What would be interesting to see, though, is what could be found if a strenuous audit of the billions spent on Y2K remediation were done. I know we had some serious over-expenditures going on here, including buying a boatload of flashlights and running phone and data lines to a hotel two blocks away (where allegedly "key" management was housed all weekend, more like 300 people out of 1000 total staff).
With all the Monday-morning quarterbacking going on, this might turn out to be the real story: Not did we need to spend the money, but did we need to spend this much money?
I know of a few decidedly non-Y2K items that got slipped onto our budget (like a pair of Rio MP3 players), and that's only because I saw the shipment come in. I'm sure there's plenty more where that came from, and we haven't even touched on genuine over-inflated expenditures like buying dozens of printers for dozens of command-center staff. When the ratio of printers to people approaches 1.0, someone's spending too much money.
I may not be the biggest fan of Algore or even any of his opponents, but I wonder if Slate is going to let the rest of them have a chance to post equally blatant campaign stump speeches under the guise of "trip reports"?
The fact that Microsoft owns a publication like Slate really blurs the line between corporate PR and independent media. It's not hard to envision a scenario by which Microsoft offers Gore the free chance to spout his vote-for-me schtick in exchange for subtly favorable treatment if and when he becomes President.
Slate appeals to current-events junkies who also happen to spend a lot of time online. These are people likely to be quite knowledgeable about the DoJ vs MS case, and they also happen to be a key demographic Gore would like to reign in.
I don't like it, it's corporate-sponsored campaigning. Microsoft should definitely stay the hell out of presidential politics.
Well, I guess you'll have to take it up with whomever proposed, drafted, and eventually voted the Expediting Act into law.
While IANAL either, I presume the concept behind the Act is this: by their very nature, antitrust actions involve defendants who are gigantic corporations with vast, vast resources at their disposal. That translates to "an army of sharkskin-suited lawyers who can tie up the case in appeals for the better part of a lifetime".
I suspect the idea is to get the case resolved before the issue in question is rendered completely irrelevant by the passing of time. Look at how much changed in the 13 years the IBM antitrust case was ongoing - can you imagine that the pricing of HTML 3.2 browsers will still be relevant in the fall of 2012?
(Disclaimer: yes, I know the DOJ vs MSFT case is about more than browsers, but it illustrates my point.)
Re:The Last Guru and Roald Dahl
on
5 Novels
·
· Score: 1
The first book I ever read by myself was "Charlie and the Chocolate Factory", which is indeed quite a bizarre book. Mom was good enough to then purchase the sequel, "Charlie and the Great Glass Elevator", which scared the bejeezus out of me! I'll never forget the pen-and-ink drawings of the Vermicious Knids (sp?) in the elevators aboard the space station - great way to terrify a six-year-old!
What many people overlook, it seems, is the quality (and quantity!) of Dahl's adult fiction. His most famous short story, "Lamb To The Slaughter", was made into an equally famous episode of "Alfred Hitchcock Presents". For those who don't remember, it's the wonderful tale of a wife who kills her abusive husband, and the police are instrumental in helping her dispose of some crucial evidence.
Characterizing Dahl as "harsh and terrifying" isn't entirely true, as some of his best and most memorable children's works are also quite tender and touching. Rereading "Danny, The Champion Of The World" never fails to improve my outlook. "The Fabulous Mr. Fox" is a similarly inventive, witty, and incredibly charming tale.
Once you get beyond the obvious kid's stuff, though, Dahl's work is indeed gruesome and horrifying. However, there's always a sly sense of cosmic or poetic justice lurking just below the ghastly surface.
ObDahl: EgyptAir 990 was apparently carrying a shipment of royal jelly when it went down; those well-versed in Dahl's short stories immediately knew what 'royal jelly' was, media confusion notwithstanding.
>>But conventional wisdom says that at most only >>two systems can coexist at any one time.
>Only two systems? And what is this conventional >wisdom?
Conventional wisdom = what's worked in the past and deemed likely to work again.
Remember the olden days of the Atari 2600? Then, along came the Intellivision, owned by rich kids whose parents could afford to buy them the newest and more powerful.
Others tried to successfully crack the early home-game market and tanked. Remember ColecoVision? Even the highly visible and marketable Donkey Kong franchise couldn't keep that thing afloat.
Even Atari, the early undisputed king of home video games, took a beating on the Atari 5200. Too few games, too little consumer interest. The original Nintendo arrived around the same time (IIRC), and that was the end of the 5200.
Like it or not, general-public consumers either are not able, or simply will not spend the mental processing cycles on, keeping track of more than one or two competing systems.
Furthermore, retailers are not willing to gamble, allocating precious display real estate to unproven systems and untested competitors. Everyone wants a proven winner.
Consumers want a product that's going to give them the most bang for their buck, both in terms of processing power *and* a huge library of games. Retailers want a readily-available stock of high-margin games, accessories, and other doodads to fill display cases. They want to sell what people want to buy. Retailers are anything but advocates.
More than two systems will divide up the pie too thinly. Now that we've had several generations of video games, manufacturers are aware of this and are marketing and planning accordingly. Furthermore, witness the attempts at multi-function units: DVD, audio, net connections, etc. Why just sell someone a upgraded Playstation, when you can sell them not only more polygons, but a replacement for that Microsoft WebTV box as well?
We'll see how many of these new systems flourish, but I agree that there's no way all four will make it to market and survive.
But you gotta wonder -- in all seriousness -- if this isn't actually a pretty importent moment.
It might be, but not in the semi-paranoid manner you meant (e.g. runaway processes fighting back).
One of those predicitions for the future from a couple weeks ago included a revolutionary 3D user interface on Linux. This could potentially be the start of it. I'm not entirely sure that's what the creator of this little hack intended - he could have just intended to make something cool and not been thinking about the implications for the future.
Admittedly, Doom is a technologically dated engine, but this is where it'll start. Who knows, in 5-10 years, we might all be reminiscing about "that antique 2.5D 'kill -9' interface", all the while working in more realistic and fully realized 3D interfaces.
Slashdot Mirror
I used to think MSNBC was a professional, if tainted, operation. What's with those crappy, poorly cropped images on the page?
Looks like someone's first attempt at page design on GeoCities.
-Sharv
With all the Monday-morning quarterbacking going on, this might turn out to be the real story: Not did we need to spend the money, but did we need to spend this much money?
I know of a few decidedly non-Y2K items that got slipped onto our budget (like a pair of Rio MP3 players), and that's only because I saw the shipment come in. I'm sure there's plenty more where that came from, and we haven't even touched on genuine over-inflated expenditures like buying dozens of printers for dozens of command-center staff. When the ratio of printers to people approaches 1.0, someone's spending too much money.
-Sharv
I may not be the biggest fan of Algore or even any of his opponents, but I wonder if Slate is going to let the rest of them have a chance to post equally blatant campaign stump speeches under the guise of "trip reports"?
The fact that Microsoft owns a publication like Slate really blurs the line between corporate PR and independent media. It's not hard to envision a scenario by which Microsoft offers Gore the free chance to spout his vote-for-me schtick in exchange for subtly favorable treatment if and when he becomes President.
Slate appeals to current-events junkies who also happen to spend a lot of time online. These are people likely to be quite knowledgeable about the DoJ vs MS case, and they also happen to be a key demographic Gore would like to reign in.
I don't like it, it's corporate-sponsored campaigning. Microsoft should definitely stay the hell out of presidential politics.
-Sharv
Well, I guess you'll have to take it up with whomever proposed, drafted, and eventually voted the Expediting Act into law.
While IANAL either, I presume the concept behind the Act is this: by their very nature, antitrust actions involve defendants who are gigantic corporations with vast, vast resources at their disposal. That translates to "an army of sharkskin-suited lawyers who can tie up the case in appeals for the better part of a lifetime".
I suspect the idea is to get the case resolved before the issue in question is rendered completely irrelevant by the passing of time. Look at how much changed in the 13 years the IBM antitrust case was ongoing - can you imagine that the pricing of HTML 3.2 browsers will still be relevant in the fall of 2012?
(Disclaimer: yes, I know the DOJ vs MSFT case is about more than browsers, but it illustrates my point.)
The first book I ever read by myself was "Charlie and the Chocolate Factory", which is indeed quite a bizarre book. Mom was good enough to then purchase the sequel, "Charlie and the Great Glass Elevator", which scared the bejeezus out of me! I'll never forget the pen-and-ink drawings of the Vermicious Knids (sp?) in the elevators aboard the space station - great way to terrify a six-year-old!
What many people overlook, it seems, is the quality (and quantity!) of Dahl's adult fiction. His most famous short story, "Lamb To The Slaughter", was made into an equally famous episode of "Alfred Hitchcock Presents". For those who don't remember, it's the wonderful tale of a wife who kills her abusive husband, and the police are instrumental in helping her dispose of some crucial evidence.
Characterizing Dahl as "harsh and terrifying" isn't entirely true, as some of his best and most memorable children's works are also quite tender and touching. Rereading "Danny, The Champion Of The World" never fails to improve my outlook. "The Fabulous Mr. Fox" is a similarly inventive, witty, and incredibly charming tale.
Once you get beyond the obvious kid's stuff, though, Dahl's work is indeed gruesome and horrifying. However, there's always a sly sense of cosmic or poetic justice lurking just below the ghastly surface.
ObDahl: EgyptAir 990 was apparently carrying a shipment of royal jelly when it went down; those well-versed in Dahl's short stories immediately knew what 'royal jelly' was, media confusion notwithstanding.
>>But conventional wisdom says that at most only >>two systems can coexist at any one time.
>Only two systems? And what is this conventional >wisdom?
Conventional wisdom = what's worked in the past and deemed likely to work again.
Remember the olden days of the Atari 2600? Then, along came the Intellivision, owned by rich kids whose parents could afford to buy them the newest and more powerful.
Others tried to successfully crack the early home-game market and tanked. Remember ColecoVision? Even the highly visible and marketable Donkey Kong franchise couldn't keep that thing afloat.
Even Atari, the early undisputed king of home video games, took a beating on the Atari 5200. Too few games, too little consumer interest. The original Nintendo arrived around the same time (IIRC), and that was the end of the 5200.
Like it or not, general-public consumers either are not able, or simply will not spend the mental processing cycles on, keeping track of more than one or two competing systems.
Furthermore, retailers are not willing to gamble, allocating precious display real estate to unproven systems and untested competitors. Everyone wants a proven winner.
Consumers want a product that's going to give them the most bang for their buck, both in terms of processing power *and* a huge library of games. Retailers want a readily-available stock of high-margin games, accessories, and other doodads to fill display cases. They want to sell what people want to buy. Retailers are anything but advocates.
More than two systems will divide up the pie too thinly. Now that we've had several generations of video games, manufacturers are aware of this and are marketing and planning accordingly. Furthermore, witness the attempts at multi-function units: DVD, audio, net connections, etc. Why just sell someone a upgraded Playstation, when you can sell them not only more polygons, but a replacement for that Microsoft WebTV box as well?
We'll see how many of these new systems flourish, but I agree that there's no way all four will make it to market and survive.
It might be, but not in the semi-paranoid manner you meant (e.g. runaway processes fighting back).
One of those predicitions for the future from a couple weeks ago included a revolutionary 3D user interface on Linux. This could potentially be the start of it. I'm not entirely sure that's what the creator of this little hack intended - he could have just intended to make something cool and not been thinking about the implications for the future.
Admittedly, Doom is a technologically dated engine, but this is where it'll start. Who knows, in 5-10 years, we might all be reminiscing about "that antique 2.5D 'kill -9' interface", all the while working in more realistic and fully realized 3D interfaces.