They're paying people more for their expertise. Why are we upset about this?
You should be modded "funny" because it doesn't seem like anyone here is upset about this. Seriously, reading through the comments I don't see anyone saying MS shouldn't or shouldn't be able to do this. Certainly no one modded up.
This is really a stretch as far as Microsoft hatred goes on Slashdot.
It's more of a stretch that you're trying to paint the opinion of "Slashdot" as the exact opposite of the vast majority of posts.
We have an OS X server. It really does suck. It's kind of like a crippled BSD server with weird management utilities and a lot of buggy modified utilities.
I know exactly where you're coming from, but I think you're simply the wrong market for OS X server. If you want a BSD server you are going to manage from the command line and you are already system administrator enough to run a BSD server from the command line, then you're pretty much not the target market for OS X server. OS X server makes sense for small business or education and whatnot where the people running the server are dabblers and need the easiest server possible to run with their lab or shop. OS X server makes sense if you're providing one of a few Apple specific services to the Macs in your deployment or are running CalDav. Otherwise, if you want a BSD server, don't buy an OS X server, because they aren't the same thing.
Similarly configured Macs cost us about twice what a PC does.
The last actual study I read on this, Macs cost about 20% more than the average PC on the market. That put them right in line with Sony and several other reputable computer manufacturers. Apple systems also rated best in the industry for hardware failure rates both DOA and within the first 2 years and had the best rating for support solutions to both hardware and software problems. That pretty much justifies placing them in the premium hardware category don't you think?
When you say Macs sot more than PC's you're simply wrong. Mac's cost about the same as good PCs. They are better than and cost more than crappy PCs which are a lot more likely do die on you. If you buy a PC with the same level of reliability and quality components as a Mac you'll spend about the same. On the other hand, when you buy a Mac you will probably spend more money than when you buy a comparable PC. I know you're scratching your head at this point.
The problem with buying Macs isn't that they cost too much for what you get. The problem is they have fewer models than the combination of all reputable PC makers, so you're less likely to be able to get exactly what you want so you often end up buying something that exceeds the requirements. The end result is a buyer spending more, but it's due to lack of selection not overpricing. I wish people on both ends of this stupid argument would actually look up the numbers and comprehend the situation, so we could stop having this discussion over and over again.
Isn't this kind of the point? If You can spend 2 hours and have a domain deployment with all the features You need done by a average paid admin, why spend two weeks by a linux guru?
I think the previous poster was quite clear it adds a lot of flexibility going forward, especially for large scale deployments. And it's not like you have to personally hire an on staff Linux guru. There are dozens of IT services companies happy to set this up for you and even manage it if you don't want to hire an admin. You don't have to pay any license fees going forward and any modifications you want done to the actual system can be done by multiple contract companies you can make bid on it, instead of just MS, if they feel like it.
I happen to be working right now with a large organization that does have a nicely crafted LDAP setup with single sign-on, across the organization, portable preferences, calendaring, and pretty much everything you get from AD. I'm working with some commercial, some, custom, and some modified commercial tools and all of them work flawlessly with the system because the system is completely under the control of the organization. In my experience that never happens with AD, unless you limit your tools to the subset of commercial offerings that already do it.
IT on a basic level is not something that adds immense value so why spend a lot on it?
IT can have cascading and unpredictable costs going forward, especially when you lock yourself into a single vendor and make all your solutions going forward brittle. What new devices and services do you need to offer in 5 years? What about in 10? Will you need to pay to upgrade? Will there be cost effective devices and service that can't work with AD? Suppose this time next year Google Wave has proven itself to be vastly superior to traditional e-mail and messaging and individuals have begun adopting it left and right bypassing your e-mail and some of those users are people with more clout than IT has. It would be immensely useful to implement Wave servers in your organization for interaction with others and security reasons. Will it work with your AD smoothly or will you be forced to use a Web client for single sign on? Can you integrate the calendaring with Google Wave for online meetings? Are you going to be waiting for MS to think about implementing interoperability or do you have the ability to take bids from a dozen different firms to make it happen?
Apply the above scenario to every device and technology to come out and think about how flexible your solutions are.
The last company I was at that did this generally had neither. A typical selection would be: Bell's Oberon, Red Stripe, Hacker-Pschorr, and Hoegaarden. There were also regular lunch meetings and random lunches on the company at local brewpubs.
Why take the risk? If it does happen, you're stuck with a double whammy-an inferior, ill-fitting product, and newly hired admins who don't know your company to try and run it.
Who cares about that? So long as you don't get fired for it you've made a friend in the vendor and they'll continue taking you out to strip clubs and bars on their sales slush fund every time they have a new product or version. If you ever need a new job, like if your company is going under because their IT doesn't work, well there's one more contact who might be able to help. And even if the company isn't going under, the best way to move up is to switch companies anyway and now you can say you revamped and modernized an entire IT infrastructure. Heck you could get a job as CFO somewhere.
How much demand is there for top-flight buggy whip makers? Longbowmen? Flint-knappers?
Some. More importantly, if you're a top-flight longbowman, surely you are versatile and can translate those skills into using a recurve bow. Why then, you can compete in archery events and endorse products and make a good living.
Likewise if you're a top-flight sys-admin then surely your skills are not completely in one product, but in the ability to learn products quickly and well and in overall knowledge of procedures and organization. Likewise part of being a top-flight sys-admin is staying current with technology, just as being a top-flight archer is keeping up with the latest bows and techniques. The market might affect how much money and what benefits you are likely to get moving to a new job, but the top-flight people I know in every field are smart enough to know money isn't everything and it's better to take a lower paying job playing with cool toys and enjoying yourself all day, rather than the best paying job dealing with idiots and broken junk that is frustrating and unrewarding.
Incidentally, this is why $100 worth of beer on the company expense account provided in the fridge at work is going to be worth a lot more than $100 divided up as higher salary among your workers.
...tell me again, how is this different than the bill to allow the president of the united states to "shut down the Internet" in case of emergency?
Are you uninformed or being inflammatory? A bill that allows the president, in a state of emergency to isolate critical infrastructure resources from the internet is not shutting down the internet. In general discussion forums one might be forgiven for thinking removing government servers and power plants from the internet would result in "shutting down the internet" but this is Slashdot. Turn in your geek card and exit in an orderly fashion please.
In fact, if you look at a lot of laws like the extreme forms of Sharia [wikipedia.org] they are more founded on what leaders after Muhammad's death decided he meant. In my mind I liken it to the perversion that several Popes have put in place...
I definitely see where you're coming from and make a good point. I would mention, however, that the Qur'an does seem to place a lot more emphasis on letting yourself be guided by the religious leaders and clerics and obeying them, as compared to the relative dearth of this theme in the christian bible. From my best understanding of the history, this was an intentional inclusion in the Qur'an, whereas the bible was composed of disparate books that may have been cherry picked with a view towards establishing authority over others, but were not specifically written with that end in mind, but were more focused on recruiting efforts.
Similarly certain leaders today call themselves Christians and Muslims...
I see where you're going with this and it is a valid point, but it is also perilously close to the "no true scotsman" fallacy. When people declare themselves to be adherent of a religion and recruit in the name of that religion, I'm not sure it is useful to try to judge who is truly a member and who is a member of a new religion based on the old but too different to be considered the same. For myself, I'm willing to refer to televangelists and the pope and gnostics and baptists as christians and consider the religion as a whole, from moderates to extremists. I think it makes for a more useful discussion with less weasel room. In discussion I'd propose a religion be considered the core works and beliefs of that religion along with the common interpretations among the breadth of adherents.
I must say, having read the Qu'ran, I was actually encouraged by the actions of many muslim clerics in dealing with adverse situations. I remember during the whole "cartoon images" crisis a significant number of clerics putting themselves in harm's way to advocate peace, literally placing themselves between a scared and outraged mob wielding stones and a foreign embassy. I'd like to think christian priests in the US in dealing with frightened and outraged followers of christianity under threat of being killed or conquered would have the courage to likewise try to avert violence, but I must admit I'm not at all certain it would happen.
P.S. for anyone questioning my personal stance or beliefs, I'm an agnostic who still recognizes the good works done by many religious groups and who has worked with members of a variety of religious groups (christian, muslim, jewish, new age pagan, and unitarians to name a few) to organize charitable projects. I also enjoy a knowledgeable discussion of religion, history, and philosophy with adherents to most any religion.
I think he meant the cost of sending in your army to free the oppressed.
The cost, what about the profits? Securing sources of oil and other natural resources and handing out appropriated land and factories and resources to various corporations. Not to mention the cost we pay to send our armies somewhere is paid in large part to corporations who get big contracts to supply materials and goods and manpower.
I stand by my statement. If corporations were not legally considered people and thus had the right to lobby congress and the executive branch, how much of the cost/benefit of our sending armies overseas would be the same? By protecting the so called "unalienable rights" of corporations to petition our government we have contributed more to our national debt than by any other method.
Sorry, forcing women they have to wear a head-dress is absolutely not acceptable.
By the same logic one could say forcing women or men to wear clothing at all is not acceptable. It's the same thing, except regarding different clothing taboos.
That's not to say I disagree about moral relativism, just that one must be careful if they're making declarative statements. Are you campaigning for nudist rights?
The United States has gotten itself into a massive debt (weakening its status in the world in the process), in no small part because of our propensity to try to protect those inalienable rights for people who aren't even our own citizens.
If by "people who aren't even our own citizens" you mean corporations that the legal system has declared to be people, then I agree with you. If, however, you are referring to foreign aid you need to crunch your numbers again.
(Even United States law recognizes that people typically have the opportunity to "sign a right away", if they wish to waive it.)
Perhaps you should take an intro to U.S. law class. Signing a contract that negates an individual's inalienable rights is always ruled as an unenforceable contract provision unless specifically limited in scope and directly compensated. The most common example of a person waiving their right would be waiving one's right to not self-incriminate or to legal representation, but you can always change your mind at a later date. The right is not gone because you are not exercising it and signing a paper that says you won't exercise it is unenforceable.
Microsoft's licensing would be completely irrelevant to Be's first complete failure, when they tried to sell the BeOS only on their custom hardware. It wasn't until after they failed at that that they even attempted to port BeOS to generic x86 (and PPC) hardware.
Umm, Be's "custom hardware" was off the shelf dual PPC processors. There was not really anything special about it. They also paired with Mac clone makers to dual boot and did fine until Apple bought their major partner. But that's just normal business and perfectly legal. MS on the other hand, broke the law in preventing them from making deals to preinstall on x86 by pressuring companies dependent upon MS because of MS's monopoly position. That is not legal or okay.
They'd already failed at selling BeOS long before Microsoft was even slightly involved.
What does their success before moving to generic x86 have to do with anything? Does that make MS's illegal actions any less illegal. BeOS had a good opportunity and a good product and consumers were not given the opportunity to vote with their wallets in the free market... thus we all suffer. All the MS apologetics you want doesn't change that.
Your claim that I am a murder was just made up, and I could actually sue you for libel in this country (USA), so you have proven yourself to be a complete jack ass.
I never claimed you were a murder. Can a person be a murder? I made reference to asking the question of if you're a murderer. I welcome your lawsuit. Good luck getting a lawyer. It's called an example, by the way, which demonstrates why the principal you propose is wrong.
I never said "Hey I murdered someone", Vivek, on the other hand, did say he has a bio degree that seems to have vanished.
Seems to have vanished? Or is Dvorak simply asking the question of if it vanished because he doesn't see it in any online resources?
Your problem is you believe it to be the responsibility of the person refuting the unsubstantiated claim to prove his case.
No, I believe when you've cried wolf many times and told people you cry wolf to drive advertising to your location as a business and are unapologetic about that, then you actually have to provide real evidence of something before I'm going to take your speculation seriously. I don't know if Vivek has a bio degree. I don't know if he ever claimed to have a bio degree. Either way, unless Dvorak can document that Vivek did make such a claim, and then someone credible actually asks Vivek for details and then Vivek fails to provide them... I'm not going to pay attention to more of Dvorak's nonsense.
That company made so many strategic mistakes, I wouldn't be able to even list them all.
That's great for you, but since MS broke the law to kill them and eventually paid millions in the courts; we'll never know if what you refer to as Be's mistakes would have kept them form succeeding.
Microsoft's best tactic is doing very little...
That's not really applicable since MS did take illegal action. Heck, they often take illegal action. Why do you think they're constantly going to court over antitrust lawsuits and criminal charges?
Seriously, I remember back in the day using BeOS and being completely floored by it, for about ten minutes. Here was a new OS and it was super fast at some of the tasks that made computers really grind to a halt back then. And it was stable. Remember, this was back when we were all rebooting our Windows boxes once a day at least while doing real work. Macs were better for stability, but only let one program do real work at a time. Unix boxes were rock solid, but it was rare to find one that had crazy advanced features like color display. Linux was rock solid to, but it took a smart guy a non-trivial amount of time to get one actually working.
In comparison to the available options it was almost hard to believe. The only real reason not to use it was lack of applications, which is what I realized in short order. A few dozen actually usable programs were about it. Still, if some companies had jumped on it and pre-installed it would have dragged the computing world half a decade or more into the future. Microsoft killed it with threats and legal action against any company who dared dual install it beside Windows or who even wanted to keep selling Windows and sell BeOS too. If ever there was a time for the feds to step in, that was it, but Be was a tiny company and the niche for an alternative vertically integrated system was taken by Apple. That one instance of shady dealing on MS's part crippled OS development and made it clear to everyone there was no point investing in the desktop OS market. If something so obviously superior, already in a stable and running form couldn't compete against MS's hold on vendors, what was the point in wasting money?
Seeing this just makes me angry all over again how corporate greed and crime has held back progress. Screw you early 90's MS execs. I hope you tell your kids how you managed to cripple OS development around the world with your crimes.
Dvorak is basically saying, what has Vivek ever done that makes you think he has the stones to be the CTO for a Fortune 1000 company let alone the Federal Government?
No, he's not. He's saying he looked into Dvorak's bio and could not confirm from internet searches that all of it was true, then he implies we should assume it isn't. He does this to generate traffic to his blog as people debate it because that's how he makes money. He's stated more than once he intentionally tries to drive traffic to his sight by putting inflammatory opinions and opinions he knows are unsupportable because that draws in people to comment about how wrong he is.
Yup, questions and not answers. Questions like are you, Coolhand2120, a murderer. Asking that question without actually doing any research, when you're already a notorious troll, that's called trolling.
Legitimate journalists looked, and so far have decided there is no story. Maybe at some point in the future someone will decide Kundra's background actually is suspicious, but not finding info with a quick Google search is not evidence that he's lying. Just as quickly googling "Coolhand2020 innocent of murder" is not in any way evidence you are a murderer or sufficient for me to start making Web posts for any reason other than trolling.
ARM isn't exactly struggling to find a niche you know...
Who said they were? This article and discussion was about ARM attempting to get a foothold on netbooks. It doesn't have much to do with their other sales in other markets except in the very limited ways they can leverage those other markets. MS's monopoly position provides a significant barrier to entry for anything non-Windows, and supporting ARM chips in Windows doesn't seem to make long term business sense for MS unless there is a credible threat from alternative OS's on the platform.
In short, for all the points he had an opportunity to verify it turned out Dvorak was wrong and it was clear Dvorak had not tried very hard to look into the matter since random bloggers were able to quickly find proof using public internet resources for several items Dvorak claimed Kundra was lying about.
From reading your post it seems the answer to my question is that Apple doesn't use a proprietary bluetooth protocol and you were mistaken in claiming they did. It's okay to admit it when you make a mistake.
If you want to create a peripheral or software that works with the Bluetooth of the iPhone or the iPod (excepting the basic audio peripherals) you have to apply for Apple's "Made for iPod Licensing" program.
Umm, that's a marketing program for developers. It lets you use Apple's trademarked terms and logos and gives you access to a bunch of developer docs for the iPod. It doesn't have anything to do with a proprietary protocol.
If you need a Bluetooth chipset supporting the Apple protocols you can buy them from CSR.
You mean the bluetooth protocol? You can get a bluetooth chipset from any number of suppliers. The one you linked to is marketing to people who want to work with iPods, but they are just bluetooth chips.
If Apple can achieve the sort of dominance in the consumer smartphone market that they have achieved with their iPods then this will pay off very well for them.
Umm, what will pay off for them? Charging people to join their "Made for iPod" marketing program? Actually, if Apple achieves dominance companies may stop using it since everyone will assume everything works with the iPod and not need to be reassured by a logo on the box.
...other companies phones won't be able to communicate with iPhones/iPods.
Umm. Wow. Why won't they be able to communicate with Apple phones? What exactly will be preventing them? I think you lost me again. Why don't you see if you can dig up anything to support your claim of a proprietary version of bluetooth and get back to me.
The scary thing is the idea that Google might be considering going the same route as Apple: a proprietary Bluetooth protocol that they can license and control...
That's the first I've heard of any such thing. A quick Google search seems to indicate iPhones work with regular bluetooth, offering a moderate selection of services. I know iPods communicate with a proprietary protocol over wi-fi when talking to Nike shoes of all things, but I've never heard of proprietary bluetooth being used. Do you have a link?
Where can we learn more about this bitfrost-like security model?
It isn't exactly like btfrost. It's actually a port of the mandatory access control system in TrustedBSD. They introduced it in 10.5, applied to select services (like Bonjour) and have expanded it in 10.6. They also provided a way for developers to implement it for end user apps. Here's an decent overview. Another good reference is the original TrustedBSD stuff: http://www.trustedbsd.org/docs.html. There is also a GUI program called "sandbox" that can be used to edit ACLs more easily.
TFA mentions that Google Chrome OS should support ARM, so since we already see Google Phones with Android and Google Apps, I don't think it's overly optimistic to hope to see a "GoogleBook" or Google Tablet.
I actually have little hope for such an endeavor. Google is developing an OS and they have apps and services. They don't have hardware and they have been reluctant to move into such things. All the Android phones to date have been iffy in their implementation and polish. Someone will undoubtably slap Google ChromeOS on a NetBook, but I doubt it will be well integrated with services, well supported, properly polished for usability, or widely marketed. So far devices with Google OS's attached have been missing exactly the kind of integration and overall end user experience usability that is needed to overcome the drawbacks of working in an ecosystem that has grown around the Windows hegemony.
Slashdot Mirror
They're paying people more for their expertise. Why are we upset about this?
You should be modded "funny" because it doesn't seem like anyone here is upset about this. Seriously, reading through the comments I don't see anyone saying MS shouldn't or shouldn't be able to do this. Certainly no one modded up.
This is really a stretch as far as Microsoft hatred goes on Slashdot.
It's more of a stretch that you're trying to paint the opinion of "Slashdot" as the exact opposite of the vast majority of posts.
We have an OS X server. It really does suck. It's kind of like a crippled BSD server with weird management utilities and a lot of buggy modified utilities.
I know exactly where you're coming from, but I think you're simply the wrong market for OS X server. If you want a BSD server you are going to manage from the command line and you are already system administrator enough to run a BSD server from the command line, then you're pretty much not the target market for OS X server. OS X server makes sense for small business or education and whatnot where the people running the server are dabblers and need the easiest server possible to run with their lab or shop. OS X server makes sense if you're providing one of a few Apple specific services to the Macs in your deployment or are running CalDav. Otherwise, if you want a BSD server, don't buy an OS X server, because they aren't the same thing.
Similarly configured Macs cost us about twice what a PC does.
The last actual study I read on this, Macs cost about 20% more than the average PC on the market. That put them right in line with Sony and several other reputable computer manufacturers. Apple systems also rated best in the industry for hardware failure rates both DOA and within the first 2 years and had the best rating for support solutions to both hardware and software problems. That pretty much justifies placing them in the premium hardware category don't you think?
When you say Macs sot more than PC's you're simply wrong. Mac's cost about the same as good PCs. They are better than and cost more than crappy PCs which are a lot more likely do die on you. If you buy a PC with the same level of reliability and quality components as a Mac you'll spend about the same. On the other hand, when you buy a Mac you will probably spend more money than when you buy a comparable PC. I know you're scratching your head at this point.
The problem with buying Macs isn't that they cost too much for what you get. The problem is they have fewer models than the combination of all reputable PC makers, so you're less likely to be able to get exactly what you want so you often end up buying something that exceeds the requirements. The end result is a buyer spending more, but it's due to lack of selection not overpricing. I wish people on both ends of this stupid argument would actually look up the numbers and comprehend the situation, so we could stop having this discussion over and over again.
Isn't this kind of the point? If You can spend 2 hours and have a domain deployment with all the features You need done by a average paid admin, why spend two weeks by a linux guru?
I think the previous poster was quite clear it adds a lot of flexibility going forward, especially for large scale deployments. And it's not like you have to personally hire an on staff Linux guru. There are dozens of IT services companies happy to set this up for you and even manage it if you don't want to hire an admin. You don't have to pay any license fees going forward and any modifications you want done to the actual system can be done by multiple contract companies you can make bid on it, instead of just MS, if they feel like it.
I happen to be working right now with a large organization that does have a nicely crafted LDAP setup with single sign-on, across the organization, portable preferences, calendaring, and pretty much everything you get from AD. I'm working with some commercial, some, custom, and some modified commercial tools and all of them work flawlessly with the system because the system is completely under the control of the organization. In my experience that never happens with AD, unless you limit your tools to the subset of commercial offerings that already do it.
IT on a basic level is not something that adds immense value so why spend a lot on it?
IT can have cascading and unpredictable costs going forward, especially when you lock yourself into a single vendor and make all your solutions going forward brittle. What new devices and services do you need to offer in 5 years? What about in 10? Will you need to pay to upgrade? Will there be cost effective devices and service that can't work with AD? Suppose this time next year Google Wave has proven itself to be vastly superior to traditional e-mail and messaging and individuals have begun adopting it left and right bypassing your e-mail and some of those users are people with more clout than IT has. It would be immensely useful to implement Wave servers in your organization for interaction with others and security reasons. Will it work with your AD smoothly or will you be forced to use a Web client for single sign on? Can you integrate the calendaring with Google Wave for online meetings? Are you going to be waiting for MS to think about implementing interoperability or do you have the ability to take bids from a dozen different firms to make it happen?
Apply the above scenario to every device and technology to come out and think about how flexible your solutions are.
Depends, is it Coors or Guiness? :-)
The last company I was at that did this generally had neither. A typical selection would be: Bell's Oberon, Red Stripe, Hacker-Pschorr, and Hoegaarden. There were also regular lunch meetings and random lunches on the company at local brewpubs.
Why take the risk? If it does happen, you're stuck with a double whammy-an inferior, ill-fitting product, and newly hired admins who don't know your company to try and run it.
Who cares about that? So long as you don't get fired for it you've made a friend in the vendor and they'll continue taking you out to strip clubs and bars on their sales slush fund every time they have a new product or version. If you ever need a new job, like if your company is going under because their IT doesn't work, well there's one more contact who might be able to help. And even if the company isn't going under, the best way to move up is to switch companies anyway and now you can say you revamped and modernized an entire IT infrastructure. Heck you could get a job as CFO somewhere.
How much demand is there for top-flight buggy whip makers? Longbowmen? Flint-knappers?
Some. More importantly, if you're a top-flight longbowman, surely you are versatile and can translate those skills into using a recurve bow. Why then, you can compete in archery events and endorse products and make a good living.
Likewise if you're a top-flight sys-admin then surely your skills are not completely in one product, but in the ability to learn products quickly and well and in overall knowledge of procedures and organization. Likewise part of being a top-flight sys-admin is staying current with technology, just as being a top-flight archer is keeping up with the latest bows and techniques. The market might affect how much money and what benefits you are likely to get moving to a new job, but the top-flight people I know in every field are smart enough to know money isn't everything and it's better to take a lower paying job playing with cool toys and enjoying yourself all day, rather than the best paying job dealing with idiots and broken junk that is frustrating and unrewarding.
Incidentally, this is why $100 worth of beer on the company expense account provided in the fridge at work is going to be worth a lot more than $100 divided up as higher salary among your workers.
...tell me again, how is this different than the bill to allow the president of the united states to "shut down the Internet" in case of emergency?
Are you uninformed or being inflammatory? A bill that allows the president, in a state of emergency to isolate critical infrastructure resources from the internet is not shutting down the internet. In general discussion forums one might be forgiven for thinking removing government servers and power plants from the internet would result in "shutting down the internet" but this is Slashdot. Turn in your geek card and exit in an orderly fashion please.
In fact, if you look at a lot of laws like the extreme forms of Sharia [wikipedia.org] they are more founded on what leaders after Muhammad's death decided he meant. In my mind I liken it to the perversion that several Popes have put in place...
I definitely see where you're coming from and make a good point. I would mention, however, that the Qur'an does seem to place a lot more emphasis on letting yourself be guided by the religious leaders and clerics and obeying them, as compared to the relative dearth of this theme in the christian bible. From my best understanding of the history, this was an intentional inclusion in the Qur'an, whereas the bible was composed of disparate books that may have been cherry picked with a view towards establishing authority over others, but were not specifically written with that end in mind, but were more focused on recruiting efforts.
Similarly certain leaders today call themselves Christians and Muslims...
I see where you're going with this and it is a valid point, but it is also perilously close to the "no true scotsman" fallacy. When people declare themselves to be adherent of a religion and recruit in the name of that religion, I'm not sure it is useful to try to judge who is truly a member and who is a member of a new religion based on the old but too different to be considered the same. For myself, I'm willing to refer to televangelists and the pope and gnostics and baptists as christians and consider the religion as a whole, from moderates to extremists. I think it makes for a more useful discussion with less weasel room. In discussion I'd propose a religion be considered the core works and beliefs of that religion along with the common interpretations among the breadth of adherents.
I must say, having read the Qu'ran, I was actually encouraged by the actions of many muslim clerics in dealing with adverse situations. I remember during the whole "cartoon images" crisis a significant number of clerics putting themselves in harm's way to advocate peace, literally placing themselves between a scared and outraged mob wielding stones and a foreign embassy. I'd like to think christian priests in the US in dealing with frightened and outraged followers of christianity under threat of being killed or conquered would have the courage to likewise try to avert violence, but I must admit I'm not at all certain it would happen.
P.S. for anyone questioning my personal stance or beliefs, I'm an agnostic who still recognizes the good works done by many religious groups and who has worked with members of a variety of religious groups (christian, muslim, jewish, new age pagan, and unitarians to name a few) to organize charitable projects. I also enjoy a knowledgeable discussion of religion, history, and philosophy with adherents to most any religion.
I think he meant the cost of sending in your army to free the oppressed.
The cost, what about the profits? Securing sources of oil and other natural resources and handing out appropriated land and factories and resources to various corporations. Not to mention the cost we pay to send our armies somewhere is paid in large part to corporations who get big contracts to supply materials and goods and manpower.
I stand by my statement. If corporations were not legally considered people and thus had the right to lobby congress and the executive branch, how much of the cost/benefit of our sending armies overseas would be the same? By protecting the so called "unalienable rights" of corporations to petition our government we have contributed more to our national debt than by any other method.
Sorry, forcing women they have to wear a head-dress is absolutely not acceptable.
By the same logic one could say forcing women or men to wear clothing at all is not acceptable. It's the same thing, except regarding different clothing taboos.
That's not to say I disagree about moral relativism, just that one must be careful if they're making declarative statements. Are you campaigning for nudist rights?
The United States has gotten itself into a massive debt (weakening its status in the world in the process), in no small part because of our propensity to try to protect those inalienable rights for people who aren't even our own citizens.
If by "people who aren't even our own citizens" you mean corporations that the legal system has declared to be people, then I agree with you. If, however, you are referring to foreign aid you need to crunch your numbers again.
(Even United States law recognizes that people typically have the opportunity to "sign a right away", if they wish to waive it.)
Perhaps you should take an intro to U.S. law class. Signing a contract that negates an individual's inalienable rights is always ruled as an unenforceable contract provision unless specifically limited in scope and directly compensated. The most common example of a person waiving their right would be waiving one's right to not self-incriminate or to legal representation, but you can always change your mind at a later date. The right is not gone because you are not exercising it and signing a paper that says you won't exercise it is unenforceable.
Microsoft's licensing would be completely irrelevant to Be's first complete failure, when they tried to sell the BeOS only on their custom hardware. It wasn't until after they failed at that that they even attempted to port BeOS to generic x86 (and PPC) hardware.
Umm, Be's "custom hardware" was off the shelf dual PPC processors. There was not really anything special about it. They also paired with Mac clone makers to dual boot and did fine until Apple bought their major partner. But that's just normal business and perfectly legal. MS on the other hand, broke the law in preventing them from making deals to preinstall on x86 by pressuring companies dependent upon MS because of MS's monopoly position. That is not legal or okay.
They'd already failed at selling BeOS long before Microsoft was even slightly involved.
What does their success before moving to generic x86 have to do with anything? Does that make MS's illegal actions any less illegal. BeOS had a good opportunity and a good product and consumers were not given the opportunity to vote with their wallets in the free market... thus we all suffer. All the MS apologetics you want doesn't change that.
Your claim that I am a murder was just made up, and I could actually sue you for libel in this country (USA), so you have proven yourself to be a complete jack ass.
I never claimed you were a murder. Can a person be a murder? I made reference to asking the question of if you're a murderer. I welcome your lawsuit. Good luck getting a lawyer. It's called an example, by the way, which demonstrates why the principal you propose is wrong.
I never said "Hey I murdered someone", Vivek, on the other hand, did say he has a bio degree that seems to have vanished.
Seems to have vanished? Or is Dvorak simply asking the question of if it vanished because he doesn't see it in any online resources?
Your problem is you believe it to be the responsibility of the person refuting the unsubstantiated claim to prove his case.
No, I believe when you've cried wolf many times and told people you cry wolf to drive advertising to your location as a business and are unapologetic about that, then you actually have to provide real evidence of something before I'm going to take your speculation seriously. I don't know if Vivek has a bio degree. I don't know if he ever claimed to have a bio degree. Either way, unless Dvorak can document that Vivek did make such a claim, and then someone credible actually asks Vivek for details and then Vivek fails to provide them... I'm not going to pay attention to more of Dvorak's nonsense.
You can't blame Microsoft for BeOS.
Yes I can.
That company made so many strategic mistakes, I wouldn't be able to even list them all.
That's great for you, but since MS broke the law to kill them and eventually paid millions in the courts; we'll never know if what you refer to as Be's mistakes would have kept them form succeeding.
Microsoft's best tactic is doing very little...
That's not really applicable since MS did take illegal action. Heck, they often take illegal action. Why do you think they're constantly going to court over antitrust lawsuits and criminal charges?
Seriously, I remember back in the day using BeOS and being completely floored by it, for about ten minutes. Here was a new OS and it was super fast at some of the tasks that made computers really grind to a halt back then. And it was stable. Remember, this was back when we were all rebooting our Windows boxes once a day at least while doing real work. Macs were better for stability, but only let one program do real work at a time. Unix boxes were rock solid, but it was rare to find one that had crazy advanced features like color display. Linux was rock solid to, but it took a smart guy a non-trivial amount of time to get one actually working.
In comparison to the available options it was almost hard to believe. The only real reason not to use it was lack of applications, which is what I realized in short order. A few dozen actually usable programs were about it. Still, if some companies had jumped on it and pre-installed it would have dragged the computing world half a decade or more into the future. Microsoft killed it with threats and legal action against any company who dared dual install it beside Windows or who even wanted to keep selling Windows and sell BeOS too. If ever there was a time for the feds to step in, that was it, but Be was a tiny company and the niche for an alternative vertically integrated system was taken by Apple. That one instance of shady dealing on MS's part crippled OS development and made it clear to everyone there was no point investing in the desktop OS market. If something so obviously superior, already in a stable and running form couldn't compete against MS's hold on vendors, what was the point in wasting money?
Seeing this just makes me angry all over again how corporate greed and crime has held back progress. Screw you early 90's MS execs. I hope you tell your kids how you managed to cripple OS development around the world with your crimes.
Dvorak is basically saying, what has Vivek ever done that makes you think he has the stones to be the CTO for a Fortune 1000 company let alone the Federal Government?
No, he's not. He's saying he looked into Dvorak's bio and could not confirm from internet searches that all of it was true, then he implies we should assume it isn't. He does this to generate traffic to his blog as people debate it because that's how he makes money. He's stated more than once he intentionally tries to drive traffic to his sight by putting inflammatory opinions and opinions he knows are unsupportable because that draws in people to comment about how wrong he is.
Who's the troll?
Dvorak.
There are legitimate questions about the man...
Yup, questions and not answers. Questions like are you, Coolhand2120, a murderer. Asking that question without actually doing any research, when you're already a notorious troll, that's called trolling.
Legitimate journalists looked, and so far have decided there is no story. Maybe at some point in the future someone will decide Kundra's background actually is suspicious, but not finding info with a quick Google search is not evidence that he's lying. Just as quickly googling "Coolhand2020 innocent of murder" is not in any way evidence you are a murderer or sufficient for me to start making Web posts for any reason other than trolling.
Unless they take pictures of their own swimsuit parts. That makes them evil!
Swimsuit parts? Like straps and that mesh lining stuff?
ARM isn't exactly struggling to find a niche you know...
Who said they were? This article and discussion was about ARM attempting to get a foothold on netbooks. It doesn't have much to do with their other sales in other markets except in the very limited ways they can leverage those other markets. MS's monopoly position provides a significant barrier to entry for anything non-Windows, and supporting ARM chips in Windows doesn't seem to make long term business sense for MS unless there is a credible threat from alternative OS's on the platform.
Please, Vivek, explain away:
Okay, that took 30 seconds with Google. Om Malik (a respected journalist not a notorious and admitted troll like Dvorak) looked into Dvorak's claims:
http://www.examiner.com/x-10080-DC-Technology-Examiner~y2009m8d12-Dvorak-alleges-US-CIO-and-exDC-chief-is-a-fake
In short, for all the points he had an opportunity to verify it turned out Dvorak was wrong and it was clear Dvorak had not tried very hard to look into the matter since random bloggers were able to quickly find proof using public internet resources for several items Dvorak claimed Kundra was lying about.
From reading your post it seems the answer to my question is that Apple doesn't use a proprietary bluetooth protocol and you were mistaken in claiming they did. It's okay to admit it when you make a mistake.
If you want to create a peripheral or software that works with the Bluetooth of the iPhone or the iPod (excepting the basic audio peripherals) you have to apply for Apple's "Made for iPod Licensing" program.
Umm, that's a marketing program for developers. It lets you use Apple's trademarked terms and logos and gives you access to a bunch of developer docs for the iPod. It doesn't have anything to do with a proprietary protocol.
If you need a Bluetooth chipset supporting the Apple protocols you can buy them from CSR.
You mean the bluetooth protocol? You can get a bluetooth chipset from any number of suppliers. The one you linked to is marketing to people who want to work with iPods, but they are just bluetooth chips.
If Apple can achieve the sort of dominance in the consumer smartphone market that they have achieved with their iPods then this will pay off very well for them.
Umm, what will pay off for them? Charging people to join their "Made for iPod" marketing program? Actually, if Apple achieves dominance companies may stop using it since everyone will assume everything works with the iPod and not need to be reassured by a logo on the box.
...other companies phones won't be able to communicate with iPhones/iPods.
Umm. Wow. Why won't they be able to communicate with Apple phones? What exactly will be preventing them? I think you lost me again. Why don't you see if you can dig up anything to support your claim of a proprietary version of bluetooth and get back to me.
The scary thing is the idea that Google might be considering going the same route as Apple: a proprietary Bluetooth protocol that they can license and control...
That's the first I've heard of any such thing. A quick Google search seems to indicate iPhones work with regular bluetooth, offering a moderate selection of services. I know iPods communicate with a proprietary protocol over wi-fi when talking to Nike shoes of all things, but I've never heard of proprietary bluetooth being used. Do you have a link?
Where can we learn more about this bitfrost-like security model?
It isn't exactly like btfrost. It's actually a port of the mandatory access control system in TrustedBSD. They introduced it in 10.5, applied to select services (like Bonjour) and have expanded it in 10.6. They also provided a way for developers to implement it for end user apps. Here's an decent overview. Another good reference is the original TrustedBSD stuff: http://www.trustedbsd.org/docs.html. There is also a GUI program called "sandbox" that can be used to edit ACLs more easily.
TFA mentions that Google Chrome OS should support ARM, so since we already see Google Phones with Android and Google Apps, I don't think it's overly optimistic to hope to see a "GoogleBook" or Google Tablet.
I actually have little hope for such an endeavor. Google is developing an OS and they have apps and services. They don't have hardware and they have been reluctant to move into such things. All the Android phones to date have been iffy in their implementation and polish. Someone will undoubtably slap Google ChromeOS on a NetBook, but I doubt it will be well integrated with services, well supported, properly polished for usability, or widely marketed. So far devices with Google OS's attached have been missing exactly the kind of integration and overall end user experience usability that is needed to overcome the drawbacks of working in an ecosystem that has grown around the Windows hegemony.