Yes, it made computing platforms more ubiquitous, but you could also say they would have been a lot less frustrating to use if a single vendor supported one incarnation really well. I believe the PC platform would have been better if it wasn't so ubiquitous and common, there would have been more demand for an easier to use machine, instead of a cheap one.
Take for instance the Macintosh brand. Very tightly controlled and proprietary, yet it is a great brand because they just work. Apple has worked hard to control it and I think the results have helped them (along with other well designed and carefully controlled products) be competitive and made them a very recognizable brand.
I can't tell you how many times a feature or other useful incarnation of an idea was plummeted by some standard that wouldn't allow it to happen because it's not 'standard behavior'
Standardization comes at a steep cost. I would rather see companies hold on to their designs and make them work and compete against other designs and ideas. Let consumers and users of a product decide, not a standards committee.
DVD and blue ray are another example. An industry (that means consumers, in my view) picked the winner, not a standards committee.
>Standardization isn't good for innovators, perhaps. But the lack of it is very very bad for everyone else.
Is it bad to serve someone who worked hard to create something useful? The innovator served by creating and innovating, and now the public has to serve the innovator if they want to use what the innovator created.
Don't you believe that we should serve one another? I can't think of a better way than putting cash in someone's pocket who was really clever and really benefited my life.
They don't give the cameras away, they sell them. And I'm sure they may have some unique innovation that they have tried or will protect.
Yes, simple economics.
It's unfortunate that folks have given their time away for some else to benefit, you've made my point. Some software sucker worked his butt off in order for Elphel to save a bunch of time and to make money that the software developer(s) never saw.
That was smart.
Don't you get it? These business people love you for giving your best efforts for nothing. You are only hurting your ability to make a buck down the road, you are destroying value in software. How can this be good?
I've seen a couple of posts that bemoan that RAMBUS has won this suit. Have you seen their memory technologies? I've done DDR and DDR2 memory implementations and their technology is far superior to any 'standard'.
I'm all for helping folks understand how to implement technology. But I wonder sometimes if standardization doesn't actually rob innovation as it seems to require that innovators give up that which is of value to them. There is no incentive in that. Proprietary technology can be far superior to non-proprietary work. I agree that it isn't always true, but for the most part, it is.
You can't make a buck giving stuff away. I'm really don't like the open source model. It waters down our field and sets expectations such that business types don't appreciate the hard work it takes to make good software, they begin to expect software work to be free.
As far as I'm concerned...Go RAMBUS!
*ducks*:)
Kevin
If you do this, and then we suffer a major catastrophe wiping out our technology and records, and you have a few of these guys running around, you're going to really confuse folks in the future.
Now they were there, then they weren't, then they were there again?
They are going to find one of those guys frozen in ice on a ski resort somewhere 10 million or so years in the future when the sun goes into a solar maximum and the whole of society is beating themselves up because they are arrogant enough to believe they are the cause of global warming. They are going to find traces of Pizza and Cappuccino in his stomach use it to speculate about the plants and animals that existed at the time of his demise.
Then some fat professor is going to espouse a popular theory that we evil human beings exterminated most of the Neanderthal 100 million years ago with genocide and left no remains to be unearthed. They will create fancy computer animated models 'proving' to the public just how bad we were. There will then be midnight vigils and a renewed effort to clone the Neanderthal once again. Affirmative action will insure they get a top notch education and preferred jobs and opportunities even though the only thing they can do is swing a club and grunt. Finally, both races eventually end up in extinction and the earth can finally rids itself of the vermin and disease that roamed its surface for millennia.
I think it deserves a Darwin Award. But who will be around to give it?
Actually, it can get quite humid in the desret. I work with folks who have spent a lot of time in Saudi Arabia and in such places and they report that it is very humid in the summer time. The reason it doesn't rain is that there is no cold dry air masses that come down to mix with the hot humid ones.
There are some places this might be a very nice appliance.
..and it didn't take dual core or smp to make it fast either.
I've been preaching this for a long time. It's about time we seeing this. We'll see greater stability because of it.
Kevin
Re:We can do this without a union, stop undercutti
on
Should IT Unionize?
·
· Score: 1
>Why exactly a problem?
If it wasn't a problem, we wouldn't be talking about getting unions involved.
Kevin
We can do this without a union, stop undercutting
on
Should IT Unionize?
·
· Score: 1
If you stop giving away your code and abilities away for free, you will gain the respect of the folks in the board room.
If you continue to give away software for free, you undercut the whole industry. Manager types stop seeing the hard work that goes into making things work and takes it for granted.
Free software puts a damper on our ability to earn a living. If you were smart and want to have respect, money is the only language the business types understand.
If the industry continues to give stuff away for free, you will be expected to work for the same.
You made my point. A dream dreamed by twisted sexually tilted absolutely sadistic individuals that use religion as a cover. It isn't the religion, it's the individuals.
You can't put Joseph Smith on the same level as Akenaten or L. Ron Hubbard. If you look at the lives of the folks who live and believe in the doctrines taught by Joseph Smith, and if you honest look at the Church he started, there just is no comparison.
You broad generalizations don't help your credibility of what have said.
I agree there are folks in the Muslim world that have perverted their religion. But I have met many Muslims that do not reflect what we see in terrorist states.
I think your reasoning is devoid of any honesty and is nothing more than an irrational reflection of your disdain for anyone has the ability to believe in something bigger than themselves.
You should try it sometime, you just might like it.
I think the idea of having a fully transparent networking paradigm is what is of paramount importance to both data and software that manages that data. Adding application layer logic to routers that will effectively cause data I want (or need) to be available everywhere would (in my mind) restrict the things that we can do with the net. I'm a bottom up kind of guy.
We need not only the data but the intelligence to manage that data spread around. I can't think of any news or information site that doesn't require direct interaction with the user of that data. I mean, take Slashdot for example, it tracks your usage of the site and gives you moderator points when you meet certain criteria. How is that going to work if somewhere along the line you don't have some kind of interaction with Slashdot's software? How does that get distributed as well? Are we going to allow server algorithms to run everywhere as well? I guess if we solve the secuirty problem, that would actually be quite nice.
I agree there needs to be a better mechanism for delivering content everyone wants more efficiently. I'm reminded of this as well when I go to watch a live event and the response is very slow (not to mention 30 to 45 seconds behind), or I try to download a large file. Also with VOIP routing headers taking up 30% of wireless bandwidth alone, something has to be done with our protocols so they are lighter weight.
Just as mechanical switches had to be programmed and were part of the problem, I think TCP/IP is part of the problem here as well. There are still (as he mentioned) all kinds of barriers that have to be known about and planned for. As he said, it is a very static system requiring a day or at least minutes to pass before you can be seen by someone else on the net. I use a networking system that is tightly integrated into an operating system (QNX) that I like very much (still has its weaknesses) but it goes a long way to making the entire computing platform very transparent with the ability to add security.
Content can be very static or it can be extremely dynamic (sensor data in the dynamic example). I think his ideas seem focus around managing very static data or data that can be "late" and making it more readily available. When it comes to dynamic content (such as live video or VOIP) he didn't seem to offer much in the way of substance, or I may have just missed his point. I guess I see the need for direct "conversation" like connections as well as data "dissemination" type connections.
In fact, I'm not sure things like the NY Times daily is a good example, as dynamic advertising is very much a part of what they sell, and they need to have their individual subscribers connect to their servers so they can analyze what advertising to focus on the poor unsuspecting reader.
I personally think that the dynamics of the internet are moving towards very dynamic content and this requires direct connections to the servers which manage that content. Unless this content management (software) can be distributed to other devices along with the data, I'm not sure its going to fly. Microsoft already tried that and now most interactive content is blocked (unless specifically enabled) because of security and other concerns.
However, these are all application layer problems, do they really belong at the bit level of data being bounced around? I don't know and it is an interesting question.
We can add layers that do all kinds of fancy things with data to get it to places that were harder for it to get to previously (mirrors, caching, etc). However, in order to make work what he is indicating makes the internet look like nothing more than a big informational resource (file versions, news, video, etc). Like a big file system or database, like a big static storage system. However, the internet is much more dynamic than that and I don't have the feeling that he addressed that aspect well enough.
What we need is something that will enable us to make "conversation" connections
Your argument doesn't hold water for precisely the reason you stated. All it takes is one person with a nuke to kill 1 million people, it takes far more people with guns to kill/hurt that many.
You don't need a nuke to protect yourself from someone, but when your are huddled against a wall, waiting for someone to execute you, a gun would come in handy.
Do you really think there is only one solution? There is a post here about the Japanese culture. It is interesting that they don't seem to have the same problems as we do, and I have a hard time believing that gun control is what did it.
I understand the desire (maybe even need) to allow people to protect themselves, but that seems to be only one piece of the puzzle.
How is it possible for law enforcement to prevent a crime? Most of the crimes that are responded to by the police have already been comitted. Most of them are there for the investigation. I think the question should be: What do we do as a society to prevent or stop a crime at its outset? Is there a way we can take more responsibility in this regard? How do we realistically make everything safe?
Call me old fashioned, but I don't do these things, I don't have an MySpace account, I don't do any of this stuff. FOR THIS VERY REASON.
I interact with my friends in person. It's a lot more fun and fulfilling.
I don't have to live online, I find and network with folks just fine using very simple tools (phone, visits, post office, and some email). I have emails, sure, and I have some postings here and on news groups. But I try to say only those things that need to be said.
If you have something to say that is potentially embarrasing, don't use the internet.
You can still have privacy. Just don't say things that you want to keep private....
All Google has to do is use someone else's lines, or as some posts have said, block folks where traffic would come over the verizon network. Let supply and demand balance it out. If verizon starts getting screaming customers, they'll back off.
There is more than one way to get internet in many areas...
Services only get better when free enterpise rules. It is expensive to keep up these networks. Congress shouldn't be allowed to regulate the internet. We can't have it both ways (regulation and no regulation). Look what happened to the cost of long distance when congress stopped regulating the telephones here...
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, it made computing platforms more ubiquitous, but you could also say they would have been a lot less frustrating to use if a single vendor supported one incarnation really well. I believe the PC platform would have been better if it wasn't so ubiquitous and common, there would have been more demand for an easier to use machine, instead of a cheap one.
Take for instance the Macintosh brand. Very tightly controlled and proprietary, yet it is a great brand because they just work. Apple has worked hard to control it and I think the results have helped them (along with other well designed and carefully controlled products) be competitive and made them a very recognizable brand.
I can't tell you how many times a feature or other useful incarnation of an idea was plummeted by some standard that wouldn't allow it to happen because it's not 'standard behavior'
Standardization comes at a steep cost. I would rather see companies hold on to their designs and make them work and compete against other designs and ideas. Let consumers and users of a product decide, not a standards committee.
DVD and blue ray are another example. An industry (that means consumers, in my view) picked the winner, not a standards committee.
Kevin
>Standardization isn't good for innovators, perhaps. But the lack of it is very very bad for everyone else.
Is it bad to serve someone who worked hard to create something useful? The innovator served by creating and innovating, and now the public has to serve the innovator if they want to use what the innovator created.
Don't you believe that we should serve one another? I can't think of a better way than putting cash in someone's pocket who was really clever and really benefited my life.
Kevin
They don't give the cameras away, they sell them. And I'm sure they may have some unique innovation that they have tried or will protect.
Yes, simple economics.
It's unfortunate that folks have given their time away for some else to benefit, you've made my point. Some software sucker worked his butt off in order for Elphel to save a bunch of time and to make money that the software developer(s) never saw.
That was smart.
Don't you get it? These business people love you for giving your best efforts for nothing. You are only hurting your ability to make a buck down the road, you are destroying value in software. How can this be good?
Kevin
I've seen a couple of posts that bemoan that RAMBUS has won this suit. Have you seen their memory technologies? I've done DDR and DDR2 memory implementations and their technology is far superior to any 'standard'. :)
I'm all for helping folks understand how to implement technology. But I wonder sometimes if standardization doesn't actually rob innovation as it seems to require that innovators give up that which is of value to them. There is no incentive in that. Proprietary technology can be far superior to non-proprietary work. I agree that it isn't always true, but for the most part, it is.
You can't make a buck giving stuff away. I'm really don't like the open source model. It waters down our field and sets expectations such that business types don't appreciate the hard work it takes to make good software, they begin to expect software work to be free.
As far as I'm concerned...Go RAMBUS!
*ducks*
Kevin
If you do this, and then we suffer a major catastrophe wiping out our technology and records, and you have a few of these guys running around, you're going to really confuse folks in the future.
Now they were there, then they weren't, then they were there again?
They are going to find one of those guys frozen in ice on a ski resort somewhere 10 million or so years in the future when the sun goes into a solar maximum and the whole of society is beating themselves up because they are arrogant enough to believe they are the cause of global warming. They are going to find traces of Pizza and Cappuccino in his stomach use it to speculate about the plants and animals that existed at the time of his demise.
Then some fat professor is going to espouse a popular theory that we evil human beings exterminated most of the Neanderthal 100 million years ago with genocide and left no remains to be unearthed. They will create fancy computer animated models 'proving' to the public just how bad we were. There will then be midnight vigils and a renewed effort to clone the Neanderthal once again. Affirmative action will insure they get a top notch education and preferred jobs and opportunities even though the only thing they can do is swing a club and grunt. Finally, both races eventually end up in extinction and the earth can finally rids itself of the vermin and disease that roamed its surface for millennia.
I think it deserves a Darwin Award. But who will be around to give it?
Actually, it can get quite humid in the desret. I work with folks who have spent a lot of time in Saudi Arabia and in such places and they report that it is very humid in the summer time. The reason it doesn't rain is that there is no cold dry air masses that come down to mix with the hot humid ones.
There are some places this might be a very nice appliance.
Kevin
..and it didn't take dual core or smp to make it fast either.
I've been preaching this for a long time. It's about time we seeing this. We'll see greater stability because of it.
Kevin
>Why exactly a problem?
If it wasn't a problem, we wouldn't be talking about getting unions involved.
Kevin
If you stop giving away your code and abilities away for free, you will gain the respect of the folks in the board room.
If you continue to give away software for free, you undercut the whole industry. Manager types stop seeing the hard work that goes into making things work and takes it for granted.
Free software puts a damper on our ability to earn a living. If you were smart and want to have respect, money is the only language the business types understand.
If the industry continues to give stuff away for free, you will be expected to work for the same.
Kevin
....don't work there.
It's called market forces. Employers have a need to retain top talent. If the talent doesn't like the conditions, then they will have a hard time.
If you don't have the skills to be top talent, stop your complaining and get to work and learn something.
That is all.
...the EPA will now make Mars a Superfund site...Mars missions are going to have to wait until it's cleaned up.
Kevin
time is money.
You made my point. A dream dreamed by twisted sexually tilted absolutely sadistic individuals that use religion as a cover. It isn't the religion, it's the individuals.
I've met many that just don't belive this....
Um,
You can't put Joseph Smith on the same level as Akenaten or L. Ron Hubbard. If you look at the lives of the folks who live and believe in the doctrines taught by Joseph Smith, and if you honest look at the Church he started, there just is no comparison.
You broad generalizations don't help your credibility of what have said.
I agree there are folks in the Muslim world that have perverted their religion. But I have met many Muslims that do not reflect what we see in terrorist states.
I think your reasoning is devoid of any honesty and is nothing more than an irrational reflection of your disdain for anyone has the ability to believe in something bigger than themselves.
You should try it sometime, you just might like it.
Kevin
What is the point of reference that is used to measure the speed of something? How does matter know how fast it is going?
I think the idea of having a fully transparent networking paradigm is what is of paramount importance to both data and software that manages that data. Adding application layer logic to routers that will effectively cause data I want (or need) to be available everywhere would (in my mind) restrict the things that we can do with the net. I'm a bottom up kind of guy.
We need not only the data but the intelligence to manage that data spread around. I can't think of any news or information site that doesn't require direct interaction with the user of that data. I mean, take Slashdot for example, it tracks your usage of the site and gives you moderator points when you meet certain criteria. How is that going to work if somewhere along the line you don't have some kind of interaction with Slashdot's software? How does that get distributed as well? Are we going to allow server algorithms to run everywhere as well? I guess if we solve the secuirty problem, that would actually be quite nice.
I agree there needs to be a better mechanism for delivering content everyone wants more efficiently. I'm reminded of this as well when I go to watch a live event and the response is very slow (not to mention 30 to 45 seconds behind), or I try to download a large file. Also with VOIP routing headers taking up 30% of wireless bandwidth alone, something has to be done with our protocols so they are lighter weight.
Just as mechanical switches had to be programmed and were part of the problem, I think TCP/IP is part of the problem here as well. There are still (as he mentioned) all kinds of barriers that have to be known about and planned for. As he said, it is a very static system requiring a day or at least minutes to pass before you can be seen by someone else on the net. I use a networking system that is tightly integrated into an operating system (QNX) that I like very much (still has its weaknesses) but it goes a long way to making the entire computing platform very transparent with the ability to add security.
Content can be very static or it can be extremely dynamic (sensor data in the dynamic example). I think his ideas seem focus around managing very static data or data that can be "late" and making it more readily available. When it comes to dynamic content (such as live video or VOIP) he didn't seem to offer much in the way of substance, or I may have just missed his point. I guess I see the need for direct "conversation" like connections as well as data "dissemination" type connections.
In fact, I'm not sure things like the NY Times daily is a good example, as dynamic advertising is very much a part of what they sell, and they need to have their individual subscribers connect to their servers so they can analyze what advertising to focus on the poor unsuspecting reader.
I personally think that the dynamics of the internet are moving towards very dynamic content and this requires direct connections to the servers which manage that content. Unless this content management (software) can be distributed to other devices along with the data, I'm not sure its going to fly. Microsoft already tried that and now most interactive content is blocked (unless specifically enabled) because of security and other concerns.
However, these are all application layer problems, do they really belong at the bit level of data being bounced around? I don't know and it is an interesting question.
We can add layers that do all kinds of fancy things with data to get it to places that were harder for it to get to previously (mirrors, caching, etc). However, in order to make work what he is indicating makes the internet look like nothing more than a big informational resource (file versions, news, video, etc). Like a big file system or database, like a big static storage system. However, the internet is much more dynamic than that and I don't have the feeling that he addressed that aspect well enough.
What we need is something that will enable us to make "conversation" connections
Your argument doesn't hold water for precisely the reason you stated. All it takes is one person with a nuke to kill 1 million people, it takes far more people with guns to kill/hurt that many.
You don't need a nuke to protect yourself from someone, but when your are huddled against a wall, waiting for someone to execute you, a gun would come in handy.
Do you really think there is only one solution? There is a post here about the Japanese culture. It is interesting that they don't seem to have the same problems as we do, and I have a hard time believing that gun control is what did it.
I understand the desire (maybe even need) to allow people to protect themselves, but that seems to be only one piece of the puzzle.
What else do we do?
How is it possible for law enforcement to prevent a crime? Most of the crimes that are responded to by the police have already been comitted. Most of them are there for the investigation. I think the question should be: What do we do as a society to prevent or stop a crime at its outset? Is there a way we can take more responsibility in this regard? How do we realistically make everything safe?
Kevin
Call me old fashioned, but I don't do these things, I don't have an MySpace account, I don't do any of this stuff. FOR THIS VERY REASON.
I interact with my friends in person. It's a lot more fun and fulfilling.
I don't have to live online, I find and network with folks just fine using very simple tools (phone, visits, post office, and some email). I have emails, sure, and I have some postings here and on news groups. But I try to say only those things that need to be said.
If you have something to say that is potentially embarrasing, don't use the internet.
You can still have privacy. Just don't say things that you want to keep private....
Ok! OK! So I got confused :) It happens a lot you, too many @#$! designators!
Maybe they'll post it on Sourceforge ;)
All Google has to do is use someone else's lines, or as some posts have said, block folks where traffic would come over the verizon network. Let supply and demand balance it out. If verizon starts getting screaming customers, they'll back off.
There is more than one way to get internet in many areas...
It's the only way the little guy can win against those who would use their stuff w/o asking.
Kevin
Services only get better when free enterpise rules. It is expensive to keep up these networks. Congress shouldn't be allowed to regulate the internet. We can't have it both ways (regulation and no regulation). Look what happened to the cost of long distance when congress stopped regulating the telephones here...