I'm not sure why you've been marked insightful, your points are completely orthagonal to TFA.
Anyone who deals with the real world understands that if you're looking for the next big thing, you should look at existing technological concepts. The ones that will receive widespread adoption as costs comes down (e.g. mobile phones), or where someone figures out the "trick" (e.g. Google), and generally where it gets past the early adoptor phase. (note: situation is different if you are actually the technologist that may have had a geniues insight into a new concept)
Criticising someone for making a point in line with this is more of a comment of your smart-assedness on thinking you have such a greater vision than this guy. He says machine intelligence etc would be a good thing, but where does he say it is the only thing, or the final stage of improvement, or whatever?
On "productivity" - governments, economists, factory managers, farmers, financiers, ship builders, many technologists, etc. It's a broad concept, and the actual measure is usually defined for the case in hand. Irrespective of whether you think it's a useful term, if you've not met anyone that doesn't find it useful (that you also respect), you really need to get out more.
The author seems to be blowing her own horn (there's even the dead giveaway "I'm not blowing my own horn" line!). But rather than point out the various problems with her bullshit, let's focus on the one quantified piece of data in the article. She manages projects at an approximate rate of two per month, in addition to designing, installing and configuring systems. Clearly she can do what she does simply because the projects are so small, it's possible to get your head around them without having to do a great management job.
She says the key is to "time-slice". Presumably calling it "time management", an extremely old managerial concept, would involve admitting to herself that she's not doing anything special.
Actually, I'd say there's two key components to what she seems to do. First, and she deserves respect for this, is clearly being able to work in a number of different disciplines where others would struggle. Two, none of the individual things she does is particularly challenging, making it possible to flit about. Other managers - say someone responsible for a multi-year project - will either find it offensive or simply ridiculous for someone to imply that just being a manager isn't good enough.
It's a troll because a huge number of people (including those who have read and appreciated the books) think that Peter Jackson did a fantastic job. The word butchered implies a pretty obvious fuck up that no-one can deny, when that is clearly not the case. The "in my mind" comment lacks any information content - it could be applied no matter what Jackson did, good or bad. There is not a single piece of supporting evidence to support a negative, emotional-not-logical comment that many intelligent people disagree with. Can't get much more of a troll than that.
As for "huge liberties" and "creating fictious events" (often simply refered to as "interpretation" and "trying to stay true to the spirit of the book" etc), while it might indeed be entirely different to simply abridging the story, it is still entirely acceptable. It is commonly done in biographical dramas, let alone fictional works, as a valid dramatic technique. Don't demean yourself for disagreeing with what Jackson did by applying bullshit "I understand the characters and they don't" or "my rules are more righteous than yours" arguments.
It occurs to me that an obvious point to make is that as the world's richest man, Bill Gates is an aspirational figure for much of the US culture, especially with Warren Buffet also giving him most of his fortune to distribute. Calling money America's true religion is a cheap shot. Really it is just a common denominator in everyone's life to a greater or lesser extent (assuming you buy food, get sick and need health care on occassion, etc).
Perhaps being utterly successful and embodying the American dream is a suitable substitute for being of the faith.
It's a good point. In the main, I'm just reacting to the contention that the suggestion "just so stupid I can't place it on a scale." And of course there's Keith Ellison, first Muslim in Congress. Adams may be wrong, and I suspect he is. But it's an idea worth considering.
For instance, I find it interesting to see "female" as the top category in that poll. It's not so long ago that essential qualifiers for being president included "rich, white, male (preferably tall)". So things change, or the poll only reflects one aspect of people's voting e.g. what if the opposition can be shown to be not "otherwise well-qualified"? Adams gives a time frame of the next cycle or two i.e. ten years. Perhaps the aftermath of Iraq will be a greater acceptance of a person for their competence and character, not their religion.
On the child molestor odds: Have you heard the stories about some Catholic priests? Or the activities of some cults? Or Michael Jackson? Hardly a scientific study, but arguably in the public mind child abuse is more likely with those who have a strong belief (however bizarre in Jackson's case...).
Irrespective of whether Adams is right or not: Suggesting that the US electorate is more willing to vote for an atheist than a member of a religion that is (however unfairly) associated with the current war in Iraq, 9/11, etc, seems to me an entirely reasonable thing to suggest.
Why is suggesting an atheist president so stupid? Have I missed something? It seems to me Adams is simply hopeful that there might be a president who bases his decisions on facts and thinking, rather than an unaccountable belief system within a framework no one can quite agree on anyway. And again, it seems a reasonable proposition for a debate that the electorate might go for a well respected (outside of the tech community!), successful, famously philanthropic atheist before a Muslim, even if it is only for all the wrong reasons.
It's a fair point. There are always tradeoffs, and you can only take specialisation so far. Personally, I'd happily get rid of all bureaucrats - I chose my nick because I've so often been pissed off with the hoops a bad contract or bureaucratic process can force you to jump through. There are still some managers who do such a great job of managing projects / companies that all the coop model does is limit your options. I'm not saying that coops don't work, just that they are limited.
Coops are not business models for creating new things - they are a method by which a group of businesses can reduce costs by sharing a given service or infrastructure. They end up dealing with lowest common denominator type requirements. Which is fine - particularly where basic financial services are involved for instance, I find it pretty offensive by businesses get screwed over by a bank. Likewise if a group of techs can get a great hosted infrastructure at reasonable cost - if you save more helping run your own infrastructure than you could have been earning on a contract, fantastic. It's impossible to run 100% on paid contract time, so you could well have spare cycles to do so at effectively no cost.
But the "new stuff" is going to come out of the individual contracts that the freelancers win, which will apart from perhaps a minor cost factor are unlikely to be helped or hindered by the coop model. If you're going to freelance you need your support network in any case.
There's no new ideas in the article, and it doesn't relate directly to open source. You could equally apply such a model to people running systems built on Microsoft software. When the guy says effectively he's taking on the bad side of capitalism - it's just bullshit. Hopefully it's just naive, rather than willful. It doesn't strike as a new solution to the problems of capitalism.
Before I start laying into this guy, may I say I'm from Scotland and a left-wing voter. I think there's a lot to be said for socialism, social contracts, national health etc. But I'm also met any number of people who like this kind of structure primarily because it gives them a degree of power and influence that a meritocracy wouldn't. I reckon I'm a smart guy (don't we all) but when I see phrases like "we need a sea-change in civilization in order to maintain homeostasis survival" I really want to punch someone...
After RTFA, I can only say the guy is letting his self-confessed bleeding heart get in the way of clear thinking. There is nothing in the business model that is inherently open source. And cooperatives - the examples given from Canada are credit unions and wheat pools - are typically groups of people that have separate businesses or interests but benefit from some kind of shared service or infrastructure. So if, for instance, some of your best freelancers got great opportunities, they wouldn't necessarily need to use the shared infrastructure and suddenly the cooperative is weakened.
When we're talking about shared infrastructure, given the competition in e.g. hosting services, I'm not convinced a cooperative would give you any better value than a reputable company. More to the point, shared infrastructure is a way to reduce costs, not generate revenue - so where's the business model?
Also, look at the structure. The board is also the executive i.e. in terms of decision makers, there's no check and balance. The board is made of at least 60% members. Apparently the board is there in part of prevent the "fascism of the group", which apart from the telling choice of knee-jerk political wording is nonsensical. If the board is mostly comprised of group members, if the group is dominated by special interest groups there's a strong chance the board will be as well.
The board is going to end up being the most skilled individuals. Personally, I'd prefer to have the best managers running a company and the most skilled technicians doing what they do best. I've had some good managers in my time and this is the method that works. Genius programmers who would actually prefer to spend their time managing politics, feel free to disagree!
You'll probably also have the odd board member who got there through politicking, which (forgive my cynicism) often seems to me the reason why people with an interest in community based politics are so keen on it. It can act as a substitute for actual skill and clear thinking.
To paraphrase the bible, there ain't nothing new under the sun. So nothing to see here, move along...
This is utter bullshit - why has it been marked +5 insightful? I can only feel pity for those people that agree with this. The story is about a guy who kept with the same firm for 25 or so years and got to the top. That's 25 years to get a reputation, and there's an old saying that you make your own luck. Mark Hurd isn't a tech, so he didn't work for a company that sells what he did. And changing job once every 25 years doesn't sound like he has a "jump ship" philosophy.
I love the conclusion "and with that you will quickly run the company". Yeah, gee, overnight success in only 22 years, or however long it took the guy to reach the top of NCR.
An alternative perspective:
1. I think healthcare is important. I'd be proud to be doing a good job in that industry. And basically it's just really nasty advice to tell techs that they should only work for tech firms. There's many successful techs that started in finance, retail, pharmaceuticals, etc.
- only work for a company that *respects* what you do.
2. When I finished my post-grad, I joined a start up, which wasn't necessarily going to be a success. My family advised against it. And indeed, it faltered after the collapse of the tech bubble, although fortunately because we were cheap we got bought out. But I knew even if it failed I'd simply be back on the market with a good experience under my belt. As it happens, I ended up in a more senior position than taking a safe job offer.
- don't be afraid to fail or make a mistake.
3. Jump ship "if necessary", AND "do it early"? So which is it? If necessary is fine, but too much of the "do it early" and you'd have to wonder about someone's commitment. And hang on, didn't you also say "only pick sure successes"? What's going on here? Do you jump as soon as it turns out that it's not in fact a sure thing? Doesn't sound like faith or courage play a big part in your philosophy.
- believe in what you do.
(although on point 3 - do have a back up plan. Have your CV up to date. And to be fair - if necessary, jump ship.)
"Ultimately, we're trying to protect consumers from..
.. being sold hardware that does not conform to strict EU or UK consumer safety standards, due to voltage supply differences et cetera;"
- The PSP has a power supply for 100 - 240V, I'm told, and besides let's not pretend that Sony doesn't have to build all its various Playstations to be acceptable worldwide, shall we?
"is not - in PS3's case - backwards compatible with either PS1 or PS2 software"
- again, similar situation all around the world, what does this have to do with anything?
"will not play European Blu-Ray movies or DVDs"
- because YOU built in restrictions to fuck us over with!
"and will not be covered by warranty."
- strictly by your own decision, there's nothing to prevent you extending the manufacturer's warranty i.e. another way by which to fuck us over.
Perhaps a subtlety on the last point might be an expectation that a faulty unit would have to be returned to the importer - but that's the buyer's choice / risk to take. And it would be interesting if "grey" importers then found it profitable to set up local offices in rip-off parts of the world.
You know, in financial and commodity markets the principle of arbitrage is pretty well accepted. There's just no damn reason why manufacturers like Sony should be allowed to create articifical barriers to otherwise well accepted market mechanisms. As has been pointed out elsewhere, as long as people have to suck it up and bear it with market effects like outsourcing, the corporates shouldn't be able to give themselves exemptions.
There's already several comments here about the hassle women and/or female avatars receive. I'd just like to say, as a Scotsman who wears a kilt on occasion, that women are also a pain in the neck when they encounter someone of the opposite sex in a skirt. Men by and large have learnt not to try and put their hands up someone's skirt. Yes, I know men do this, but seriously women are worse.
Although men probably complain less when they think the kilt-lifting woman is attractive. Reciprocity is a wonderful thing. Beats trading insults as a way of flirting...
What a wonderful self-justification. The artists that you've paid money to have been paid more than enough even when you've ripped off an album, and those to whom you've paid nothing weren't up to your arbitrary standards and don't deserve any money at all. If you like an artist, and they put in the effort and expense to record an album, but you only like some of it - fuck 'em, let's rip than one for free. Hey, I went to a gig, didn't I?
Presumably you're tight for cash if you've only paid out for three bands, otherwise you really don't like music much. Because 3 bands suggests a limited taste in music, not "such a varying" one. Or maybe you simply lack any respect for the effort it can take even to produce something people don't like e.g. you don't get a refund in a restaurant just because you didn't like the chef's style. Of course, if you want to encourage mainstream middle of the road shit, rather than have artists who feel free to take risks while still wanting to make a living out of music - go right ahead.
That's not downloading illegally because it's cool - it's downloading because it's free.
"a widening [i.e. happening right now] scandal involving a possibly illegal probe" - according to this wording, she clearly didn't know they were illegal practices. You might think otherwise, but there's clearly no admission here that she knew they were illegal actions.
Personally I think she should resign from the board entirely. It's better for HP and has more dignity than basically admitting a serious error of judgement, but then clinging on by the fingernails to a place on the board. But it certainly doesn't help when the trial-by-media lynch mob shows up with biased, inaccurate interpretations of what is clearly very carefully selected language to acknowledge there is a problem without admitting definitive knowledge or culpability. That kind of reaction only encourages board members to ignore the public. If the public won't listen to what they say, why admit anything or believe in a chance of a fair hearing?
What happened when you were visited by the police? What information did you get access to? Were you convicted of an offense?
Company brings in new CEO to turn company around. He hires some people and fires others. It's 80 billion plus dollar multinational, and after two years he hasn't finished making changes. What is unusual here?
Normally when I comment in relation to HP (I'm an employee) I stay anonymous and just correct facts. ACs tend to get modded down but hey, at least that way I don't get my posts interpreted simply by what the reader thinks of HP. But typically the topic is "Alpha vs. Itanium" or somesuch where no matter anyone's claims to knowing the one shining truth, it comes down to matters of opinion (hey, I'm a software guy, what would I know...).
But this situation is different. It's truly embarassing and I hope Dunn suffers in consequence. Talking to the press is bad. Whether or not you agree, that was what the board decided. Any board member who disagrees should stand up and be counted or have the guts to resign. I get paid good money, have access to confidential information, and would like to think I have the standards to quit rather than get petty ego-boosting revenge by talking to the press. Whistle blowing bad business practice etc is noble. Leaking product roadmaps etc is just masturbating.
So Keyworth deserves to leave the board. His actions, however, just don't compare to Dunn invading the private lives of her colleagues.
HP has done a lot and does a lot to be proud of. Every once and a while a salesperson does a stupid thing or a business decision is "sub-optimal", but for instance we haven't joined the ranks of the many tech companies playing silly buggers with the financials. We've been getting our act together over the past year and a lot of us are hopeful we will become a great company again.
Then last thing before I go to bed (I'm in the UK), I hear that the board doesn't even understand that lying to get an innocent person's personal information is a bad thing. I don't care whether it's illegal or not. It's a shit thing to do. And I hate going to bed pissed off.
There's one combination of things that always makes me angry. First, acting in a clearly "bad" way - whether that's illegal, unethical, plain rude, whatever. Second, when it's also a stupid thing. What do we get for outing the leak? Not much (but there can be minor advantages to the competition being in the dark for a few months, trust me). Will the way we've behaved come to light? Of course - look at Tom Perkins letters, this eventually becomes a matter of public record via the SEC for fuck's sake! Will it be embarassing if a customer brings it up? Yes, perhaps with a financial impact, and with the story on e.g. front webpage BBC, everyone's going to know about it.
If you prefer logical arguments, perhaps you'd care to explain where you get "90% ad hominem" from? It's rather hypocritical to accuse me personally of karma whoring at the same time as accusing me of attacking the man and not the argument.
Most of my points are in response to his arguments - I do not see the value of confusing a Windows vs. OS X comparison with a personal preference for Linux, the OEM issue should not be dismissed because it is an important part of supply chain, and the emotive language he uses in describing "stupid" things such as the Dashboard suggest smugness rather than an objective evaluation. Likewise, the CPU issue is hardly a useful point on the surface, although I take on board the other poster pointing out that excessive fan noise would be of concern to the end user.
I do not attack the grandparent poster instead of making an argument. Rather, having addressed a number of points he makes, I indulge in a personal comment because frankly the smug attitude he displays is deserving of comment. As are your double standards.
Re:I don't care for these commercials
on
New "Get a Mac" TV ads
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
Great - in a Windows vs OS X comparison, you resort to the argument that you don't use Windows or OS X because you prefer Linux; you don't think it's a problem that the out-of-box experience for Windows is poor because it's the OEM's fault (how else is a typical consumer supposed to buy one?!); you've got a smug attitude about how your set of values is more important than other users'.
Can't argue with you - you're definitely a classic early-stage techie. When I hear a end users complaining about the fact that when they leave their computer alone, it runs up a few CPU cycles, I'll start giving that kind of logic some weight.
Re:I don't care for these commercials
on
New "Get a Mac" TV ads
·
· Score: 2, Informative
Windows may run fine out of the box - assuming you're satisfied with the rather basic set of software Windows includes (although I guess to be fair that could lead into an interesting discussion on the legal actions MS gets into when it bundles things, anyway I digress...).
Point is, your average Windows-based system does not install simply. There's usually all sorts of bundled stuff on the desktop - when my friend got a Sony for his girlfriend, he swore never to buy a PC from them again, there was so much add-on shit. And once you get into peripherals, there's a usually a whole pile of software to install.
The whole "Windows runs fine out of the box" should come with a whole pile of caveats with respect to your technical skills, that you have either set up your own system or bought from a supplier that you knew does a good job, or even that you simply got lucky in configuring a good system.
As someone who deals with people that have "real systems" to worry about, I'm fairly sure that anyone who responds to an ill-advised marketing exercise from Sun with a "and fuck HP too"-type response isn't likely to carry much respect amongst professionals.
If you're contemplating hiring summer interns to fix bugs in an open source OS, you're simply not responsible for large, mission critical systems.
Sony's patent agent, Dr Jonathan DeVile [..] said the examiners were wrong, that the inventions cannot be a program for a computer because, in operation, there are at least two computers involved, communicating over a network.
Dear lord, what interesting hoops that man's mind must be able to jump through to earn his paycheck. Doctor of what? Some bizarre form of n-dimensional logic where if you throw your bullshit far enough it comes back as the truth?
The point is, having only two classifications of "something we understand" and "something we don't understand yet" is logically incomplete. There is also the set of "something we cannot understand". Perhaps that will in time be shown to be an empty set, but nonetheless for now it could potentially be full of many things. As you say, currently we cannot differentiate.
To ignore the possibility that some things cannot be understood by the scientific method is an act of faith. And a particularly bloody minded one as well, because of course the poster can stay true to it until his or her deathbed, claiming that later generations will solve the problem for him. The premise cannot be proven false - this is a situation ripe for being classified as a fundamentalist belief.
I am not "assuming something is incomprehensible". I'm not saying don't conduct stem cell research. I'm just agreeing with the point of the grandparent post - that classification is an act of blind faith. It is possible that somethings may never be understood. It's pretty much guaranteed that when people supposedly in favour of the scientific method prove just as vulnerable to becoming ideologues who forget their own teachings (like Christians who have forgotten about peace, love, and understanding.. sorry I'm not familiar with the proper teachings), then the debate will rage on with anger on both sides.
I have no idea about this kind of thing. However, it could be argued that should SCO win the lawsuit, then their strategy will have been justified. If you accept that premise, then the SEC is obliged to wait until the case completes. The SEC does not have the right to take actions based on their expected outcome of a lawsuit. To do so would effectively be a summary judgement overriding the courts.
Additionally, even if the lawsuit should fail, it was public knowledge. The SEC might take the position that a sophisticated investor (which I think is their yardstick) would be expected to know that investing in a company on the basis of a single lawsuit against a large, well-reputed company is an extremely risky investment. It is not the SEC's job to stop people taking on risk, to stop idiots placing wild bets in the market place, or to decide when a stock is over-valued.
All that said, I would imagine that the conclusion of the lawsuit will provide a whole pile of information upon which it is possible to draw a conclusion as to what SCO's management was up to. They appear set to fail. The question is, will the court's conclusion suggest that they had no basis on which to start the lawsuit? If they actually had reason to start the lawsuit, but no real evidence to hope to win it, was it therefore a very risk undertaking? If so, the combination of a bad strategy (which was harmful to their main business) plus share dumping will leave them open to lawsuits and SEC investigations.
I was always a fan of BeOS. A presentation and demonstration of it was part of the interview process that got me my first consultant position. Always thought was a shame it didn't make it. Now, if that chapter is to be believed (p100 of the pdf), they could have were it not for the boss being too greedy. After managing to negotiate upwards from an initial valuation by Apple of $50m up to an offer of $200m, he still tried to get more and got no deal at all.
That's a little heart breaking, actually. I've been lucky enough to avoid the whole "my company's gone bust" thing, but what I've seen others go through isn't nice. It would really piss me off to find out that the boss, with $200m on the table and only $20m having been put into the company, still was too greedy / crap at negotiation to take it.
"Ten times return on our investment? Ha! I think we'll do better trying to compete with Microsoft in the OS market!"
Yeah, real smart...
Anyone know whether Jean-Louis Gassee really could have accepted the $200m offer and closed the deal, e.g. if even Apple didn't end up putting BeOS at the heart of their OS strategy?
Slashdot Mirror
I'm not sure why you've been marked insightful, your points are completely orthagonal to TFA.
Anyone who deals with the real world understands that if you're looking for the next big thing, you should look at existing technological concepts. The ones that will receive widespread adoption as costs comes down (e.g. mobile phones), or where someone figures out the "trick" (e.g. Google), and generally where it gets past the early adoptor phase. (note: situation is different if you are actually the technologist that may have had a geniues insight into a new concept)
Criticising someone for making a point in line with this is more of a comment of your smart-assedness on thinking you have such a greater vision than this guy. He says machine intelligence etc would be a good thing, but where does he say it is the only thing, or the final stage of improvement, or whatever?
On "productivity" - governments, economists, factory managers, farmers, financiers, ship builders, many technologists, etc. It's a broad concept, and the actual measure is usually defined for the case in hand. Irrespective of whether you think it's a useful term, if you've not met anyone that doesn't find it useful (that you also respect), you really need to get out more.
The author seems to be blowing her own horn (there's even the dead giveaway "I'm not blowing my own horn" line!). But rather than point out the various problems with her bullshit, let's focus on the one quantified piece of data in the article. She manages projects at an approximate rate of two per month, in addition to designing, installing and configuring systems. Clearly she can do what she does simply because the projects are so small, it's possible to get your head around them without having to do a great management job.
She says the key is to "time-slice". Presumably calling it "time management", an extremely old managerial concept, would involve admitting to herself that she's not doing anything special.
Actually, I'd say there's two key components to what she seems to do. First, and she deserves respect for this, is clearly being able to work in a number of different disciplines where others would struggle. Two, none of the individual things she does is particularly challenging, making it possible to flit about. Other managers - say someone responsible for a multi-year project - will either find it offensive or simply ridiculous for someone to imply that just being a manager isn't good enough.
It's a troll because a huge number of people (including those who have read and appreciated the books) think that Peter Jackson did a fantastic job. The word butchered implies a pretty obvious fuck up that no-one can deny, when that is clearly not the case. The "in my mind" comment lacks any information content - it could be applied no matter what Jackson did, good or bad. There is not a single piece of supporting evidence to support a negative, emotional-not-logical comment that many intelligent people disagree with. Can't get much more of a troll than that.
As for "huge liberties" and "creating fictious events" (often simply refered to as "interpretation" and "trying to stay true to the spirit of the book" etc), while it might indeed be entirely different to simply abridging the story, it is still entirely acceptable. It is commonly done in biographical dramas, let alone fictional works, as a valid dramatic technique. Don't demean yourself for disagreeing with what Jackson did by applying bullshit "I understand the characters and they don't" or "my rules are more righteous than yours" arguments.
It occurs to me that an obvious point to make is that as the world's richest man, Bill Gates is an aspirational figure for much of the US culture, especially with Warren Buffet also giving him most of his fortune to distribute. Calling money America's true religion is a cheap shot. Really it is just a common denominator in everyone's life to a greater or lesser extent (assuming you buy food, get sick and need health care on occassion, etc).
Perhaps being utterly successful and embodying the American dream is a suitable substitute for being of the faith.
It's a good point. In the main, I'm just reacting to the contention that the suggestion "just so stupid I can't place it on a scale." And of course there's Keith Ellison, first Muslim in Congress. Adams may be wrong, and I suspect he is. But it's an idea worth considering.
For instance, I find it interesting to see "female" as the top category in that poll. It's not so long ago that essential qualifiers for being president included "rich, white, male (preferably tall)". So things change, or the poll only reflects one aspect of people's voting e.g. what if the opposition can be shown to be not "otherwise well-qualified"? Adams gives a time frame of the next cycle or two i.e. ten years. Perhaps the aftermath of Iraq will be a greater acceptance of a person for their competence and character, not their religion.
On the child molestor odds:
Have you heard the stories about some Catholic priests? Or the activities of some cults? Or Michael Jackson? Hardly a scientific study, but arguably in the public mind child abuse is more likely with those who have a strong belief (however bizarre in Jackson's case...).
Irrespective of whether Adams is right or not:
Suggesting that the US electorate is more willing to vote for an atheist than a member of a religion that is (however unfairly) associated with the current war in Iraq, 9/11, etc, seems to me an entirely reasonable thing to suggest.
Why is suggesting an atheist president so stupid? Have I missed something? It seems to me Adams is simply hopeful that there might be a president who bases his decisions on facts and thinking, rather than an unaccountable belief system within a framework no one can quite agree on anyway. And again, it seems a reasonable proposition for a debate that the electorate might go for a well respected (outside of the tech community!), successful, famously philanthropic atheist before a Muslim, even if it is only for all the wrong reasons.
It's a fair point. There are always tradeoffs, and you can only take specialisation so far. Personally, I'd happily get rid of all bureaucrats - I chose my nick because I've so often been pissed off with the hoops a bad contract or bureaucratic process can force you to jump through. There are still some managers who do such a great job of managing projects / companies that all the coop model does is limit your options. I'm not saying that coops don't work, just that they are limited.
Coops are not business models for creating new things - they are a method by which a group of businesses can reduce costs by sharing a given service or infrastructure. They end up dealing with lowest common denominator type requirements. Which is fine - particularly where basic financial services are involved for instance, I find it pretty offensive by businesses get screwed over by a bank. Likewise if a group of techs can get a great hosted infrastructure at reasonable cost - if you save more helping run your own infrastructure than you could have been earning on a contract, fantastic. It's impossible to run 100% on paid contract time, so you could well have spare cycles to do so at effectively no cost.
But the "new stuff" is going to come out of the individual contracts that the freelancers win, which will apart from perhaps a minor cost factor are unlikely to be helped or hindered by the coop model. If you're going to freelance you need your support network in any case.
There's no new ideas in the article, and it doesn't relate directly to open source. You could equally apply such a model to people running systems built on Microsoft software. When the guy says effectively he's taking on the bad side of capitalism - it's just bullshit. Hopefully it's just naive, rather than willful. It doesn't strike as a new solution to the problems of capitalism.
Before I start laying into this guy, may I say I'm from Scotland and a left-wing voter. I think there's a lot to be said for socialism, social contracts, national health etc. But I'm also met any number of people who like this kind of structure primarily because it gives them a degree of power and influence that a meritocracy wouldn't. I reckon I'm a smart guy (don't we all) but when I see phrases like "we need a sea-change in civilization in order to maintain homeostasis survival" I really want to punch someone...
After RTFA, I can only say the guy is letting his self-confessed bleeding heart get in the way of clear thinking. There is nothing in the business model that is inherently open source. And cooperatives - the examples given from Canada are credit unions and wheat pools - are typically groups of people that have separate businesses or interests but benefit from some kind of shared service or infrastructure. So if, for instance, some of your best freelancers got great opportunities, they wouldn't necessarily need to use the shared infrastructure and suddenly the cooperative is weakened.
When we're talking about shared infrastructure, given the competition in e.g. hosting services, I'm not convinced a cooperative would give you any better value than a reputable company. More to the point, shared infrastructure is a way to reduce costs, not generate revenue - so where's the business model?
Also, look at the structure. The board is also the executive i.e. in terms of decision makers, there's no check and balance. The board is made of at least 60% members. Apparently the board is there in part of prevent the "fascism of the group", which apart from the telling choice of knee-jerk political wording is nonsensical. If the board is mostly comprised of group members, if the group is dominated by special interest groups there's a strong chance the board will be as well.
The board is going to end up being the most skilled individuals. Personally, I'd prefer to have the best managers running a company and the most skilled technicians doing what they do best. I've had some good managers in my time and this is the method that works. Genius programmers who would actually prefer to spend their time managing politics, feel free to disagree!
You'll probably also have the odd board member who got there through politicking, which (forgive my cynicism) often seems to me the reason why people with an interest in community based politics are so keen on it. It can act as a substitute for actual skill and clear thinking.
To paraphrase the bible, there ain't nothing new under the sun. So nothing to see here, move along...
They tried to get me for that, but fortunately I could show that I was in fact "Doing Things with Stuff".
This is utter bullshit - why has it been marked +5 insightful? I can only feel pity for those people that agree with this. The story is about a guy who kept with the same firm for 25 or so years and got to the top. That's 25 years to get a reputation, and there's an old saying that you make your own luck. Mark Hurd isn't a tech, so he didn't work for a company that sells what he did. And changing job once every 25 years doesn't sound like he has a "jump ship" philosophy.
I love the conclusion "and with that you will quickly run the company". Yeah, gee, overnight success in only 22 years, or however long it took the guy to reach the top of NCR.
An alternative perspective:
1. I think healthcare is important. I'd be proud to be doing a good job in that industry. And basically it's just really nasty advice to tell techs that they should only work for tech firms. There's many successful techs that started in finance, retail, pharmaceuticals, etc.
- only work for a company that *respects* what you do.
2. When I finished my post-grad, I joined a start up, which wasn't necessarily going to be a success. My family advised against it. And indeed, it faltered after the collapse of the tech bubble, although fortunately because we were cheap we got bought out. But I knew even if it failed I'd simply be back on the market with a good experience under my belt. As it happens, I ended up in a more senior position than taking a safe job offer.
- don't be afraid to fail or make a mistake.
3. Jump ship "if necessary", AND "do it early"? So which is it? If necessary is fine, but too much of the "do it early" and you'd have to wonder about someone's commitment. And hang on, didn't you also say "only pick sure successes"? What's going on here? Do you jump as soon as it turns out that it's not in fact a sure thing? Doesn't sound like faith or courage play a big part in your philosophy.
- believe in what you do.
(although on point 3 - do have a back up plan. Have your CV up to date. And to be fair - if necessary, jump ship.)
"Ultimately, we're trying to protect consumers from ..
- The PSP has a power supply for 100 - 240V, I'm told, and besides let's not pretend that Sony doesn't have to build all its various Playstations to be acceptable worldwide, shall we?
"is not - in PS3's case - backwards compatible with either PS1 or PS2 software"
- again, similar situation all around the world, what does this have to do with anything?
"will not play European Blu-Ray movies or DVDs"
- because YOU built in restrictions to fuck us over with!
"and will not be covered by warranty."
- strictly by your own decision, there's nothing to prevent you extending the manufacturer's warranty i.e. another way by which to fuck us over.
Perhaps a subtlety on the last point might be an expectation that a faulty unit would have to be returned to the importer - but that's the buyer's choice / risk to take. And it would be interesting if "grey" importers then found it profitable to set up local offices in rip-off parts of the world.
You know, in financial and commodity markets the principle of arbitrage is pretty well accepted. There's just no damn reason why manufacturers like Sony should be allowed to create articifical barriers to otherwise well accepted market mechanisms. As has been pointed out elsewhere, as long as people have to suck it up and bear it with market effects like outsourcing, the corporates shouldn't be able to give themselves exemptions.
Erm, I do that 2 or 3 days a week. What's the problem supposed to be?
There's already several comments here about the hassle women and/or female avatars receive. I'd just like to say, as a Scotsman who wears a kilt on occasion, that women are also a pain in the neck when they encounter someone of the opposite sex in a skirt. Men by and large have learnt not to try and put their hands up someone's skirt. Yes, I know men do this, but seriously women are worse.
Although men probably complain less when they think the kilt-lifting woman is attractive. Reciprocity is a wonderful thing. Beats trading insults as a way of flirting...
What a wonderful self-justification. The artists that you've paid money to have been paid more than enough even when you've ripped off an album, and those to whom you've paid nothing weren't up to your arbitrary standards and don't deserve any money at all. If you like an artist, and they put in the effort and expense to record an album, but you only like some of it - fuck 'em, let's rip than one for free. Hey, I went to a gig, didn't I?
Presumably you're tight for cash if you've only paid out for three bands, otherwise you really don't like music much. Because 3 bands suggests a limited taste in music, not "such a varying" one. Or maybe you simply lack any respect for the effort it can take even to produce something people don't like e.g. you don't get a refund in a restaurant just because you didn't like the chef's style. Of course, if you want to encourage mainstream middle of the road shit, rather than have artists who feel free to take risks while still wanting to make a living out of music - go right ahead.
That's not downloading illegally because it's cool - it's downloading because it's free.
"a widening [i.e. happening right now] scandal involving a possibly illegal probe" - according to this wording, she clearly didn't know they were illegal practices. You might think otherwise, but there's clearly no admission here that she knew they were illegal actions.
Personally I think she should resign from the board entirely. It's better for HP and has more dignity than basically admitting a serious error of judgement, but then clinging on by the fingernails to a place on the board. But it certainly doesn't help when the trial-by-media lynch mob shows up with biased, inaccurate interpretations of what is clearly very carefully selected language to acknowledge there is a problem without admitting definitive knowledge or culpability. That kind of reaction only encourages board members to ignore the public. If the public won't listen to what they say, why admit anything or believe in a chance of a fair hearing?
What happened when you were visited by the police? What information did you get access to? Were you convicted of an offense?
How do you make that leap of logic?
Company brings in new CEO to turn company around. He hires some people and fires others. It's 80 billion plus dollar multinational, and after two years he hasn't finished making changes. What is unusual here?
Normally when I comment in relation to HP (I'm an employee) I stay anonymous and just correct facts. ACs tend to get modded down but hey, at least that way I don't get my posts interpreted simply by what the reader thinks of HP. But typically the topic is "Alpha vs. Itanium" or somesuch where no matter anyone's claims to knowing the one shining truth, it comes down to matters of opinion (hey, I'm a software guy, what would I know...).
But this situation is different. It's truly embarassing and I hope Dunn suffers in consequence. Talking to the press is bad. Whether or not you agree, that was what the board decided. Any board member who disagrees should stand up and be counted or have the guts to resign. I get paid good money, have access to confidential information, and would like to think I have the standards to quit rather than get petty ego-boosting revenge by talking to the press. Whistle blowing bad business practice etc is noble. Leaking product roadmaps etc is just masturbating.
So Keyworth deserves to leave the board. His actions, however, just don't compare to Dunn invading the private lives of her colleagues.
HP has done a lot and does a lot to be proud of. Every once and a while a salesperson does a stupid thing or a business decision is "sub-optimal", but for instance we haven't joined the ranks of the many tech companies playing silly buggers with the financials. We've been getting our act together over the past year and a lot of us are hopeful we will become a great company again.
Then last thing before I go to bed (I'm in the UK), I hear that the board doesn't even understand that lying to get an innocent person's personal information is a bad thing. I don't care whether it's illegal or not. It's a shit thing to do. And I hate going to bed pissed off.
There's one combination of things that always makes me angry. First, acting in a clearly "bad" way - whether that's illegal, unethical, plain rude, whatever. Second, when it's also a stupid thing. What do we get for outing the leak? Not much (but there can be minor advantages to the competition being in the dark for a few months, trust me). Will the way we've behaved come to light? Of course - look at Tom Perkins letters, this eventually becomes a matter of public record via the SEC for fuck's sake! Will it be embarassing if a customer brings it up? Yes, perhaps with a financial impact, and with the story on e.g. front webpage BBC, everyone's going to know about it.
I hope they ask her to resign.
If you prefer logical arguments, perhaps you'd care to explain where you get "90% ad hominem" from? It's rather hypocritical to accuse me personally of karma whoring at the same time as accusing me of attacking the man and not the argument.
Most of my points are in response to his arguments - I do not see the value of confusing a Windows vs. OS X comparison with a personal preference for Linux, the OEM issue should not be dismissed because it is an important part of supply chain, and the emotive language he uses in describing "stupid" things such as the Dashboard suggest smugness rather than an objective evaluation. Likewise, the CPU issue is hardly a useful point on the surface, although I take on board the other poster pointing out that excessive fan noise would be of concern to the end user.
I do not attack the grandparent poster instead of making an argument. Rather, having addressed a number of points he makes, I indulge in a personal comment because frankly the smug attitude he displays is deserving of comment. As are your double standards.
Great - in a Windows vs OS X comparison, you resort to the argument that you don't use Windows or OS X because you prefer Linux; you don't think it's a problem that the out-of-box experience for Windows is poor because it's the OEM's fault (how else is a typical consumer supposed to buy one?!); you've got a smug attitude about how your set of values is more important than other users'.
Can't argue with you - you're definitely a classic early-stage techie. When I hear a end users complaining about the fact that when they leave their computer alone, it runs up a few CPU cycles, I'll start giving that kind of logic some weight.
Windows may run fine out of the box - assuming you're satisfied with the rather basic set of software Windows includes (although I guess to be fair that could lead into an interesting discussion on the legal actions MS gets into when it bundles things, anyway I digress...).
Point is, your average Windows-based system does not install simply. There's usually all sorts of bundled stuff on the desktop - when my friend got a Sony for his girlfriend, he swore never to buy a PC from them again, there was so much add-on shit. And once you get into peripherals, there's a usually a whole pile of software to install.
The whole "Windows runs fine out of the box" should come with a whole pile of caveats with respect to your technical skills, that you have either set up your own system or bought from a supplier that you knew does a good job, or even that you simply got lucky in configuring a good system.
As someone who deals with people that have "real systems" to worry about, I'm fairly sure that anyone who responds to an ill-advised marketing exercise from Sun with a "and fuck HP too"-type response isn't likely to carry much respect amongst professionals.
If you're contemplating hiring summer interns to fix bugs in an open source OS, you're simply not responsible for large, mission critical systems.
Sony's patent agent, Dr Jonathan DeVile [..] said the examiners were wrong, that the inventions cannot be a program for a computer because, in operation, there are at least two computers involved, communicating over a network.
Dear lord, what interesting hoops that man's mind must be able to jump through to earn his paycheck. Doctor of what? Some bizarre form of n-dimensional logic where if you throw your bullshit far enough it comes back as the truth?
The point is, having only two classifications of "something we understand" and "something we don't understand yet" is logically incomplete. There is also the set of "something we cannot understand". Perhaps that will in time be shown to be an empty set, but nonetheless for now it could potentially be full of many things. As you say, currently we cannot differentiate.
.. sorry I'm not familiar with the proper teachings), then the debate will rage on with anger on both sides.
To ignore the possibility that some things cannot be understood by the scientific method is an act of faith. And a particularly bloody minded one as well, because of course the poster can stay true to it until his or her deathbed, claiming that later generations will solve the problem for him. The premise cannot be proven false - this is a situation ripe for being classified as a fundamentalist belief.
I am not "assuming something is incomprehensible". I'm not saying don't conduct stem cell research. I'm just agreeing with the point of the grandparent post - that classification is an act of blind faith. It is possible that somethings may never be understood. It's pretty much guaranteed that when people supposedly in favour of the scientific method prove just as vulnerable to becoming ideologues who forget their own teachings (like Christians who have forgotten about peace, love, and understanding
I have no idea about this kind of thing. However, it could be argued that should SCO win the lawsuit, then their strategy will have been justified. If you accept that premise, then the SEC is obliged to wait until the case completes. The SEC does not have the right to take actions based on their expected outcome of a lawsuit. To do so would effectively be a summary judgement overriding the courts.
Additionally, even if the lawsuit should fail, it was public knowledge. The SEC might take the position that a sophisticated investor (which I think is their yardstick) would be expected to know that investing in a company on the basis of a single lawsuit against a large, well-reputed company is an extremely risky investment. It is not the SEC's job to stop people taking on risk, to stop idiots placing wild bets in the market place, or to decide when a stock is over-valued.
All that said, I would imagine that the conclusion of the lawsuit will provide a whole pile of information upon which it is possible to draw a conclusion as to what SCO's management was up to. They appear set to fail. The question is, will the court's conclusion suggest that they had no basis on which to start the lawsuit? If they actually had reason to start the lawsuit, but no real evidence to hope to win it, was it therefore a very risk undertaking? If so, the combination of a bad strategy (which was harmful to their main business) plus share dumping will leave them open to lawsuits and SEC investigations.
I was always a fan of BeOS. A presentation and demonstration of it was part of the interview process that got me my first consultant position. Always thought was a shame it didn't make it. Now, if that chapter is to be believed (p100 of the pdf), they could have were it not for the boss being too greedy. After managing to negotiate upwards from an initial valuation by Apple of $50m up to an offer of $200m, he still tried to get more and got no deal at all.
That's a little heart breaking, actually. I've been lucky enough to avoid the whole "my company's gone bust" thing, but what I've seen others go through isn't nice. It would really piss me off to find out that the boss, with $200m on the table and only $20m having been put into the company, still was too greedy / crap at negotiation to take it.
"Ten times return on our investment? Ha! I think we'll do better trying to compete with Microsoft in the OS market!"
Yeah, real smart...
Anyone know whether Jean-Louis Gassee really could have accepted the $200m offer and closed the deal, e.g. if even Apple didn't end up putting BeOS at the heart of their OS strategy?