"the only thing worse than being exploited is not being exploited"
Very insightful. People forget the origin of the word "exploit", which means simply to use. China has become the factory for the world, producing much more than just cheap DVD players.
People have been poor forever, and working on an assembly line for $2 per day is better than slowly starving to death in a field somewhere. The fact is that China has become the second largest importer of goods (after the US) largely on the back of the huge middle class created by the export industry. The poorest workers are still terribly poor. But as the whole country gets more wealthy, they too get wealthier.
There is no crime in producing sub-$30 DVD players in China. The crime would be to refuse to buy these on grounds of "exploitation".
Long live free trade. It is the ultimate leveller and the only hope for the poor countries of the world.
The longer answer would be "No, but I'll have some of whatever you're smoking/drinking/injecting/snorting".
The sympathetic answer would be "No, and I can recommend a very good psychiatrist if you continue to use the terms 'MP3 Player' and $15,000 in the same sentence."
But I think the most accurate answer would be "BWAAAA HAAA HAAA HAAA HAAA HAAA oh jeez *wipes eyes* HAHHHAAAA *snif*".
I'm not impressed. Predicting the next 12 months on the basis of "more of the same" is not a skill. The skill lies in understanding the underlying trends and extrapolating these.
SCO impacting Linux? Has Cringely even looked at the market? SCO's attacks on Linux have simply turned up the volume on the debate, they have not actually changed the fundamentals.
As far as I can see, the fundamentals of IT are:
1. Ever cheaper technology, including and especially software technology. Software drops in price just like hardware does, but it's starting to be a significant driver.
2. Ever worse infestation by parasitical software - trojans, spyware, worms, viruses - and the use of this by spammers. This is no longer a sideshow, it is one of the main drivers.
3. Global competition to lower costs, especially IT costs. Few firms can avoid competition, one way or another, by companies halfway around the globe.
It all adds up to a big problem for Microsoft and a significant advantage for free/open software, especially Linux.
Microsoft has tried to sabotage Linux through a variety of strategies, and each time they have failed. 2004 will see the start of serious competition, or serious defeat.
I predict that Microsoft will produce a "Windows Classic" package in 2004 that combines a cheap Windows OS and Office, for $49.95, or less. This is about the only way it can compete with offerings like Xandros Desktop, which provide a very smooth and complete package for around this price.
Price, security, simplicity. C'mon, it's so obvious that it hurts to have to say this.
Am I the only one who thinks SCO is like the fat dwarf in LoTR (I know he had a name, but for me he's just the "fat dwarf"), placed into the scene only to be the butt of lots of jokes?
Trees that walk don't have to look like something from Walt Disney, and horrible things that fly can be a lot more effective if they are less graphic.
My point is simply that imagination is always more powerful than explicit imagery, and CGI effects have to leave that space open, or they balanize the story into becoming a sophisticated cartoon.
I read the LoTR when I was 8, and the battle scenes were clear and vivid at the time. The key to making good battle scenes (whether through CGI or using live actors) is to convey the emotions of the situation: boredom, panic, horror, terror, panic, glee, euphoria, insanity. The best way to express these emotions is to use shadows and hints, not full frontal gore.
"Master and Commander" was so good in parts because it did this - as the writer of the article says, the first battle scene in which flashes of light in the distant fog are the visual warning of deadly accurate incoming cannon shots. Hiding the enemy and showing only shadows makes it much more fightning and effective..
Battlescene CGI has, thankfully, matured a little from the "see what I can do" phase, and directors can now direct it in more subtle ways than simply creating realistic hordes.
I don't believe the staged battles and CGI effects were the key to making the LoTR movies more successful, in fact the special effects were quite often boring and impersonal. Flying lizards, mutant elephants, walking trees... OK, curious to look at, but hardly terrifying. And the walking trees and dawrf jokes were just silly.
I'm looking forward to the time when more creative and intuitive directors turn CGI in something more subtle than a "look what I can do" toy.
Re:What a poor pretentious article
on
Sentient Data Access
·
· Score: 2, Informative
Moderators, mod parent UP!
Oh, already "5 Interesting".
Thanks for showing that Slashdot can be a force for sanity. This kind of bullshit pseudoscience drives me up the wall.
But look a little deeper at the article and you will see that the initial superficiality in fact hides a deeper and much more stunning superficiality.
Some of the background inventions are truly stunning. The "Removable Media Metaphor" lets you carry data from one place to another on, wait for it, physical objects. This is incredible. They have actually re-invented the diskette or memory card and propose to use it for printing documents!!
Then the i-Land project (which is something about building "computationally enabled furniture with large displays") has a concept called "Passengers" (not sure if this is a metaphor or a simile) that - wait for it - describes physical objects that carry data between the smartchairs and smartTVsofas in question. Again, the diskette!! Someone has been sharing notes, I expect. Please, someone tell them about TCP/IP, WiFi or Bluetooth?!
Then there is the "Pick and Drop Metaphor" (aha, another metaphor, but a metaphor for what exactly?), in which one "picks" (clever, huh!) data and "drops" it onto physical objects that carry etc. yada yada yada. Clearly one cannot do all this with the traditional file manager with its simplistic drag and drop to diskette or removable memory card.
Finally, "ParcTabs", which is like a mouse combined with PDA. Clever idea that. But, I wonder, why are the ParcTabs not also acting as Passengers, using the implementation-defined behaviour of the "Removable Media Metaphor?" I believe the authors owe us an answer to such vital questions.
Yes, another great year for those research grants!! What I ask is, if these so-called "computer scientists" (and I use this term metaphorically) had to actually work for their money, instead of talking their way to it, how long would they last?
Slashdot instant poll:
(_) Five minutes before their jobs are outsourced
(_) Two days before they get the can
(_) One month before their company goes bankrupt
(_) Intellectuals aren't supposed to work for a living, you insensitive bastard!
But I remember a very good discussion on Slashdot about 6 months back in which I argued that law enforcement WRT child pornography was creating more problems than it solved.
According to some points of view, the drug business and the anti-drug forces are locked into a symbiosis. The huge amounts of money being produced by drugs, and being spent on combating drugs, mean that neither side actually has any interest in legalizing the trade.
Think about this for a second: none of the powerful men actively fighting the drugs trade want to see this trade abolished, for if it were to vanish, so would their position and power.
Now, why is the drugs trade so rich? Precisely because it is criminalized. Why is there no War on Coffee, or War on Beer?
You are now asking, where is that vast demand that will raise the cost of spam...? Well, clearly it's there, or we would not have so much spam. The demand may not be domestic, but there are no borders on the internet. (Pace, Beijing!)
My argument against prohibition is that it tends to create a police structure that becomes self-perpetuating and that frustrates the search for other solutions.
I'm looking for other examples of prohibition gone wrong, but the drugs "war" is the only one that springs to mind. Perhaps child pornography is another example where prohibition is arguably the wrong approach.
I'll back up my (admittedly somewhat bizarre) assertion that fighting spam with legal means is going to be counter-productive.
First, I agree of course that no-one wants spam in the same way as people want drugs.
But. The war on drugs fails not only because people want drugs. Few people want international trafficking in women, nor trade in arms, nor trade in near-extinct animals... Yet none of these prohibited businesses do badly at all. In fact, they do very well.
The principle questions I've asked myself are (a) is it possible to stop spam through law enforcement, and (b) if not, what will the consequence be?
The answer to (a) is clearly "no" for several reasons. Spammers have developed techniques that allow them to work almost untraceably. Forget open relays, that is very 20th Century. Today's spammers use pirated PCs, of which there are probably millions in undetected active use.
The answer to (b) is somewhat more worrying. When spammers operate semi-legitimately, however evil and bestial they may be, they will take some concern to avoid breaking other laws. You will not find snuff videos advertised in spam, nor illegal drugs, nor prostitutes,... Penis extenders and Viagra are annoying, but legal AFAIK.
When spammers are already breaking laws that can land them in jail, why will they stop with a few more felonies. Has the pirated PC be detected and shut down? OK, destroy all data on it, to avoid detection. Sorry, Joe Shmoe. Is there someone blocking your spams through black lists and other means? Perhaps a few bombs in the mail, or even a knock on the door some foggy morning.
The solution to spam lies not in new laws and new criminal offenses. It lies in the protocols and gateways that allow malware to propagate. It lies in that abominable monoculture that leaves tens of millions of people vulnerable. It lies in the definition of new email protocols that are cynical enough for the 21st century.
I believe time will show the legal approach to be woefully misplaced. Jail all the American spammers and watch the problem just keep on getting worse.
Gentlemen, I respectfully rest my case and will now return to my work.
Just in, news that LinuxWorld is forking. Following the Debian development model, LinuxWorld will henceforth be produced in three parallel versions.
LinuxWorld Stable ("Boston") will provide only the most tried and tested packages. We can recommend LinuxWorld Stable aka Boston to all those who need reliability and conformity above all.
Linux World Unstable ("Las Vagas") will provide early access to new packages. We can recommend LinuxWorld LV to those seeking the thrill of the unknown.
Finally, LinuxWorld Experimental ("Silicon Valley") hosts primarily vapourware packages that are best tried before the coke kick wears off. We recommend LinuxWorld SV to all regular users.
Building a two-legged robot that can stand and move upright is significant because it opens the door to a host of devices such as robotised prosthetics for handicapped people, exoskeletons, and so on.
But please don't take the humanoid shape seriously. It is no more meaningful than a piece of wood carved into a humanoid puppet.
Japanese technology often makes objects that are cute and play to our anrthopomorphic instincts, but two-legs/two-arms/head do not make a human any more than the aibo is a real dog.
So enough of the "robot rights" and "robot soldier" comments, these are just embarassing. Asimov wrote fiction, and humanoid robots with human rights are like nuclear-powered flying cars, they say a lot about the hopes and fears of the time, but nothing at all about the realities of the future.
As has been commented, a majority of real humans do not have basic human rights, and probably never will. Robots are machines however cute they look. Get over it.
Robot soldiers? Of course, but why on earth in such a useless configuration? The robotic armies of the future will fly, roll, crawl, dig, swim. They will not look like people: given how good we are at detecting differences between people, even imagining humanoid robots built to infiltrate and deceive is pure fantasy.
What's left? First, a wonderful gadget, a toy. I'd like some of these at my parties, fembots with all the right curves, dancing on the stage. Secondly, some very innovative and useful technology for building new kinds of motive systems, especially for assisting people who don't have the full use of their own legs.
Cubicle -> The WorkPod!
Hotel room (by the hour) -> The JoyPod
Sauna -> The HotPod
Hammam -> The SteamPod
Car -> The DogPod
Contact lense holder-> The EyePod
Church -> The GodPod
Red sports car -> The JockPod
Space Shuttle -> The BarfPod
You can't pick a particular example, say 'it works for me', and use that to conclude the problems are not serious. If that were true we'd have to class MS VC++ 6 as a standards-compliant C++ compiler or Netscape 3.0 as a web browser that supports CSS.I
Mumble grumble. You're right. Moderators, help unleash the hounds of hell on my humble head.
Why, there's a list of almost 20 "gotchas" with MySQL?
Almost 20??
The SQL in my applications runs unaltered with MySQL. Now, perhaps I'm just not the kind of person who tries things like "INSERT INTO... SELECT FROM". Yeah, I should do more of those things.
To take a counter example, in an Oracle database, it is not even possible to get good performance on large tables without resorting to non-standard extensions such as hints. (Disclaimer: it's been a while since I Oracled, this may have been improved.)
Beside our building is a small government-run business center. There is a reception with two ladies. I go there now and then. Every single time, and I mean every single time, they are both playing Solitaire on the PCs.
Granted, it's a sign they have nothing to do. But that's not exactly uncommon in government offices.
It is true that playing Solitaire is a sign both of sloth and of ignorance - there are much better ways to waste one's time - Slashdot for instance. I assume the two poor deprived ladies are without an Internet connection.
No-one minds upgrading to a new platform when there is a crying need for it.
No-one should pay to upgrade to a new platform because the vendor decides it's timely.
Every responsible OO project starts by defining standards that will last years, decades (look at OOorg's document formats). Every responsible OO project sweats blood and tears to ensure that new releases are compatible with old ones.
How many versions of PHP have been incompatible with previous ones?
How many versions of Perl? Of Apache?
Now think back to the history of one single Microsoft product, VisualBasic, and see how many different incompatible versions there were...
A friend of mine wrote an application in VB, some years ago, on Windows 3.1.
A nice application, complex and sophisticated. It used numerous components (VBXs) and he spent about 4 months solid working on it.
He sold this for a year or so, then VB4 came out. He started on an upgrade, found that several of his VBX vendors had vanished, stayed with the old code.
Then VB5 came out. Completely incompatible.
He stopped maintaining the product, and swore to never use Microsoft's tool again.
Now: it may have the same name (VB) but it is at least 3 totally incompatible products. No real application written for an old version of VB can run on a new one.
It's not a small problem, but it's one easily ignored.
MS goes through hoops to get them to work together.
Oh, yes, indeed. But wait two years and then see where your hoops have you. Compatability is not only between different products, it is also (and this was the point of my original comment) with future versions of the same products.
But I suspect your views are bought and paid for, eh? No point in this discussion.
And yet they are as powerful as computers 10 years ago. What is the problem? Basic operating system, simple database, tight, efficient programming language... all these things exist and do not require more new platforms.
I do not accept that the resolution of the screen or the size of the device requires a new development platform (especially at the database level).
Slashdot Mirror
"the only thing worse than being exploited is not being exploited"
Very insightful. People forget the origin of the word "exploit", which means simply to use. China has become the factory for the world, producing much more than just cheap DVD players.
People have been poor forever, and working on an assembly line for $2 per day is better than slowly starving to death in a field somewhere. The fact is that China has become the second largest importer of goods (after the US) largely on the back of the huge middle class created by the export industry. The poorest workers are still terribly poor. But as the whole country gets more wealthy, they too get wealthier.
There is no crime in producing sub-$30 DVD players in China. The crime would be to refuse to buy these on grounds of "exploitation".
Long live free trade. It is the ultimate leveller and the only hope for the poor countries of the world.
The short answer would be "No".
The longer answer would be "No, but I'll have some of whatever you're smoking/drinking/injecting/snorting".
The sympathetic answer would be "No, and I can recommend a very good psychiatrist if you continue to use the terms 'MP3 Player' and $15,000 in the same sentence."
But I think the most accurate answer would be "BWAAAA HAAA HAAA HAAA HAAA HAAA oh jeez *wipes eyes* HAHHHAAAA *snif*".
I'm not impressed. Predicting the next 12 months on the basis of "more of the same" is not a skill. The skill lies in understanding the underlying trends and extrapolating these.
SCO impacting Linux? Has Cringely even looked at the market? SCO's attacks on Linux have simply turned up the volume on the debate, they have not actually changed the fundamentals.
As far as I can see, the fundamentals of IT are:
1. Ever cheaper technology, including and especially software technology. Software drops in price just like hardware does, but it's starting to be a significant driver.
2. Ever worse infestation by parasitical software - trojans, spyware, worms, viruses - and the use of this by spammers. This is no longer a sideshow, it is one of the main drivers.
3. Global competition to lower costs, especially IT costs. Few firms can avoid competition, one way or another, by companies halfway around the globe.
It all adds up to a big problem for Microsoft and a significant advantage for free/open software, especially Linux.
Microsoft has tried to sabotage Linux through a variety of strategies, and each time they have failed. 2004 will see the start of serious competition, or serious defeat.
I predict that Microsoft will produce a "Windows Classic" package in 2004 that combines a cheap Windows OS and Office, for $49.95, or less. This is about the only way it can compete with offerings like Xandros Desktop, which provide a very smooth and complete package for around this price.
Price, security, simplicity. C'mon, it's so obvious that it hurts to have to say this.
Details here.
Am I the only one who thinks SCO is like the fat dwarf in LoTR (I know he had a name, but for me he's just the "fat dwarf"), placed into the scene only to be the butt of lots of jokes?
Trees that walk don't have to look like something from Walt Disney, and horrible things that fly can be a lot more effective if they are less graphic.
My point is simply that imagination is always more powerful than explicit imagery, and CGI effects have to leave that space open, or they balanize the story into becoming a sophisticated cartoon.
I read the LoTR when I was 8, and the battle scenes were clear and vivid at the time. The key to making good battle scenes (whether through CGI or using live actors) is to convey the emotions of the situation: boredom, panic, horror, terror, panic, glee, euphoria, insanity. The best way to express these emotions is to use shadows and hints, not full frontal gore.
"Master and Commander" was so good in parts because it did this - as the writer of the article says, the first battle scene in which flashes of light in the distant fog are the visual warning of deadly accurate incoming cannon shots. Hiding the enemy and showing only shadows makes it much more fightning and effective..
Battlescene CGI has, thankfully, matured a little from the "see what I can do" phase, and directors can now direct it in more subtle ways than simply creating realistic hordes.
I don't believe the staged battles and CGI effects were the key to making the LoTR movies more successful, in fact the special effects were quite often boring and impersonal. Flying lizards, mutant elephants, walking trees... OK, curious to look at, but hardly terrifying. And the walking trees and dawrf jokes were just silly.
I'm looking forward to the time when more creative and intuitive directors turn CGI in something more subtle than a "look what I can do" toy.
Moderators, mod parent UP!
Oh, already "5 Interesting".
Thanks for showing that Slashdot can be a force for sanity. This kind of bullshit pseudoscience drives me up the wall.
But look a little deeper at the article and you will see that the initial superficiality in fact hides a deeper and much more stunning superficiality.
Some of the background inventions are truly stunning. The "Removable Media Metaphor" lets you carry data from one place to another on, wait for it, physical objects. This is incredible. They have actually re-invented the diskette or memory card and propose to use it for printing documents!!
Then the i-Land project (which is something about building "computationally enabled furniture with large displays") has a concept called "Passengers" (not sure if this is a metaphor or a simile) that - wait for it - describes physical objects that carry data between the smartchairs and smartTVsofas in question. Again, the diskette!! Someone has been sharing notes, I expect. Please, someone tell them about TCP/IP, WiFi or Bluetooth?!
Then there is the "Pick and Drop Metaphor" (aha, another metaphor, but a metaphor for what exactly?), in which one "picks" (clever, huh!) data and "drops" it onto physical objects that carry etc. yada yada yada. Clearly one cannot do all this with the traditional file manager with its simplistic drag and drop to diskette or removable memory card.
Finally, "ParcTabs", which is like a mouse combined with PDA. Clever idea that. But, I wonder, why are the ParcTabs not also acting as Passengers, using the implementation-defined behaviour of the "Removable Media Metaphor?" I believe the authors owe us an answer to such vital questions.
Yes, another great year for those research grants!! What I ask is, if these so-called "computer scientists" (and I use this term metaphorically) had to actually work for their money, instead of talking their way to it, how long would they last?
Slashdot instant poll:
(_) Five minutes before their jobs are outsourced
(_) Two days before they get the can
(_) One month before their company goes bankrupt
(_) Intellectuals aren't supposed to work for a living, you insensitive bastard!
But I'm not saying what it was. Otherwise everyone will want to vote for 29 September 2005!
Heh. No. I'm a black man. Thank Jesus.
But I remember a very good discussion on Slashdot about 6 months back in which I argued that law enforcement WRT child pornography was creating more problems than it solved.
Can't resist one more comment.
According to some points of view, the drug business and the anti-drug forces are locked into a symbiosis. The huge amounts of money being produced by drugs, and being spent on combating drugs, mean that neither side actually has any interest in legalizing the trade.
Think about this for a second: none of the powerful men actively fighting the drugs trade want to see this trade abolished, for if it were to vanish, so would their position and power.
Now, why is the drugs trade so rich? Precisely because it is criminalized. Why is there no War on Coffee, or War on Beer?
You are now asking, where is that vast demand that will raise the cost of spam...? Well, clearly it's there, or we would not have so much spam. The demand may not be domestic, but there are no borders on the internet. (Pace, Beijing!)
My argument against prohibition is that it tends to create a police structure that becomes self-perpetuating and that frustrates the search for other solutions.
I'm looking for other examples of prohibition gone wrong, but the drugs "war" is the only one that springs to mind. Perhaps child pornography is another example where prohibition is arguably the wrong approach.
I'll back up my (admittedly somewhat bizarre) assertion that fighting spam with legal means is going to be counter-productive.
First, I agree of course that no-one wants spam in the same way as people want drugs.
But. The war on drugs fails not only because people want drugs. Few people want international trafficking in women, nor trade in arms, nor trade in near-extinct animals... Yet none of these prohibited businesses do badly at all. In fact, they do very well.
The principle questions I've asked myself are (a) is it possible to stop spam through law enforcement, and (b) if not, what will the consequence be?
The answer to (a) is clearly "no" for several reasons. Spammers have developed techniques that allow them to work almost untraceably. Forget open relays, that is very 20th Century. Today's spammers use pirated PCs, of which there are probably millions in undetected active use.
The answer to (b) is somewhat more worrying. When spammers operate semi-legitimately, however evil and bestial they may be, they will take some concern to avoid breaking other laws. You will not find snuff videos advertised in spam, nor illegal drugs, nor prostitutes,... Penis extenders and Viagra are annoying, but legal AFAIK.
When spammers are already breaking laws that can land them in jail, why will they stop with a few more felonies. Has the pirated PC be detected and shut down? OK, destroy all data on it, to avoid detection. Sorry, Joe Shmoe. Is there someone blocking your spams through black lists and other means? Perhaps a few bombs in the mail, or even a knock on the door some foggy morning.
The solution to spam lies not in new laws and new criminal offenses. It lies in the protocols and gateways that allow malware to propagate. It lies in that abominable monoculture that leaves tens of millions of people vulnerable. It lies in the definition of new email protocols that are cynical enough for the 21st century.
I believe time will show the legal approach to be woefully misplaced. Jail all the American spammers and watch the problem just keep on getting worse.
Gentlemen, I respectfully rest my case and will now return to my work.
Politicians and moral crusaders learn nothing from history. Prohibition does not work.
The War on Spam will be what drives spammers for once and for all into the arms of organized international crime.
Not a good idea.
Just in, news that LinuxWorld is forking. Following the Debian development model, LinuxWorld will henceforth be produced in three parallel versions.
LinuxWorld Stable ("Boston") will provide only the most tried and tested packages. We can recommend LinuxWorld Stable aka Boston to all those who need reliability and conformity above all.
Linux World Unstable ("Las Vagas") will provide early access to new packages. We can recommend LinuxWorld LV to those seeking the thrill of the unknown.
Finally, LinuxWorld Experimental ("Silicon Valley") hosts primarily vapourware packages that are best tried before the coke kick wears off. We recommend LinuxWorld SV to all regular users.
End of news flash.
Building a two-legged robot that can stand and move upright is significant because it opens the door to a host of devices such as robotised prosthetics for handicapped people, exoskeletons, and so on.
But please don't take the humanoid shape seriously. It is no more meaningful than a piece of wood carved into a humanoid puppet.
Japanese technology often makes objects that are cute and play to our anrthopomorphic instincts, but two-legs/two-arms/head do not make a human any more than the aibo is a real dog.
So enough of the "robot rights" and "robot soldier" comments, these are just embarassing. Asimov wrote fiction, and humanoid robots with human rights are like nuclear-powered flying cars, they say a lot about the hopes and fears of the time, but nothing at all about the realities of the future.
As has been commented, a majority of real humans do not have basic human rights, and probably never will. Robots are machines however cute they look. Get over it.
Robot soldiers? Of course, but why on earth in such a useless configuration? The robotic armies of the future will fly, roll, crawl, dig, swim. They will not look like people: given how good we are at detecting differences between people, even imagining humanoid robots built to infiltrate and deceive is pure fantasy.
What's left? First, a wonderful gadget, a toy. I'd like some of these at my parties, fembots with all the right curves, dancing on the stage. Secondly, some very innovative and useful technology for building new kinds of motive systems, especially for assisting people who don't have the full use of their own legs.
Eh yes, zee guud oold Deeelectizer. Hurty flurty schnipp schnipp! Elveys guud fur moockeeng veet peuple's imeeels beffure-a replyeeng tu zeem. "Deed I reelly sey thet?"
Das vebzite ist geslaschdottert, habben sie keine speigel, bitte?
Ja, un der blinkenlichtkonzept ist ubercool, duden! Ich vil ein blinkenlicht fur meinen desktaupkomputer fur Kerstmis.
Oh jeez, I can't keep the accent up. Anyone got a mirror?
Ah, the PeePod I almost peed myself laughing.
Let's have fun and rename a few things...
Cubicle -> The WorkPod!
Hotel room (by the hour) -> The JoyPod
Sauna -> The HotPod
Hammam -> The SteamPod
Car -> The DogPod
Contact lense holder-> The EyePod
Church -> The GodPod
Red sports car -> The JockPod
Space Shuttle -> The BarfPod
Ah, the joys of Podding.
You can't pick a particular example, say 'it works for me', and use that to conclude the problems are not serious. If that were true we'd have to class MS VC++ 6 as a standards-compliant C++ compiler or Netscape 3.0 as a web browser that supports CSS.I
Mumble grumble. You're right. Moderators, help unleash the hounds of hell on my humble head.
Why, there's a list of almost 20 "gotchas" with MySQL?
Almost 20??
The SQL in my applications runs unaltered with MySQL. Now, perhaps I'm just not the kind of person who tries things like "INSERT INTO... SELECT FROM". Yeah, I should do more of those things.
To take a counter example, in an Oracle database, it is not even possible to get good performance on large tables without resorting to non-standard extensions such as hints. (Disclaimer: it's been a while since I Oracled, this may have been improved.)
Beside our building is a small government-run business center. There is a reception with two ladies. I go there now and then. Every single time, and I mean every single time, they are both playing Solitaire on the PCs.
Granted, it's a sign they have nothing to do. But that's not exactly uncommon in government offices.
It is true that playing Solitaire is a sign both of sloth and of ignorance - there are much better ways to waste one's time - Slashdot for instance. I assume the two poor deprived ladies are without an Internet connection.
No-one minds upgrading to a new platform when there is a crying need for it.
No-one should pay to upgrade to a new platform because the vendor decides it's timely.
Every responsible OO project starts by defining standards that will last years, decades (look at OOorg's document formats). Every responsible OO project sweats blood and tears to ensure that new releases are compatible with old ones.
How many versions of PHP have been incompatible with previous ones?
How many versions of Perl? Of Apache?
Now think back to the history of one single Microsoft product, VisualBasic, and see how many different incompatible versions there were...
This is the buzzword for 2004? We are living in an alien spaceship?
A HomePod sounds distinctly like a scene from "Invasion of the Body Snatchers".
A friend of mine wrote an application in VB, some years ago, on Windows 3.1.
A nice application, complex and sophisticated. It used numerous components (VBXs) and he spent about 4 months solid working on it.
He sold this for a year or so, then VB4 came out. He started on an upgrade, found that several of his VBX vendors had vanished, stayed with the old code.
Then VB5 came out. Completely incompatible.
He stopped maintaining the product, and swore to never use Microsoft's tool again.
Now: it may have the same name (VB) but it is at least 3 totally incompatible products. No real application written for an old version of VB can run on a new one.
It's not a small problem, but it's one easily ignored.
MS goes through hoops to get them to work together.
Oh, yes, indeed. But wait two years and then see where your hoops have you. Compatability is not only between different products, it is also (and this was the point of my original comment) with future versions of the same products.
But I suspect your views are bought and paid for, eh? No point in this discussion.
And yet they are as powerful as computers 10 years ago. What is the problem? Basic operating system, simple database, tight, efficient programming language... all these things exist and do not require more new platforms.
I do not accept that the resolution of the screen or the size of the device requires a new development platform (especially at the database level).