NeXT went belly-up because it was too innovative at the time. It was workstation-level hardware with high-capacity R/W optical drives, the stability and flexibility of Unix, and the ease-of-use of the Macintosh. They were excellent machines.
But, they were too expensive, so they didn't sell many units. The lack of hardware sales resulted in very few software products. The only great software for it was Lotus Improv (an extremely innovative spreadsheet program), Mathematica, FrameMaker, and Word Perfect. There was some other stuff, too, but those are the big ones I remember. (Other things, like WebObjects, never really took off, as they were also too expensive.)
But, NeXT still had a huge effect on the computer industry. The current Mac OS X is based largely on NeXTStep. Many of the concepts of the Windows 95/2000 interface came from the NeXT design. So, though NeXT the company wasn't very successful, NeXT the technology was a huge source of innovation that is still used today.
Microsoft doesn't make their own peripherals. Nor do they design the guts. (They didn't invent the optical mouse, as is commonly thought.) They generally contract out the design and manufacturing of all "Microsoft" products.
That's why the XBox was such a big deal. It was the first in-house hardware project. And what did they do? The put a low-powered PC in a box, and called it a gaming console.
Much better is the 360, which is an actual gaming console, and not just a PC pretending to be a gaming console. And, the case isn't fugly.
My only complaint: all the fucking ads on every fucking screen. The blade interface is essentially the same as Sony's XMB, but they had to clutter it up with ads. On every fucking page. And I have to pay for decent on-line access.
Of course, the on-line access is superior to the Playstation Network. But I'm paying for it. And it's filled with ads. On every fucking page.
Corporations are groups of people. Groups of people will behave differently than individuals. Groups of people with power (which is what corporations are) will behave differently than groups of people without power.
As designed and implemented, corporations encourage groups of people to behave badly. The corporations have economic and political power not available to individuals. As culpability is spread among many people, those many people will, in general, behave worse than they would if they were solely responsible.
"Corporations," as economically and politically empowered groups of people, *do* act. And in general, they will behave in the way that is least good for society, as it is the best good for their short term.
First and foremost, because you control the software.
Secondly, the iPhone is *much* more than $200. That's the subsidized price. By the time you finish with the contract, you've spent quite a bit on your iPhone.
Really, though, you'd only want one right now if you wish to hack on it. There's no reason to get one as your regular phone if you're not a hacker. The software stack is still in its infancy.
Mine is supposed to arrive in a week. I'm pretty damned excited. I figure it needs some good games, like Nethack.
Why would he look good? He's the reason prices are high in the first place.
As a lover of conspiracy theories, though, I believe the oil companies are intentionally jacking up the price of gasoline to make it extremely uncomfortable (and to reap greater-than-usual profits).
Then, around October, the price of gas will plummet to about $3/gallon, and Bush will look good, and McCain will ride his coattails into office.
It's unfortunate that the price of a gallon of gas may determine the outcome of this election. It makes the entire process susceptible to manipulation by powerful corporations.
Nothing new there, really. Corporations already have more say than citizens. Look at the subject of this thread for evidence. Retroactive immunity has been shot down before, yet keeps coming back like a zombie in a bad movie.
I could've voted for McCain in 2000, even though I generally vote either Green or Democrat. I liked McCain quite a bit eight years ago, and thought he'd've made a damned fine President.
Once he switched sides on the torture debate, though, I knew he was lost. I don't know what it is that made him sell his scruples, but I hope it was worth it for him.
It's actually very good hardware. Although there were a couple of excellent early titles, it's taken a while for the games to catch up, but they are catching up now.
I am a tri-gamer these days. In my opinion, the only game that makes the XBox worthwhile is Gears of War. (I'm really looking forward to Gow2.) Halo 3 was OK, but it left me feeling a bit empty.
The PS3 has caught up to the XBox in terms of games. Then there's games like Metal Gear Solid 4, which comes out in a week. It basically fills the BluRay disc. You couldn't have a game like that for the XBox. And, by all accounts, the visuals and gameplay beat what is currently available for the XBox.
I don't think you have to wait until the next generation for it to be a decent competitor. It's a damned solid system, superior in many ways to the XBox. In fact, the only thing I prefer on the XBox is the XBox Live system over the PS3 network. Sony's catching up even there, but it's still not as solid as XBox Live.
As an aside, does anyone else hate the blade interface on the 360? It's functionally the same as the XMB, but cluttered, and made worse by fucking advertisements on every page. God, that pisses me off.
Anyway, just my $.02. As someone who has all three systems, I can assure you, I far prefer the PS3 as a gaming system.
Very true. It's corporate America that got us into this in the first place. When the IBM PC came out, suddenly the personal computer was an acceptable business tool. (Before that, it was generally Apple ][s that people brought in from home to run Visicalc, without corporate acceptance.)
What we do blame Microsoft for, and rightfully, is the way they manipulated the market once they had control. That is Microsoft's fault. They got big because of us; they stayed big because they had more power than anyone else, and were willing to use it.
Why would you need something as tightly-coupled as distributed devices in a distributed operating system? Why wouldn't you just export standard service APIs a la "Web 2.0" (whatever the hell that is)?
The only reason I can see to have such a "distributed OS" is to work around problems in the current flock of corporate operating systems: lock-in, non-standard implementations, DRM, and poor security models.
Not that I don't think a distributed operating system isn't cool. It is. But I think the utility is limited, as an operating system should concentrate on providing abstract interfaces to hardware. Let the services fend for themselves.
Of course, I'm not a hard-core OS developer. So my opinion on the matter is almost useless.
I've seen better pictures of Bigfoot. I'm really glad scientists don't produce my pornography. It'd be like watching a scrambled Spice channel at the Holiday Inn.
Ah, yes. Increasing overall wealth by sharing. A simple concept, really: a rising tide lifts all boats.
The point of "IP" law isn't to increase overall wealth. It's to increase individual, personal wealth. Those who support IP support the effective exploitation of shared and common heritage for their own gain.
The point of capitalism isn't to share, or to create the most overall wealth. It's to create the most personal wealth.
I think circletimessqaure's point is that there has never been a stable, effective anarchy in the history of the world. Although many anarchic utopias have been described (Ursula LeGuin's "The Dispossed," Erik Frank Russell's "And Then There Were None," for example), the simple fact remains that anarchy has never to this point resulted in a stable society. That doesn't mean it's not possible. It does suggest it's highly unlikely to work.
As it is, any organization willing to use force is likely to subjugate those who are not organized. You could probably set up a minimal social contract whereby everyone is obligated to come to the defence of those who are being subjugated, perhaps. But that requires dedication to the social ideal of anarchy, which would probably require a dramatic shift away from drastic consumerism.
Anyway, even apart from the whole discussion of anarchy as a non-government, nobody who supports intellectual property rights can call themselves "anarcho-" anything. They are definitely archists, as all IP laws are predicated on governmental regulation.
Do you go to the movies? If so, do you factor in the price of your time along with the tickets and popcorn?
When drinking beer, do you factor in the time it takes to drink it, as well as the cost of the beer itself? How about going out to dinner? Do you tack on an additional $100/hr for your time?
How do you pay yourself? It seems like it would get a bit circular. "Hey, Self, here's the $100 I owe you for the last hour. Don't spend it all in one place, you know you have payroll coming up in an hour!"
D) They have a baby monitor somewhere in our solar system, which only went off a hundred years ago. They are currently on their way, or are waiting for us to grow up and prove ourselves worthy of contact. Maybe they want us to show that we can actually get along with each other, let alone with an alien race.
There are so many presuppositions, there's no way to make a prediction with any probability of correctness. We have exactly one point of data: ourselves. We don't even know if there's other life in our own solar system.
Any conclusions at all are just SWAGs (scientific wild-assed guesses) at this point.
They're not out to screw us over. The recently-reconstituted IE team has done an excellent job of building towards standards-compliance. I've been extremely pleased that some parts of Microsoft seem to be softening up. I doubt that mentality represents a general shift in Microsoft's policies, but the browser team has accomplished some outstanding work.
I think dividing the standard up into subsections is a good idea, as it helps keep the specifications small and understandable. Having all that stuffed into one big standard is just asking for trouble. That was part of the problem with the original SGML spec -- it was too freakin' huge to implement easily.
Sorry, he's not the richest. I think he's third or forth now. Carlos Slim is richer. I think he might've been beaten out by Warren Buffet, though, leaving Gates in third place.
You do realize the parent post talked about creationism, and not belief in God, right?
As for your list -- what are you trying to prove? That intelligent people can believe in God? I think that is well established. What is *also* well-established is that each of those mighty thinkers you list made their contributions to science in an objective way, without resorting to God as an explanation. God may be an inspiration, but he is never an explanation.
The reason they don't get published is because their work isn't science. That's the problem with ID as a scientific hypothesis -- there's no way to test it.
IDers present stupid arguments, and then complain they are being persecuted by scientists. Apparently, idiots hate it when you call them idiots.
This also brings up two other problems with the practice of document-applications: islands of data, and programming errors.
I have seen more programming errors in spreadsheets being used a database management systems than in any other code. And I don't know how many times I've seen the exact same analysis being done by two different secretaries (in the same office!) using spreadsheets they wrote themselves. Each of them. Separately. "Oh, it only took me a couple of weeks."
I think calling it the "big-boys world" is right. They're definitely big boys. The kind with pull-up diapers rather than the tape-on kind.
Riiight. We should have one of the few people willing and able to examine the standard for flaws just not do it. That's an excellent idea.
At what point has IBM been dishonest? Rob Weir is an employee of IBM. They have a distinct interest in making sure that whatever format is approved, they are able to implement it. Therefore, it is in their best interest to make sure it is a good standard. As they have determined that it isn't a good standard, what should they do? Not talk about it?
The fact that his bias is out in the open is perfectly fine, as is the example you give from Peter Torr. That allows people to judge their statements, and account for possible bias.
The problem with Weir recusing himself is this: nobody else seems to be doing this. Nobody else is standing up to a corrupted process, where the intended and stated results are sidelined for political expediency. If it takes one corrupt company to stand up to another corrupt company, then so be it. At least they are standing up to a corrupt company. (Yes, I'd prefer if neither were corrupt.)
Slashdot Mirror
Senator Larry Craig will see you now, "Private" Flayer.
Anymore, yes, it's exactly what I expect.
Not anything like what I want, but definitely what I expect.
NeXT went belly-up because it was too innovative at the time. It was workstation-level hardware with high-capacity R/W optical drives, the stability and flexibility of Unix, and the ease-of-use of the Macintosh. They were excellent machines.
But, they were too expensive, so they didn't sell many units. The lack of hardware sales resulted in very few software products. The only great software for it was Lotus Improv (an extremely innovative spreadsheet program), Mathematica, FrameMaker, and Word Perfect. There was some other stuff, too, but those are the big ones I remember. (Other things, like WebObjects, never really took off, as they were also too expensive.)
But, NeXT still had a huge effect on the computer industry. The current Mac OS X is based largely on NeXTStep. Many of the concepts of the Windows 95/2000 interface came from the NeXT design. So, though NeXT the company wasn't very successful, NeXT the technology was a huge source of innovation that is still used today.
Microsoft doesn't make their own peripherals. Nor do they design the guts. (They didn't invent the optical mouse, as is commonly thought.) They generally contract out the design and manufacturing of all "Microsoft" products.
That's why the XBox was such a big deal. It was the first in-house hardware project. And what did they do? The put a low-powered PC in a box, and called it a gaming console.
Much better is the 360, which is an actual gaming console, and not just a PC pretending to be a gaming console. And, the case isn't fugly.
My only complaint: all the fucking ads on every fucking screen. The blade interface is essentially the same as Sony's XMB, but they had to clutter it up with ads. On every fucking page. And I have to pay for decent on-line access.
Of course, the on-line access is superior to the Playstation Network. But I'm paying for it. And it's filled with ads. On every fucking page.
Wow. It's not like Gregory Benford addressed this same problem back in 2000 or anything. Nope. This is a brand-new problem that nobody's thought about before.
Corporations are groups of people. Groups of people will behave differently than individuals. Groups of people with power (which is what corporations are) will behave differently than groups of people without power.
As designed and implemented, corporations encourage groups of people to behave badly. The corporations have economic and political power not available to individuals. As culpability is spread among many people, those many people will, in general, behave worse than they would if they were solely responsible.
"Corporations," as economically and politically empowered groups of people, *do* act. And in general, they will behave in the way that is least good for society, as it is the best good for their short term.
First and foremost, because you control the software.
Secondly, the iPhone is *much* more than $200. That's the subsidized price. By the time you finish with the contract, you've spent quite a bit on your iPhone.
Really, though, you'd only want one right now if you wish to hack on it. There's no reason to get one as your regular phone if you're not a hacker. The software stack is still in its infancy.
Mine is supposed to arrive in a week. I'm pretty damned excited. I figure it needs some good games, like Nethack.
If I were you, I certainly wouldn't go around telling everybody you know the state of Dick Cheney's penis.
It's a little uncouth to kiss and tell.
Why would he look good? He's the reason prices are high in the first place.
As a lover of conspiracy theories, though, I believe the oil companies are intentionally jacking up the price of gasoline to make it extremely uncomfortable (and to reap greater-than-usual profits).
Then, around October, the price of gas will plummet to about $3/gallon, and Bush will look good, and McCain will ride his coattails into office.
It's unfortunate that the price of a gallon of gas may determine the outcome of this election. It makes the entire process susceptible to manipulation by powerful corporations.
Nothing new there, really. Corporations already have more say than citizens. Look at the subject of this thread for evidence. Retroactive immunity has been shot down before, yet keeps coming back like a zombie in a bad movie.
You're telling me.
I could've voted for McCain in 2000, even though I generally vote either Green or Democrat. I liked McCain quite a bit eight years ago, and thought he'd've made a damned fine President.
Once he switched sides on the torture debate, though, I knew he was lost. I don't know what it is that made him sell his scruples, but I hope it was worth it for him.
It's actually very good hardware. Although there were a couple of excellent early titles, it's taken a while for the games to catch up, but they are catching up now.
I am a tri-gamer these days. In my opinion, the only game that makes the XBox worthwhile is Gears of War. (I'm really looking forward to Gow2.) Halo 3 was OK, but it left me feeling a bit empty.
The PS3 has caught up to the XBox in terms of games. Then there's games like Metal Gear Solid 4, which comes out in a week. It basically fills the BluRay disc. You couldn't have a game like that for the XBox. And, by all accounts, the visuals and gameplay beat what is currently available for the XBox.
I don't think you have to wait until the next generation for it to be a decent competitor. It's a damned solid system, superior in many ways to the XBox. In fact, the only thing I prefer on the XBox is the XBox Live system over the PS3 network. Sony's catching up even there, but it's still not as solid as XBox Live.
As an aside, does anyone else hate the blade interface on the 360? It's functionally the same as the XMB, but cluttered, and made worse by fucking advertisements on every page. God, that pisses me off.
Anyway, just my $.02. As someone who has all three systems, I can assure you, I far prefer the PS3 as a gaming system.
Very true. It's corporate America that got us into this in the first place. When the IBM PC came out, suddenly the personal computer was an acceptable business tool. (Before that, it was generally Apple ][s that people brought in from home to run Visicalc, without corporate acceptance.)
What we do blame Microsoft for, and rightfully, is the way they manipulated the market once they had control. That is Microsoft's fault. They got big because of us; they stayed big because they had more power than anyone else, and were willing to use it.
And for that, I do blame Microsoft.
Why would you need something as tightly-coupled as distributed devices in a distributed operating system? Why wouldn't you just export standard service APIs a la "Web 2.0" (whatever the hell that is)?
The only reason I can see to have such a "distributed OS" is to work around problems in the current flock of corporate operating systems: lock-in, non-standard implementations, DRM, and poor security models.
Not that I don't think a distributed operating system isn't cool. It is. But I think the utility is limited, as an operating system should concentrate on providing abstract interfaces to hardware. Let the services fend for themselves.
Of course, I'm not a hard-core OS developer. So my opinion on the matter is almost useless.
Gah.
I've seen better pictures of Bigfoot. I'm really glad scientists don't produce my pornography. It'd be like watching a scrambled Spice channel at the Holiday Inn.
Not that I do that, or anything.
Ah, yes. Increasing overall wealth by sharing. A simple concept, really: a rising tide lifts all boats.
The point of "IP" law isn't to increase overall wealth. It's to increase individual, personal wealth. Those who support IP support the effective exploitation of shared and common heritage for their own gain.
The point of capitalism isn't to share, or to create the most overall wealth. It's to create the most personal wealth.
Sweden sounds like a good place.
I think circletimessqaure's point is that there has never been a stable, effective anarchy in the history of the world. Although many anarchic utopias have been described (Ursula LeGuin's "The Dispossed," Erik Frank Russell's "And Then There Were None," for example), the simple fact remains that anarchy has never to this point resulted in a stable society. That doesn't mean it's not possible. It does suggest it's highly unlikely to work.
As it is, any organization willing to use force is likely to subjugate those who are not organized. You could probably set up a minimal social contract whereby everyone is obligated to come to the defence of those who are being subjugated, perhaps. But that requires dedication to the social ideal of anarchy, which would probably require a dramatic shift away from drastic consumerism.
Anyway, even apart from the whole discussion of anarchy as a non-government, nobody who supports intellectual property rights can call themselves "anarcho-" anything. They are definitely archists, as all IP laws are predicated on governmental regulation.
Do you go to the movies? If so, do you factor in the price of your time along with the tickets and popcorn?
When drinking beer, do you factor in the time it takes to drink it, as well as the cost of the beer itself? How about going out to dinner? Do you tack on an additional $100/hr for your time?
How do you pay yourself? It seems like it would get a bit circular. "Hey, Self, here's the $100 I owe you for the last hour. Don't spend it all in one place, you know you have payroll coming up in an hour!"
You forgot:
D) They have a baby monitor somewhere in our solar system, which only went off a hundred years ago. They are currently on their way, or are waiting for us to grow up and prove ourselves worthy of contact. Maybe they want us to show that we can actually get along with each other, let alone with an alien race.
There are so many presuppositions, there's no way to make a prediction with any probability of correctness. We have exactly one point of data: ourselves. We don't even know if there's other life in our own solar system.
Any conclusions at all are just SWAGs (scientific wild-assed guesses) at this point.
I think dividing the standard up into subsections is a good idea, as it helps keep the specifications small and understandable. Having all that stuffed into one big standard is just asking for trouble. That was part of the problem with the original SGML spec -- it was too freakin' huge to implement easily.
Sorry, he's not the richest. I think he's third or forth now. Carlos Slim is richer. I think he might've been beaten out by Warren Buffet, though, leaving Gates in third place.
I guess the recession is hurting us all.
You do realize the parent post talked about creationism, and not belief in God, right?
As for your list -- what are you trying to prove? That intelligent people can believe in God? I think that is well established. What is *also* well-established is that each of those mighty thinkers you list made their contributions to science in an objective way, without resorting to God as an explanation. God may be an inspiration, but he is never an explanation.
The reason they don't get published is because their work isn't science. That's the problem with ID as a scientific hypothesis -- there's no way to test it.
IDers present stupid arguments, and then complain they are being persecuted by scientists. Apparently, idiots hate it when you call them idiots.
I like your definition of "good." I have a similar definition of evil: Anyone who is willing to fuck over another for personal gain.
As an atheist, I can only repeat what a poster a couple of posts up the chain said: "We're all in this together."
Amen, brother.
This also brings up two other problems with the practice of document-applications: islands of data, and programming errors.
I have seen more programming errors in spreadsheets being used a database management systems than in any other code. And I don't know how many times I've seen the exact same analysis being done by two different secretaries (in the same office!) using spreadsheets they wrote themselves. Each of them. Separately. "Oh, it only took me a couple of weeks."
I think calling it the "big-boys world" is right. They're definitely big boys. The kind with pull-up diapers rather than the tape-on kind.
Riiight. We should have one of the few people willing and able to examine the standard for flaws just not do it. That's an excellent idea.
At what point has IBM been dishonest? Rob Weir is an employee of IBM. They have a distinct interest in making sure that whatever format is approved, they are able to implement it. Therefore, it is in their best interest to make sure it is a good standard. As they have determined that it isn't a good standard, what should they do? Not talk about it?
The fact that his bias is out in the open is perfectly fine, as is the example you give from Peter Torr. That allows people to judge their statements, and account for possible bias.
The problem with Weir recusing himself is this: nobody else seems to be doing this. Nobody else is standing up to a corrupted process, where the intended and stated results are sidelined for political expediency. If it takes one corrupt company to stand up to another corrupt company, then so be it. At least they are standing up to a corrupt company. (Yes, I'd prefer if neither were corrupt.)