Having worked with Adobe corporate before, It's my opinion that there isn't anyone there that can remember doing much of anything risky beyond going to a new restaurant for lunch.
InDesign was created to take Quark Express down and Photoshop Elements was to prevent companies like ACDSystems from getting a foothold.
The idea is to store, organize and evaluate quickly with reasonable color accuracy. Editing comes later. Does anyone else think it has so many editing features because they're built into a code base they are reusing?
I doubt a legitimate threat to them exists in any of their markets. Could they be classified as a monopoly?
Yes, the article is full of bunk in every paragraph and then somewhere in it he claims some of it anyway is a farce. If you refer to his bio, there's a clue in there.
"Phenotropics," concerns rejecting traditional protocol-based approaches in favor of statistical and pattern-recognition techniques to bind software components together in order to improve large scale reliability.
The whole "software is brittle" agenda is cleary his own.
SLIGHTLY OT I was watching a remake of "the music man" with my daughter yesterday and his whole "software is brittle" agenda reminds me of how the main character runs around the small town talking very nonsensically about how the new billiards hall is going to corrupt the citizens. Of course the citizens love controversy, so it becomes a "social problem." The main character has the solution, buy musical equipment from him. Now, if only Jaron would sing he can remake the Music Man... Again!
And this is where I say the figures are spun against Apple.
Roughly 6th is about right and I'd guess they are within a few percentage points of being 4th. So when claims about top-ten PC shipments are made by the media and research firms, Apple should be in the top-ten. They are not because they specifically exclude Apple. Intention is impossible to establish. (Where's my tinfoil hat?)
The picture for Apple is only getting better. Now, with Longwait coming the fanboy hype is going to drown out the good work Apple and OSS is doing for an utterly mediocre product, but so what.
BTW, I don't even own a Mac though personally I quit windows a couple of years ago. Every client I've switched has only been happier for the change. I don't generate more money moonlighting by recommending Macs, but I get plenty of referrals as a result.
Yes, the Internet and P2P is finally going to transform TV into something that actually produces good entertainment, and will one day turn around and redefine the movie industry as well.
I can distinctly remember this arguement being made when cable TV was coming to my neighborhood and I'm POSITIVE it was said when OTA TV started.
What do we have on what's generically described as TV now that's so special and good? We all have a couple of things we like, but the rest is trash.
With P2P I can now make money on my "skid row drug addicts fight club" video series among other fantastic titles I have yet to dream up.
How is sending it onto a little mobile device or available "on demand" (which only makes you pay more for it) going to make it any better?
The way market share was calculated the last time I looked at the market research numbers a couple of years ago, Apple's market share for desktops and laptops was calculated against the sum total of all other windows OS brands.
At the time Apple was #1 by a good margin in laptops and in the top-5 for desktops. Yet their market share was always referred to as "miniscule."
I still don't understand why no one's bothered to mention this from the media side.
Yeah the spin is ugly, but if the *nix's "stick to their knitting" this too shall pass.
They do the same thing when they talk about Mac's too. The last time I saw figures (which was a couple of years ago) Apple was far and away the #1 shipper of laptops by brand. But, they would compare ALL laptops shipped by all brands to come up with Apple's "miniscule" market share.
The reality was that Apple was creaming the Windows-based brands. They would do this with all of the various market segments apple competed in. Funny how they don't do it with MP3 players.
OT Comment: I never understood why anyone who branded computers wanted their numbers in the market research. It just gives HP a target to destroy.
While I agree that the guy deserves the shaft, where is spam in the technolgy problem priority these days?
Here's the short list: DRM: As the sony rootkit points out, a little slap on the hand is all that the good corporate citizens get in a bad situation. RIAA sharing-is-evil corporatethink included.
Trusted Computing: Loss of control over much of anything on a computer that used to be mine.
Representative Democracy: I don't really care who's running the insane asylum, but it bothers me more that the individual is no longer represented effectively. Maybe it's always been the case, but now I'm just old enough to see it.
In the real world, when it comes time for apples to be delivered they are indeed delivered and you, the contractor are paid in full for services and apples delivered.
I know this because I work for a company that has subcontracts for gov't agencies for things similar to apples.
You share a common frustration regarding the crazy way gov't appears to work. But someone please explain how that's insightful.
Capitalism may not directly end poverty, but it provides the vehicle to make it possible for anyone to become financially successful.
Academically valid point, but the real-world application of capitalism creates a two-tiered system with few controlling very many with intentional barriers to prevent competition.
I'm not making this up: 1. http://www.irs.gov/taxstats/indtaxstats/article/0,,id=96981,00.html 2. Download All Returns: Adjusted Gross Income, Exemptions, Deductions, and Tax Items for 2003. 3. Table 1.1 Table 1.1--2003, Individual Income Tax Returns, Selected Income and Tax Items, by Size and Accumulated Size of Adjusted Gross Income--Continued 4. Look at "Income Tax After Credits" and what you'll discover is people paying taxes with AGI's at or below 20,000. Lots of them too!
Again, your opinion does not stand up to simple tests. Please examine the data taken from real people submitting real tax returns and reevaluate your position.
Since a person with two kids and a $12,000/year income pays no income tax, all he has to do is ask his payroll clerk to adjust his W-4 so that no income tax is withheld. So no 'float' for the goverment.
And when the employee does this, he gets a bill for the taxes owed to the gov't right around February that's due April 15 of the next year. Your post suggests you don't have any experience in the matter whatsoever.
I'm not making this up: 1. http://www.irs.gov/taxstats/indtaxstats/article/0, ,id=96981,00.html 2. Download All Returns: Adjusted Gross Income, Exemptions, Deductions, and Tax Items for 2003. 3. Table 1.1 Table 1.1--2003, Individual Income Tax Returns, Selected Income and Tax Items, by Size and Accumulated Size of Adjusted Gross Income--Continued 4. Look at "Income Tax After Credits" and what you'll discover is people paying taxes with AGI's at or below 20,000. Lots of them too!
Again, your opinion does not stand up to simple tests. Please examine the data taken from real people submitting real tax returns and reevaluate your position.
So, you are suggesting there's some kind of whooshing sound with all 1.8 million people rushing to become welfare millionaire's as a result of the tax credit?
But they, and people like them, pay the lion's share of the taxes in this country, including property taxes You present no facts to back up your claim. This is more quickie mart capitalism that justifies your own political beliefs.
Now, with that established, the American tax system prefers to collect taxes on income rather than savings. It protects the wealthy individuals living off of grandfather's accumulated fortune from too much competition. It also benefits the nation as a wealth building tool to conquer other nations with.
The lower middle class pays very little, and the poor people pay no income taxes... in fact, they get tax credits along with a zillion other entitlements funded mostly by hardworking professionals and their families. Wrong. The tax burden falls to the middle class in our country. The wealthy have legal entities they own to shield their individual wealth from taxes and a complex tax code that protects that wealth inside the business they own.
Some friendly advice: Create a simple mathmatical model to prove your point. If you try, you will be frustrated because there is no simple model that justifies your beliefs.
Finally: There is no "solution to poverty." A myriad of social systems have been tried over the centuries to address poverty. They all fail and wide-scale poverty still exists. Capitalism does not address the concept of poverty either.
The usual method is to "manage" the poor. Keep them fed, clothed and working just enough so they don't rise up and kill you or otherwise compete with you. See the French Revolution for an example of what happens when the poor aren't "managed."
Step 3: Annually, Employee gets a small percentage of the tax dollars paid in the last year back as a "refund." Employee has paid taxes and most of those are spent in gov't.
Your assertion does not stand up to even a simple test. Compare taxes collected annually for any individual earning less than 100K a year to their "refund" and see that gov't is still collecting taxes and the individual's tax burden is nowhere near "negative."
It should come as no surprise to anyone that the same OEM's that build PC laptops build Macs. Surprise, they use similar (if not identical) components with few exceptions. Their BOM cost would soar if they actually spec'd anything outside of high-volume parts.
Yes, they design a case but beyond the case they are using off the shelf stuff.
The lesson for today: Apple's totally committed to profits in a world with few choices.
This is so much more in that it will access a common database Think about this for a minute. You are telling me that whatever agency gets to build the thing will share all with any agency that comes calling? Simple human nature tells me it won't happen. (much less the whole thing working great in my lifetime)
that is available everywhere in the nation to any law enforcement official that requests your information See my comment above, plus, I don't see a federal agency sharing freely with a state or local agency. Sheriff Cletus in Badwater NV checks the criminal record on his favorite celebrity. That's what you are assuming. What about bad cops? We know they exist and the gov't does too.
or ID and additionally makes that information available to private security companies and other companies that contract with the federal government. There are quite a number of commercial information agencies many of which have gov't contracts for your personal data. Let's not forget the latest revelation regarding GWB's authorizing domestic survielance without any oversight. It's water under the bridge. Done.
1. Contrition Sony Corp. says "sorry" for something they didn't really do with malice. After all, it's our music, not the consumers so there's nothing wrong with the steps we took.
2. Negotiate Good Deal Sony gives away stuff that costs me little to nothing over a long period of time, that no one likely wants and put our version of "market value" on them. The States will like it or they'll see you in court until Sony gets your Administration voted out of office.
3. Profit The PHB's get their bonuses for proper crisis management and get back to business.
I'm sick and tired of all of the clamor surrounding this stuff. Especially on/. Good corporate citizen Sony gets back to DRM'ing and nothing changes. Nothing!
As I recall: Taiwanese employees cost roughly 1/3 the price of an American worker. Employees in China cost roughly 1/4 the price of a Taiwanese worker.
You are right, but it turns out the whole Internet thing is very useful and a source of wealth and power.
Naturally, that means it will be regulated by government and made into whatever they please. You could inform your Congressperson of your simple fact and it simply will be drowned out by so many other interests that want to profit from the Internet.
The most likely candidates that would sell the internet as securable are the media conglomerates, military and law enforcement agencies.
Media conglomerates want it to be a giant sh*t pipe delivering their DRM'd content into your home.
Military want to "secure" it to use special applications as weapons. Spys love it for the same reason.
Law Enforcement wants to catch bad guys on the Internet too. It's like they work with hammers all day and so everything starts looking like a nail.
Slashdot Mirror
Having worked with Adobe corporate before, It's my opinion that there isn't anyone there that can remember doing much of anything risky beyond going to a new restaurant for lunch.
InDesign was created to take Quark Express down and Photoshop Elements was to prevent companies like ACDSystems from getting a foothold.
The idea is to store, organize and evaluate quickly with reasonable color accuracy. Editing comes later. Does anyone else think it has so many editing features because they're built into a code base they are reusing?
I doubt a legitimate threat to them exists in any of their markets. Could they be classified as a monopoly?
Yes, the article is full of bunk in every paragraph and then somewhere in it he claims some of it anyway is a farce. If you refer to his bio, there's a clue in there.
"Phenotropics," concerns rejecting traditional protocol-based approaches in favor of statistical and pattern-recognition techniques to bind software components together in order to improve large scale reliability.
The whole "software is brittle" agenda is cleary his own.
SLIGHTLY OT
I was watching a remake of "the music man" with my daughter yesterday and his whole "software is brittle" agenda reminds me of how the main character runs around the small town talking very nonsensically about how the new billiards hall is going to corrupt the citizens. Of course the citizens love controversy, so it becomes a "social problem." The main character has the solution, buy musical equipment from him. Now, if only Jaron would sing he can remake the Music Man... Again!
And this is where I say the figures are spun against Apple.
Roughly 6th is about right and I'd guess they are within a few percentage points of being 4th. So when claims about top-ten PC shipments are made by the media and research firms, Apple should be in the top-ten. They are not because they specifically exclude Apple. Intention is impossible to establish. (Where's my tinfoil hat?)
The picture for Apple is only getting better. Now, with Longwait coming the fanboy hype is going to drown out the good work Apple and OSS is doing for an utterly mediocre product, but so what.
BTW, I don't even own a Mac though personally I quit windows a couple of years ago. Every client I've switched has only been happier for the change. I don't generate more money moonlighting by recommending Macs, but I get plenty of referrals as a result.
it was even close to the truth.
Yes, the Internet and P2P is finally going to transform TV into something that actually produces good entertainment, and will one day turn around and redefine the movie industry as well.
I can distinctly remember this arguement being made when cable TV was coming to my neighborhood and I'm POSITIVE it was said when OTA TV started.
What do we have on what's generically described as TV now that's so special and good? We all have a couple of things we like, but the rest is trash.
With P2P I can now make money on my "skid row drug addicts fight club" video series among other fantastic titles I have yet to dream up.
How is sending it onto a little mobile device or available "on demand" (which only makes you pay more for it) going to make it any better?
It's not going to change anything.
Note to self: Kill your television
The way market share was calculated the last time I looked at the market research numbers a couple of years ago, Apple's market share for desktops and laptops was calculated against the sum total of all other windows OS brands.
At the time Apple was #1 by a good margin in laptops and in the top-5 for desktops. Yet their market share was always referred to as "miniscule."
I still don't understand why no one's bothered to mention this from the media side.
Really, it is.
Yeah the spin is ugly, but if the *nix's "stick to their knitting" this too shall pass.
They do the same thing when they talk about Mac's too. The last time I saw figures (which was a couple of years ago) Apple was far and away the #1 shipper of laptops by brand. But, they would compare ALL laptops shipped by all brands to come up with Apple's "miniscule" market share.
The reality was that Apple was creaming the Windows-based brands. They would do this with all of the various market segments apple competed in. Funny how they don't do it with MP3 players.
OT Comment:
I never understood why anyone who branded computers wanted their numbers in the market research. It just gives HP a target to destroy.
While I agree that the guy deserves the shaft, where is spam in the technolgy problem priority these days?
Here's the short list:
DRM: As the sony rootkit points out, a little slap on the hand is all that the good corporate citizens get in a bad situation. RIAA sharing-is-evil corporatethink included.
Trusted Computing: Loss of control over much of anything on a computer that used to be mine.
Representative Democracy: I don't really care who's running the insane asylum, but it bothers me more that the individual is no longer represented effectively. Maybe it's always been the case, but now I'm just old enough to see it.
This scenario only occurs in your mind.
In the real world, when it comes time for apples to be delivered they are indeed delivered and you, the contractor are paid in full for services and apples delivered.
I know this because I work for a company that has subcontracts for gov't agencies for things similar to apples.
You share a common frustration regarding the crazy way gov't appears to work. But someone please explain how that's insightful.
Based on your authority alone I'm supposed to deny the facts as presented by the IRS in an objective manner?
No, those aren't quantitative facts. What I provided are quantitative facts.
You are simply assuming you are correct to maintain your perception. Sadly, it seems you aren't willing to change despite the facts presented.
Good luck.
Capitalism may not directly end poverty, but it provides the vehicle to make it possible for anyone to become financially successful.
Academically valid point, but the real-world application of capitalism creates a two-tiered system with few controlling very many with intentional barriers to prevent competition.
I'm not making this up:, ,id=96981,00.html
1. http://www.irs.gov/taxstats/indtaxstats/article/0
2. Download All Returns: Adjusted Gross Income, Exemptions, Deductions, and Tax Items for 2003.
3. Table 1.1 Table 1.1--2003, Individual Income Tax Returns, Selected Income and Tax Items, by Size and Accumulated Size of Adjusted Gross Income--Continued
4. Look at "Income Tax After Credits" and what you'll discover is people paying taxes with AGI's at or below 20,000. Lots of them too!
Again, your opinion does not stand up to simple tests. Please examine the data taken from real people submitting real tax returns and reevaluate your position.
Since a person with two kids and a $12,000/year income pays no income tax, all he has to do is ask his payroll clerk to adjust his W-4 so that no income tax is withheld. So no 'float' for the goverment.
, ,id=96981,00.html
And when the employee does this, he gets a bill for the taxes owed to the gov't right around February that's due April 15 of the next year. Your post suggests you don't have any experience in the matter whatsoever.
I'm not making this up:
1. http://www.irs.gov/taxstats/indtaxstats/article/0
2. Download All Returns: Adjusted Gross Income, Exemptions, Deductions, and Tax Items for 2003.
3. Table 1.1 Table 1.1--2003, Individual Income Tax Returns, Selected Income and Tax Items, by Size and Accumulated Size of Adjusted Gross Income--Continued
4. Look at "Income Tax After Credits" and what you'll discover is people paying taxes with AGI's at or below 20,000. Lots of them too!
Again, your opinion does not stand up to simple tests. Please examine the data taken from real people submitting real tax returns and reevaluate your position.
Missing my point entirely:
, ,id=96981,00.html
Let's look at the facts:
2.1 percent of all individuals reporting income taxes in 2003 are at or below $20,000. (about 1.8 million people)
http://www.irs.gov/taxstats/indtaxstats/article/0
So, you are suggesting there's some kind of whooshing sound with all 1.8 million people rushing to become welfare millionaire's as a result of the tax credit?
But they, and people like them, pay the lion's share of the taxes in this country, including property taxes
You present no facts to back up your claim. This is more quickie mart capitalism that justifies your own political beliefs.
Now, with that established, the American tax system prefers to collect taxes on income rather than savings. It protects the wealthy individuals living off of grandfather's accumulated fortune from too much competition. It also benefits the nation as a wealth building tool to conquer other nations with.
The lower middle class pays very little, and the poor people pay no income taxes... in fact, they get tax credits along with a zillion other entitlements funded mostly by hardworking professionals and their families.
Wrong. The tax burden falls to the middle class in our country. The wealthy have legal entities they own to shield their individual wealth from taxes and a complex tax code that protects that wealth inside the business they own.
Some friendly advice: Create a simple mathmatical model to prove your point. If you try, you will be frustrated because there is no simple model that justifies your beliefs.
Finally: There is no "solution to poverty." A myriad of social systems have been tried over the centuries to address poverty. They all fail and wide-scale poverty still exists. Capitalism does not address the concept of poverty either.
The usual method is to "manage" the poor. Keep them fed, clothed and working just enough so they don't rise up and kill you or otherwise compete with you. See the French Revolution for an example of what happens when the poor aren't "managed."
Negative tax rate is magical thinking on your part.
Step 1: Employee is paid. Paycheck has deductions for taxes. Some gov't entitity collects this money from the employer.
Step 2: Gov't entity floats tax payments and collects simple interest.(Profit)
Step 3: Annually, Employee gets a small percentage of the tax dollars paid in the last year back as a "refund." Employee has paid taxes and most of those are spent in gov't.
Your assertion does not stand up to even a simple test. Compare taxes collected annually for any individual earning less than 100K a year to their "refund" and see that gov't is still collecting taxes and the individual's tax burden is nowhere near "negative."
It should come as no surprise to anyone that the same OEM's that build PC laptops build Macs. Surprise, they use similar (if not identical) components with few exceptions. Their BOM cost would soar if they actually spec'd anything outside of high-volume parts.
Yes, they design a case but beyond the case they are using off the shelf stuff.
The lesson for today: Apple's totally committed to profits in a world with few choices.
What, exactly takes 100mb about a background shown at 72ppi and 800x600?
GIMP tells me that's about 2mb.
I've got to try that "gut feeling" in a meeting with my clients sometime real soon.
Client: "So, why exactly should we install PKI infrastructure?"
Me: "I've got a gut feeling that you need it"
This is so much more in that it will access a common database
Think about this for a minute. You are telling me that whatever agency gets to build the thing will share all with any agency that comes calling? Simple human nature tells me it won't happen. (much less the whole thing working great in my lifetime)
that is available everywhere in the nation to any law enforcement official that requests your information
See my comment above, plus, I don't see a federal agency sharing freely with a state or local agency. Sheriff Cletus in Badwater NV checks the criminal record on his favorite celebrity. That's what you are assuming. What about bad cops? We know they exist and the gov't does too.
or ID and additionally makes that information available to private security companies and other companies that contract with the federal government.
There are quite a number of commercial information agencies many of which have gov't contracts for your personal data. Let's not forget the latest revelation regarding GWB's authorizing domestic survielance without any oversight. It's water under the bridge. Done.
A national ID card won't change a thing.
1. Contrition
/. Good corporate citizen Sony gets back to DRM'ing and nothing changes. Nothing!
Sony Corp. says "sorry" for something they didn't really do with malice. After all, it's our music, not the consumers so there's nothing wrong with the steps we took.
2. Negotiate Good Deal
Sony gives away stuff that costs me little to nothing over a long period of time, that no one likely wants and put our version of "market value" on them. The States will like it or they'll see you in court until Sony gets your Administration voted out of office.
3. Profit
The PHB's get their bonuses for proper crisis management and get back to business.
I'm sick and tired of all of the clamor surrounding this stuff. Especially on
As I recall:
Taiwanese employees cost roughly 1/3 the price of an American worker. Employees in China cost roughly 1/4 the price of a Taiwanese worker.
Most of this stuff is moving to China as fast as humanly possible.
R&D and (b)leading-edge manufacturing is still in Taiwan, but moving at lightning speed to China ASAP.
As I recall:
Employees cost roughly 1/3 the price of an American worker. Employees in China cost roughly 1/4 the price of a Taiwanese worker.
Is my recollection still true?
This is a different environment than the one that got Microsoft a slap on the wrist.
/.
It's reasonable to suppose that the current Administration's view of anti-competitive does not include MS any more.
Please remember the main priorities of gov't is to:
1. Privatize pretty much everything. (e.g. there's no "public good" other than a few monuments and living museums like Yellowstone/Yosemite)
2. Create wealth. If anti-competitive behavior creates wealth then it's okay. Nevermind whatever history/regulations are present.
3. Protect the rich from the poor.
All the moral outrage in the world won't change it. But getting involved in politics, even at a local level might.
I can't be the only one tired of all of the moral outrage on
You are right, but it turns out the whole Internet thing is very useful and a source of wealth and power.
Naturally, that means it will be regulated by government and made into whatever they please. You could inform your Congressperson of your simple fact and it simply will be drowned out by so many other interests that want to profit from the Internet.
The most likely candidates that would sell the internet as securable are the media conglomerates, military and law enforcement agencies.
Media conglomerates want it to be a giant sh*t pipe delivering their DRM'd content into your home.
Military want to "secure" it to use special applications as weapons. Spys love it for the same reason.
Law Enforcement wants to catch bad guys on the Internet too. It's like they work with hammers all day and so everything starts looking like a nail.
Just like the safety/efficiency regulations for automobiles, computers will fall into the same category over time.
Accept it and find another way to keep it free.