I'm a bit late to this discussion, so I don't know if you'll get this advice, but if you're going to work for peanuts, *now* is the time to do it.
Later in life, you can take the job that pays more but is less interesting, if you have to. Later, when that ( probably working ) girlfriend morphs into a ( possibly not working ) wife with a kid ( or kids ) that you have to support... then, that's the time to decide if you need to look more to the bottom line than to what is fullfilling. But now, when you're young, you should do whatever looks like the most fun for you. As a benefit, you'll be able to point to experience doing more than speadsheet work, and maybe someone will pay you well to do interesting work. I hear it happens occasionally.
I... don't... know... it's about as relevant as the "cell phones cook egg" hoax that was the previous story, although this one is at least not a hoax and possibly tangentally related to science as you might very broadly define the term to include statistics... so I guess it's an improvement?
Did April Fools come early for the slashdot admins this year? Should we still complain? Why am I asking you ?
Now, if someone posted it with a more humorous summary, or if the blurb pointed to it being funny in some way like *maybe* the foot icon then great, but... not in it's current form. Besides, if slashdot is going to resort to posting hoax stories, there are like a billion that are actually funny...
Is this a new low for slashdot ? Don't get me wrong, folks, I *LOVE* slashdot, been reading for freakin' ever, but Hemos... please... you can do better, and your readers deserve better, huh? Don't you think? Or maybe you just hate us, your loyal readers who generate dozens and dozens of pageviews for you every day? Say it ain't so.
maybe I don't want to know what the "2nd ed." is?!?!?
Well, it was maybe best as a joke, but uh... imagine the other end of that hose is connected to another vest of the same design. Then imagine two relatively cute girls working the "bellows" of the tube by backing away from one another and then pressing up against each other, repeatedly. Like I said... a cute, maybe slightly crude joke, at best, especially since the noise it made left a lot to be desired- maybe give it an amplified accordian-like keyboard or something ?
Then again, other than one or two of the other models being a little cute, that was in fact perhaps a highlight of the show, sadly enough. It's hard to be sure, but it was probably the only intentional laugh.
My best guess ( without knowing how the secret program operated ) is that they're randomly intercepting any and all foreign-routed calls ( and maybe others )
According to a TV news story that I caught a tiny, tiny part of this past weekend, your guess is correct. The news was that they're using a voice-processing program to scan potentially thousands, maybe hundreds of thousands of calls, of course flagging any call with key words ( like what? Arabic language? accents? "nukes" ? who knows... ) with flagged calls are later listened to by people.
Basically, the worst-case scenario, something very, very few, if any, politicians ( and an even smaller percentage of voters ) would ever dare back.
This is no surprise, of course... really, I asking specifically the knee-jerk far-right military commando type I'd replied to that question, along with the more important "how easy do you want a wiretap to be" question... hoping in vain to make him think about it, or at least to hear him admit he thinks the Fourth Amendment should be repealed or othewise rendered ineffective.
In the unlikely event that someone later reads this, just for the record I'll quote that little gem that is designed to protect our true freedom here:
Amendment IV
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
That seems like it should be pretty clear, and the condition of probable cause easy enough to meet; I'm not sure why people have such a hard time with that. Maybe they just hate freedom, or don't like our country or something, I don't know...
TRON guy has a lot of guts, I gotta give him that. A few too many, really. I don't think I'd do that... and I'm in way better shape than TRON guy. I'd have to really, really get in shape first, or just make the outfit and put it on someone who *is* in shape.
I presume you're joking about him being last year's winner, right? Please say you are...
Is there anything 'computational' in the show?
on
MIT Fashion Show Online
·
· Score: 3, Funny
Sorry. I want to listen to the audio descriptions of what the tiny image is supposed to be about, but there's an overbearing, painful-to-listen to abomination of electronica drowning out the announcer.
And here I thought I liked electronic music. I guess I like some electronic music... still, occasionally it's not as bad as the 'fashions'!
The first fashion in the show is just stupid... although I guess that's predictable.
The second thing could be um, interesting, but is really just good for a joke. I guess a lot of "fashion" is like that, though, huh?
uh. Nothing "computational" about any of this, yet, though. The third outfit is the only reasonable one yet... and it's just some ( not many ) movement-controlled LEDs on the front of an outfit.
And no, I don't care to know what you're listening on your iPod, thanks.
Good god, this is awful. Sorry. It's even worse than a normal fashion show. I wouldn't have predicted that.
I can't really stand to watch the whole thing, I'm afraid, even if the server wasn't starting to show some slashdot effect. If anyone does make it through and sees anything worthwhile, could you let us know what it is and about where to find it ? Thanks... I just can't do it... thanks to the user who posted the link of pictures. That's a much more positive group of images... and easier on the ears.
Still, is it really "computational" to stick some speakers in something and hook your iPod to it? Why do I expect better than this ?
honestly who the hell cares about this? People are getting tapped constantly in the US and elsewhere, how is this story even remotely interesting
It's interesting in many ways :
- it confirms what was previously just expected/suspected.
- The way in which it was done ( by installing software on the carrier's cell network that 'conferenced in prepaid phones' ) is definitely interesting.
- It was discovered.
Oh, and I've not read this anywhere else, but there's a post here which gives a few other details, including the mysterious "suicide" of one of the local security officials... not that I can tell you that it's anything real other than some radom dude posted something here, but still, that's interesting too, especially if true.
Anyway, I find it much more interesting than another RIM article or another CSS&HTML book review.
The internet is the only major network, everything else is yesterdays media or more accurately media from the previous millennium
Amen, brotha. Now all that remains is to free up a slice of RF spectrum to populate the airwaves with broadband wifi to solve that 'last mile' problem without having to *completely* cover the world in a grid of fiber... and work out a way to keep these old-tech "telephone" operators from slicing and dicing the publically funded network to the point where it's unpleasant to use.
Interestingly enough, the "network" companies the OP were talking about aren't networks at all, rather, they're content producers. They use what *could* be described as a network of broadcast affiliate stations, but they don't even own most of those transmitters; the affiliates are just business partners in most cases. There's not much of a network in a "TV network".
Unless you can pick it up with rabbit ears, it's not a "major network".
Dude, 1980 called... it wants it's definition of "major network" back.
Seriously, by your definiton the WB is a "major network", but CNN and MTV are not? Ummm... ok... you might want to think about that a little bit more...
Really, I'm not saying you're wrong in any traditional or technical or even ratings sense, but... when people want international news, do they tune to NBC or CBS... or CNN or FOXNews?
Google "Telegram". Ignore the references to Western Union. Guess what? There are other services that will deliver a telegram.
The telegram is not gone... although, it's true that if I or anyone else I've ever known wanted to send a telegram ( uh, why? to make an impact? Then I'd send a stripper or flowers or a guy in a bunny suit as well... anyway... ) well, unless I wanted one of the special types of telegram I just mentioned, I'd think "Western Union". Now, I'd have to search for one of these alternate services.
Obviously, someone looked at the business and noticed, hey! We're not making *any* money providing this service! Screw that!
I'm frankly shocked it didn't happen 15 years ago. Sometimes people do let sentimentality get in the way of rational business decisions.
Still, it's a bit silly for anyone to read this as "I can't send a telegram anymore"... although there is a question as to if it would make sense to do so... really, you need a courier service, not a telegram service per se.
Google "Telegram". Ignore the references to Western Union. Guess what? There are other services that will deliver a telegram.
The telegram is not gone... although, it's true that if I or anyone else I've ever known wanted to send a telegram ( uh, why? to make an impact? Then I'd send a stripper or flowers or a guy in a bunny suit as well... anyway... ) well, unless I wanted one of the special types of telegram I just mentioned, I'd think "Western Union". Now, I'd have to search for one of these alternate services.
Obviously, someone looked at the business and noticed, hey! We're not making *any* money providing this service! Screw that!
I'm frankly shocked it didn't happen 15 years ago. Sometimes people do let sentimentality get in the way of rational business decisions.
I would suggest you check a recent issue of The Weekly Standard for details.
Hey, they're online... though not exactly a respected unbiased news source, I'd be happy to read the article... don't suppose you remember the title? Still, you didn't answer my question ( and it wasn't rhetorical ), how easy do you think it should be for law enforcement to wiretap, search, or seize property ? What needs to be streamlined in FISA, and why didn't G.W. get that put into PATRIOT rather than potentially break the law with a secret program?
I don't have regular chats with foreign Al Qaeda agents! And that is what this program was targetted at.
The truth is, you don't know who this program was targeting. I could be targeting you, or democratic national party members, or anyone else, and nobody would know. Somehow, you don't see a problem with that? You trust the government that much? What did G.W. do to earn such trust?
I don't take phone calls from Al Queda ( or anyone overseas, actually ) now that you mention it... but I do care about freedom, and I do know that it's not just a slogan. It's worth dying for, though... when it's actually threatened. Right now, I'm afraid, Al Queda doesn't pose a threat to our freedom near as much as ( admittedly well-intentioned ) guys like you. Al Queda threatens the lives of some of our citizens- not our freedoms. I do think we can protect the lives of our citizens without forcing them to give up their freedoms.
Go ahead and ask me if our right to privacy is not worth the lives of a few thousand Americans; I think it is worth our lives, and from what you're saying, it's not. But I'm also thinking you believe privacy to have nothing to do with freedom... and that leaves me wondering what you think freedom is and how it comes to be...
Remember that procedural barriers designed to "protect civil liberties" absolutely prevented reading Zacarias Moussaoui's hard drive (according to http://www.courttv.com/trials/moussaoui/background .html , it was a FISA court that did so).
No, that was the fault of an incompetent investigator who thought they had a warrant which covered searches it did not cover, not the fault of "procedural barriers". But... was Moussaoui convicted, or not? Did not being able to use the information on his hard drive at trial stop him from being convicted ? Are you really trying to convince me that the FISA court stopped investigators from reading his hard drive? I'm pretty sure they just said it couldn't be used as evidence *in his trial*... let's not exaggerate the facts here. BTW, the link you posted is invalid.
When you put "civil liberties" in quotes like that... replace it instead with the word freedom and consider if that changes how you feel... because you really can't separate the two.
Your appeal to the memory of Nixon is as lame as the canonical use of Hitler or Naziism in internet debate.
No, it is directly on point. Do you want to give the executive branch the ability to tap anyone's phone, any time, for any reason? Answer that question before you acuse me so, please.
If your answer is not "yes, the government should be able to wiretap anyone, any time, and should be able to search anyone, any time, and should be able to seize any property, any time", then please elucidate what civil protections you do support. Remember, I asked, "how easy do you want it to be ?"... it wasn't a rehtorical question. Apparently FISA isn't easy enough. How easy should it be?
So what are you proposing? That we should end this program? How will that make you safer?
Has this program made anyone safer ? The program is *illegal*, it should never have been started, and those responsible should be *prosecuted* to the full extent of the law.
How would it stop evil Hillary or Tricky Dick of the future fr
All these other guys think they're so funny, but that was the comment that actually made me laugh out loud... even if it's perfectly lifted from the BOFH stories, it's, well... perfect...
I'm sure there will be plenty of comments like mine, but... welcome to the real world.
First off, your position is not unique at all. Perhaps it's unusual in your *exact* location/department, but rest assured you're not the first tech worker outside of IT.
Secondly, this is really your boss' problem. If they're supportive - great! Have them find a way to cut you a check, pass you some cash out of petty cash, bill their company credit card, whatever it takes for you to have a couple of piddly sticks of RAM shipped to your mail drop so you can pop it into your server. Then, have them duke it out with any BOFH ( and their bastard boss ) when they get pissed off about you doing their job for them.
If they don't or "can't" do that, they're not as supportive as you think, nor do they have the clout that you think.
Honestly, I've seen this type of problem many times before at many different companies, and it boils down to one thing: your poor overworked, underpaid staff down in IT already have their hands more than full trying to keep things going, and they've been burned more times and in more ways than you could ever imagine. They're busy trying to keep production servers running, and you're bothering them with a request for a non-production machine that seems to be doing just fine ? Your request, if valid, is so far down the food chain, might as well just say no to it. You might stand a better chance of getting a whole new machine ( configured to your specs as much as possible ) rather than having a part of it replaced or upgraded.
In fact, ordering a new machine is what I would indeed recommend, if you've tried just asking for more RAM _and_ asking your boss to authorize the purchase and do-it-yourself.
I would also recommend looking into the possiblity that your division/group/you/whatever could have a small set of machines and possibly even test network entirely outside of the realm of responsibility of the IT department. I once worked on a development team where making that move was the best thing we ever did for our own productivity and sanity. We couldn't ask the IT department for help, but... we didn't need it, having their involvement just got in the way. To our surprise, the IT folks loved the idea, too, as long as we kept the networks separate... which wasn't as much of a pain as you'd think. We still had our "main" machines on the corporate network, where we'd get mail and interface with marketing's Exchange-server-based crap, er I mean meeting schedules and such, but a large percentage of development work and all testing was done on the test network. Our group picked up a bit of a budget for equipment, and that was it.
I'm sure some corporate policy might prevent such a move, and I'm afraid that you could end up in a situation where, without some real leadership from someone above you in the company, nothing is going to happen. In that case, I'd have to recommend just doing your best, documenting the refusal of others to help out, and looking for a smarter company to work for if possible.
Consider the low memory condition of the server a "stress test" for your software... and keep asking, making sure that everyone sees your request as *necessary*. If the request sounds like "this works, but it's work better if...", then the extra memory isn't really *necessary*, is it ?
Oh, and there is lots of evidence showing links between the Saddam's government and Al Qaeda.
That is a lie. If you possesed any critical thinking skills at all, you would know it is a lie. Even the Bush administration no longer repeats that lie.
And you're talking about the bias of other people? What a crock.
By what standards do you think FISA warrants are hard to prepare ? Would you care to link to an article or other source that describes the difficulties law enforcement has in obtaining FISA warrants ?
Looking at the most recent FISA report to congress, it doesn't look like it's too difficult for law enforcement to get over 1700 FISA warrants in a single year, without a single one being denied. There's a special 11-judge panel that approves these things. It seems to me you could essentially have a department of people in the NSA filling out forms with names and numbers and get as many of these approved as you needed.
How easy do you want it to be ? In order for someone at the NSA to get a FISA warrant, they have to provide what, 8 pieces of somewhat unique information ? Here's what's outlined in the law:
1) name of officer 2) some indication that the request is approved by the executive branch ( I'm going to guess that's *really* a no-brainer ) 3) why the agent thinks the person or facilities being targeted are agents of a foreign power 4) "a statement of the proposed minimization procedures"- boilerplate 5) "description of the nature of the information sought and the type of communications or activities to be subjected to the surveillance" - again, a template could be used in most cases. 6) ertification or certifications by the Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs or an executive branch official or officials designated by the President from among those executive officers employed in the area of national security or defense = you need your boss' boss' stamp. 7) a statement of the means by which the surveillance will be effected and a statement whether physical entry is required to effect the surveillance - again, boilerplate unless you're going into someone's house. 8)a statement of the facts concerning all previous applications that have been made to any judge under this subchapter involving any of the persons - could just as easily be boilerplate "none that I know of". Is the judge going to turn it down if it's wrong? They approved over 1700 of these last year alone. 9) a statement of the period of time for which the electronic surveillance is required to be maintained, and if the nature of the intelligence gathering is such that the approval of the use of electronic surveillance under this subchapter should not automatically terminate when the described type of information has first been obtained, a description of facts supporting the belief that additional information of the same type will be obtained thereafter - again, boilerplate could be used "as long as it takes, additional operatives could be detected, bla bla" 11) whenever more than one electronic, mechanical or other surveillance device is to be used with respect to a particular proposed electronic surveillance, the coverage of the devices involved and what minimization procedures apply to information acquired by each device. Again, serious boilerplate material.
The only possible way that this could be looked at as "difficult" is if the agency in question isn't used to making such requests and/or lacks the resources to do so. Somehow, I think that's not the case here, and again, how easy do you want to make it ? You think question (3) above is asking too much ? You want to grant wire taps because someone "would like to see if I hear anything suspicious" ?
Of course, I'm not going to change your mind here, I don't think- you've decided already that you do nothing wrong and don't mind Big Brother listening in on your phone calls. You're sure we have *excess* civil liberties in the U.S.
More oddly, you *really* think more survellance by the government could have prevented a few guys from hijacking a jet ? That's a fantasy. Even if that particular group could have been caught, someone could have done it- the failure was
Long answer, even if you have cause, *to wiretap, you need a warrant*. A warrant which is really, really easy to get, can be obtained after the wiretap is done in most cases.
This is the reason why even right-wing folks are having a hard time swallowing this whopper. The only reason that makes sense to anyone for doing this type of work in a secret program without asking for judicial approval is that they're doing something fundamentally wrong, like spying on domestic citizens without discrimination, i.e. no ( reasonably, possible ) probable cause. Most likely, they're casting the net really, really wide... I'm not sure we should buy the "only calls originating outside the U.S." statement, but even in that case, uh, are they monitoring *all* calls from outside the U.S. ? That wouldn't fall under the guidelines, sorry... but it might be possible to get a huge number of warrants every day for all of the calls you actually monitored. The only issue is that it *could* get out that you're doing that ( FISA lets us know how many such warrants are issued ), people would complain that you're wasting resources/invading privacy, and terrorists would stop making phone calls into the U.S., defeating the program. Really, though, if they weren't doing something wrong, it wouldn't be secret, it's that simple. Also, think about it for a minute : if it was something G.W. thought Congress ( and the public ) would approve of, he could get the autorization needed, right ?
If the issue is really calls originating from outside the U.S., and the current law leaves the legality of tapping those calls when they connect in the states in doubt, how hard would it be for some PATRIOT rider to explicitly authorize that? Somehow, I and plenty of other critical thinking people don't believe that's the reason this program is secret and avoids the judicial review rubber-stamp process we've set up.
The whole "probable cause" thing AFAIK ( IANAL, either ) is a slippery-slope type argument along the lines of "any reasonable judge anywhere would give you a warrant ( given the obvious evidence), so you can act as if you have one in this case"... but I've only ever heard of it applied in cases of searches where clear evidence is present ( though the definition of "clear" has been getting lower and lower ), and in cases where it's abused, the searching law officer can open themselves up to charges or, more often, end up with evidence being thrown out as a result of unlawful search ( again, this happens less and less ).
My best guess ( without knowing how the secret program operated ) is that they're randomly intercepting any and all foreign-routed calls ( and maybe others ), in such a way that even the most pro-government judge would hesitate to authorize so many unfocused, unfounded wiretaps, and for whatever reason, they decided that asking Congress for permission to do what they wanted either wasn't needed or wouldn't work. They're claiming it's not needed, but they might only be right with Alito on the supreme court... which I guess does make this whole thing a bit of a moot point. It's not like the administration is going to be punished for doing *anything* wrong, no matter what it is, now...
I thought for a minute that this rumor might be true. I mean, since Google has decided it's not too evil to help the Chinese government censor the internet, what would the harm be in peddling badly DRM'd music ?
But then I realized, no way. Google might be evil now, but they didn't suddenly become stupid as well... they're more likely to buy a company that could possibly become profitable. Which pretty much excludes Napster.
I understand the situation is even more extreme in some US stores.
Well... it depends on what stores you are talking about. I walked into an EBGames recently, and yea- easily half ( perhaps more ) of that store's stock was used games. On the other hand, a good number of stores that a lot of people actually buy games at ( the big-box retailers and such ) don't sell used games at all.
We live in the real world where sadly 95%+ of the public who want to play games don't have the awareness (or even the means, on any of the mainstream consoles) to use online distribution (yet).
Uh... while I'm highly doubting that stat is backed up by anything at all, it's true most sales come from stores... although I think the reason has more to do with shipping costs than anything else...
If 25% of a chain of stores is filled with preowned games that the retailer can obtain for far less than their wholesale price, retailers will force increasingly untenable pricing on publishers, and will stock fewer and fewer games.
The only stores that can 'force pricing' on publishers are the really, really big places, like Wal-Mart, which typically don't engage in the used *anything* market. The truth, and the key fact behind this story, is that most games are no longer able to command the premium $50 price point they once commanded. This is a trend that started years ago - it's noted in articles dating back to at least 2004 - and has more to do with the fact that we're really talking about PS2 ( and to a lesser degree, Xbox games ) here, and let's face it- everybody already has a bunch of games, and there are a lot of decent games of the "greatest hits/platinum" variety that are $20 or so and great games. That $20 number has little to do with the pricing and availability of *used* games, and everything to do with the pricing of *new*, but not newly released games. The truth is either that it's the "greatest hits/platinum" games that are driving down the demand for newer $50 games, or that the $50 was too high ( or on the very high end ) of what the MSRP should be.
Buying a used game is a crapshoot ( is it scratched beyond repair? ) and thus a total PITA. People only do it if they can't otherwise find the game, or feel they don't have the cash to buy a $20 'greatest hits' title. Used books and DVDs? Well, DVDs suffer the same problem, but they're easy to find. Books are ( and always have been ) plentiful used- although since there are so many titles, sometimes the used ones that were limited in print end up being the most valuable. Amazon built it's entire business on used books, and it's not as if there weren't very, very successful used book stores before Amazon set up shop online. Really, used goods markets tend to prop up the market for new goods, and if game makers are having trouble charging $50 for their product, chances are that's just a price point that is too high for the product. I mean, I'd like to buy a copy of God Of War, but... I still have to finish playing the $20 copy of San Andreas I got for xmas, and I never did get Star Wars Battlefront ( the first one ), so I can wait until the price drops to pick those up. Notice I'm not talking about used games, and figure that my situation here is not unique... the game publisher's problem isn't one of competition with used games, it's of competition with new ( but not newly released ) games.
That's one hell of an informative link right there, but it raises a few questions:
a) will your typical Chinese internet user know to do that
b) does this mean that google.com ( as opposed to google.cn ) is blocked from inside China? Must be, huh ?
c) how tough would that be to tunnel around? Possible to doable for the average curious person? What's the likelihood of being caught somehow ?
And no, I don't work for the Chinese government.;-)
Unlike Google ( and MSN and Yahoo and every other business ), I'm not that evil:-(.
Yea, sorry Google, I understand the business motives and all, but "do no evil" would mean setting up and publishing information about ways to circumvent censorship, not abiding by it... although maybe there's a line between "do no evil" and "do good no matter what the cost", I suppose... but such censorship as is imposed by the Chinese government, to the point where you can't Google the Dali Lama ? Yea, sorry. It's evil no matter how I look at it. I'm trying here. Google may just have to lose that motto.
Of course, as U.S. politics constantly reminds us, we all have different standards for what is 'evil'. Plenty of folks question the non-evil nature of gathering so much data on users that you'd interest the federal government in the results... and non-expiring browser cookies, for that matter. Of course, businesses are in business to make money, anyone under illusions to the contrary should probably wake up now...
TFA ( the real article, not the blog that wonders WTF the Sony tool in the article is talking about ), is nothing but SCE UK's commercial director Kevin Jowett doing his best to support some publishers in their belly-aching about the used game market. Pure PR, and it's not even aimed at consumers, it's aimed at game publishers.
BTW, any Brits care to tell us if a "Commercial Director" actually serves any legitimate business purpose ?
Anyway, it's entirely likely that neither Sony nor the publishers really care ( or more importantly, could do anything about ) the used game market. The publishers were just trying to deflect attention from the fact that other, very telling, important factors just might account for their declining revenues ( like crappy management and lack of compelling, original games, perhaps? ). It's a bit like the music industry pointing a finger at file-sharing and saying "that's where our profits are going!", except that the game publishers have even less of a reasonable argument here, as nobody is breaking copyright laws.
The arguments make no sense. Why, just because I might spend $10-15 on a used game, would someone infer that if that game wasn't there, I'd be buying a new $50 game instead ? No, I'd just be cursing my decision to buy a console with only very expensive games, and that would ( negatively ) impact my decision to buy another, or at the very least be bummed that I can't find that old game. Equally, nobody thinks of used games as being "as high quality" as new games- they're often scratched, and with very few unfortunate exceptions, even sequals are at least incrementally better in some ways than the earlier games.
To boot, what would they do about it ? Unfortunately TFA doesn't provide a link back to the "(MCV 9/12)" about publishers trying to do something about the used game market, but the used game market is like any used item market. It's not going away, and that's a good thing, or where would I buy that copy of Star Wars Starfighter ( or any other out-of-print game ) ?
Stupid asshat corporate whine. Not worth the words I just wrote, unless to hear someone ( like me ) smack these idiots around in public.
Not only does anecdotal evidence point to that not being a true statement... as I work, programming, at a company of no more than 20 people ( there is one other programmer ), and I know of at least two other less-than-30-people companies that are all-Linux... and several small ( some very small ) businesses that are mostly Apple... actually, from my experience, *most* non-MS stuff happens with smaller companies. Big and mid-size companies have IT departments that tend to standardize on site-licensed MS stuff, and don't want to or don't feel they can support multiple platforms. Smaller companies have the flexibility to adopt 'alternative' systems, and often seek to minimize costs ( including patching and support )... and sometimes they decide that means not being a Microsoft shop.
Clients come to me. They don't need or want non-Microsoft solutions.
Do you have lots of experience with non-Microsoft stuff ? Do you advertise that? Or do you tout Microsoft certifications and get references from clients that are Microsoft sites ? Why would a client come to you for a non-Microsoft solution, as opposed to someone advertising OSS, *nix, or Apple consulting services ? Maybe you don't get non-Microsoft clients because you don't attract them? Maybe your clients would consider a non-MS solution if you offered it?
"Still, there are companies that use Java as it was intended- to write cross-platform apps that can be deployed under Linux, Solaris, Windows, or OS X, all using the same bytecode package and one unified codebase."
Now see, right up until then I thought you were really a developer. No self respecting developer would spout that completely marketing made up crap in the last 2 years. It has been disproven so many time not even sun says it anymore.
As far as Java UI interfaces on commercial products, I was actually thinking directly of one example I'd seen recently , but I know for a fact that there are many, many others. Funny enough, I checked out that company, and they're -get this- a fairly small, nearly all-Microsoft shop.
Of course, some really high-quality Java distributions include ( often minor ) code tweaks that make things work a bit more smoothly on different platforms... but really, they're usually minor and there are packages that aid in implementing those platform-specific things when they're deemed important, so a unified codebase, even in a UI app, isn't just a myth. Funny thing is, right up until you made that comment, I thought you might have some idea what you're talking about... but clearly, you're one of those programmers who thinks they know Java, but really can't hack it. That, or you made up your mind about Java years ago, when JVM bugs were much more common. Today? Sure, you *can* write an app that doesn't work correctly on multiple platforms, but it's not common. Actually, I'd argue that the past 2 years ( especially for OS X/Windows compatibility ) have produced the best "write once, run anywhere" JVMs in history.
True, Sun doesn't use "write once, run anywhere" as the main selling point of Java anymore ( since they learned people beat them about the head with JVM bugs when they say that, and that cross-platform code is just one selling points of Java ), but to say they don't use that phrase anymore just shows how little you know about Sun's marketing and products.
Go ahead, belittle Java as much as you want, tell yourself it's not a viable platform, pretend it's an all-Microsoft world... the number of positions posted on job boards looking for Java programmers ( including those looking specifically for GUI programmers ) as well as Linux programmers seems to indicate that your opinion on the matter might not be based in fact or reflected in reality.
The more I think about it... screw those guys. Evo Morales is my hero. I'd like to see some U.S. politicians cut their pay in half and use it to fund teacher salaries.
Slashdot Mirror
Later in life, you can take the job that pays more but is less interesting, if you have to. Later, when that ( probably working ) girlfriend morphs into a ( possibly not working ) wife with a kid ( or kids ) that you have to support... then, that's the time to decide if you need to look more to the bottom line than to what is fullfilling. But now, when you're young, you should do whatever looks like the most fun for you. As a benefit, you'll be able to point to experience doing more than speadsheet work, and maybe someone will pay you well to do interesting work. I hear it happens occasionally.
I... don't... know... it's about as relevant as the "cell phones cook egg" hoax that was the previous story, although this one is at least not a hoax and possibly tangentally related to science as you might very broadly define the term to include statistics... so I guess it's an improvement?
Did April Fools come early for the slashdot admins this year? Should we still complain? Why am I asking you ?
Is this a new low for slashdot ? Don't get me wrong, folks, I *LOVE* slashdot, been reading for freakin' ever, but Hemos... please... you can do better, and your readers deserve better, huh? Don't you think? Or maybe you just hate us, your loyal readers who generate dozens and dozens of pageviews for you every day? Say it ain't so.
Well, it was maybe best as a joke, but uh... imagine the other end of that hose is connected to another vest of the same design. Then imagine two relatively cute girls working the "bellows" of the tube by backing away from one another and then pressing up against each other, repeatedly. Like I said... a cute, maybe slightly crude joke, at best, especially since the noise it made left a lot to be desired- maybe give it an amplified accordian-like keyboard or something ?
Then again, other than one or two of the other models being a little cute, that was in fact perhaps a highlight of the show, sadly enough. It's hard to be sure, but it was probably the only intentional laugh.
Anyway, you didn't miss out, that was my point...
According to a TV news story that I caught a tiny, tiny part of this past weekend, your guess is correct. The news was that they're using a voice-processing program to scan potentially thousands, maybe hundreds of thousands of calls, of course flagging any call with key words ( like what? Arabic language? accents? "nukes" ? who knows... ) with flagged calls are later listened to by people.
Basically, the worst-case scenario, something very, very few, if any, politicians ( and an even smaller percentage of voters ) would ever dare back.
This is no surprise, of course... really, I asking specifically the knee-jerk far-right military commando type I'd replied to that question, along with the more important "how easy do you want a wiretap to be" question... hoping in vain to make him think about it, or at least to hear him admit he thinks the Fourth Amendment should be repealed or othewise rendered ineffective.
In the unlikely event that someone later reads this, just for the record I'll quote that little gem that is designed to protect our true freedom here:
That seems like it should be pretty clear, and the condition of probable cause easy enough to meet; I'm not sure why people have such a hard time with that. Maybe they just hate freedom, or don't like our country or something, I don't know...
TRON guy has a lot of guts, I gotta give him that. A few too many, really. I don't think I'd do that... and I'm in way better shape than TRON guy. I'd have to really, really get in shape first, or just make the outfit and put it on someone who *is* in shape.
I presume you're joking about him being last year's winner, right? Please say you are...
And here I thought I liked electronic music. I guess I like some electronic music... still, occasionally it's not as bad as the 'fashions'!
The first fashion in the show is just stupid... although I guess that's predictable.
The second thing could be um, interesting, but is really just good for a joke. I guess a lot of "fashion" is like that, though, huh?
uh. Nothing "computational" about any of this, yet, though. The third outfit is the only reasonable one yet... and it's just some ( not many ) movement-controlled LEDs on the front of an outfit.
And no, I don't care to know what you're listening on your iPod, thanks.
Good god, this is awful. Sorry. It's even worse than a normal fashion show. I wouldn't have predicted that.
I can't really stand to watch the whole thing, I'm afraid, even if the server wasn't starting to show some slashdot effect. If anyone does make it through and sees anything worthwhile, could you let us know what it is and about where to find it ? Thanks... I just can't do it... thanks to the user who posted the link of pictures. That's a much more positive group of images... and easier on the ears.
Still, is it really "computational" to stick some speakers in something and hook your iPod to it? Why do I expect better than this ?
It's interesting in many ways :
- it confirms what was previously just expected/suspected.
- The way in which it was done ( by installing software on the carrier's cell network that 'conferenced in prepaid phones' ) is definitely interesting.
- It was discovered.
Oh, and I've not read this anywhere else, but there's a post here which gives a few other details, including the mysterious "suicide" of one of the local security officials... not that I can tell you that it's anything real other than some radom dude posted something here, but still, that's interesting too, especially if true.
Anyway, I find it much more interesting than another RIM article or another CSS&HTML book review.
Amen, brotha. Now all that remains is to free up a slice of RF spectrum to populate the airwaves with broadband wifi to solve that 'last mile' problem without having to *completely* cover the world in a grid of fiber... and work out a way to keep these old-tech "telephone" operators from slicing and dicing the publically funded network to the point where it's unpleasant to use.
Interestingly enough, the "network" companies the OP were talking about aren't networks at all, rather, they're content producers. They use what *could* be described as a network of broadcast affiliate stations, but they don't even own most of those transmitters; the affiliates are just business partners in most cases. There's not much of a network in a "TV network".
Dude, 1980 called... it wants it's definition of "major network" back.
Seriously, by your definiton the WB is a "major network", but CNN and MTV are not? Ummm... ok... you might want to think about that a little bit more...
Really, I'm not saying you're wrong in any traditional or technical or even ratings sense, but... when people want international news, do they tune to NBC or CBS... or CNN or FOXNews?
The telegram is not gone... although, it's true that if I or anyone else I've ever known wanted to send a telegram ( uh, why? to make an impact? Then I'd send a stripper or flowers or a guy in a bunny suit as well... anyway... ) well, unless I wanted one of the special types of telegram I just mentioned, I'd think "Western Union". Now, I'd have to search for one of these alternate services.
Obviously, someone looked at the business and noticed, hey! We're not making *any* money providing this service! Screw that!
I'm frankly shocked it didn't happen 15 years ago. Sometimes people do let sentimentality get in the way of rational business decisions.
Still, it's a bit silly for anyone to read this as "I can't send a telegram anymore"... although there is a question as to if it would make sense to do so... really, you need a courier service, not a telegram service per se.
The telegram is not gone... although, it's true that if I or anyone else I've ever known wanted to send a telegram ( uh, why? to make an impact? Then I'd send a stripper or flowers or a guy in a bunny suit as well... anyway... ) well, unless I wanted one of the special types of telegram I just mentioned, I'd think "Western Union". Now, I'd have to search for one of these alternate services.
Obviously, someone looked at the business and noticed, hey! We're not making *any* money providing this service! Screw that!
I'm frankly shocked it didn't happen 15 years ago. Sometimes people do let sentimentality get in the way of rational business decisions.
Hey, they're online... though not exactly a respected unbiased news source, I'd be happy to read the article... don't suppose you remember the title? Still, you didn't answer my question ( and it wasn't rhetorical ), how easy do you think it should be for law enforcement to wiretap, search, or seize property ? What needs to be streamlined in FISA, and why didn't G.W. get that put into PATRIOT rather than potentially break the law with a secret program?
I don't have regular chats with foreign Al Qaeda agents! And that is what this program was targetted at.
The truth is, you don't know who this program was targeting. I could be targeting you, or democratic national party members, or anyone else, and nobody would know. Somehow, you don't see a problem with that? You trust the government that much? What did G.W. do to earn such trust?
I don't take phone calls from Al Queda ( or anyone overseas, actually ) now that you mention it... but I do care about freedom, and I do know that it's not just a slogan. It's worth dying for, though... when it's actually threatened. Right now, I'm afraid, Al Queda doesn't pose a threat to our freedom near as much as ( admittedly well-intentioned ) guys like you. Al Queda threatens the lives of some of our citizens- not our freedoms. I do think we can protect the lives of our citizens without forcing them to give up their freedoms.
Go ahead and ask me if our right to privacy is not worth the lives of a few thousand Americans; I think it is worth our lives, and from what you're saying, it's not. But I'm also thinking you believe privacy to have nothing to do with freedom... and that leaves me wondering what you think freedom is and how it comes to be...
Remember that procedural barriers designed to "protect civil liberties" absolutely prevented reading Zacarias Moussaoui's hard drive (according to http://www.courttv.com/trials/moussaoui/background .html , it was a FISA court that did so).
No, that was the fault of an incompetent investigator who thought they had a warrant which covered searches it did not cover, not the fault of "procedural barriers". But... was Moussaoui convicted, or not? Did not being able to use the information on his hard drive at trial stop him from being convicted ? Are you really trying to convince me that the FISA court stopped investigators from reading his hard drive? I'm pretty sure they just said it couldn't be used as evidence *in his trial*... let's not exaggerate the facts here. BTW, the link you posted is invalid.
When you put "civil liberties" in quotes like that... replace it instead with the word freedom and consider if that changes how you feel... because you really can't separate the two.
Your appeal to the memory of Nixon is as lame as the canonical use of Hitler or Naziism in internet debate.
No, it is directly on point. Do you want to give the executive branch the ability to tap anyone's phone, any time, for any reason? Answer that question before you acuse me so, please.
If your answer is not "yes, the government should be able to wiretap anyone, any time, and should be able to search anyone, any time, and should be able to seize any property, any time", then please elucidate what civil protections you do support. Remember, I asked, "how easy do you want it to be ?"... it wasn't a rehtorical question. Apparently FISA isn't easy enough. How easy should it be?
So what are you proposing? That we should end this program? How will that make you safer?
Has this program made anyone safer ? The program is *illegal*, it should never have been started, and those responsible should be *prosecuted* to the full extent of the law.
How would it stop evil Hillary or Tricky Dick of the future fr
har har.
All these other guys think they're so funny, but that was the comment that actually made me laugh out loud... even if it's perfectly lifted from the BOFH stories, it's, well... perfect...
First off, your position is not unique at all. Perhaps it's unusual in your *exact* location/department, but rest assured you're not the first tech worker outside of IT.
Secondly, this is really your boss' problem. If they're supportive - great! Have them find a way to cut you a check, pass you some cash out of petty cash, bill their company credit card, whatever it takes for you to have a couple of piddly sticks of RAM shipped to your mail drop so you can pop it into your server. Then, have them duke it out with any BOFH ( and their bastard boss ) when they get pissed off about you doing their job for them.
If they don't or "can't" do that, they're not as supportive as you think, nor do they have the clout that you think.
Honestly, I've seen this type of problem many times before at many different companies, and it boils down to one thing: your poor overworked, underpaid staff down in IT already have their hands more than full trying to keep things going, and they've been burned more times and in more ways than you could ever imagine. They're busy trying to keep production servers running, and you're bothering them with a request for a non-production machine that seems to be doing just fine ? Your request, if valid, is so far down the food chain, might as well just say no to it. You might stand a better chance of getting a whole new machine ( configured to your specs as much as possible ) rather than having a part of it replaced or upgraded.
In fact, ordering a new machine is what I would indeed recommend, if you've tried just asking for more RAM _and_ asking your boss to authorize the purchase and do-it-yourself.
I would also recommend looking into the possiblity that your division/group/you/whatever could have a small set of machines and possibly even test network entirely outside of the realm of responsibility of the IT department. I once worked on a development team where making that move was the best thing we ever did for our own productivity and sanity. We couldn't ask the IT department for help, but... we didn't need it, having their involvement just got in the way. To our surprise, the IT folks loved the idea, too, as long as we kept the networks separate... which wasn't as much of a pain as you'd think. We still had our "main" machines on the corporate network, where we'd get mail and interface with marketing's Exchange-server-based crap, er I mean meeting schedules and such, but a large percentage of development work and all testing was done on the test network. Our group picked up a bit of a budget for equipment, and that was it.
I'm sure some corporate policy might prevent such a move, and I'm afraid that you could end up in a situation where, without some real leadership from someone above you in the company, nothing is going to happen. In that case, I'd have to recommend just doing your best, documenting the refusal of others to help out, and looking for a smarter company to work for if possible.
Consider the low memory condition of the server a "stress test" for your software... and keep asking, making sure that everyone sees your request as *necessary*. If the request sounds like "this works, but it's work better if...", then the extra memory isn't really *necessary*, is it ?
That is a lie. If you possesed any critical thinking skills at all, you would know it is a lie. Even the Bush administration no longer repeats that lie.
And you're talking about the bias of other people? What a crock.
Looking at the most recent FISA report to congress, it doesn't look like it's too difficult for law enforcement to get over 1700 FISA warrants in a single year, without a single one being denied. There's a special 11-judge panel that approves these things. It seems to me you could essentially have a department of people in the NSA filling out forms with names and numbers and get as many of these approved as you needed.
How easy do you want it to be ? In order for someone at the NSA to get a FISA warrant, they have to provide what, 8 pieces of somewhat unique information ? Here's what's outlined in the law:
1) name of officer
2) some indication that the request is approved by the executive branch ( I'm going to guess that's *really* a no-brainer )
3) why the agent thinks the person or facilities being targeted are agents of a foreign power
4) "a statement of the proposed minimization procedures"- boilerplate
5) "description of the nature of the information sought and the type of communications or activities to be subjected to the surveillance" - again, a template could be used in most cases.
6) ertification or certifications by the Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs or an executive branch official or officials designated by the President from among those executive officers employed in the area of national security or defense = you need your boss' boss' stamp.
7) a statement of the means by which the surveillance will be effected and a statement whether physical entry is required to effect the surveillance - again, boilerplate unless you're going into someone's house.
8)a statement of the facts concerning all previous applications that have been made to any judge under this subchapter involving any of the persons - could just as easily be boilerplate "none that I know of". Is the judge going to turn it down if it's wrong? They approved over 1700 of these last year alone.
9) a statement of the period of time for which the electronic surveillance is required to be maintained, and if the nature of the intelligence gathering is such that the approval of the use of electronic surveillance under this subchapter should not automatically terminate when the described type of information has first been obtained, a description of facts supporting the belief that additional information of the same type will be obtained thereafter - again, boilerplate could be used "as long as it takes, additional operatives could be detected, bla bla"
11) whenever more than one electronic, mechanical or other surveillance device is to be used with respect to a particular proposed electronic surveillance, the coverage of the devices involved and what minimization procedures apply to information acquired by each device. Again, serious boilerplate material.
The only possible way that this could be looked at as "difficult" is if the agency in question isn't used to making such requests and/or lacks the resources to do so. Somehow, I think that's not the case here, and again, how easy do you want to make it ? You think question (3) above is asking too much ? You want to grant wire taps because someone "would like to see if I hear anything suspicious" ?
Of course, I'm not going to change your mind here, I don't think- you've decided already that you do nothing wrong and don't mind Big Brother listening in on your phone calls. You're sure we have *excess* civil liberties in the U.S.
More oddly, you *really* think more survellance by the government could have prevented a few guys from hijacking a jet ? That's a fantasy. Even if that particular group could have been caught, someone could have done it- the failure was
Short answer, no.
Long answer, even if you have cause, *to wiretap, you need a warrant*. A warrant which is really, really easy to get, can be obtained after the wiretap is done in most cases.
This is the reason why even right-wing folks are having a hard time swallowing this whopper. The only reason that makes sense to anyone for doing this type of work in a secret program without asking for judicial approval is that they're doing something fundamentally wrong, like spying on domestic citizens without discrimination, i.e. no ( reasonably, possible ) probable cause. Most likely, they're casting the net really, really wide... I'm not sure we should buy the "only calls originating outside the U.S." statement, but even in that case, uh, are they monitoring *all* calls from outside the U.S. ? That wouldn't fall under the guidelines, sorry... but it might be possible to get a huge number of warrants every day for all of the calls you actually monitored. The only issue is that it *could* get out that you're doing that ( FISA lets us know how many such warrants are issued ), people would complain that you're wasting resources/invading privacy, and terrorists would stop making phone calls into the U.S., defeating the program. Really, though, if they weren't doing something wrong, it wouldn't be secret, it's that simple. Also, think about it for a minute : if it was something G.W. thought Congress ( and the public ) would approve of, he could get the autorization needed, right ?
If the issue is really calls originating from outside the U.S., and the current law leaves the legality of tapping those calls when they connect in the states in doubt, how hard would it be for some PATRIOT rider to explicitly authorize that? Somehow, I and plenty of other critical thinking people don't believe that's the reason this program is secret and avoids the judicial review rubber-stamp process we've set up.
The whole "probable cause" thing AFAIK ( IANAL, either ) is a slippery-slope type argument along the lines of "any reasonable judge anywhere would give you a warrant ( given the obvious evidence), so you can act as if you have one in this case"... but I've only ever heard of it applied in cases of searches where clear evidence is present ( though the definition of "clear" has been getting lower and lower ), and in cases where it's abused, the searching law officer can open themselves up to charges or, more often, end up with evidence being thrown out as a result of unlawful search ( again, this happens less and less ).
My best guess ( without knowing how the secret program operated ) is that they're randomly intercepting any and all foreign-routed calls ( and maybe others ), in such a way that even the most pro-government judge would hesitate to authorize so many unfocused, unfounded wiretaps, and for whatever reason, they decided that asking Congress for permission to do what they wanted either wasn't needed or wouldn't work. They're claiming it's not needed, but they might only be right with Alito on the supreme court... which I guess does make this whole thing a bit of a moot point. It's not like the administration is going to be punished for doing *anything* wrong, no matter what it is, now...
But then I realized, no way. Google might be evil now, but they didn't suddenly become stupid as well... they're more likely to buy a company that could possibly become profitable. Which pretty much excludes Napster.
Well... it depends on what stores you are talking about. I walked into an EBGames recently, and yea- easily half ( perhaps more ) of that store's stock was used games. On the other hand, a good number of stores that a lot of people actually buy games at ( the big-box retailers and such ) don't sell used games at all.
We live in the real world where sadly 95%+ of the public who want to play games don't have the awareness (or even the means, on any of the mainstream consoles) to use online distribution (yet).
Uh... while I'm highly doubting that stat is backed up by anything at all, it's true most sales come from stores... although I think the reason has more to do with shipping costs than anything else...
If 25% of a chain of stores is filled with preowned games that the retailer can obtain for far less than their wholesale price, retailers will force increasingly untenable pricing on publishers, and will stock fewer and fewer games.
The only stores that can 'force pricing' on publishers are the really, really big places, like Wal-Mart, which typically don't engage in the used *anything* market. The truth, and the key fact behind this story, is that most games are no longer able to command the premium $50 price point they once commanded. This is a trend that started years ago - it's noted in articles dating back to at least 2004 - and has more to do with the fact that we're really talking about PS2 ( and to a lesser degree, Xbox games ) here, and let's face it- everybody already has a bunch of games, and there are a lot of decent games of the "greatest hits/platinum" variety that are $20 or so and great games. That $20 number has little to do with the pricing and availability of *used* games, and everything to do with the pricing of *new*, but not newly released games. The truth is either that it's the "greatest hits/platinum" games that are driving down the demand for newer $50 games, or that the $50 was too high ( or on the very high end ) of what the MSRP should be.
Buying a used game is a crapshoot ( is it scratched beyond repair? ) and thus a total PITA. People only do it if they can't otherwise find the game, or feel they don't have the cash to buy a $20 'greatest hits' title. Used books and DVDs? Well, DVDs suffer the same problem, but they're easy to find. Books are ( and always have been ) plentiful used- although since there are so many titles, sometimes the used ones that were limited in print end up being the most valuable. Amazon built it's entire business on used books, and it's not as if there weren't very, very successful used book stores before Amazon set up shop online. Really, used goods markets tend to prop up the market for new goods, and if game makers are having trouble charging $50 for their product, chances are that's just a price point that is too high for the product. I mean, I'd like to buy a copy of God Of War, but... I still have to finish playing the $20 copy of San Andreas I got for xmas, and I never did get Star Wars Battlefront ( the first one ), so I can wait until the price drops to pick those up. Notice I'm not talking about used games, and figure that my situation here is not unique... the game publisher's problem isn't one of competition with used games, it's of competition with new ( but not newly released ) games.
That's one hell of an informative link right there, but it raises a few questions :
a) will your typical Chinese internet user know to do that
b) does this mean that google.com ( as opposed to google.cn ) is blocked from inside China? Must be, huh ?
c) how tough would that be to tunnel around? Possible to doable for the average curious person? What's the likelihood of being caught somehow ?
And no, I don't work for the Chinese government. ;-) :-(.
Unlike Google ( and MSN and Yahoo and every other business ), I'm not that evil
Yea, sorry Google, I understand the business motives and all, but "do no evil" would mean setting up and publishing information about ways to circumvent censorship, not abiding by it... although maybe there's a line between "do no evil" and "do good no matter what the cost", I suppose... but such censorship as is imposed by the Chinese government, to the point where you can't Google the Dali Lama ? Yea, sorry. It's evil no matter how I look at it. I'm trying here. Google may just have to lose that motto.
Of course, as U.S. politics constantly reminds us, we all have different standards for what is 'evil'. Plenty of folks question the non-evil nature of gathering so much data on users that you'd interest the federal government in the results... and non-expiring browser cookies, for that matter. Of course, businesses are in business to make money, anyone under illusions to the contrary should probably wake up now...
BTW, any Brits care to tell us if a "Commercial Director" actually serves any legitimate business purpose ?
Anyway, it's entirely likely that neither Sony nor the publishers really care ( or more importantly, could do anything about ) the used game market. The publishers were just trying to deflect attention from the fact that other, very telling, important factors just might account for their declining revenues ( like crappy management and lack of compelling, original games, perhaps? ). It's a bit like the music industry pointing a finger at file-sharing and saying "that's where our profits are going!", except that the game publishers have even less of a reasonable argument here, as nobody is breaking copyright laws.
The arguments make no sense. Why, just because I might spend $10-15 on a used game, would someone infer that if that game wasn't there, I'd be buying a new $50 game instead ? No, I'd just be cursing my decision to buy a console with only very expensive games, and that would ( negatively ) impact my decision to buy another, or at the very least be bummed that I can't find that old game. Equally, nobody thinks of used games as being "as high quality" as new games- they're often scratched, and with very few unfortunate exceptions, even sequals are at least incrementally better in some ways than the earlier games.
To boot, what would they do about it ? Unfortunately TFA doesn't provide a link back to the "(MCV 9/12)" about publishers trying to do something about the used game market, but the used game market is like any used item market. It's not going away, and that's a good thing, or where would I buy that copy of Star Wars Starfighter ( or any other out-of-print game ) ?
Stupid asshat corporate whine. Not worth the words I just wrote, unless to hear someone ( like me ) smack these idiots around in public.
Uh, yea, there's a reason that guy's posting as an AC, and it isn't because he's really, really clever...
Not only does anecdotal evidence point to that not being a true statement... as I work, programming, at a company of no more than 20 people ( there is one other programmer ), and I know of at least two other less-than-30-people companies that are all-Linux... and several small ( some very small ) businesses that are mostly Apple... actually, from my experience, *most* non-MS stuff happens with smaller companies. Big and mid-size companies have IT departments that tend to standardize on site-licensed MS stuff, and don't want to or don't feel they can support multiple platforms. Smaller companies have the flexibility to adopt 'alternative' systems, and often seek to minimize costs ( including patching and support )... and sometimes they decide that means not being a Microsoft shop.
Clients come to me. They don't need or want non-Microsoft solutions.
Do you have lots of experience with non-Microsoft stuff ? Do you advertise that? Or do you tout Microsoft certifications and get references from clients that are Microsoft sites ? Why would a client come to you for a non-Microsoft solution, as opposed to someone advertising OSS, *nix, or Apple consulting services ? Maybe you don't get non-Microsoft clients because you don't attract them? Maybe your clients would consider a non-MS solution if you offered it?
Now see, right up until then I thought you were really a developer. No self respecting developer would spout that completely marketing made up crap in the last 2 years. It has been disproven so many time not even sun says it anymore.
As far as Java UI interfaces on commercial products, I was actually thinking directly of one example I'd seen recently , but I know for a fact that there are many, many others. Funny enough, I checked out that company, and they're -get this- a fairly small, nearly all-Microsoft shop.
Of course, some really high-quality Java distributions include ( often minor ) code tweaks that make things work a bit more smoothly on different platforms... but really, they're usually minor and there are packages that aid in implementing those platform-specific things when they're deemed important, so a unified codebase, even in a UI app, isn't just a myth. Funny thing is, right up until you made that comment, I thought you might have some idea what you're talking about... but clearly, you're one of those programmers who thinks they know Java, but really can't hack it. That, or you made up your mind about Java years ago, when JVM bugs were much more common. Today? Sure, you *can* write an app that doesn't work correctly on multiple platforms, but it's not common. Actually, I'd argue that the past 2 years ( especially for OS X/Windows compatibility ) have produced the best "write once, run anywhere" JVMs in history.
True, Sun doesn't use "write once, run anywhere" as the main selling point of Java anymore ( since they learned people beat them about the head with JVM bugs when they say that, and that cross-platform code is just one selling points of Java ), but to say they don't use that phrase anymore just shows how little you know about Sun's marketing and products.
Go ahead, belittle Java as much as you want, tell yourself it's not a viable platform, pretend it's an all-Microsoft world... the number of positions posted on job boards looking for Java programmers ( including those looking specifically for GUI programmers ) as well as Linux programmers seems to indicate that your opinion on the matter might not be based in fact or reflected in reality.
The more I think about it... screw those guys. Evo Morales is my hero. I'd like to see some U.S. politicians cut their pay in half and use it to fund teacher salaries.