"No, I won't get that thought out of my head, and you might like to try being a little less patronising when you post that sort of advice. Better is why I make my selections, and that's enough to drive my use of open source. "
You are not typical. History shows again and again that superior products don't always win in the marketplace. In the marketplace cheap is better then good. Nice looking is better then ugly. Good enough is good enough.
Google should make a calender app. Then google itself could be a competitor for exchange. Then M$ (yea I said it but at least I figure if you call me a communist you have no cause to bitch) would be shitting bricks.
History shows that being better has nothing to do with popularity or adoption. Nothing, nada, zip, zilch. Please get that thought out of your head.
It has to be "good enough" (minimally functional), it has to be cheaper, it has to look good. Those are the most important factors.
Most open source apps today are "good enough" and cheaper. Some of them look good too. There is enough there to lure users to switch but not if they can use the same apps in windows.
"Besides, if someone eventually wants to switch to an open source OS such as GNU/Linux or *BSD, it's much easier when they have already been using cross-platform OSS applications already and don't have to switch those."
I have heard this argument before and I disagree with it. I still don't see why they would switch to linux if they can run all their windows apps AND all their open source apps in windows. Just doesn't make sense to me.
What drove the adoption of apple II was visicalc. What drove the adoption of MS-DOS was DBASE and wordperfect. Every platform needs a killer app that only runs on that platform and gives users a reason to switch. Linux does not have such a thing. Everything that runs on linux also runs on windows.
Personally I am against the opencd idea. Furthermore I am against people porting open source projects to windows in the first place. How is linux supposed to gain popularity if all the "killer apps" also run on windows?
Knoppix is a much better idea. Pack all the apps with a linux distro and give that instead. It would give windows users more of a stark choice. Either pay for office or use linux+oo, either pay for photoshop or use linux+gimp. If the users can install gimp and oo and still use windows why would they ever switch?
During the SQL server 6.5/7.0 timeperiod periodic flamewars would erupt on the usenet about oracle vs sql server. The softheads would always use the refrain "sure oracle has more features but sql server does everything you need for less money". Now MS is facing the same argument. Sure SQL server has more features but postgresql does everything you need for less money.
Oddly enough oracle and sql server are the same price for the same feature set now.
People overlook this benefit. The administrative cost of keeping up with licenses can be huge. In some companies there are people whose full time job is to keep track of licenses and to make sure nobody is pirating.
I also love the fact I don't have to type in those stupid keys when I install software. What use do they serve anyway?
Yup. It's called vendor lock. The vendor makes sure none of it's file formats or programs can interoperate and therefor if you plan on doing any business at all with that corporation you are forced to buy MS products.
Unfortunately it will seriously hinder american companies in the long run. The foreign companies will be more likely to switch to other vendors (nor just open source) and save money while US companies will continue to pay premium for MS software.
What's even worse is that even companies in taiwan who use windows are paying less for their software. MS sells office AND windows for $50.00 over there. An American business spending hundreds of thousands per year on windows + office is expected to compete with a taiwanese company paying thousands for the same software.
It sucks to be locked to a vendor and it will bite you in the end. That's life.
I wonder if something like a bayesian filter could be used to identify people who try to log back in under a different username. Some program to keep track of commonly used phrases, word patterns, misspellings etc.
" However, if you normalize those numbers to 2005 dollars, then oil went from around $85 to $50/barrel."
What is it now? That's an interesting 10 year window, I believe the 1980 was in the height of the oil crunch no?
"Had they entered into their agreement two months earlier, or a few months later, then the inflation-adjusted difference would have been about 30/85 -- meaning that Ehrlich would have written Simon a check for about $647."
Again a misfortune of the time period. HAd the bet been for 20 or 30 years the story would be completely different.
"I was unable to find similar data for lumber, and water isn't something that's typically traded on the commodities market."
Well the price of both wood and water has gone up astronomically since 1980. Far outpacing inflation. This is especially regards to water which used to be free for everybody.
"Also, (IIRC) Ehrlich was the one who chose the basket of commodities, and Simon's only rule was that it couldn't be more than 30% oil."
I wonder why that stipulation was made. Either way water and wood have no oil. It' seems silly to place bets on metals, they are recycleable.
Either way this is something I call "republican accounting". Somehow the idelogue capitalist measure the scarcity of natural materials by their price. WHat they don't say is that the price does not measure scarcity, just the rate of extraction. This way they can delude themselves into thinking that the global oil supply is more today then it was 10 years ago. Think of it this way.
If God during his daily conversation with George Bush told him to cut down all the trees in the US the price of wood would drop to nothing. Why? Is it because the supply of wood is increasing? yes! Is it because the supply of trees is increasing? No!. But a republican would look at the price of wood (which would now be close to zero due to vast culling of the national forestss) and conclude that there were today an infinate amount of trees in the world!. Just republican accounting, measuring only the rate of extraction while completely ignoring sustainibility.
YOu missed the point entirely dude. The point is that the climatologists HAVE considered all those things and more. They are not idiots and probably didn't overlook something some slashdotter thought of in two minutes. Even after taking all of those things into account, the people who have been studying the weather and climate all their lives have by and large concluded that it is human caused.
You can disagree with them but face it what do you know about the weather? My guess is that most people who trash scientists could not even solve the most basic pysics problem these guys do in their head every day.
"What I'm saying is that measures that force the price up are going to have a negative impact on employment -- or at least, not the positive one that the grandparent suggested."
I know that's what you are saying. It's an interesting theory but it does not jibe with real world observations. In science when your theory does not jibe with oberservations you have to throw your theory out.
So have there been instances of prices being forced up? Of course there have. One example is taxes on gasoline, alcohol etc. So if your theory is correct then each instance of an increase in taxes of gasoline or beer should have been accompnied by a decrease in the number of people working in that industry. Since that hasn't happened then your theory is wrong.
"Also, don't you think that there would be even more people working in oil-related fields if the price was so low that it was everywhere (imagine gas-powered laptops being workable)?"
No I don't. According to that theory the sector which employs the greatest number of people should be items that cost the least. So according to your theory the number of employees in the paperclip industry should dwarf the number of employees in the automobile industry. That's simply not the case.
WOW, BRILLIANT!. You my friend are a genious!. You have thought of these things that no scientist ever even considered. Those scientists are obviously stupid and greedy. Too stupid to take into account things like the sun, loss of cloud cover and too greedy to be consider things like volcanoes and deepwater CO2. They are just riding around in their bentleys with their fat paychecks from the govt writing about how global warming is caused by human activity.
You should be a scientist man. Truly you are able to think of things not one of climatologists has ever thought of.
According to your logic, everytime the price of anything goes up it leads to more unemployment. If that was true everybody in the world would be unemployed by now.
The price of oil has been rising for decades and I still don't see less employees in the oil sector.
YOur theory needs refinement. It does not jibe with real world data.
Slashdot Mirror
"The fact that oil prices and production are both rising is more likely an artifact of demand growing faster than supply."
Ah so you are saying factors other then supply contribute to prices.
"Its rather difficult to imagine a product where demand increases in response to an increase in price. "
Nobody said that. It's simply the fact that demand can increase despite the raise in price due to thousands of other factors.
"Nope, Australia. There's a whole bunch of players in the Walmart space over here."
Not for long. Wait till walmart decides to enter your country, all those companies will go out of business within five years.
"No, I won't get that thought out of my head, and you might like to try being a little less patronising when you post that sort of advice. Better is why I make my selections, and that's enough to drive my use of open source. "
You are not typical. History shows again and again that superior products don't always win in the marketplace. In the marketplace cheap is better then good. Nice looking is better then ugly. Good enough is good enough.
If you don't believe me ask walmart.
Google should make a calender app. Then google itself could be a competitor for exchange. Then M$ (yea I said it but at least I figure if you call me a communist you have no cause to bitch) would be shitting bricks.
"By being better."
History shows that being better has nothing to do with popularity or adoption. Nothing, nada, zip, zilch. Please get that thought out of your head.
It has to be "good enough" (minimally functional), it has to be cheaper, it has to look good. Those are the most important factors.
Most open source apps today are "good enough" and cheaper. Some of them look good too. There is enough there to lure users to switch but not if they can use the same apps in windows.
"Besides, if someone eventually wants to switch to an open source OS such as GNU/Linux or *BSD, it's much easier when they have already been using cross-platform OSS applications already and don't have to switch those."
I have heard this argument before and I disagree with it. I still don't see why they would switch to linux if they can run all their windows apps AND all their open source apps in windows. Just doesn't make sense to me.
What drove the adoption of apple II was visicalc. What drove the adoption of MS-DOS was DBASE and wordperfect. Every platform needs a killer app that only runs on that platform and gives users a reason to switch. Linux does not have such a thing. Everything that runs on linux also runs on windows.
Personally I am against the opencd idea. Furthermore I am against people porting open source projects to windows in the first place. How is linux supposed to gain popularity if all the "killer apps" also run on windows?
Knoppix is a much better idea. Pack all the apps with a linux distro and give that instead. It would give windows users more of a stark choice. Either pay for office or use linux+oo, either pay for photoshop or use linux+gimp. If the users can install gimp and oo and still use windows why would they ever switch?
You can lie all you want. Are your pants on fire yet?
During the SQL server 6.5/7.0 timeperiod periodic flamewars would erupt on the usenet about oracle vs sql server. The softheads would always use the refrain "sure oracle has more features but sql server does everything you need for less money". Now MS is facing the same argument. Sure SQL server has more features but postgresql does everything you need for less money.
Oddly enough oracle and sql server are the same price for the same feature set now.
"If you run a OSS shop and mess up meeting the requirements of the GPL, even by accident, the FSF"
only if you are redistributing the code. IF you are only using it in house then you are fine. Nobody will come down on you.
People overlook this benefit. The administrative cost of keeping up with licenses can be huge. In some companies there are people whose full time job is to keep track of licenses and to make sure nobody is pirating.
I also love the fact I don't have to type in those stupid keys when I install software. What use do they serve anyway?
Yup. It's called vendor lock. The vendor makes sure none of it's file formats or programs can interoperate and therefor if you plan on doing any business at all with that corporation you are forced to buy MS products.
Unfortunately it will seriously hinder american companies in the long run. The foreign companies will be more likely to switch to other vendors (nor just open source) and save money while US companies will continue to pay premium for MS software.
What's even worse is that even companies in taiwan who use windows are paying less for their software. MS sells office AND windows for $50.00 over there. An American business spending hundreds of thousands per year on windows + office is expected to compete with a taiwanese company paying thousands for the same software.
It sucks to be locked to a vendor and it will bite you in the end. That's life.
" Actually, taxing fuel probably -does- lower demand,"
Probably? I don't think so. The increasing oil prices despite the increased production by OPEC seems to contradict your theory.
So it wasn't George Bush who asked OPEC to increase production in order to drop prices then huh?
You are of course lying. The price of wood, oil, etc fluctuate 100% based on rate of extraction. 100%.
All I know is that the democrats never called people who disagree with them traitors and haters of america.
I wonder if something like a bayesian filter could be used to identify people who try to log back in under a different username. Some program to keep track of commonly used phrases, word patterns, misspellings etc.
" However, if you normalize those numbers to 2005 dollars, then oil went from around $85 to $50/barrel."
What is it now? That's an interesting 10 year window, I believe the 1980 was in the height of the oil crunch no?
"Had they entered into their agreement two months earlier, or a few months later, then the inflation-adjusted difference would have been about 30/85 -- meaning that Ehrlich would have written Simon a check for about $647."
Again a misfortune of the time period. HAd the bet been for 20 or 30 years the story would be completely different.
"I was unable to find similar data for lumber, and water isn't something that's typically traded on the commodities market."
Well the price of both wood and water has gone up astronomically since 1980. Far outpacing inflation. This is especially regards to water which used to be free for everybody.
"Also, (IIRC) Ehrlich was the one who chose the basket of commodities, and Simon's only rule was that it couldn't be more than 30% oil."
I wonder why that stipulation was made. Either way water and wood have no oil. It' seems silly to place bets on metals, they are recycleable.
Either way this is something I call "republican accounting". Somehow the idelogue capitalist measure the scarcity of natural materials by their price. WHat they don't say is that the price does not measure scarcity, just the rate of extraction. This way they can delude themselves into thinking that the global oil supply is more today then it was 10 years ago. Think of it this way.
If God during his daily conversation with George Bush told him to cut down all the trees in the US the price of wood would drop to nothing. Why? Is it because the supply of wood is increasing? yes! Is it because the supply of trees is increasing? No!. But a republican would look at the price of wood (which would now be close to zero due to vast culling of the national forestss) and conclude that there were today an infinate amount of trees in the world!. Just republican accounting, measuring only the rate of extraction while completely ignoring sustainibility.
YOu missed the point entirely dude. The point is that the climatologists HAVE considered all those things and more. They are not idiots and probably didn't overlook something some slashdotter thought of in two minutes. Even after taking all of those things into account, the people who have been studying the weather and climate all their lives have by and large concluded that it is human caused.
You can disagree with them but face it what do you know about the weather? My guess is that most people who trash scientists could not even solve the most basic pysics problem these guys do in their head every day.
"What I'm saying is that measures that force the price up are going to have a negative impact on employment -- or at least, not the positive one that the grandparent suggested."
I know that's what you are saying. It's an interesting theory but it does not jibe with real world observations. In science when your theory does not jibe with oberservations you have to throw your theory out.
So have there been instances of prices being forced up? Of course there have. One example is taxes on gasoline, alcohol etc. So if your theory is correct then each instance of an increase in taxes of gasoline or beer should have been accompnied by a decrease in the number of people working in that industry. Since that hasn't happened then your theory is wrong.
"Also, don't you think that there would be even more people working in oil-related fields if the price was so low that it was everywhere (imagine gas-powered laptops being workable)?"
No I don't. According to that theory the sector which employs the greatest number of people should be items that cost the least. So according to your theory the number of employees in the paperclip industry should dwarf the number of employees in the automobile industry. That's simply not the case.
I wonder why they chose to bet on those metals? Too bad the bet wasn't about oil, water and wood. Ehrlich would have cleaned up.
WOW, BRILLIANT!. You my friend are a genious!. You have thought of these things that no scientist ever even considered. Those scientists are obviously stupid and greedy. Too stupid to take into account things like the sun, loss of cloud cover and too greedy to be consider things like volcanoes and deepwater CO2. They are just riding around in their bentleys with their fat paychecks from the govt writing about how global warming is caused by human activity.
You should be a scientist man. Truly you are able to think of things not one of climatologists has ever thought of.
Look man, he is a republican. Don't present facts to him, it will only cause him to call you a traitor and say that you hate america.
Only people who hate america are for the kyoto protocol.
According to your logic, everytime the price of anything goes up it leads to more unemployment. If that was true everybody in the world would be unemployed by now.
The price of oil has been rising for decades and I still don't see less employees in the oil sector.
YOur theory needs refinement. It does not jibe with real world data.
"Not to mention how freaking stupid we would look to future generations for believing something so remarkable without any real proof."
Without any real proof? What planet are you living on. ON this planet there is an amazing amount of evidence for global warming.
Perhaps you could answer this question for me.
Why couldn't your problem be solved by a more stateful thin client solution? Specifically why couldn't you solve your problem with java web start?
I would think a full blown java application could run rings around a stateless, HTTP based, XML based, PRC protocol no?