Im in agreement here. But really, Im just having issues with this RoughlyDrafted kid getting linked to two-three times a week. It seems to me like an attempt to maneuver eyeballs for click-throughs...
Cynical? Well sure, but my real point is that the information this person has used in their several articles:
...isnt that compelling (i.e. he is obviously a young Mac-Fan).
...isnt that accurate (i.e. the devil is in the details and he gets those wrong in places).
In sum, these articles are more screeds than accurate research.
Disclaimer: I am a Macintosh user of 15 years standing. Having "lived" a lot of the history reported on that blog, I feel qualified to speak on this...
Personally I think the move is right (and I had been advocating it informally for some time). Friendster should concentrate on "adults" (AKA 25+) as MySpace is quite the annoying kid-world sometimes; and furthermore, is so addled with marketing that older people would be frankly turned off by it. Not to mention if they don't focus on being THE site, they avoid the quite obvious traffic and scalability issues MySpace is constantly plagued with.
I applaud the move and it makes sense. I know from personal experience that everyone older I know has a Friendster profile and a MySpace profile. It's the younger set (under 25) that have no Friendster profile, and many don't even know it exists...
The article doesn't give much weight to the issue of bandwidth, which is one we as developers are taught to respect to the utmost degree. Like it or not, that will be an issue for large swathes of the developing world for many years to come.
Nitwit. "[L]arge swathes of the developing world" will have to worry about literacy, infrastructure, and disposable income before they have to worry about "the issue of bandwidth". Or did you think we actually buy the stance that your anal-retentive approach to web design helps the poor and oppressed of the Third World?
Office 4.2??? What, you mean the version with MS Word 6.0? The program which introduced us to the macro virus?
No, he meant Office 3.0. Which has Word 2.0c. And I agree with grandparent, I had forgotten--that version of MS Word for Windows was extremely polished, and very pleasant to use. But keep in mind that it had to be in order to kill off WordPerfect.
The sad truth is that Civilization was single-handedly responsible for each and every computer upgrade I made, as well (although these were all Macintoshes).
I played the original Civ on a Performa 450--too slow! Had to get me a Quadra 605.
Civ II? Too slow. Had to get me a G3.
Civ III? Too slow. Had to get me a G4.
Luckily, I already have the G5 for when Civ IV for Mac comes out...
I remember many a school or work night, where it was 4am and I had to get in just one more turn...:)
Altivec is used a decent amount I guess. But as to offloading a lot of work onto the GPU, didn't you see how 10.4.3 killed Quartz 2D Extreme (not that it was used before). Apple's efforts to farm out graphics to the GPU seem to have been less successful than initially hoped.
Just as a a point of contention: it's not that the GPU-based graphics system has failed (i.e. "Quartz 2D Extreme"); it's that too many applications (including the Finder IIRC) rely upon QuickDraw, not Quartz 2D, to render. This is cos until Tiger, QD was still faster than Quartz 2D!
Apple has made the software version of Quartz 2D faster than QuickDraw, so it is now up to application developers to take advantage of it (e.g. Microsoft, Adobe, Quark). Until these big boys line-up with offerings, Apple will not want to support this feature in their consumer OS just yet.
As Quartz 2D "Extreme" was envisioned prior to the Intel switch, I would expect that developers balked at the support of two major upgrades to their applications at once; faced with this recalcitrance, Apple will shelve the code until it is actually needed for the consumer base.
Just as a point of information: Apple will not introduce such dense displays until the GUI is completely independent of raster characteristics; otherwise, you would see some extremely tiny UI elements in such a screen on a laptop...
Once Apple has enough developers transitioned to the new imaging model (Quartz 2D) rather than QuickDraw, I imagine they will initiate this move in the hardware.
The main constraint here is software at the moment...
Just keep in mind that the only software freely provided by Apple (where the Macintosh is concerned) is software that was free at its introduction (save a few minor examples which were made free e.g. MacTCP).
Apple never releases for free any product which was "commercial" during its entire lifespan. That's why you can get 7.0 + 7.0.1, but not System 7.1; and that's why you can get 7.5.3r2 and not 7.6 for free (7.5.3r2 being the "remix" version of the atrociously botched 7.5.2 and 7.5.3 releases).
I would suggest Apple will not release old commercial OSes for free, while they remain a Macintosh hardware vendor.
Has anybody considered the wisdom of the old aphorism? Or is it merely a pass-me-by, let's-shave-another-nickel-off-the-price, thing?
I find it instructional that one of the reasons Yankee retailers haven't been able to break into the Japanese market (esp. that Wal-Mart thing), is because the Japanese associate "low-cost" with "cheap piece of crap that breaks". And this is Japan--the nation which some thirty to forty years ago was a byword for cheap crap.
I would estimate they learnt their lesson, which USAians haven't yet.
Also the solution is not busses, People hate busses, and they are an awful solution.
Yes, I'd have to agree with this one. Buses lack the one amenity which dedicated-rail solutions have as an asset, and that is: independence of the road grid. In other words, whether you are in a bus or a car, you will be facing the same traffic situation. Worse, you will likely be on city roads instead of the freeways (unless it's a commuter/express bus). Thus it only boils down to the ease of parking at your ultimate destination. Most people will choose their car when feasible over the inconvenience of bus travel.
I don't think people are realizing exactly how burdensome bureaucratic the public school system is becoming. It's largely an issue of the ongoing means-testing of student bodies. Curricula is passing out of control of individuals and into overseer bodies. While some might believe this "enforces standards", it merely means the individual teacher becomes a functionary and a babysitter.
And looking at the prices some companies are paying to acquire other companies, many of which then go entirely to waste (even if they weren't bought for the express purpose of killing them), it occurs to me that over the long term, it is probably more cost-effective to have your own in-house R&D.
Ah, were that so in the wonderful world of finance. But of course it is not. Staff costs are overhead, and paid out of current income. Thus it behooves a company to reduce its capital costs, i.e. the costs generated by its consumption of capital. In-house labor is one of those costs--and it is a significant one. As an asidem this reminds of someone's recent statement on here that waxed on about the seemingly beneficial effects of drug companies endowing universities with research grants. Well... when you consider the stipulations attached, and the ultimate beneficiaries, and the financial shell game that is being played--suddenly that "Rich Uncle" looks a little more like "Uncle Scrooge".
But that benefits neither today's shareholders nor tomorrow's speculators. -- What happened to benefiting your customers for today, tomorrow, and the future, so as to have a steady and predictable income??
I'll tell you what: speculative finance.
Simply put, with the way the game is played today in the US of A (and by extension the world at large) is that it is, on the balance sheet, more beneficial for a company to reduce costs; and then borrow at low cost to buyback stock; and then use its inflated stocks to buy competitors and potential future competitors.
This speculative finance games includes a thousand-and-one balance sheet maneuvers which can be used to further buttress--again, solely on the balance sheet--a company's fundamentals, and thus be used to further the appearance of being some economic colossus, increasing its net power.
The only difference between what happened to WorldCom and Enron, and the way most other companies play the game, is merely a matter of degree.
Yes, admittedly so. However, they're called "Angel Investors" for a reason--they fly in from a little place called Heaven... if you're blessed.
As for wealthy relatives, well--hopefully you have a wealthy relative.
I think it's safe to say that, if the options were great, VCs wouldn't even exist. The worst thing of course is knowing that the money exists because of extensive insider financial pyramiding. The system is frighteningly stacked.
It's more pernicious than that, even, when looked at directly:
Company A slashes its research budget. Stock price rises in response.
Two researchers bootstrap a new research effort and eventually win venture capital. No longer in control of the enterprise due to the need for greater capital for their effort, it begins to bear fruit.
Company A comes back in, and "buys" the startup from the venture capitalists with their inflated stock.
As you can see, in this admittedly terse example, the financiers win in every sense of the word here. The researchers are forced into a fight-or-starve mode, and they do not get much overall benefit from their research. "On the books", however, it's a win-win scenario: for the original company, and the intermediary financiers (the VCs).
see, you think government can actually do things correctly, when they can't. this hurricane is proof enough the government lacks th ability to properly calcuate the response to a disaster. it is the socialist calculation problem at its best.
On reading this, I found myself possessed by the horrifying delusion that the ill-timed response to the hurricane was not a result so much of inefficent government as it was an effort of calculated malice from on high, so that they might be able to eventually turn and finger-point at government institutions, thereby allowing the further gutting of those structures. But I realize that is unlikely.
would private industry do better? probably, but not necessarily. for one, new orleans would never have been built because it is a horrible place to build a city (or rebuilt from the last flood). no insurer is going to allow that.
What kind of reasoning is that? How is it even feasible to believe that all roads lead to "insurance" (reassuring as it may sound to a denizen of Hartford as myself). As was stated many times before, New Orleans was not below sea-level when founded, and subsidence from leaching and wetlands loss caused the sinking of the city into its present postion. Furthermore: can you imagine one of our nation's largest ports operating without a place for the workers to live?
Sooner or later ALL state-sponsored enterprises outgrow their usefulness. They become bureaucratic behomoths where individuals are forced to work within a 'system' and as a result innovation dies.
If you believe bureaucracy is a "disease" of "state-sponsored enterprises", I find it hard to believe you've ever worked in a large private-sector organization. And, in the end, any large, complex effort will require the existence of a large organization.
Bureaucracy is the natural out-growth of any complex human organization. Although the popular rallying-cry is that "bureaucracy is evil", it is impossible to envision any large organization that would be functional without it.
To presume as much is to also presume on the rational behavior and perfectability of human beings. Then you must continue onward to what are the real definitions of "rational", and "perfect"...
Slashdot Mirror
Im in agreement here. But really, Im just having issues with this RoughlyDrafted kid getting linked to two-three times a week. It seems to me like an attempt to maneuver eyeballs for click-throughs...
Cynical? Well sure, but my real point is that the information this person has used in their several articles:
In sum, these articles are more screeds than accurate research.
Disclaimer: I am a Macintosh user of 15 years standing. Having "lived" a lot of the history reported on that blog, I feel qualified to speak on this...The jury came in on that one; that's a myth.
I don't think so.
Personally I think the move is right (and I had been advocating it informally for some time). Friendster should concentrate on "adults" (AKA 25+) as MySpace is quite the annoying kid-world sometimes; and furthermore, is so addled with marketing that older people would be frankly turned off by it. Not to mention if they don't focus on being THE site, they avoid the quite obvious traffic and scalability issues MySpace is constantly plagued with.
I applaud the move and it makes sense. I know from personal experience that everyone older I know has a Friendster profile and a MySpace profile. It's the younger set (under 25) that have no Friendster profile, and many don't even know it exists...
Married, and no house!
Still no time however... (with "real" job and "alternative" career and family and and...)
Okay, I'll suggest uage of the tag "about:troll" to designate articles which are about trolls, but are not, in and of themselves, trolls...
Anyone? Methinks the tag's "syntax" would make it easily memorable. All we have to know now is if a colon can be part of a tag...
The article doesn't give much weight to the issue of bandwidth, which is one we as developers are taught to respect to the utmost degree. Like it or not, that will be an issue for large swathes of the developing world for many years to come.
Nitwit. "[L]arge swathes of the developing world" will have to worry about literacy, infrastructure, and disposable income before they have to worry about "the issue of bandwidth". Or did you think we actually buy the stance that your anal-retentive approach to web design helps the poor and oppressed of the Third World?
Office 4.2??? What, you mean the version with MS Word 6.0? The program which introduced us to the macro virus?
No, he meant Office 3.0. Which has Word 2.0c. And I agree with grandparent, I had forgotten--that version of MS Word for Windows was extremely polished, and very pleasant to use. But keep in mind that it had to be in order to kill off WordPerfect.
The sad truth is that Civilization was single-handedly responsible for each and every computer upgrade I made, as well (although these were all Macintoshes).
I played the original Civ on a Performa 450--too slow! Had to get me a Quadra 605.
Civ II? Too slow. Had to get me a G3.
Civ III? Too slow. Had to get me a G4.
Luckily, I already have the G5 for when Civ IV for Mac comes out...
I remember many a school or work night, where it was 4am and I had to get in just one more turn... :)
To paraphrase Homer Simpson:
"Here's to technology: the cause of, and the solution to, all of life's problems!"
Altivec is used a decent amount I guess. But as to offloading a lot of work onto the GPU, didn't you see how 10.4.3 killed Quartz 2D Extreme (not that it was used before). Apple's efforts to farm out graphics to the GPU seem to have been less successful than initially hoped.
Just as a a point of contention: it's not that the GPU-based graphics system has failed (i.e. "Quartz 2D Extreme"); it's that too many applications (including the Finder IIRC) rely upon QuickDraw, not Quartz 2D, to render. This is cos until Tiger, QD was still faster than Quartz 2D!
Apple has made the software version of Quartz 2D faster than QuickDraw, so it is now up to application developers to take advantage of it (e.g. Microsoft, Adobe, Quark). Until these big boys line-up with offerings, Apple will not want to support this feature in their consumer OS just yet.
As Quartz 2D "Extreme" was envisioned prior to the Intel switch, I would expect that developers balked at the support of two major upgrades to their applications at once; faced with this recalcitrance, Apple will shelve the code until it is actually needed for the consumer base.
Just as a point of information: Apple will not introduce such dense displays until the GUI is completely independent of raster characteristics; otherwise, you would see some extremely tiny UI elements in such a screen on a laptop...
Once Apple has enough developers transitioned to the new imaging model (Quartz 2D) rather than QuickDraw, I imagine they will initiate this move in the hardware.
The main constraint here is software at the moment...
Just keep in mind that the only software freely provided by Apple (where the Macintosh is concerned) is software that was free at its introduction (save a few minor examples which were made free e.g. MacTCP).
Apple never releases for free any product which was "commercial" during its entire lifespan. That's why you can get 7.0 + 7.0.1, but not System 7.1; and that's why you can get 7.5.3r2 and not 7.6 for free (7.5.3r2 being the "remix" version of the atrociously botched 7.5.2 and 7.5.3 releases).
I would suggest Apple will not release old commercial OSes for free, while they remain a Macintosh hardware vendor.
Yeah... okay...
and as a devoted MacUser since 1994, I can tell you this: up until Panther, each release of OS X was vital to improving the experience.
Let's not laud Apple for having pretty yet dysfunctional software.
Well of course. You do realize that all computing sprang out of the bosom of Apple and Microsoft? Sort of the Republicans and Democrats of our time...
Has anybody considered the wisdom of the old aphorism? Or is it merely a pass-me-by, let's-shave-another-nickel-off-the-price, thing?
I find it instructional that one of the reasons Yankee retailers haven't been able to break into the Japanese market (esp. that Wal-Mart thing), is because the Japanese associate "low-cost" with "cheap piece of crap that breaks". And this is Japan--the nation which some thirty to forty years ago was a byword for cheap crap.
I would estimate they learnt their lesson, which USAians haven't yet.
Also the solution is not busses, People hate busses, and they are an awful solution.
Yes, I'd have to agree with this one. Buses lack the one amenity which dedicated-rail solutions have as an asset, and that is: independence of the road grid. In other words, whether you are in a bus or a car, you will be facing the same traffic situation. Worse, you will likely be on city roads instead of the freeways (unless it's a commuter/express bus). Thus it only boils down to the ease of parking at your ultimate destination. Most people will choose their car when feasible over the inconvenience of bus travel.
Has anyone stopped to consider that the way Java spreads, and the effects on systems it has, it, too, could be thought to be a virus?
Word.
I don't think people are realizing exactly how burdensome bureaucratic the public school system is becoming. It's largely an issue of the ongoing means-testing of student bodies. Curricula is passing out of control of individuals and into overseer bodies. While some might believe this "enforces standards", it merely means the individual teacher becomes a functionary and a babysitter.
And looking at the prices some companies are paying to acquire other companies, many of which then go entirely to waste (even if they weren't bought for the express purpose of killing them), it occurs to me that over the long term, it is probably more cost-effective to have your own in-house R&D.
Ah, were that so in the wonderful world of finance. But of course it is not. Staff costs are overhead, and paid out of current income. Thus it behooves a company to reduce its capital costs, i.e. the costs generated by its consumption of capital. In-house labor is one of those costs--and it is a significant one. As an asidem this reminds of someone's recent statement on here that waxed on about the seemingly beneficial effects of drug companies endowing universities with research grants. Well... when you consider the stipulations attached, and the ultimate beneficiaries, and the financial shell game that is being played--suddenly that "Rich Uncle" looks a little more like "Uncle Scrooge".
But that benefits neither today's shareholders nor tomorrow's speculators. -- What happened to benefiting your customers for today, tomorrow, and the future, so as to have a steady and predictable income??
I'll tell you what: speculative finance.
Simply put, with the way the game is played today in the US of A (and by extension the world at large) is that it is, on the balance sheet, more beneficial for a company to reduce costs; and then borrow at low cost to buyback stock; and then use its inflated stocks to buy competitors and potential future competitors.
This speculative finance games includes a thousand-and-one balance sheet maneuvers which can be used to further buttress--again, solely on the balance sheet--a company's fundamentals, and thus be used to further the appearance of being some economic colossus, increasing its net power.
The only difference between what happened to WorldCom and Enron, and the way most other companies play the game, is merely a matter of degree.
Yes, admittedly so. However, they're called "Angel Investors" for a reason--they fly in from a little place called Heaven... if you're blessed.
As for wealthy relatives, well--hopefully you have a wealthy relative.
I think it's safe to say that, if the options were great, VCs wouldn't even exist. The worst thing of course is knowing that the money exists because of extensive insider financial pyramiding. The system is frighteningly stacked.
It's more pernicious than that, even, when looked at directly:
Company A slashes its research budget. Stock price rises in response.
Two researchers bootstrap a new research effort and eventually win venture capital. No longer in control of the enterprise due to the need for greater capital for their effort, it begins to bear fruit.
Company A comes back in, and "buys" the startup from the venture capitalists with their inflated stock.
As you can see, in this admittedly terse example, the financiers win in every sense of the word here. The researchers are forced into a fight-or-starve mode, and they do not get much overall benefit from their research. "On the books", however, it's a win-win scenario: for the original company, and the intermediary financiers (the VCs).
Erm, okay... I don't believe I was trying to say I was "special", but feel free to resent random strangers for what they may not be saying.
Oh God, that is so not cool to paint a picture for us visualizers...
see, you think government can actually do things correctly, when they can't. this hurricane is proof enough the government lacks th ability to properly calcuate the response to a disaster. it is the socialist calculation problem at its best.
On reading this, I found myself possessed by the horrifying delusion that the ill-timed response to the hurricane was not a result so much of inefficent government as it was an effort of calculated malice from on high, so that they might be able to eventually turn and finger-point at government institutions, thereby allowing the further gutting of those structures. But I realize that is unlikely.
would private industry do better? probably, but not necessarily. for one, new orleans would never have been built because it is a horrible place to build a city (or rebuilt from the last flood). no insurer is going to allow that.
What kind of reasoning is that? How is it even feasible to believe that all roads lead to "insurance" (reassuring as it may sound to a denizen of Hartford as myself). As was stated many times before, New Orleans was not below sea-level when founded, and subsidence from leaching and wetlands loss caused the sinking of the city into its present postion. Furthermore: can you imagine one of our nation's largest ports operating without a place for the workers to live?
Sooner or later ALL state-sponsored enterprises outgrow their usefulness. They become bureaucratic behomoths where individuals are forced to work within a 'system' and as a result innovation dies.
If you believe bureaucracy is a "disease" of "state-sponsored enterprises", I find it hard to believe you've ever worked in a large private-sector organization. And, in the end, any large, complex effort will require the existence of a large organization.
Bureaucracy is the natural out-growth of any complex human organization. Although the popular rallying-cry is that "bureaucracy is evil", it is impossible to envision any large organization that would be functional without it.
To presume as much is to also presume on the rational behavior and perfectability of human beings. Then you must continue onward to what are the real definitions of "rational", and "perfect"...