flooded the market.
The thing that gets me is this: If there aren't private companies offering services, why is the government stepping in? If there's money to be made, private firms will do the work. If there's no money to be made, IE, it's too expensive, then tax dollars are being used to support these businesses? I'm surprised the democrats aren't screaming bloody murder. There's poor people that need that money.
I had a friend that spent $4000 on a really nice Sharp projector that had more lumens than the X1, and better resolution. He displayed it on a 120" screen. It was fabulous. The BIG downside was the $600 bulb. If I remember, the bulbs are rated for only so many hours (500?). That was not made clear to him when he bought the projector. Of course football season came along, the bulb dies in the middle of a college football game, and panic set in. I know he could have saved money mail order, but he needed a new bulb immediately, and wasn't willing to wait for mail order.
Check out the replacement bulb costs before ever buying a projector.
Personally, I bought a Mitsubishi 46" and an HD set top box. Total investment (including the satellite set top box was $2400. I've had the TV for 3 years, and not one complaint.
I have a smaller room. The Mits is only 23" deep. The picture is fantastic. The only other TV that has a better picture is the Pioneer Elite, but I couldn't justify the extra $2000.
I think SCO has very little to do with the day to day activity in this lawsuit. They aren't smart enough. The lawyers are running the show.
Remember, SCO was hurting for cash? They consulted a lawyer and went after the biggest target with the most cash, IBM.
I'll guess that SCO's law team is going to show specific pieces of code to Linus and ask, "How did this code get there?" They're going to look for an answer that points to IBM. If Linus says he doesn't know, then they'll ask who would know? They'll ask for the documents that show who wrote pieces of code, and when. They'll also ask questions about Linus' intentions when creating Linux.
Then, SCO's lawyers will subpoena other code writers that worked on the kernel. They'll keep digging until one of them points the finger at IBM.
They will use RMS to set the stage for damages. They'll ask him how important the kernel is to the entire package. He'll say that no OS will run without a kernel, which is the obvious answer. That sets the stage for damages, as long as they can point fingers at IBM.
SCO's legal team will increasingly release questionable PR. They will spin everything. They will put out information that is tough to refute. Vague statements. When the trial starts, they'll hammer away at specific pieces of code. Linus or RMS will be asked how important various pieces of code are to the whole kernel. If IBM refutes the blame by pointing to other references (in the public domain) to those same pieces of code, then SCO will add those sources to their lawsuit.
Also, SCO will be trying for a non-technical jury in a liberal court. They'll look for poor people, or retired people living on a pension. The SCO legal team will try to play the little struggling company against the big, evil IBM.
That's assuming that this whole spiel makes it trial.
Microsoft sure can talk like a politician. They make baseless claims that no one can refute.
...is quick to point out that 'We haven't talked to a single user who has said they're using [open source] because it's better.'
Dear Microsoft:
How about asking people outside of Redmond, WA?
Why don't you bring up cost?
How much does a new copy of Linux cost?
How much is "office" software for Linux?
How much support does the average Linux user need?
With the money saved on software, how much paid support can you get, and still come out ahead?
How many viruses do we see in the Linux community?
Come to think of it... who makes antivirus software for Linux? Anyone?
Microsoft's biggest statement against Linux is this: There's nothing better out there. If I walked down the hall, and asked 10 Linux users why they use Linux, I bet they'd say, "Microsoft has nothing better, it's a pain to adminstrate, and the viruses and hacks keep me up all night."
I'm really surprised we didn't hear from the usual Microsoft shills. It seems every week some new "industry thinktank" makes wild financial claims, "Windows saves money." These same "research groups" make the same statements about Linux, they just don't get touted as much. Linux just doesn't have the PR power that Microsoft has.
Red Hat quit giving out support for free software, Microsoft claims victory! "See, that validates our business model!" No, it doesn't. Free software and free support are 2 different things. I can get plenty of free support, even though Red Hat doesn't offer it.
The fact that Microsoft is claiming victory should be seen for what it is: monopolistic behavior. Who else would celebrate a supposed failure of someone else's business model?
One last thing: How does any of this make Windows a better product?
I think free software will be around for quite some time.
Everyone tries to relate to advertising revenue. I'm happy to announce that I don't pay attention to commercials. If someone comes out with a good product, and I hear about it through word-of-mouth, that's all I need. I do my own research. I watch prices. I know when things are on sale.
I channel surf, I hit mute, I fast-forward, etc to avoid commercials. I hate them. I don't support many companies because of the way they advertise. I vote with my dollar.
My internet habits are much the same way. If you have pop-ups, or anything else annoying, "Bye." Salon.com can rot in hell. I don't care for the leftist slant. I don't care for the whiny news.
As far as TV goes, I don't want to watch whatever junk they want me to see. Sorry, I don't want any of it (commercials).
If someone has a chat window and starts offering advertisements that I find instrusive, forget it. I'm not there.
TBS, TNT, and other cable stations are advertising in the corner of the screen during the show. I quit watching those stations. They're not on my program guide for DirecTV anymore. They gave me a choice, watch, or don't watch.
I do think that Google has their head screwed on straight. For the most part, they've weathered the storm of public opinion, criticism, and they've stayed above ground financially.
I think that the public will watch Google carefully in the future. For one, I want to see how socially responsible be with their data. They have a lot of data they've gotten from their search engine. They need to be careful. I do not want this data landing in the wrong hands (Microsoft).
Isn't it just easier to use the excess heat to power a Stirling engine to recapture waste energy?
Maybe the Stirling idea is going too far. How about a more efficient circuit? It's been awhile since college, but isn't excess heat a sign that the circuit is inefficient?
While it's not completely frivolous research, it's not the first avenue I would approach when looking at this problem. It seems more difficult and time-consuming to add in circuitry to re-use the energy to perform other actions inside of a CPU. It seems like you'd have a better chance at compounding the problem, rather than helping it. However, make the circuit more efficient, you'll generate less heat. That would be my first goal. What kind of efficiency do they get with today's CPUs?
With this reversible thinking, I have an idea. I need a little help from the anti-SUV crowd... wouldn't all gasoline engines be better off with really big flywheels?
MS can release "news" as a press release, and the newspapers eat it up. The public believes it. The hardware manufacturers "sell" this crap because they sell MS to consumers for Microsoft at a profit. Wall Street helps the process. Analysts hype the latest "features" for the latest vapor product from MS, due in 2012.
MS sells themselves to the public by issuing press releases. They can say whatever they want, as long as they make a claim that they're doing something. There is no accountability. No one holds them responsible. Consumers keep throwing money at MS. Occasionally, someone points a finger, but MS then releases more press releases about vaporware due in 200x.
Politicians do the same thing, "We need to spend more money on _____. We've been spending money on _____ for ___ years, and we've not solved the problem. We are renewing our effort."
In other words, "We're going to light some money on fire, pose for a few photos with the underprivileged, and then waste a lot of money on cigars, dinner, and entertainment."
Microsoft has excellent people playing the press release game. Everyone sells Microsoft products for MS.
How many people have actually met a Microsoft employee? Yet 1/2 of the planet owns or uses something with Microsoft products in it.
I knew this would happen here today.
"Landline will save your life."
"Wireless will save your life."
"No, landline is better." "Wireless is newer."
The truth is, neither is better. They both have their advantages and disadvantages.
The real issue here is that the FCC clearly favored wireless by allowing number transportability from landline to wireless, and not in reverse.
I know plenty of small business owners that started businesses with a single wireless phone, and have grown into a traditional office space with the need for landlines. They'd have been much happier if they could have moved that number from wireless to landline. It doesn't mean that these businesses would lose their wireless phones. It means that it wouldn't have been as painful to move to a landline in an office environment.
The FCC did not consider this. They only heard the complaints of the wireless companies. In fact, this ruling clearly plays favorites with the wireless companies. The land line companies will soon be putting lawyers in court rooms to have number portability work in 2 directions.
to add chat rooms. It makes sense. AOL, MSN, Yahoo all have them.
Reading through most of the comments, everyone thinks that Google is indexing IRC. It doesn't make sense. The amount of useful info is so small and short lived that it doesn't make sense. Bots, lurkers, filetraders. I admit that there are links to harvest. I think that if they can parse free text, they could start indexing topics, but then they run the same risk as indexed blogs. An impassioned minority (or majority) could sway any attempt at indexing. Script kiddies without drivers' licenses would stay home, trying to see what they could do to Google w/ a series of bots in an IRC channel.
It just doesn't seem like Google to want to get into that kind of mess.
I think they want to compete with MSN/AOL/YAHOO chat rooms. Start from scratch and build a better mousetrap. Why not just re-use IRC?
IRC has a lot of great features, but also a lot of lurkers, warez bots, spammers, AOL'ers, pedophiles. They can wreak a lot of havoc.
I think google is concerned about these things, and is sniffing around, trying to figure out how best to avoid that?
**** For those of you complaining about the slow erosion of anonymity, why? What do you need anonymity for? If you say free speech, think about that the next time you look at political candidates.
How about the doctors that kill people by negligence?
Hundreds of people are killed by negligent doctors every week.
What makes the nightly news? A pair of soldiers killed in Iraq.
Some doctors are worth their income. Others are not. I'd love to see a rating system on doctors. How many patients have you had die? What were the causes?
Yet nothing is done. Investigations are meaningless. Other doctors consistently protect their own. Insurance companies abide by the practice, they don't want to pay the malpractice awards.
You voted for the politicians that made this whole system possible. If you didn't vote, then you didn't do enough to stop it.
If these drug dealers aren't so bad, why don't you invite them over to your neighborhood?
These people were caught several times with drugs. If they can't learn after the first time, I don't feel sorry for them. How many chances?
Why do you pay income tax? Why not skip paying income tax? You said it yourself. It's not really a jailable offense. Why do you pay? Because of the consequences.
Drug dealers in jail made a conscious choice to deal drugs, and they got caught.
You want them to work weekends at the police station scrubbing police cars? So they can deal drugs during the week days?
How about dropping them off on some deserted island, and letting them fend for themselves. Every criminal gets a shovel, a sleeping bag, a rope, a plastic pail, and a several bags of seeds. They you go. Good luck.
No guards, no fences, no way home.
These people can't live in society. They can't live in prison due to the expense. Drop them off on an island. Or, fence off 100 square miles in north Texas desert. Fence it off with serious fence. Electrified razor wire. 30 feet tall. Video cameras. Build a few concrete buildings. Give these morons keys to the buildings, let them fend for themselves. Just like Darwin. If they can't fend for themselves, too bad, maybe you shouldn't have been dealing drugs.
The wireless phone companies will have access to a large amount of data due to GPS. GPS is there for 911 phone calls, but there are secondary uses. Dropped calls could be correlated to last known position to (hopefully) improve the network.
They could very easily map out where all phone calls were made, where they travelled while calling, how fast they were travelling. I imagine that the subpoenas will be issued for these records, and the phone companies will want to fight the subpoenas. Spousal disputes, divorce settlements, all kinds of nastiness might hinge on the availability of these records.
It would be easy to relate this data to roads, popular stops, even events that occur along the route. Car accidents, Bill Clinton having sex in a car, gawkers slowing down, all are events that would trigger increases in phone traffic.
The amount of data mined from this could be fantastic.
Don't buy stock in tin foil hats either.
The RIAA is a political organization, looking to ban technology to save their business model.
The recording industry fatcats want their money, and are scared of new technology. No one wants to split from the group and try selling music in any other fashion than the current model. They feel threatened. The industry is behaving exactly like they did during the cassette tape scare, just like the motion picture industry was scared of the VCR and video tape. Remember movie rentals? VHS videos were frequently $100 or more until used movies became available... and movie houses started dropping their retail prices down to the current prices.
Movie rentals threatened the movie industry, until they realized that it actually developed new markets for their material.
The RIAA is not filled with innovative, bright individuals. The RIAA throws money at weak-minded, spineless senators and congresspeople like Conyer, Fritz Hollings, and any politician from California (Berman, Feinstein, etc.). The recording industry sees technology as the end of their business. They are in denial. The emperor has no clothes.
What's really funny is that they also profit from the downloaders. They research what the downloaders' are trading, and call the radio stations to increase air time, which sells more CDs. Hypocrites! They profit from the very process they're trying to stop. I don't fault them for researching the downloaders' behavior. That's the bright people helping the record biz survive. The political side of the biz is what I can't stand. This is why most people can't stand politicians or the courts.
Politicians choose not to understand the technology, they choose to listen to those with the biggest pocketbooks. Ostriches... with their heads in sand.
With the RIAA and Fritz Hollings' old method of thinking, the school systems should only be using chalkboards and chalk. The police will be stopping by later to pick up your VCR, computer, and cassette tape recorder.
"No new technology, it ruins our business."
Let's see... TV ratings are falling, let's blame it on games? Huh? Hmmm. I've got several hundred DVD's and I subscribe to 29 movie channels on satellite. Do I need to watch "Survivor - This time we mean it!"? I doubt it. TV people don't have a clue. How much ER do I need to see? I watch Discovery Channel, History Channel, The DIY channel, and several other channels like that.
Do I want to watch the liberal slant on the big 3? Nope. Do I want to watch the Clinton News Network? Nope.
No one I know likes the commercials. The only time that commercials are worth watching is during the superbowl. The market hasn't figured it out that people use TIVO, or they flip the channel. One stupid "Burger King - Fire is ready" and I've had it.
My son watches kids' channels that specifically do NOT have commercials.
I'll pay $80 a month for 30-50 channels without commercials. I already pay that much for 29 movie channels and all the rest of the crap.
Frankly, the article and this whole post has very little to do with the actual problem.
The real problem is hypocrites who are unhappy and lazy. They all want a problem solved, but are unwilling to do anything but complain. That's not a solution. It's arrogant. Arrogance will NEVER solve the problem. If you think anyone will listen, you've got another thing coming.
Who likes a whiner? Seriously. Anyone?
Who joined up for the Ariana Huffington fan club? Anyone?
Let's look at Ariana's lifestyle. Limousines, private jets, mansions. Until she starts riding a bicycle or riding in a rickshaw, I don't want to hear her preaching about SUVs or electric cars. I don't see her "living the solution."
As for this post, 99% of the people who complain, but yet still live a lifestyle that doesn't go anywhere near solving the problem.
The people who wrote the article and performed the "research" drive cars. They fly in airplanes. They buy cars, plastic, etc. Sure, they go down to the local market and buy "organic" foods. Once a week, they recylce glass, plastic, and newspaper. Wow!
These people are all hypocrites who are unhappy with the world around them yet are unwilling to do what they suggest.
What stocks do these people own? What investments do these people have? I suspect that that a lot of these people would be embarrassed.
I have a message. Spin the numbers as much as you want, then whine, complain, kick and scream, but until you are a living example of the solution, you are a hypocrite, and your message will fall on deaf ears.
In addition, until you publicly disavow any connection (financially) with any company that benefits from the use of non-renewable resources (oil, coal, natural gas, etc.), I will not respect anything you have to say.
One issue with community-owned cable. You depend on your fellow citizens for the decisions. It's not necessarily the power of the dollar, or the subscriber's vote that counts.
Picture this: Let's say you have an interest in hunting/fishing, and the community you live in is swarming with utopian PETA radicals. They vote to replace OLN (Outdoor Life Network) with "The Free Range Vegetable Channel." You lose.
A large expense, say for HD, or some other next-gen product might require a referendum. What chance do you think that a referendum might have of passing if you live in a community dominated with fixed-income people?
I'm not saying that a co-op can't work, it just faces different problems. People don't always see the benefit of something new, they only see the bottom dollar. Many people are scared of change.
Right now, many cable and DSL companies are stuck. They believe that there's revenue in providing a large suite of services, getting a consumer a lot of services and providing one-stop shopping. They're right. It's attractive, and for the most part, the consumer can save money. The thing is, the next-gen products require more upgrades, but there's all of the upgrades from the past few years to pay for. They can't handle any more debt.
The programming costs aren't cheap. There's no bargaining for the small providers unless they create a trade union to bargain with content providers. Comcast, Time-Warner swing a lot of weight because they have large numbers of subscribers.
I really think that having several cable companies fighting everyday for the consumers' dollar is the best way. They have all of the incentive, and they reap the benefits. The consumer gets a choice and saves money.
Slashdot Mirror
Here's a good all-around book that I've had for at least 8 years.
"Understanding Data Communications (7th Edition) by Gilbert Held.
It's good at explaining a lot of things, right down to decoding packet headers for various things. If you don't need that kind of detail, it's still a great book for the uninitiated. fitting it into the real world. I've got a dog-eared second edition that I've loaned to a number of people through the years.
Cisco has been good at training materials for quite some time. I sat through every Cisco class offered they had in 1995. The training materials were very good.
Yahoo news has been pretty good for quite awhile. MS is doing nothing but trying to "keep up with the Joneses." Most newspaper sites do the same thing. They just don't pay for as many newsfeeds.
MS has some really brainy product people: "We need to do something."
"I can't think of anything."
"How about we copy google?"
"Too hard."
"Ok, how about we just copy parts of google?"
"Ok... news. We'll just aggregate."
"Cool... we'll just chip away at Google."
"We've got more money than god... they'll cave sooner or later."
MS buys a hundred Dell servers, hires a contractor to come in and set up the scripting. They hire 2 people to keep the 100 Dells running linux... I meant 50 people to keep the 100 Dell machines running Windows 2003.
MS starts issuing press releases before the contractor is ready. The advertising people have all of the Intel/MS cronies lined up for advertising spots. They start beating on the contractor when the site sucks.
MS starts reporting estimated revenue streams to Wall Street. Everyone is happy. The general public buys Windows XP, they aren't even asked if they'd like their default news page set to MS. It's just done.
Thinking like an economist? No... Dayton is thinking like a democrat. Taxes. Big government.
I read the article in the StarTribune.com. Dayton, like most politicians, doesn't have a clue. They listen to whoever gives them the most money to get re-elected.
We all want the gov't out of the internet. Stay away. Taxes? How would you enforce it? How would you bill? It's a ridiculous idea, but a perfect example of what runs through most of these pea-brained heads.
Where's Feinstein and the rest of the California politicians? Raising taxes is second nature to them.
I read the article in the StarTribune.com, and I see they included the obligatory "analysis", saying that email will become "unuseable" by 2005 or so.
Dayton doesn't have a clue. This will get him in more hot water. He's already back pedalling in the article... Paraphrasing starts here: "I was just considering it... you have to consider it as a possible solution."
If I had a corporation w/ 100+ users, there's not a chance in hell that I'd pay $699 oer license, per user.
I'd have a tough time justifying the expense even if they chopped that number in 1/2.
If it was down to $100 per user per license, I might consider looking for the corporate checkbook.
I don't like taking tax dollars that could be used for other purposes just so I can subsidize someone's p0rn business.
Also, when was the gov't supposed to compete with private businesses? How would you like it if the government set up a business to compete against you?
Another money saver on this and other projects: Grey market equipment is at an all-time low. I've found Cisco DSLAMs completely carded for $1500. Optical equipment also flooded the market.
The thing that gets me is this: If there aren't private companies offering services, why is the government stepping in? If there's money to be made, private firms will do the work. If there's no money to be made, IE, it's too expensive, then tax dollars are being used to support these businesses? I'm surprised the democrats aren't screaming bloody murder. There's poor people that need that money.
I had a friend that spent $4000 on a really nice Sharp projector that had more lumens than the X1, and better resolution. He displayed it on a 120" screen. It was fabulous. The BIG downside was the $600 bulb. If I remember, the bulbs are rated for only so many hours (500?). That was not made clear to him when he bought the projector. Of course football season came along, the bulb dies in the middle of a college football game, and panic set in. I know he could have saved money mail order, but he needed a new bulb immediately, and wasn't willing to wait for mail order.
Check out the replacement bulb costs before ever buying a projector.
Personally, I bought a Mitsubishi 46" and an HD set top box. Total investment (including the satellite set top box was $2400. I've had the TV for 3 years, and not one complaint. I have a smaller room. The Mits is only 23" deep. The picture is fantastic. The only other TV that has a better picture is the Pioneer Elite, but I couldn't justify the extra $2000.
I think SCO has very little to do with the day to day activity in this lawsuit. They aren't smart enough. The lawyers are running the show.
Remember, SCO was hurting for cash? They consulted a lawyer and went after the biggest target with the most cash, IBM.
I'll guess that SCO's law team is going to show specific pieces of code to Linus and ask, "How did this code get there?" They're going to look for an answer that points to IBM. If Linus says he doesn't know, then they'll ask who would know? They'll ask for the documents that show who wrote pieces of code, and when. They'll also ask questions about Linus' intentions when creating Linux.
Then, SCO's lawyers will subpoena other code writers that worked on the kernel. They'll keep digging until one of them points the finger at IBM.
They will use RMS to set the stage for damages. They'll ask him how important the kernel is to the entire package. He'll say that no OS will run without a kernel, which is the obvious answer. That sets the stage for damages, as long as they can point fingers at IBM.
SCO's legal team will increasingly release questionable PR. They will spin everything. They will put out information that is tough to refute. Vague statements. When the trial starts, they'll hammer away at specific pieces of code. Linus or RMS will be asked how important various pieces of code are to the whole kernel. If IBM refutes the blame by pointing to other references (in the public domain) to those same pieces of code, then SCO will add those sources to their lawsuit.
Also, SCO will be trying for a non-technical jury in a liberal court. They'll look for poor people, or retired people living on a pension. The SCO legal team will try to play the little struggling company against the big, evil IBM.
That's assuming that this whole spiel makes it trial.
Global warming. That's the reason. Hey, we've got to get rid of the greenhouse gases on the moon. No SUV's. SUV's generate all greenhouse gases.
Microsoft sure can talk like a politician. They make baseless claims that no one can refute.
...is quick to point out that 'We haven't talked to a single user who has said they're using [open source] because it's better.'
Dear Microsoft:
How about asking people outside of Redmond, WA?
Why don't you bring up cost?
How much does a new copy of Linux cost? How much is "office" software for Linux?
How much support does the average Linux user need?
With the money saved on software, how much paid support can you get, and still come out ahead? How many viruses do we see in the Linux community?
Come to think of it... who makes antivirus software for Linux? Anyone?
Microsoft's biggest statement against Linux is this: There's nothing better out there. If I walked down the hall, and asked 10 Linux users why they use Linux, I bet they'd say, "Microsoft has nothing better, it's a pain to adminstrate, and the viruses and hacks keep me up all night."
I'm really surprised we didn't hear from the usual Microsoft shills. It seems every week some new "industry thinktank" makes wild financial claims,
"Windows saves money."
These same "research groups" make the same statements about Linux, they just don't get touted as much. Linux just doesn't have the PR power that Microsoft has.
Red Hat quit giving out support for free software, Microsoft claims victory! "See, that validates our business model!"
No, it doesn't. Free software and free support are 2 different things. I can get plenty of free support, even though Red Hat doesn't offer it.
The fact that Microsoft is claiming victory should be seen for what it is: monopolistic behavior. Who else would celebrate a supposed failure of someone else's business model?
One last thing: How does any of this make Windows a better product?
I think free software will be around for quite some time.
Everyone tries to relate to advertising revenue. I'm happy to announce that I don't pay attention to commercials. If someone comes out with a good product, and I hear about it through word-of-mouth, that's all I need. I do my own research. I watch prices. I know when things are on sale.
I channel surf, I hit mute, I fast-forward, etc to avoid commercials. I hate them. I don't support many companies because of the way they advertise. I vote with my dollar.
My internet habits are much the same way. If you have pop-ups, or anything else annoying, "Bye." Salon.com can rot in hell. I don't care for the leftist slant. I don't care for the whiny news. As far as TV goes, I don't want to watch whatever junk they want me to see. Sorry, I don't want any of it (commercials).
If someone has a chat window and starts offering advertisements that I find instrusive, forget it. I'm not there.
TBS, TNT, and other cable stations are advertising in the corner of the screen during the show. I quit watching those stations. They're not on my program guide for DirecTV anymore. They gave me a choice, watch, or don't watch.
I do think that Google has their head screwed on straight. For the most part, they've weathered the storm of public opinion, criticism, and they've stayed above ground financially.
I think that the public will watch Google carefully in the future. For one, I want to see how socially responsible be with their data. They have a lot of data they've gotten from their search engine. They need to be careful. I do not want this data landing in the wrong hands (Microsoft).
Isn't it just easier to use the excess heat to power a Stirling engine to recapture waste energy?
Maybe the Stirling idea is going too far.
How about a more efficient circuit? It's been awhile since college, but isn't excess heat a sign that the circuit is inefficient?
While it's not completely frivolous research, it's not the first avenue I would approach when looking at this problem. It seems more difficult and time-consuming to add in circuitry to re-use the energy to perform other actions inside of a CPU. It seems like you'd have a better chance at compounding the problem, rather than helping it.
However, make the circuit more efficient, you'll generate less heat. That would be my first goal. What kind of efficiency do they get with today's CPUs?
With this reversible thinking, I have an idea. I need a little help from the anti-SUV crowd... wouldn't all gasoline engines be better off with really big flywheels?
MS can release "news" as a press release, and the newspapers eat it up. The public believes it. The hardware manufacturers "sell" this crap because they sell MS to consumers for Microsoft at a profit. Wall Street helps the process. Analysts hype the latest "features" for the latest vapor product from MS, due in 2012.
MS sells themselves to the public by issuing press releases. They can say whatever they want, as long as they make a claim that they're doing something. There is no accountability. No one holds them responsible. Consumers keep throwing money at MS. Occasionally, someone points a finger, but MS then releases more press releases about vaporware due in 200x.
Politicians do the same thing, "We need to spend more money on _____. We've been spending money on _____ for ___ years, and we've not solved the problem. We are renewing our effort."
In other words, "We're going to light some money on fire, pose for a few photos with the underprivileged, and then waste a lot of money on cigars, dinner, and entertainment."
Microsoft has excellent people playing the press release game. Everyone sells Microsoft products for MS.
How many people have actually met a Microsoft employee? Yet 1/2 of the planet owns or uses something with Microsoft products in it.
I knew this would happen here today.
"Landline will save your life." "Wireless will save your life." "No, landline is better." "Wireless is newer."
The truth is, neither is better. They both have their advantages and disadvantages.
The real issue here is that the FCC clearly favored wireless by allowing number transportability from landline to wireless, and not in reverse.
I know plenty of small business owners that started businesses with a single wireless phone, and have grown into a traditional office space with the need for landlines. They'd have been much happier if they could have moved that number from wireless to landline. It doesn't mean that these businesses would lose their wireless phones. It means that it wouldn't have been as painful to move to a landline in an office environment.
The FCC did not consider this. They only heard the complaints of the wireless companies. In fact, this ruling clearly plays favorites with the wireless companies. The land line companies will soon be putting lawyers in court rooms to have number portability work in 2 directions.
to add chat rooms. It makes sense. AOL, MSN, Yahoo all have them.
Reading through most of the comments, everyone thinks that Google is indexing IRC. It doesn't make sense. The amount of useful info is so small and short lived that it doesn't make sense. Bots, lurkers, filetraders. I admit that there are links to harvest. I think that if they can parse free text, they could start indexing topics, but then they run the same risk as indexed blogs. An impassioned minority (or majority) could sway any attempt at indexing. Script kiddies without drivers' licenses would stay home, trying to see what they could do to Google w/ a series of bots in an IRC channel.
It just doesn't seem like Google to want to get into that kind of mess.
I think they want to compete with MSN/AOL/YAHOO chat rooms. Start from scratch and build a better mousetrap.
Why not just re-use IRC? IRC has a lot of great features, but also a lot of lurkers, warez bots, spammers, AOL'ers, pedophiles. They can wreak a lot of havoc. I think google is concerned about these things, and is sniffing around, trying to figure out how best to avoid that?
**** For those of you complaining about the slow erosion of anonymity, why? What do you need anonymity for? If you say free speech, think about that the next time you look at political candidates.
How about the doctors that kill people by negligence? Hundreds of people are killed by negligent doctors every week.
What makes the nightly news? A pair of soldiers killed in Iraq.
Some doctors are worth their income. Others are not. I'd love to see a rating system on doctors. How many patients have you had die? What were the causes?
Yet nothing is done. Investigations are meaningless. Other doctors consistently protect their own. Insurance companies abide by the practice, they don't want to pay the malpractice awards.
You voted for the politicians that made this whole system possible. If you didn't vote, then you didn't do enough to stop it.
If these drug dealers aren't so bad, why don't you invite them over to your neighborhood?
These people were caught several times with drugs. If they can't learn after the first time, I don't feel sorry for them. How many chances?
Why do you pay income tax? Why not skip paying income tax? You said it yourself. It's not really a jailable offense. Why do you pay? Because of the consequences.
Drug dealers in jail made a conscious choice to deal drugs, and they got caught.
You want them to work weekends at the police station scrubbing police cars? So they can deal drugs during the week days?
How about dropping them off on some deserted island, and letting them fend for themselves. Every criminal gets a shovel, a sleeping bag, a rope, a plastic pail, and a several bags of seeds. They you go. Good luck. No guards, no fences, no way home.
These people can't live in society. They can't live in prison due to the expense. Drop them off on an island. Or, fence off 100 square miles in north Texas desert. Fence it off with serious fence. Electrified razor wire. 30 feet tall. Video cameras. Build a few concrete buildings. Give these morons keys to the buildings, let them fend for themselves. Just like Darwin. If they can't fend for themselves, too bad, maybe you shouldn't have been dealing drugs.
Lagrangian points. There are 5 of them. uhhh... here's a link. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lagrangian_point
The wireless phone companies will have access to a large amount of data due to GPS. GPS is there for 911 phone calls, but there are secondary uses. Dropped calls could be correlated to last known position to (hopefully) improve the network.
They could very easily map out where all phone calls were made, where they travelled while calling, how fast they were travelling. I imagine that the subpoenas will be issued for these records, and the phone companies will want to fight the subpoenas. Spousal disputes, divorce settlements, all kinds of nastiness might hinge on the availability of these records.
It would be easy to relate this data to roads, popular stops, even events that occur along the route. Car accidents, Bill Clinton having sex in a car, gawkers slowing down, all are events that would trigger increases in phone traffic.
The amount of data mined from this could be fantastic.
Don't buy stock in tin foil hats either.
The RIAA is a political organization, looking to ban technology to save their business model.
The recording industry fatcats want their money, and are scared of new technology. No one wants to split from the group and try selling music in any other fashion than the current model. They feel threatened. The industry is behaving exactly like they did during the cassette tape scare, just like the motion picture industry was scared of the VCR and video tape. Remember movie rentals? VHS videos were frequently $100 or more until used movies became available... and movie houses started dropping their retail prices down to the current prices.
Movie rentals threatened the movie industry, until they realized that it actually developed new markets for their material.
The RIAA is not filled with innovative, bright individuals. The RIAA throws money at weak-minded, spineless senators and congresspeople like Conyer, Fritz Hollings, and any politician from California (Berman, Feinstein, etc.). The recording industry sees technology as the end of their business. They are in denial. The emperor has no clothes.
What's really funny is that they also profit from the downloaders. They research what the downloaders' are trading, and call the radio stations to increase air time, which sells more CDs. Hypocrites! They profit from the very process they're trying to stop.
I don't fault them for researching the downloaders' behavior. That's the bright people helping the record biz survive.
The political side of the biz is what I can't stand. This is why most people can't stand politicians or the courts.
Politicians choose not to understand the technology, they choose to listen to those with the biggest pocketbooks. Ostriches... with their heads in sand.
With the RIAA and Fritz Hollings' old method of thinking, the school systems should only be using chalkboards and chalk. The police will be stopping by later to pick up your VCR, computer, and cassette tape recorder.
"No new technology, it ruins our business."
I think you'll end up wearing a belt pack of D batteries.
Let's see... TV ratings are falling, let's blame it on games? Huh? Hmmm. I've got several hundred DVD's and I subscribe to 29 movie channels on satellite. Do I need to watch "Survivor - This time we mean it!"? I doubt it. TV people don't have a clue. How much ER do I need to see? I watch Discovery Channel, History Channel, The DIY channel, and several other channels like that.
Do I want to watch the liberal slant on the big 3? Nope. Do I want to watch the Clinton News Network? Nope.
No one I know likes the commercials. The only time that commercials are worth watching is during the superbowl. The market hasn't figured it out that people use TIVO, or they flip the channel. One stupid "Burger King - Fire is ready" and I've had it.
My son watches kids' channels that specifically do NOT have commercials.
I'll pay $80 a month for 30-50 channels without commercials. I already pay that much for 29 movie channels and all the rest of the crap.
Watch out for the Mormon Mafia!
Frankly, the article and this whole post has very little to do with the actual problem.
The real problem is hypocrites who are unhappy and lazy. They all want a problem solved, but are unwilling to do anything but complain. That's not a solution. It's arrogant. Arrogance will NEVER solve the problem. If you think anyone will listen, you've got another thing coming.
Who likes a whiner? Seriously. Anyone? Who joined up for the Ariana Huffington fan club? Anyone?
Let's look at Ariana's lifestyle. Limousines, private jets, mansions. Until she starts riding a bicycle or riding in a rickshaw, I don't want to hear her preaching about SUVs or electric cars. I don't see her "living the solution."
As for this post, 99% of the people who complain, but yet still live a lifestyle that doesn't go anywhere near solving the problem.
The people who wrote the article and performed the "research" drive cars. They fly in airplanes. They buy cars, plastic, etc. Sure, they go down to the local market and buy "organic" foods. Once a week, they recylce glass, plastic, and newspaper. Wow!
These people are all hypocrites who are unhappy with the world around them yet are unwilling to do what they suggest.
What stocks do these people own? What investments do these people have? I suspect that that a lot of these people would be embarrassed.
I have a message. Spin the numbers as much as you want, then whine, complain, kick and scream, but until you are a living example of the solution, you are a hypocrite, and your message will fall on deaf ears. In addition, until you publicly disavow any connection (financially) with any company that benefits from the use of non-renewable resources (oil, coal, natural gas, etc.), I will not respect anything you have to say.
One issue with community-owned cable. You depend on your fellow citizens for the decisions. It's not necessarily the power of the dollar, or the subscriber's vote that counts.
Picture this: Let's say you have an interest in hunting/fishing, and the community you live in is swarming with utopian PETA radicals. They vote to replace OLN (Outdoor Life Network) with "The Free Range Vegetable Channel." You lose.
A large expense, say for HD, or some other next-gen product might require a referendum. What chance do you think that a referendum might have of passing if you live in a community dominated with fixed-income people?
I'm not saying that a co-op can't work, it just faces different problems. People don't always see the benefit of something new, they only see the bottom dollar. Many people are scared of change.
Right now, many cable and DSL companies are stuck. They believe that there's revenue in providing a large suite of services, getting a consumer a lot of services and providing one-stop shopping. They're right. It's attractive, and for the most part, the consumer can save money. The thing is, the next-gen products require more upgrades, but there's all of the upgrades from the past few years to pay for. They can't handle any more debt.
The programming costs aren't cheap. There's no bargaining for the small providers unless they create a trade union to bargain with content providers. Comcast, Time-Warner swing a lot of weight because they have large numbers of subscribers.
I really think that having several cable companies fighting everyday for the consumers' dollar is the best way. They have all of the incentive, and they reap the benefits. The consumer gets a choice and saves money.
Crunchy vs. creamy?