Is there anything that Vista does right? It's not just that it's more resource intensive, and less stable than XP - it's also less usable. Check out this report, vista is less intuitive, has higher menu latency, and has more "friction" than XP/OS X. This is not just about the OS being "pretty." For a product that is used every day by millions of people this will substantially impact productivity.
When I said BMW upgraded their software I meant _after_ you buy the car. They're not going to install a new console every time they upgrade the software while servicing your vehicle. All I'm saying is that there is little point in having a programmable computer without some sort of universal input device attached. It can be analog, or tactile, or whatever you want to call it, as long as it's adaptable.
While the iPod UI is very good, it's a poor comparison. The iPod is a special purpose device only needs to do one thing.
The author complains about BMW's idrive control (more info here), but I think it is a good solution to this problem. It's a universal control that gives you a tactile interface without tons of buttons and knobs. Once you get used to it, it's actually pretty easy to use.
The problem with analog controls is that you can't add/remove them easily once a device is made. BMW, for example, updates the software in their vehicles periodically, adding and removing features. Without some sort of universal control system this is much more difficult to do.
How bout when you're not paying for it? Or when your station in life changes. I'll give you two examples: 1) st I start my own business and don't want to be found liable for copyright infringement (which is actually enforced for corporations), or 2) I'm working for Acme, Inc. in their IT department and they just asked me to help decide which graphics package they should be giving to their employees...
Basically if you go from using it at an amateur level to a professional level you're likely to reassess your pirate/purchase decision...
That's absolutely ridiculous. YouTube has certainly complied with the guidelines prescribed to qualify for safe harbor (which protects service providers from copyright liability if they follow certain rules). They've even taken down content at the request of content-owners. Wether or not people "know that YouTube hosts infringing material," it doesn't matter. YouTube users post infringing content, YouTube the organization does not. And everyone also knows that there is a plethora of original, non-infringing material on YouTube as well.
The whole point of the safe harbor provision is that service providers should get a warning and be allowed to remove infringing content that users post. If hosting infringing content posted by your users meant you were no longer protected the provision would be worthless!
Yes, and that's a problem, but the alternative doesn't have to be so severe either. Why, for example, do I have to pay Verizon $5 to download a ringtone for my cell phone when I already own the damned CD. The ringtone industry (which is a multi-BILLION dollar industry) is the perfect example of how content owners are trying to turn the U.S. into a pay-per-use economy. There has to be a middle ground here...
Oftentimes they gain a sale. Because you now know their software you're more likely to purchase it in the future (assuming it works...) That's the reason these companies give huge student discounts, and is also the reason why a "leaky" copyright system typically works the best for everybody.
It's funny because this is how copyright law was generally interpreted in the United States prior to the Napster era. The first criteria (of four) that is used to determine whether something is "fair use" is related to whether the use is "of commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes." Today fair use in the U.S. is interpreted so narrowly that might as well be non-existent.
What's doubly weird is that the EU is typically more protective of IP than the United States is. It will be interesting to see what happens if this amendment is passed by parliament.
Sounds like their intent was to create something more like the Good Samaritan laws, when something went horribly wrong. Trying to get people to help citizens in need is one thing, but this goes a bit too far... I'm not too clear on the workings of the French government, does the Constitutional Council the last step in the process of becoming a law, or are there additional hurdles?
Well, that's why we have Internet2... It's so that the data transmission speeds are faster and better research is possible.
Internet2 is a non-profit consortium that develops new network technology, it's not a network. It's true that the Abilene network is run by Internet2 (with help from others), but the difference between Abilene and "the Internet" is subtle. Abilene doesn't peer with the public Internet, but most of what's available on Abilene is also available on "the Internet." Further, Abilene doesn't stray very far from the standard protocols used on the Internet, although the adoption rate of new technologies is typically faster (especially those developed by members of the consortium). National LamdaRail is more of a research network, but it still uses IP over Ethernet.
That's a false argument. What if we knew cows were going to develop super-human intelligence and enslave the entire human race, wouldn't it make sense to research and develop a bovine-neural-incapacitation-ray that could save the human race instead of wasting money on space research? I'll tell you what we do know, AIDS killed roughly 3.1 million people in 2005 (570,000 of them were children) -- so given your logic, doesn't it make sense to fund a cure for AIDS and not space research?
Of course, we could spend all of the money investigating the probablity of all sorts of hypothetical armageddons instead...
I did not blame the west for anything. Read my post again, in particular the section you quoted, as I did not blame anyone for anything! In fact, we are in complete agreement. You restated my point: Americans have no control over the arbitrary conglomeration of the free market. It is what it is. But what that means, in a moral sense, is that Americans are not morally entitled to an unequal share of the economic benefits available through the free market.
Basically, the United States (and much of Europe, and elsewhere) has benefitted from the tendency of free market systems to conglomerate in arbitrary geographic locations and stay there due to various barriers and transaction costs (see some of Krugman's latest publications, or e-mail me for some citations). I am not blaming the United States for this, but at the same time Americans must accept that much of our economic advantage over the rest of the world cannot be morally defended. For example, we cannot morally justify laws that ban outsourcing, or that create import tariffs. Moreover, we may have a moral obligation to help those in other countries who are less fortunate.
This is a big topic, to say the least, but my point was simply that Americans (in general) could be more aware of the circumstances of some of the truly disadvantaged human beings living in the third world. To say that helping these people is a 'poor investment', and that we should develop space travel, etc. instead is, to me, unfathomably ignorant.
Finally, we Americans live in a democracy. Thus, I can refer to the shortfalls of Americans, in the aggregate. If you think I am being racist, you are simply wrong. I, too, am an American. I, too, care about the third world. But, sad to say, Americans (in general) do not. This is simply a literary device, I appologize if it offended you, but might I suggest that you not take statements about the general apathy of a population of nearly three hundred million people too personally? It could vastly improve your life.
How convenient for you to say this. I assume you would be willing to make personal sacrafices equivalent to, say, the loss of a loved one (or perhaps several loved ones) for 'the benefit of all', as you suggest those in the third world should do.
It really takes an ignorant, self-centered, stupendously stupid, and intellectually indolent individual to suggest that moon hotels would benefit all of humankind, while the reduction of poverty and disease due to unjust inequalities in the distribution of economic and geopolitical power would not. Furthermore, it takes a true hypocrite to at once see the inequity in the business practices of a large monopoly like Microsoft (as many slashdotters do), while at the same time not recognizing the obscene inequity that exists between the first world and third world due to arbitrary conglomeration and demand supply relationships of the free market (which no individual has control over, thus no individual has a moral entitlement to). To put it bluntly, if you truly believe that a moon hotel is more important to humankind than saving innocent lives you are 1) stupid, and 2) an egotistical asshole.
Imagine, for a moment, how different your life would be if you had been born somewhere in the third world. Would you feel the same way? One of my favorite philosophers, John Rawls, suggests in his book "A Theory of Justice" that a fair system of ethics can be constructed by using a simple mental process. Imagine, for a moment, that you do not know who you are in the world. That is, you are a disembodied soul whose job it is to construct an a system of ethics, and after you have finished you will return to your body, wherever that may be. You certainly would not feel that the enslavement of a race is fair, for example, for all you know you could be a member of that race. Could you argue for a moon-hotel from such a position, when you or your loved ones could be dying from a curable disease in a third world country?
Explain to me how the Gates foundation is not a good cause. This is an organization that has, among other things, donated billions to prevent and help find a cure for malaria, HIV/AIDS, and tuberculosis; provided free internect access to thousands of U.S. libraries; has been pushing to find a preventitive AIDS vaccine; has been spending to find a method to prevent malaria infection from mosquitoes; started 900 new schools, and provided financial support for an additional 700.
Just because they are not doing things that you see in your day-to-day life does not mean that they are not doing anything. In fact, they are putting the majority of their money where it will do the most good: in the third world. They are actively saving lives, please tell me how that is "not a good cause."
Are you kidding me? That's absolutely rediculous. As much as I dislike Microsoft's monopoly, and Bill Gates' business practices, his philanthropic activities are much more than 'scraps thrown to charity to buy the hearts'. And Warrenn Buffett is certainly NOT donating 'scraps', he is donating 85% of his net worth, in the form of stock in the company that he spent the last 30 years building.
Moreover, I think the idea of spending that much money on AI research is absolutely ludicrous! You're telling me that AI is going to be more helpful to sick and starving children in Africa and other parts of the third world than medicine and food? The Gateses are actively engaged in curing disease and saving lives and you're suggesting that research into artificial intelligence would be a more intelligent philanthropic investment? If that's actually what you think then for god's sake read something other than Slashdot every once in a while because you have a magnificently skewed view of the world.
This plan seems to settle the fate, over the long term, of all your Berkshire shares. Does that mean you're giving nothing to your family in straight-out gifts?
No, what I've always said is that my family won't receive huge amounts of my net worth. That doesn't mean they'll get nothing. My children have already received some money from me and Susie and will receive more.
I still believe in the philosophy - FORTUNE quoted me saying this 20 years ago - that a very rich person should leave his kids enough to do anything but not enough to do nothing.
I believe he also said that he'd be giving the remaining 15% to charity when he died. Buffett is a pretty good guy, actually.
To further its work, the foundation currently has just over $30 billion in assets, a purse built up from Bill and Melinda Gates' gifts of $26 billion and appreciation in its broadly diversified investments (which at the moment contain no Microsoft).
I'm not a MS appologist, just thought that was interesting.
People will be very curious, I think, as to how much your decision - and its announcement at this
particular time - is connected to Bill Gates' announcement in mid-June that he would phase out of his operating
responsibilities at Microsoft and begin to devote most of his time to the foundation. What's the story here?
I realize that the close timing of the two announcements will suggest they're related. But they aren't in
the least. The timing is just happenstance. I would be disclosing my plans right now whether or not he had
announced his move - and even, in fact, if he were indefinitely keeping on with all of his work at
Microsoft.
On the other hand, I'm pleased that he's going to be devoting more time to the foundation. And I think he
and Melinda are pleased to know they're going to be working with more resources.
Although, it's hard to believe that the timing is entirely coincidental... especially since Bill said he'd
be leaving Microsoft over the next two years, and Warren said:
With so much new money to handle, the foundation will be given two years to resize its operations.
Friday is the traditional day for premeditated firing.
Actually, this is no longer considered Best Practice (TM). Firing someone on Friday gives them the whole weekend to sit around feeling sorry for themselves and growing more and more resentful of their former employer. At least in academia, the general opinion (as far as I can tell from the several management classes I've taken) is that if you _must_ fire someone, you should do it on a Monday. Furthermore, you should schedule a meeting with a career counselor for Tuesday morning, bright and early. Thus, the (former) employee has a full week to look for a new job and, hopefully, won't find themselves pursuing a career of binge drinking and intravenous drug use. I think (some) people have finally discovered that pissing people off and making enemies is not the best business model.
That being said, your point is valid. I think this was a sudden decision.
there are some users who want to open up one program and then start typing an e-mail and buy movie tickets within the same app (a few years off in WMP)...
Isn't there a name for software that is intended to manage the various tasks that a user is performing on a computer..? I know there's a name for software like that...
True... but (not to nitpick:) it is unusual for the _chairman_ of the board not to have an ownership position in the organization. Ocassionally this does happen, an example would be if a large institutional investor had an ownership position and a representative of that institution became the chairman of the board... but the point is that the chairman, as well as the rest of the board, represent the owners (or at least they're supposed to).
As far as management electing the board, IANAL but I am pretty sure that the only way this can happen is if the shareholders elect to allow the management to do so. I'll agree that this practice is partially to blame for the 'creative accounting' we've seen in the past few years.
My point was simply that being the chairman of the board is not the same thing as being an employee for a corporation. This is not a management position, per se, but is a step higher -- the guys who get to help pick the top management (CEO, CIO, CTO, etc), and make sure those guys are doing they're job. Basically, Bill Gates is saying "I'm no longer going to manage my company, but I will retain my right to pick who does!"
Being the chairman of the board is very different from being an employee for a company. The chairman of the board is _not_ an employee, he is an owner and is supposed to represent the interests of the owners. Owners != Employees. Basically, sounds like Bill is stepping down from his day-to-day activities managing the organization. But he still has billions of dollars tied up in an ownership position -- it would be incredibly stupid of him not to protect that investment.
Slashdot Mirror
Is there anything that Vista does right? It's not just that it's more resource intensive, and less stable than XP - it's also less usable. Check out this report, vista is less intuitive, has higher menu latency, and has more "friction" than XP/OS X. This is not just about the OS being "pretty." For a product that is used every day by millions of people this will substantially impact productivity.
When I said BMW upgraded their software I meant _after_ you buy the car. They're not going to install a new console every time they upgrade the software while servicing your vehicle. All I'm saying is that there is little point in having a programmable computer without some sort of universal input device attached. It can be analog, or tactile, or whatever you want to call it, as long as it's adaptable.
While the iPod UI is very good, it's a poor comparison. The iPod is a special purpose device only needs to do one thing.
The author complains about BMW's idrive control (more info here), but I think it is a good solution to this problem. It's a universal control that gives you a tactile interface without tons of buttons and knobs. Once you get used to it, it's actually pretty easy to use.
The problem with analog controls is that you can't add/remove them easily once a device is made. BMW, for example, updates the software in their vehicles periodically, adding and removing features. Without some sort of universal control system this is much more difficult to do.
How bout when you're not paying for it? Or when your station in life changes. I'll give you two examples: 1) st I start my own business and don't want to be found liable for copyright infringement (which is actually enforced for corporations), or 2) I'm working for Acme, Inc. in their IT department and they just asked me to help decide which graphics package they should be giving to their employees...
Basically if you go from using it at an amateur level to a professional level you're likely to reassess your pirate/purchase decision...
That's absolutely ridiculous. YouTube has certainly complied with the guidelines prescribed to qualify for safe harbor (which protects service providers from copyright liability if they follow certain rules). They've even taken down content at the request of content-owners. Wether or not people "know that YouTube hosts infringing material," it doesn't matter. YouTube users post infringing content, YouTube the organization does not. And everyone also knows that there is a plethora of original, non-infringing material on YouTube as well.
The whole point of the safe harbor provision is that service providers should get a warning and be allowed to remove infringing content that users post. If hosting infringing content posted by your users meant you were no longer protected the provision would be worthless!
Yes, and that's a problem, but the alternative doesn't have to be so severe either. Why, for example, do I have to pay Verizon $5 to download a ringtone for my cell phone when I already own the damned CD. The ringtone industry (which is a multi-BILLION dollar industry) is the perfect example of how content owners are trying to turn the U.S. into a pay-per-use economy. There has to be a middle ground here...
Oftentimes they gain a sale. Because you now know their software you're more likely to purchase it in the future (assuming it works...) That's the reason these companies give huge student discounts, and is also the reason why a "leaky" copyright system typically works the best for everybody.
It's funny because this is how copyright law was generally interpreted in the United States prior to the Napster era. The first criteria (of four) that is used to determine whether something is "fair use" is related to whether the use is "of commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes." Today fair use in the U.S. is interpreted so narrowly that might as well be non-existent. What's doubly weird is that the EU is typically more protective of IP than the United States is. It will be interesting to see what happens if this amendment is passed by parliament.
Sounds like their intent was to create something more like the Good Samaritan laws, when something went horribly wrong. Trying to get people to help citizens in need is one thing, but this goes a bit too far... I'm not too clear on the workings of the French government, does the Constitutional Council the last step in the process of becoming a law, or are there additional hurdles?
Internet2 is a non-profit consortium that develops new network technology, it's not a network. It's true that the Abilene network is run by Internet2 (with help from others), but the difference between Abilene and "the Internet" is subtle. Abilene doesn't peer with the public Internet, but most of what's available on Abilene is also available on "the Internet." Further, Abilene doesn't stray very far from the standard protocols used on the Internet, although the adoption rate of new technologies is typically faster (especially those developed by members of the consortium). National LamdaRail is more of a research network, but it still uses IP over Ethernet.
That's a false argument. What if we knew cows were going to develop super-human intelligence and enslave the entire human race, wouldn't it make sense to research and develop a bovine-neural-incapacitation-ray that could save the human race instead of wasting money on space research? I'll tell you what we do know, AIDS killed roughly 3.1 million people in 2005 (570,000 of them were children) -- so given your logic, doesn't it make sense to fund a cure for AIDS and not space research?
Of course, we could spend all of the money investigating the probablity of all sorts of hypothetical armageddons instead...
I did not blame the west for anything. Read my post again, in particular the section you quoted, as I did not blame anyone for anything! In fact, we are in complete agreement. You restated my point: Americans have no control over the arbitrary conglomeration of the free market. It is what it is. But what that means, in a moral sense, is that Americans are not morally entitled to an unequal share of the economic benefits available through the free market.
Basically, the United States (and much of Europe, and elsewhere) has benefitted from the tendency of free market systems to conglomerate in arbitrary geographic locations and stay there due to various barriers and transaction costs (see some of Krugman's latest publications, or e-mail me for some citations). I am not blaming the United States for this, but at the same time Americans must accept that much of our economic advantage over the rest of the world cannot be morally defended. For example, we cannot morally justify laws that ban outsourcing, or that create import tariffs. Moreover, we may have a moral obligation to help those in other countries who are less fortunate.
This is a big topic, to say the least, but my point was simply that Americans (in general) could be more aware of the circumstances of some of the truly disadvantaged human beings living in the third world. To say that helping these people is a 'poor investment', and that we should develop space travel, etc. instead is, to me, unfathomably ignorant.
Finally, we Americans live in a democracy. Thus, I can refer to the shortfalls of Americans, in the aggregate. If you think I am being racist, you are simply wrong. I, too, am an American. I, too, care about the third world. But, sad to say, Americans (in general) do not. This is simply a literary device, I appologize if it offended you, but might I suggest that you not take statements about the general apathy of a population of nearly three hundred million people too personally? It could vastly improve your life.
How convenient for you to say this. I assume you would be willing to make personal sacrafices equivalent to, say, the loss of a loved one (or perhaps several loved ones) for 'the benefit of all', as you suggest those in the third world should do.
It really takes an ignorant, self-centered, stupendously stupid, and intellectually indolent individual to suggest that moon hotels would benefit all of humankind, while the reduction of poverty and disease due to unjust inequalities in the distribution of economic and geopolitical power would not. Furthermore, it takes a true hypocrite to at once see the inequity in the business practices of a large monopoly like Microsoft (as many slashdotters do), while at the same time not recognizing the obscene inequity that exists between the first world and third world due to arbitrary conglomeration and demand supply relationships of the free market (which no individual has control over, thus no individual has a moral entitlement to). To put it bluntly, if you truly believe that a moon hotel is more important to humankind than saving innocent lives you are 1) stupid, and 2) an egotistical asshole.
Imagine, for a moment, how different your life would be if you had been born somewhere in the third world. Would you feel the same way? One of my favorite philosophers, John Rawls, suggests in his book "A Theory of Justice" that a fair system of ethics can be constructed by using a simple mental process. Imagine, for a moment, that you do not know who you are in the world. That is, you are a disembodied soul whose job it is to construct an a system of ethics, and after you have finished you will return to your body, wherever that may be. You certainly would not feel that the enslavement of a race is fair, for example, for all you know you could be a member of that race. Could you argue for a moon-hotel from such a position, when you or your loved ones could be dying from a curable disease in a third world country?
Explain to me how the Gates foundation is not a good cause. This is an organization that has, among other things, donated billions to prevent and help find a cure for malaria, HIV/AIDS, and tuberculosis; provided free internect access to thousands of U.S. libraries; has been pushing to find a preventitive AIDS vaccine; has been spending to find a method to prevent malaria infection from mosquitoes; started 900 new schools, and provided financial support for an additional 700.
Just because they are not doing things that you see in your day-to-day life does not mean that they are not doing anything. In fact, they are putting the majority of their money where it will do the most good: in the third world. They are actively saving lives, please tell me how that is "not a good cause."
Are you kidding me? That's absolutely rediculous. As much as I dislike Microsoft's monopoly, and Bill Gates' business practices, his philanthropic activities are much more than 'scraps thrown to charity to buy the hearts'. And Warrenn Buffett is certainly NOT donating 'scraps', he is donating 85% of his net worth, in the form of stock in the company that he spent the last 30 years building.
Moreover, I think the idea of spending that much money on AI research is absolutely ludicrous! You're telling me that AI is going to be more helpful to sick and starving children in Africa and other parts of the third world than medicine and food? The Gateses are actively engaged in curing disease and saving lives and you're suggesting that research into artificial intelligence would be a more intelligent philanthropic investment? If that's actually what you think then for god's sake read something other than Slashdot every once in a while because you have a magnificently skewed view of the world.
I believe he also said that he'd be giving the remaining 15% to charity when he died. Buffett is a pretty good guy, actually.
I'm not a MS appologist, just thought that was interesting.
Although, it's hard to believe that the timing is entirely coincidental... especially since Bill said he'd be leaving Microsoft over the next two years, and Warren said:
Actually, this is no longer considered Best Practice (TM). Firing someone on Friday gives them the whole weekend to sit around feeling sorry for themselves and growing more and more resentful of their former employer. At least in academia, the general opinion (as far as I can tell from the several management classes I've taken) is that if you _must_ fire someone, you should do it on a Monday. Furthermore, you should schedule a meeting with a career counselor for Tuesday morning, bright and early. Thus, the (former) employee has a full week to look for a new job and, hopefully, won't find themselves pursuing a career of binge drinking and intravenous drug use. I think (some) people have finally discovered that pissing people off and making enemies is not the best business model.
That being said, your point is valid. I think this was a sudden decision.
Isn't there a name for software that is intended to manage the various tasks that a user is performing on a computer..? I know there's a name for software like that...
True... but (not to nitpick :) it is unusual for the _chairman_ of the board not to have an ownership position in the organization. Ocassionally this does happen, an example would be if a large institutional investor had an ownership position and a representative of that institution became the chairman of the board... but the point is that the chairman, as well as the rest of the board, represent the owners (or at least they're supposed to).
As far as management electing the board, IANAL but I am pretty sure that the only way this can happen is if the shareholders elect to allow the management to do so. I'll agree that this practice is partially to blame for the 'creative accounting' we've seen in the past few years.
My point was simply that being the chairman of the board is not the same thing as being an employee for a corporation. This is not a management position, per se, but is a step higher -- the guys who get to help pick the top management (CEO, CIO, CTO, etc), and make sure those guys are doing they're job. Basically, Bill Gates is saying "I'm no longer going to manage my company, but I will retain my right to pick who does!"
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/09/05/chair_chuc king/
Puns are fun.
http://www.google.org/
Being the chairman of the board is very different from being an employee for a company. The chairman of the board is _not_ an employee, he is an owner and is supposed to represent the interests of the owners. Owners != Employees. Basically, sounds like Bill is stepping down from his day-to-day activities managing the organization. But he still has billions of dollars tied up in an ownership position -- it would be incredibly stupid of him not to protect that investment.
Long Live The King!