Google, by going public now has to deal with the investors. They want to see cash flow increases every quarter. So, to continue revenue increases they will continuously be attempting to increase ad revenue.
Search on Windows - 10 results and 50 million ads. "Hi, have you thought about double pane windows for your home?"
Search on Linux - "Hi, have you thought about fuzzy penguin slippers for Christmas?"
Search on Cars - "Test drive the new Ford 150 today! Print this google ad and we'll give you a gallon of free gasoline"
Search on Slashdot - "Xerox - for when you want to make your own dupes"
Searching has been patented by the Lexus Nexus network. I'm sure your site license paid for the right to use the patented search technique, right?
In all seriousness now, for every section of code that I write during the day - if I were to spend an hour searching patents to make sure I don't infringe on something that just triples(or more) 99% of all software projects I've ever worked on.
My point is that the error rate within Wikipedia CAN and WILL change as contributors continously update and edit articles. This experiment was just on a few subjects but there are several news stories on Wikipedia "Graffiti".
Sure you can use the history to check what has been going on with the article however, with Britannica you don't have to! Why make things more difficult on yourself when doing research?
I agree that your sources should be looked up before relying on an encyclopedia however for children doing school reports the encyclopedia may be the primary source. Would they think to look at the edit history of the article? Would a 7th grader be such an expert on the subject that they could discern the "graffiti"?
Even though articles may be longer and that changes the ratio of errors per article Britannica, IMHO, is a much more trustworthy source of information.
With Wikipedia you have no idea how factual a posters information may be. Sure there are alot of people editing the information but you might hit the article at a point in time in which the information is incorrect.
An example is the fake posting made about the person having been investigated in the death of Kennedy. You really don't know who is posting these articles or making changes to them as they are anonymous. At least with Britannica you are assured that the information is gathered by people who get paid to do this as a job and the information is validated by fact checkers.
Wikipedia is "cool" but still a novelty to me.
I have two more words for you: Janet Reno
She turned the US Justice Department into a cluster @#@##! Elian, Waco...and no telling what else has been hidden.
It has completely gone down hill as well. Personally, music videos have gotten so stupid that I don't even care to watch them. I'd rather just switch over to the XM stations on my satellite tv for music.
Well, as long as its open and free and MA isn't paying for anything it makes sense to implement something they don't have to spend a dime for. Maybe taxes would go down if all of those free workers in MA would spread out a little more.
What I find interesting is the fact that something like this (an attitude) actually has an article in Wikipedia. If articles such as this keep embedding themselves in something so useful I think the credibility of the resource will go down.
While we're at it, lets write articles on Linux zealotry, unix outdatedness - all different viewpoints but more opinionated than factual. It can be spun either way - and if it can be spun and not objective I don't find it at all credible.
I'm not eager to discount any one. Building a country is a very tough task. However, switching software due to a "We screwed up" event is not something even remotely within the same category. Building a country is not even remotely in the safe category as 20k PCs being migrated to Linux.
Also, a lot of it depends on what you define as success. Success for one group can be an atrocity to others. I'm sure a criminal known as Hitler considered many of the things he did as success.
Best post I've ready all day. Every single one of these is a valid point and something Linux has to work to alleviate concerns about if it is going to penetrate the desktop in large organizations.
Linux pretty much has to become commercialized overall, like RedHat for companies to get the "support" safety blanket. They aren't going to listen to some guy in sandals wearing a t-shirt with a penguin on it telling them he can handle all 20k PCs.
Not only do you have to fire your support staff and re-hire people who know Linux but you have to look at the cost in regards to the new people you hire. Linux people are going to be more expensive and any cost you probably save in licensing you might end up paying in personnel.
95% of the users in corporate America don't "need" Linux. Most don't even know what it is! Most own Windows PCs at home so they can transfer work back and forth easily as well as have consistency.
Personally, I have never worked in a company - as a FTE or as a consultant that wrote desktop software with cross platform availability in mind. The mentality is always do it fast, do it as cheap as possible with as little problems as possible. If you bring up,"In 10 years you might want to move to Linux so we're going to write everything in perl and java - it will take us a little longer, dev rates will be a little more expensive and your current infrastructure doesn't support some of the things we need to do to make it work - but you will thank us in 10 years" That just won't be acceptable to the people signing off on the projects, paying the checks and running the show.
Slashdot Mirror
Your humor algorithm sucks, it was a joke - not something serious.
Google, by going public now has to deal with the investors. They want to see cash flow increases every quarter. So, to continue revenue increases they will continuously be attempting to increase ad revenue.
Search on Windows - 10 results and 50 million ads. "Hi, have you thought about double pane windows for your home?"
Search on Linux - "Hi, have you thought about fuzzy penguin slippers for Christmas?"
Search on Cars - "Test drive the new Ford 150 today! Print this google ad and we'll give you a gallon of free gasoline"
Search on Slashdot - "Xerox - for when you want to make your own dupes"
Glad he's on top of things. Can we vote to impeach him? I'd rather see Cmdr Burrito posting instead.
And with google's new technology, we won't even have to go the library!
So, I guess thats why we have Linux in various distros and Unix in various flavors.
No one knows what the hell their doing!
Searching has been patented by the Lexus Nexus network. I'm sure your site license paid for the right to use the patented search technique, right?
In all seriousness now, for every section of code that I write during the day - if I were to spend an hour searching patents to make sure I don't infringe on something that just triples(or more) 99% of all software projects I've ever worked on.
"...as a result of an ACLU lawsuit"
Seems to me actions by the ACLU end up causing society to be more restrictive than before.
My point is that the error rate within Wikipedia CAN and WILL change as contributors continously update and edit articles. This experiment was just on a few subjects but there are several news stories on Wikipedia "Graffiti".
Sure you can use the history to check what has been going on with the article however, with Britannica you don't have to! Why make things more difficult on yourself when doing research?
I agree that your sources should be looked up before relying on an encyclopedia however for children doing school reports the encyclopedia may be the primary source. Would they think to look at the edit history of the article? Would a 7th grader be such an expert on the subject that they could discern the "graffiti"?
Even though articles may be longer and that changes the ratio of errors per article Britannica, IMHO, is a much more trustworthy source of information. With Wikipedia you have no idea how factual a posters information may be. Sure there are alot of people editing the information but you might hit the article at a point in time in which the information is incorrect. An example is the fake posting made about the person having been investigated in the death of Kennedy. You really don't know who is posting these articles or making changes to them as they are anonymous. At least with Britannica you are assured that the information is gathered by people who get paid to do this as a job and the information is validated by fact checkers. Wikipedia is "cool" but still a novelty to me.
I thought the Xenu menance was take care of trillions of billions of years ago? Someone get Dr. Cruise on the phone!!!!
I have two more words for you: Janet Reno She turned the US Justice Department into a cluster @#@##! Elian, Waco...and no telling what else has been hidden.
Yea, this is more of a dig at SOE than anything else. "Move along...."
It has completely gone down hill as well. Personally, music videos have gotten so stupid that I don't even care to watch them. I'd rather just switch over to the XM stations on my satellite tv for music.
I'd rather have software written in a garage any way.
Really, talk about innovation! These guys are on the ball.
Well, as long as its open and free and MA isn't paying for anything it makes sense to implement something they don't have to spend a dime for. Maybe taxes would go down if all of those free workers in MA would spread out a little more.
Same here so you're not the only one. I think someone is just trying to find a entry point into ranting about OpenDoc and MA.
What I find interesting is the fact that something like this (an attitude) actually has an article in Wikipedia. If articles such as this keep embedding themselves in something so useful I think the credibility of the resource will go down. While we're at it, lets write articles on Linux zealotry, unix outdatedness - all different viewpoints but more opinionated than factual. It can be spun either way - and if it can be spun and not objective I don't find it at all credible.
Some stupid flash advertisement at the top of a PDF document advertising some "new" buzz wordy business solution I.....am.....going.....to.....SCREAM!
Go on a "trip" I suppose.
You must own a Honda Accord.
I'm not eager to discount any one. Building a country is a very tough task. However, switching software due to a "We screwed up" event is not something even remotely within the same category. Building a country is not even remotely in the safe category as 20k PCs being migrated to Linux. Also, a lot of it depends on what you define as success. Success for one group can be an atrocity to others. I'm sure a criminal known as Hitler considered many of the things he did as success.
That's so old I can smell the moth balls through my screen.
Best post I've ready all day. Every single one of these is a valid point and something Linux has to work to alleviate concerns about if it is going to penetrate the desktop in large organizations. Linux pretty much has to become commercialized overall, like RedHat for companies to get the "support" safety blanket. They aren't going to listen to some guy in sandals wearing a t-shirt with a penguin on it telling them he can handle all 20k PCs. Not only do you have to fire your support staff and re-hire people who know Linux but you have to look at the cost in regards to the new people you hire. Linux people are going to be more expensive and any cost you probably save in licensing you might end up paying in personnel. 95% of the users in corporate America don't "need" Linux. Most don't even know what it is! Most own Windows PCs at home so they can transfer work back and forth easily as well as have consistency. Personally, I have never worked in a company - as a FTE or as a consultant that wrote desktop software with cross platform availability in mind. The mentality is always do it fast, do it as cheap as possible with as little problems as possible. If you bring up,"In 10 years you might want to move to Linux so we're going to write everything in perl and java - it will take us a little longer, dev rates will be a little more expensive and your current infrastructure doesn't support some of the things we need to do to make it work - but you will thank us in 10 years" That just won't be acceptable to the people signing off on the projects, paying the checks and running the show.
I don't so it's hard for me to understand what you mean.