I thought it was a pretty interesting read, definately not FUD. I don't fear working for Google now, or am I any more uncertain or doubtful about the experience. The article jives pretty well with other stuff posted about working for Google. So basically I think you are wrong. Calling the article FUD does increase uncertainty and doubt about its content. Maybe not fear, so it's UD then.
This type of knee-jerk Microsoft bashing is only good for a little karma-whoring but does not really add anything of much value. Kind of like FUD. Especially when you would have posted the same comment no matter what the article said.
I think it is kind of a flippan use of the term communism. You have to be sort of elite to work at Google to begin with, not a member of the proletariat. Many of those items you describe are capitlistic perks. You don't have to wear their t-shirts or eat thier food.
The whole point of the article was about approaches to attracting and retaining the most talented individuals.
One good way would be to get the universities to control illegal activity occuring using their equipment and network. If they detect excessive activity on their network then evaluate what's going on. If the university catches somebody sharing dozens of files, then launch a formal investigation like you would for plagiarism. If someone is caught then they should expel them and put it on their permament record. Mass copyright infringement is a form of academic misconduct like plagiarism, and it is illegal. It is the role of the university to teach civic responsibility.
Many universities act like they couldn't care less, and that sends a bad message. I'm not saying they need to be RIAA's lap dog, but they need to take some responbility regulating what goes on on their campus and thier resources, especially when they acknowledge that it is happening.
>>I don't think anyone on Slashdot is against the RIAA going after copyright violators it's just how they are going about doing it that bothers people
I would bet a lot of people here are against copyright enforcement and will make all kind of excuses (a la "illegal corporate monolopies controlling the record industry have ripped us off so now it is only fair we rip them off"). A lot of people here have called for the abolition of all ip. In fact, for every well rationed argument against the practices of the RIAA there always seems to be numerous more by people who never had a real job with no real life experience living in their mother's basement railing about the evils of intellectual property in general while griping about the RIAA.
>>I thought this thread was about the reason for MS's licensing terms...
Nope. I think that is discussed in other threads and has begun creeping into this thread, but most of the discussion in the particular thread "MS makes even more money" has been about the premise of Apple putting Windows on every computer.
No big deal - just pointing out we may be mixing apples and oranges sort of thing.
>>...afraid Apple would buy a copy of Windows and include it, but I don't think that really makes much sense and don't expect most people to take it seriously.
I don't think piracy is a deal breaker - it has been around in the software industry forever. "Genuine Advantage" is very new.
>>If pirated virtualizated copies of MS Vista becomes common, then it wouldn't matter what platform you were running...XP, Apple, Linux, or even OpenSolaris...so migration to other operating systems is possible.
First off, if every Mac automatically came with a licensed version, then pirated versions would matter even less.
I don't think the Windows' core market really cares about OS and platform. "What OS?" means "XP or Vista" to them.
I think the demographic holding off on platform migration until they can get free pirated version of Vista working on their machine is not significant to the big picture. People who need Vista and a 2nd operating system already either dual boot or virtualize with the more expensive versions of Vista.
A free pirated version of Vista may make some existing Linux users happy, but I doubt it will cause many people to decide to install a new operating system.
>>Not if it encourages Windows users to switch to Mac
That would be the big question. I don't see it happening. The core Windows's user doesn't care about OS. Two OS's, with the more popular one "virtualized", would probably not be a big draw.
Even if it encouraged the cross-over, once people realized they were mainly using Windows apps, they would probably switch back to native windows the next time they bought a new computer.
>>or just decides to continue to use the old five year old copy of Windows from his previous Mac
OEM versions of Windows generally cannot be legally transferred to a different computer.
The issue in the long run will be how much the user is using Windows-only software. The situation probably won't change unless more Mac software pops up to replace the key apps. I can't see it happening in a few years, especially for games. If the user actually noticed he was using much more Windows apps than Mac apps, the next new computer might be one where Windows runs native.
The more over riding issue though is that this will only affect people who are already likely to buy a Mac to begin with. It would be a significant bump in sales for MS even it only lasts a few years, and it would be sales they would otherwise not have made anyway. If it goes away, then basically Mac people going back to being Mac-only people - the situation now.
The key question would be if pre-loaded, virtualized Vista on Macs would help them capture any more market share. I just don't see the core Windows user worrying much about having two OSes on his computer, especially when the prime OS is one he is not familiar with. They don't even think about the OS to begin with. They just want their apps.
5% of $10 Billion (or whatever it is) is still pretty good money when the only work you have to do is sign a contract with Apple to load Windows on every computer.
I think an issue would be if an user were to find they were running 90% Windows apps vs 10% Mac apps. Some of these people would begin to question which OS should be the native OS. This could be further spurred along if Mac developers all decided to switch to native Windows. Thier apps would still work seemlessly on the Mac, and they would have a bigger market.
Or, as others pointed out, Apple developers may decide to use Windows as their native platform since their apps will run seemlessly on both Macs and Windows, a much bigger market.
Then people start mainly running Windows apps. And then people maybe see no need to use the Mac OS as the middle man...
I don't think they care as long as the get paid. Windows can be virtualized now.
If it became Apple's policy to include Vista with ever computer it would only help Microsoft. The people who would be complaining would be HP and Dell if Apple was getting just as good as a deal as they were.
I'm not sure I would have appreciated Dune if I had not read the book first. It seems like it would have been hard to follow, but it is possible it would have made it more intriguing I guess.
The Dominion helped to make DS9 into a very good show. You should go back and watch the last few seasons one day. I didn't really care that much for B5 until the Shadows came along.
I'm pretty lenient and can watch most tv sci-fi. I watched all of Enterprise. On the other hand, I watched only about one season of Voyager, then another few episodes when they had the Borg. I watched two seasons or so of Andromeda before giving up.
I think the way a lot of B5 fans compare it to Star Trek it makes it seem like they have no familiarity with sci-fi because Star Trek, particulary TNG, was the more unique perspective. I see B5 fans talk about the show's grittiness and realism as something special, but the idealized world of TNG is more unique in terms of contempory sci-fi (particulary compared to the concurrent cyper-punk movement).
In the realm of television series, B5 was kind of a change of pace, but not compared to books and movies (B5 came out at least 5 years after Aliens). I think the TV show Space: Above and Beyond's one season overlapped with B5. If I remember correctly the show had a good look, but the writing and acting sucked. If you compare the overall look and tone, Space was more realistic and gritty. One problem I had with B5 is that it always looked like a TV set; it never looked quite real to me.
My experience has been that B5 fans tend to be more vocal than Star Trek fans. Trek fans seem happy to be just fans, where B5 fans seem to always talk about how the show is better and "more literary".
I thought B5 was okay, but not great. I think it is more non-Star Trek than anything else for some people.
I liked Farscape, Lexx, Stargate, X-files, First Wave, Earth Final Conflict, Outer Limits, etc..., but for a lot of B5 people the world seems confined to a B5 / Star Trek dichotomy.
It seems like at times B5 is "starter Sci-Fi" for people who never read much sci-fi or whose only exposure on TV was Star Trek.
I have actually seen more accidents *occur* in parking lots than on the road. The aftermath is usually pretty minor, and unless you saw it happen you would not have even realized it occurred. On the highway, the aftermath is pretty dramatic, and it is pretty obvious that an accident happened. But seeing it occur, not the aftermath, I have seen a lot more parking lot accidents. Usually a car backs out and doesn't see another car coming, or two cars back out at once from opposite directions but at an angle and don't see each other. I don't know how this relates to your point, but I thought I would point it out in case it does. It's Friday!
Slashdot Mirror
I thought it was a pretty interesting read, definately not FUD. I don't fear working for Google now, or am I any more uncertain or doubtful about the experience. The article jives pretty well with other stuff posted about working for Google. So basically I think you are wrong. Calling the article FUD does increase uncertainty and doubt about its content. Maybe not fear, so it's UD then.
This type of knee-jerk Microsoft bashing is only good for a little karma-whoring but does not really add anything of much value. Kind of like FUD. Especially when you would have posted the same comment no matter what the article said.
I think it is kind of a flippan use of the term communism. You have to be sort of elite to work at Google to begin with, not a member of the proletariat. Many of those items you describe are capitlistic perks. You don't have to wear their t-shirts or eat thier food.
The whole point of the article was about approaches to attracting and retaining the most talented individuals.
FUD is also blaming Microsoft of FUD at the drop of a hat...
I think he said the young guys go home and actually work in the evening while the older guys just check e-mail.
One good way would be to get the universities to control illegal activity occuring using their equipment and network. If they detect excessive activity on their network then evaluate what's going on. If the university catches somebody sharing dozens of files, then launch a formal investigation like you would for plagiarism. If someone is caught then they should expel them and put it on their permament record. Mass copyright infringement is a form of academic misconduct like plagiarism, and it is illegal. It is the role of the university to teach civic responsibility.
Many universities act like they couldn't care less, and that sends a bad message. I'm not saying they need to be RIAA's lap dog, but they need to take some responbility regulating what goes on on their campus and thier resources, especially when they acknowledge that it is happening.
>>I don't think anyone on Slashdot is against the RIAA going after copyright violators it's just how they are going about doing it that bothers people
I would bet a lot of people here are against copyright enforcement and will make all kind of excuses (a la "illegal corporate monolopies controlling the record industry have ripped us off so now it is only fair we rip them off"). A lot of people here have called for the abolition of all ip. In fact, for every well rationed argument against the practices of the RIAA there always seems to be numerous more by people who never had a real job with no real life experience living in their mother's basement railing about the evils of intellectual property in general while griping about the RIAA.
>>I thought this thread was about the reason for MS's licensing terms...
Nope. I think that is discussed in other threads and has begun creeping into this thread, but most of the discussion in the particular thread "MS makes even more money" has been about the premise of Apple putting Windows on every computer.
No big deal - just pointing out we may be mixing apples and oranges sort of thing.
>>...afraid Apple would buy a copy of Windows and include it, but I don't think that really makes much sense and don't expect most people to take it seriously.
Hey, this is Slashdot...
I don't think piracy is a deal breaker - it has been around in the software industry forever. "Genuine Advantage" is very new.
>>If pirated virtualizated copies of MS Vista becomes common, then it wouldn't matter what platform you were running...XP, Apple, Linux, or even OpenSolaris...so migration to other operating systems is possible.
First off, if every Mac automatically came with a licensed version, then pirated versions would matter even less.
I don't think the Windows' core market really cares about OS and platform. "What OS?" means "XP or Vista" to them.
I think the demographic holding off on platform migration until they can get free pirated version of Vista working on their machine is not significant to the big picture. People who need Vista and a 2nd operating system already either dual boot or virtualize with the more expensive versions of Vista.
A free pirated version of Vista may make some existing Linux users happy, but I doubt it will cause many people to decide to install a new operating system.
>>The situation would be different if Apple were bundle a functioning copy of Windows, but I think that is extremely unlikely to ever happen.
This is actually what this thread is discussing - Apple putting a well integrated version of Windows on every computer and its consequences.
>>Not if it encourages Windows users to switch to Mac
That would be the big question. I don't see it happening. The core Windows's user doesn't care about OS. Two OS's, with the more popular one "virtualized", would probably not be a big draw.
Even if it encouraged the cross-over, once people realized they were mainly using Windows apps, they would probably switch back to native windows the next time they bought a new computer.
It would all still be a net gain for Microsoft.
>>or just decides to continue to use the old five year old copy of Windows from his previous Mac
OEM versions of Windows generally cannot be legally transferred to a different computer.
The issue in the long run will be how much the user is using Windows-only software. The situation probably won't change unless more Mac software pops up to replace the key apps. I can't see it happening in a few years, especially for games. If the user actually noticed he was using much more Windows apps than Mac apps, the next new computer might be one where Windows runs native.
The more over riding issue though is that this will only affect people who are already likely to buy a Mac to begin with. It would be a significant bump in sales for MS even it only lasts a few years, and it would be sales they would otherwise not have made anyway. If it goes away, then basically Mac people going back to being Mac-only people - the situation now.
The key question would be if pre-loaded, virtualized Vista on Macs would help them capture any more market share. I just don't see the core Windows user worrying much about having two OSes on his computer, especially when the prime OS is one he is not familiar with. They don't even think about the OS to begin with. They just want their apps.
5% of $10 Billion (or whatever it is) is still pretty good money when the only work you have to do is sign a contract with Apple to load Windows on every computer.
I think an issue would be if an user were to find they were running 90% Windows apps vs 10% Mac apps. Some of these people would begin to question which OS should be the native OS. This could be further spurred along if Mac developers all decided to switch to native Windows. Thier apps would still work seemlessly on the Mac, and they would have a bigger market.
Or, as others pointed out, Apple developers may decide to use Windows as their native platform since their apps will run seemlessly on both Macs and Windows, a much bigger market.
Then people start mainly running Windows apps. And then people maybe see no need to use the Mac OS as the middle man...
Not necessarily, but it could happen.
I don't think they care as long as the get paid. Windows can be virtualized now.
If it became Apple's policy to include Vista with ever computer it would only help Microsoft. The people who would be complaining would be HP and Dell if Apple was getting just as good as a deal as they were.
Microsoft makes even more money if Apple puts Vista on every computer. It's an untapped market. Seems like it would be good for Microsoft.
>>We now need to focus on teaching things like...who will ask the question "Why"?, and others who can answer it with something other then "because".
And people who can ask "Want to super-size that?"
Oops. Just read the first level of replies.
I'm not sure I would have appreciated Dune if I had not read the book first. It seems like it would have been hard to follow, but it is possible it would have made it more intriguing I guess.
The Dominion helped to make DS9 into a very good show. You should go back and watch the last few seasons one day. I didn't really care that much for B5 until the Shadows came along.
I'm pretty lenient and can watch most tv sci-fi. I watched all of Enterprise. On the other hand, I watched only about one season of Voyager, then another few episodes when they had the Borg. I watched two seasons or so of Andromeda before giving up.
What about Aliens? Was that CGI?
I think the way a lot of B5 fans compare it to Star Trek it makes it seem like they have no familiarity with sci-fi because Star Trek, particulary TNG, was the more unique perspective. I see B5 fans talk about the show's grittiness and realism as something special, but the idealized world of TNG is more unique in terms of contempory sci-fi (particulary compared to the concurrent cyper-punk movement).
In the realm of television series, B5 was kind of a change of pace, but not compared to books and movies (B5 came out at least 5 years after Aliens). I think the TV show Space: Above and Beyond's one season overlapped with B5. If I remember correctly the show had a good look, but the writing and acting sucked. If you compare the overall look and tone, Space was more realistic and gritty. One problem I had with B5 is that it always looked like a TV set; it never looked quite real to me.
My experience has been that B5 fans tend to be more vocal than Star Trek fans. Trek fans seem happy to be just fans, where B5 fans seem to always talk about how the show is better and "more literary".
I thought B5 was okay, but not great. I think it is more non-Star Trek than anything else for some people.
I liked Farscape, Lexx, Stargate, X-files, First Wave, Earth Final Conflict, Outer Limits, etc..., but for a lot of B5 people the world seems confined to a B5 / Star Trek dichotomy.
It seems like at times B5 is "starter Sci-Fi" for people who never read much sci-fi or whose only exposure on TV was Star Trek.
>>...RIAA's going rate of $150,000
I believe $150K is the statutory damages written into US copyright law for each infringment.
If you don't register a copyright within a limited time period after publishing, then you can't recover statutory damages, just actual damages.
I have actually seen more accidents *occur* in parking lots than on the road. The aftermath is usually pretty minor, and unless you saw it happen you would not have even realized it occurred. On the highway, the aftermath is pretty dramatic, and it is pretty obvious that an accident happened. But seeing it occur, not the aftermath, I have seen a lot more parking lot accidents. Usually a car backs out and doesn't see another car coming, or two cars back out at once from opposite directions but at an angle and don't see each other. I don't know how this relates to your point, but I thought I would point it out in case it does. It's Friday!