I agree that Mandrake is probably "closest to getting to mainstream" if you define that as the home/soho user. If you're talking about corporate America, however, I think RedHat still has that market pretty well locked up right now.
Mandrake has a great distro, but their sales and marketing tactics are a little too "consumerish" for the business world.
AKA. We're low on funds, so let's petition our membership with spam-like emails begging for contributions. Hey, wait, we'll make a little "club" so people feel good about contributing to us! We'll even throw in single-user licensed of some commercial software like StarOffice! Now, let's try to sell some stocks in our company since we can show how our revenues are up. Yeah, I know - we're not listed on any major stock exchange (yet)... but nevermind that. Buy it anyway and we'll get listed eventually! Really, we will!
Meanwhile, RedHat has most of the deals inked to come pre-installed on name-brand servers when you order them with Linux.
If you're having issues with a dual 1800+ system not being able to burn CDs on an IDE burner while multitasking - you have a configuration problem!
While I, too, rather liked good quality SCSI CD burners, I've come to the conclusion that they've come a LONG way with EIDE models - to the point where they're every bit as good for 99% of the situations out there.
The main reason I see an EIDE CD burner work poorly is because the user placed it on the same IDE ribbon cable as the device he/she wants to transfer files from, to the burner.
Remember, with IDE, both "master" and "slave" devices on a single ribbon cable are going to be sharing the same IRQ and I/O transfer addresses.
Therefore, if you want to do a lot of copying of existing CD-ROM discs to blank CDs, you *don't* want to put an IDE CD-ROM reader on the same ribbon cable that your IDE writer is on!
By the same token, if you're trying to make a CD (expecially "on-the-fly") from files stored on an IDE hard drive, you'll get better results if your IDE burner isn't sharing the ribbon cable with that IDE hard drive.
IMHO, the most flexible setup is using a SCSI CD-ROM (or DVD-ROM) reader, coupled with an EIDE CD writer, and IDE hard drives. Alternately, if you have a system with EIDE RAID, you can already place your IDE drives on seperate channels from your regular 2 IDE ribbon cables.
Right! Gartner Group information is pretty suspect, IMHO. It's not that they just make the stuff up -- but they seem to query the wrong people for some of their statistics and jump to incorrect conclusions based on the data they gather.
It's pretty standard fare in the world of I.T. publications though. I see more of the same in all of the "news articles" in these free ZDNet trade publications (eWeek, Internet Week, etc.)
They interview management and project managers instead of the techies, and write sweeping blanket statements based on their (typically generalized) comments.
Actually, if I had to pull a number off of top of my head for what the PC market sales figures will be by 2008, I'd say you'll see sustained sales at roughly the same rate PCs have sold between 1996 and the present.
Just about everyone who currently owns a PC right now will either be getting rid of it, or in most cases, upgrading/replacing it with a newer model, within the next 6 years. I think the PC market is about as saturated as it's going to get. Despite other countries that might be "late to the party" finally buying PCs, you also have a *lot* of market dilution. Things that used to require a PC can be accomplished with combination devices like cellphones and PDAs. Some folks bought their last PC just to get on AOL and check email. This time around, they might do that on their phone instead.
Also, as computer power increases, it reduces the need for the home "power user" to own 3 or 4 computers. (A lot of us own at least 2 PCs because we're still trying to squeeze some usefulness out of at least one of them that's older and underpowered. It might not be capable of playing games, so we make it a dedicated CD burning station or something. Newer systems can do both at once with no real problems.)
Yeah, actually - as I understood it, the problem with phones appearing on multiple cell towers and causing network problems was a real event with analog cellphones. When they went to digital networks, this was taken care of.
I heard one story of a guy flying in a private plane who used his analog cellphone to make a call. The call went through just fine, but when his bill came at the end of the month, he was triple-charged for roaming calls made at the same time.
Honestly, the issue I think needs addressing is the blatant throwing away of money by the United States to other countries for dubious purposes.
EG. George Bush signing off on sending Africa $500 billion for AIDS research last week.
When you look at money as simply an aid in exchanging goods or services - the fractional reserve banking system doesn't cause so many "real world" issues. Where it breaks down, IMO, is when you start shipping off funds to other countries with no hope of an eventual payback, and you don't receive anything of value in return. Each time this is done, the strength of the nation as a whole is sapped.
I can see how the current system ensures the continuation of inflation over time - but to me, the more important thing is whether or not the nation retains its real wealth. The dollar figures are just numbers, and it doesn't ultimately matter if a loaf of bread costs 25 cents or $2.25 - as long as the average citizen is paid a salary that's equivalent. We only get screwed when we export some of our funds from the govt. citizen loop by giving it away to another nation for worthless causes.
IMHO, it's very much a non-issue if redirection to another web page upsets the author of the original page. As a web user, it's your duty to learn the basics of its structure.
One of the primary concepts of the WWW is hyperlinking. By its very nature, it can be done by any site, to any site. An extension of this concept is web page re-direction. To blindly make an assumption that an unprofessional sounding domain name linked to a company's competitor was initally created by the first company is foolish.
Could this mistake still happen? Oh, absolutely! Should a company like Ford waste any time worrying about it? Nope! Once the user gets redirected to Ford's own web site - the site should speak for itself. If Ford's own site doesn't vouch for their professional nature and interest a reader in purchasing/leasing one of their vehicles - then the problem is entirely on Ford.
(I'm not arguing that the "under God" part belongs in there. Personally, I feel that it doesn't. I also realize that Einsenhower probably thought it was little more than a harmless gesture to have that added. Apparently, he sided with the Knight of Columbus's opinion that it made a nice addition to remind everyone that we should always be humble - and realize that our country, however powerful, was not the "end all, be all" by itself. Obviously though, people are reading a lot more than that into it, and it's offending people.)
When I say "I can see it both ways", I mean this: None of us are being forced to remain U.S. citizens. Sure, we're born into the country, and we can't do much about that. But as we grow up, we have the ability to make choices. I think most of us feel rather comfortable in the U.S. -- at least enough that we don't want to move elsewhere. If we're going to keep our citizenship, then we should also be willing to agree to pledge our support for the system we live under. In other words, don't blindly accept things government does that you believe are wrong. Use the rights you've been granted (freedom of speech, freedom of the press, etc.) to speak out and try to get these things changed. Vote, too.
I see the "Pledge of Allegiance" as nothing more than that.... a publically recited promise (and reminder) to do our part as a U.S. citizen. Don't forget the last part of that pledge. It's referring to "liberty and justice for all". Who among us can say we don't want those things?
But, on the other hand, part of the very nature of our freedoms and rights in the U.S. includes the ability to choose not to recite such a thing. If you choose not to - I'm happy to defend that decision too. I just think maybe people look at it in the wrong light sometimes.
Uh, actually - no, I don't think your argument would hold a lot of proverbial water.
It's a nice try... But the mere fact that government mints currency as our official form of "legal tender for all debts, public and private" could mean they can't go around printing references to a god on it.
True, you're not forced to use cash. These days, people do it less and less. But still, you're not offered any other choices in U.S. currency. It's not like postage stamps, where many different designs are printed and you can pick the type you prefer to stick onto your envelopes.
Well, actually - I suspect the founding fathers would have no real problem with the general idea of the pledge. After all, they put in quite a bit of effort to establish the form of government we still have today.
They weren't anarchists... They weren't proposing that everyone rebel from governmnet on a daily basis. They simply envisioned putting a fair and just form of governmnet in place, that was as non-intrusive as possible.
What they probably *would* be quite upset with is the way our legal system has twisted the meaning of parts of the Constitution in order to give government many additional powers it was never intended to have.
Uh, really, I think the guy was just trying to make a joke...
But seriously, regarding the backing of U.S. dollars and coins - I'm not sure that the old idea of backing it in gold is very practical. (Gold is heavy and takes up lots of space, among other problems.)
Still, we've transitioned to a system where currency is based completely on trust, as opposed to being based in the reality that our governmnet is "good" for every dollar and coin they mint.
Does it happen to benefit our economy? Yeah, sure, as long as everyone is confident that our govt. is stable and not in jeopardy of toppling. I think it's fair to say that we've generally been a society that's been confident of that ever since the time of the Civil War.
Nonetheless, it's worth considering that many powerful governments in history have fallen (AKA. Rome). There's no guarantee that the U.S. won't do the same someday....
Therefore, if things start looking more uncertain for our nation in the future, the citizens would be wise to start demanding financial backing of some kind to their money.
Yeah, I tend to agree with the original poster (although I can't really speak for why PVR's aren't available at Best Buy and the like -- maybe they are just always running out of stock?).
I'm starting to get really touchy about paying any more money out for subscription type services, and that's a big reason why I haven't bought a PVR. In today's society, we're expected to spend an awful large chunk of our monthly income on services. When you sit down and look where your money is going, it's rather scary.
I'm paying out $50 a month for my DSL circuit, another $30-50 for my analog phone line it runs through, $30 a month for my cellphone (more if I use it too much), $25 a month for my DirecTV subscription, $10 a month for a basic "EasyNews" subscription so I can download binaries from Usenet reliably and quickly, and am doing a free trial of the $19.95 per month NetFlix service to rent DVD movies by mail. Of course, none of this includes the "essential" utilities like gas, electricity, water, sewer, and trash pickup -- which are still services that disappear as soon as you quit paying for them.
Everything's always "only $10 a month!" or whatever, and before you know it - you're talking thousands a year in these non-essential services, chipping away at your income.
IMHO, the PVR thing is a neat idea - but really, could have been implemented a lot better if they got "buy-in" from the TV/cable/satellite networks. They cold broadcast some hidden data along with their signals that PVRs pick up -- eliminating the need for a service run by the PVR makers to give them their "brains".
Actually, I think it's a teriffic idea - if you can pull it off. For years, I've wished I could open up some type of online store and earn enough money with it to make it a living. It never seemed very realistic though. I don't have the starting capital to buy much inventory to sell, and I can't think of any category of product that someone else isn't already selling online for great prices.
eBay, on the other hand, allows someone to sell an endless variety of items from a central site that's guaranteed to get more potential buyers viewing a given listing than almost any other method.
People can and do make livings off eBay. I've seen these folks interviewed on the news before. Typically, they specialize in some sort of collectible or craft; items that have very high profit margins and low production costs.
So no, you probably won't have much of a life if you try to live off of selling used computers on eBay... If you build you own unique furniture though, you just might have something.
Ehh... about choice number 1 in your list; only if you're REAL lucky.
I originally had a Phillips DVD+RW drive, and quickly learned it wasn't compatible with anything but itself, and some of the DVD-ROM drives in computers out there. I returned it promptly.
Then, I read all the hype about the Pioneer A03 (and now A04) being the only sensible choice, since the write-once DVD-R media it burns is much more compatible with the average set-top DVD player.
I bought my A03, and while the drive seems to be great quality -- I haven't had any luck making a DVD movie that plays on anything other than a computer's DVD-ROM drive.
My Sony Playstation 2 makes a pretty valiant effort to play the DVD-R movies - but they seem to start getting read errors as you near the end of the disc. This is really frustrating when you're watching a 90 min. long or so movie, and right when it hits the action-packed climax - it stutters and quits playing with an "invalid media" message on the screen!
I also own a Samsung set-top DVD player (the model 812). It refuses to play anything on DVD-R discs I create. It seems to read the disc and recognize it as valid - but then it typically gets errors trying to bring up the initial menu screens. If you ignore that and press PLAY, it starts playing but skips large portions of the movie, freezes occasionally, and the sound stutters.
In my experience so far, the people tabulating lists of which DVD players are "compatible" are simply dropping DVD-R discs in the devices and seeing if it recognizes them as a movie. That's only the first part of the battle, folks. If it can't play the entire movie error-free, what's the use?
Bleah.... We came up with this exact same idea several years ago when we were sitting around, talking about future technologies we'd probably see for sale.
In fact, I also pointed out (to the software developer I was discussing this with) that although they'll probably sell the bar code scanning thing - users won't find it very friendly to work with, and it will eventually fail.
(For the fridge to keep up-to-date on what it's stocked with, you have to manually scan in each and every item you add to it. I don't know about you, but that's the last thing I feel like doing after I just got home from the store, with bags full of groceries to put away. Have you ever seen one of those bar code wands read your UPC codes perfectly on the first try, every time? I haven't. People will get pissed when that odd-shaped package requires 7 attempts to get it to register.)
You know what I do think would sell though? A soda dispensing option on the front, where they put the ice-maker and water dispenser. They should let home users purchase the large bags of syrup and rechargeable CO2 cylinders that the stores use for fountain beverages, and attach them to the fridge. In the long run, it would save a *lot* of money on soda, eliminate the need to throw away or recycle a bunch of cans or bottles, save space in the fridge for other things, and never have to worry about your open 2 litre bottle losing its fizz.
This guy makes a universal reader for pretty much all makes and models of vehicles, for under $150. This link specifically mentions his version that runs on a Palmpilot - but he also has one for PCs running Windows. I use his "beta" version on a laptop in Windows with my Toyota Supra twin-turbo and it works quite well. Not only lets you see what those "check engine light" trouble codes really are, but lets you reset them, watch your O2 sensor and engine timing, and other nifty stuff.
I used mine to determine that I had an O2 sensor starting to go bad.
Wow - lots of interesting comments posted here, and some things to think about.
I'm starting to come to the conclusion that perhaps the most valuable thing about a project manager is the way they act as the "shield", protecting a group from becoming the direct pawn of an upper-level management person (CEO, VP, or what-have-you).
I can recall a situation with a previous employer where the software development dept. used to be pretty much directly controlled by the company president. Eventually, some things got restructured, and a person was assigned as a project manager over their department.
They didn't really like this, because they felt like the guy was technically clueless and just more middle-management wastefulness. (In fact, both of these things were arguably true, to an extent.) The interesting thing, though, is the department started becoming more focused on completing the development tasks that the *users* wanted, vs. only working on the "pet projects" the company president envisioned.
I've been tempted to get into project management before. (Especially after talking with a few of my buddies who came from tech. backgrounds, and now swear that project management is such a great career move for them. Better pay, more respect, etc.) Honestly, I think it requires a completely different skillset - and it's too bad so many places treat it like a "promotion" from a tech. position. IMHO, there's no reason at all to pay these guys *more* than your tech. workers.
People with good technical skills should try to continue to work where they can put those skills to the best use. Trying to become a "technical project manager" is only going to make you slowly lose your technical edge, and spend half your time doing things you don't enjoy - like building time-management charts and sitting in boring meetings.
Hmm.... now that's a possibility I didn't consider, and you may be right. I sure hope not. I *hope* IBM is smart enough to realize their laptops command a premium price and are highly regarded BECAUSE they engineer them to superior quality standards. They innovate, when everyone else is imitating. (Remember the "butterfly keyboard" that folded out when you opened the lid of a Thinkpad? Remember the built-in keyboard light on a few models? And love it or hate it, didn't they bring a whole new mouse technology to the laptop world with the eraser-point? Aren't they doing new things now with secure encryption chips integrated into their laptops?)
If they opt to use cheap generic laptop parts, they eliminate the only real reason to keep buying Thinkpads in the first place.
Actually, I'd bet it's not a "poor choice" at all, from their standpoint. The majority of their customers are business users who are sold on Linux because it provides them a cost-savings and increase in efficiency. Loading Linux on corporate laptops has yet to accomplish either of these things for anyone I know.
(Sure, sure - someone on here can probably drag out an isolated case where Linux is used daily on laptops, and with great success. I'm talking about the 99.5% of corporations today - not the.5% of the exceptions. That's what IBM is obviously concerned with too.)
Loading an OS like Linux on your laptop has always been sort of a "geeky power-user" thing to do. Mainstream support for that isn't really ready yet, IMO.
Unix has traditionally been a *server OS*, and attempts to make it do anything else are much more recent/modern - and not as "proven". Let's face it, we can't even get a simply majority of users out there to run something like KDE or Gnome on a full-blown desktop workstation yet. The laptop is the last terrority to be conquerored.
Uh, now *you're* the one coming off as an "anti-Linux zealot". Not sure what your OS of choice is. Obviously neither Microsoft *or* Linux, and it sounds like not BeOS or OS/2 either.
Therefore, I'm guessing you're either a Solaris junkie, or a frustrated BSD user who hates the fact that Linux steals the spotlight away from them so often.
Since you automatically find fault with OS/2 and BeOS for their "proprietary nature" - I'm thinking you probably prefer BSD.
Anyway - I stand by my original statement. Linux is quickly becoming the only option left other than Microsoft for a viable x86 OS.
Apple could add an interesting twist to things by releasing an x86 version of MacOS - IMHO. But I'd also be willing to wager they'll never do it. Why? Because that would instantly devalue/invalidate all of their hardware. (Why pay a premium for a proprietary Mac when you can run the same thing faster on a late-model x86 processor?)
BTW, I never discounted BSD at all. I just question its ability to be competitive at this point in the game. By the very nature of its licensing, people can easily take portions of its code for their use in any other project they like. While that's great from a philosophical standpoint, and will keep it strong and viable with certain sectors - it also nullifys its significance as a stand-alone OS choice.
AKA. "My company, Widgets, Inc. - sees no point in implementing BSD Unix. We're already using the advantageous portions of their networking code as built-in firmware in our routers. All the applications can run under Linux. In fact, my copies of Windows NT use many of their command line utilities, ported directly over from their source code. If I want to buy commercial support, it's available from a number of vendors with Linux. Not so with BSD."
Just from the small list you gave of cost vs. box-office performance, you can start to see a trend.
The movies costing more to make than their theater revenue are all relatively "modern" sounding - with no recognizable Disney characters featured in the titles.
In fact, isn't it "Lilo & Stitch" that has an AC/DC song in its soundtrack now? It seemed to me that ever since Aladdin came out, Disney was trying to change their animations to become more "hip" and "modern" - and I'm not sure it's paying off for them.
Lots of grandparents are the ones buying those tickets to the Disney movies, and many of them don't want to pay to see some title with characters they've never hesrd of before from movies or books, with hard rock music blaring in the background. Tarzan, they can relate to. They know the original story and characters and know basically what to expect. (And look, it's one of the recent Disney releases that turned a profit at the box office.) Hercules almost broke-even, and I'd say that makes sense. People have heard of Hercules, but don't necessarily visualize a "classic tale" for the little ones when they think of him. Hercules certainly has none of the "cute appeal" of 101 Dalmations....
Right now, the fragmentation of the Unix market makes it far too difficult to hire people.
Say company A uses all HPUX, and company B uses AIX. You have lots of Linux experience, but try getting anything other than an "entry level" job at either company A or B. You're not likely to get hired. This seems rather silly - because someone with Unix talent should be able to make good use of it on any Unix platform.
Nonetheless, companies screen based on keywords, and if the H.R. people don't see HPUX or AIX on that resume someplace - it's probably getting passed over.
Surely, there are advantages to some of these Unix variants. (Take the claim that IRIX is superior at handling multimedia, mentioned above.) Still - to compete with a giant like Microsoft, you really need to consolidate your resources. If everyone develops for Linux instead of developing for 10 different commercial flavors of Unix that are slowly dying, Unix will come out much stronger in the end.
It's interesting... My wife just mentioned a day or two ago that Disney was laying off hundreds of animators. Reason given? They had too many people drawing animations by hand, and didn't need all of them anymore.
Looks like the switch to more computer-generated animation is primarily cost-motivated. (We can crank out movies much more quickly if we computerize as much of it as possible.)
Very good post, BTW... All I was going to add is that arguably, a "technical merit" of a platform is the ability to run the widest range of software applications available.
It's probably for this reason, alone, that MS products still get entrenched in new business start-ups. Say you need a really powerful accounting/financial package. In Linux, what do you go with? I know there are a few packages around for small or medium-sized businesses, but what if you're larger than that? Perhaps, if things were really based completely on "technical merits" - you'd just hire devlopers and write your own. Realistically though, almost every large business will instead choose one of the big ERP packages made to run in the Windows environment, or go with something for an AS/400.
As someone who has worked for years in a "Microsoft shop", and also been a Linux user at home for even longer - I think everything has its place.
When an old friend of mine started up a business as a local ISP, I remember him wanting to go with Linux for everything. Everyone else running a similar ISP recommended OpenBSD instead. (Something about it being better at handling concurrent tasks when you start getting hundreds of simultaneous users, and arguably more efficient TCP/IP and routing capabilities.)
In the end, he stuck with Linux, mostly because he was more familiar with it - and was confident it would suit his needs reasonably well. As far as I know, he still uses Linux today and it gets the job done - but he did have some hassles that only got fixed with newer Linux kernel versions over the years.
Many MS shops are this way too. They've been told numerous times that Linux servers are better solutions, and in fact, they don't dispute it. They simply opt to deal with the "devil they know" instead of the unknown. Hundreds of thousands of businesses "get the job done" every day on MS software, despite all the bugs, security issues, and expense.
What some people perceive as being a "Linux Zealot" is often a frustrated systems admin trying to drive the point home that it's worth the trouble to learn something new and throw out the existing, even though it "gets the job done".
Right now, if you don't go with MS products, you are in a "any color you want, as long as it's black" type of world. Linux is currently the only other viable operating system that runs on a PC platform, in many cases. (Apologies to the BSD guys here - but BSD is a lot more conservative in their hardware support. Sometimes it just won't run all the peripherals or newer hardware you own, making it an unworkable option.)
We had BeOS - but it's dead. We had OS/2 - but it's dead. We still have Mac OS, but it's proprietary.
You know, there are *still* a few people out there supporting the Tandy Color Computers - but mostly, it's become possible to use them through emulation. That's primarily why I don't mind having sold all my old "CoCo" stuff.
Slashdot Mirror
I agree that Mandrake is probably "closest to getting to mainstream" if you define that as the home/soho user. If you're talking about corporate America, however, I think RedHat still has that market pretty well locked up right now.
Mandrake has a great distro, but their sales and marketing tactics are a little too "consumerish" for the business world.
AKA. We're low on funds, so let's petition our membership with spam-like emails begging for contributions. Hey, wait, we'll make a little "club" so people feel good about contributing to us! We'll even throw in single-user licensed of some commercial software like StarOffice! Now, let's try to sell some stocks in our company since we can show how our revenues are up. Yeah, I know - we're not listed on any major stock exchange (yet)... but nevermind that. Buy it anyway and we'll get listed eventually! Really, we will!
Meanwhile, RedHat has most of the deals inked to come pre-installed on name-brand servers when you order them with Linux.
If you're having issues with a dual 1800+ system not being able to burn CDs on an IDE burner while multitasking - you have a configuration problem!
While I, too, rather liked good quality SCSI CD burners, I've come to the conclusion that they've come a LONG way with EIDE models - to the point where they're every bit as good for 99% of the situations out there.
The main reason I see an EIDE CD burner work poorly is because the user placed it on the same IDE ribbon cable as the device he/she wants to transfer files from, to the burner.
Remember, with IDE, both "master" and "slave" devices on a single ribbon cable are going to be sharing the same IRQ and I/O transfer addresses.
Therefore, if you want to do a lot of copying of existing CD-ROM discs to blank CDs, you *don't* want to put an IDE CD-ROM reader on the same ribbon cable that your IDE writer is on!
By the same token, if you're trying to make a CD (expecially "on-the-fly") from files stored on an IDE hard drive, you'll get better results if your IDE burner isn't sharing the ribbon cable with that IDE hard drive.
IMHO, the most flexible setup is using a SCSI CD-ROM (or DVD-ROM) reader, coupled with an EIDE CD writer, and IDE hard drives. Alternately, if you have a system with EIDE RAID, you can already place your IDE drives on seperate channels from your regular 2 IDE ribbon cables.
Right! Gartner Group information is pretty suspect, IMHO. It's not that they just make the stuff up -- but they seem to query the wrong people for some of their statistics and jump to incorrect conclusions based on the data they gather.
It's pretty standard fare in the world of I.T. publications though. I see more of the same in all of the "news articles" in these free ZDNet trade publications (eWeek, Internet Week, etc.)
They interview management and project managers instead of the techies, and write sweeping blanket statements based on their (typically generalized) comments.
Actually, if I had to pull a number off of top of my head for what the PC market sales figures will be by 2008, I'd say you'll see sustained sales at roughly the same rate PCs have sold between 1996 and the present.
Just about everyone who currently owns a PC right now will either be getting rid of it, or in most cases, upgrading/replacing it with a newer model, within the next 6 years. I think the PC market is about as saturated as it's going to get. Despite other countries that might be "late to the party" finally buying PCs, you also have a *lot* of market dilution. Things that used to require a PC can be accomplished with combination devices like cellphones and PDAs. Some folks bought their last PC just to get on AOL and check email. This time around, they might do that on their phone instead.
Also, as computer power increases, it reduces the need for the home "power user" to own 3 or 4 computers. (A lot of us own at least 2 PCs because we're still trying to squeeze some usefulness out of at least one of them that's older and underpowered. It might not be capable of playing games, so we make it a dedicated CD burning station or something. Newer systems can do both at once with no real problems.)
Yeah, actually - as I understood it, the problem with phones appearing on multiple cell towers and causing network problems was a real event with analog cellphones. When they went to digital networks, this was taken care of.
I heard one story of a guy flying in a private plane who used his analog cellphone to make a call. The call went through just fine, but when his bill came at the end of the month, he was triple-charged for roaming calls made at the same time.
Honestly, the issue I think needs addressing is the blatant throwing away of money by the United States to other countries for dubious purposes.
EG. George Bush signing off on sending Africa $500 billion for AIDS research last week.
When you look at money as simply an aid in exchanging goods or services - the fractional reserve banking system doesn't cause so many "real world" issues. Where it breaks down, IMO, is when you start shipping off funds to other countries with no hope of an eventual payback, and you don't receive anything of value in return. Each time this is done, the strength of the nation as a whole is sapped.
I can see how the current system ensures the continuation of inflation over time - but to me, the more important thing is whether or not the nation retains its real wealth. The dollar figures are just numbers, and it doesn't ultimately matter if a loaf of bread costs 25 cents or $2.25 - as long as the average citizen is paid a salary that's equivalent. We only get screwed when we export some of our funds from the govt. citizen loop by giving it away to another nation for worthless causes.
IMHO, it's very much a non-issue if redirection to another web page upsets the author of the original page. As a web user, it's your duty to learn the basics of its structure.
One of the primary concepts of the WWW is hyperlinking. By its very nature, it can be done by any site, to any site. An extension of this concept is web page re-direction. To blindly make an assumption that an unprofessional sounding domain name linked to a company's competitor was initally created by the first company is foolish.
Could this mistake still happen? Oh, absolutely! Should a company like Ford waste any time worrying about it? Nope! Once the user gets redirected to Ford's own web site - the site should speak for itself. If Ford's own site doesn't vouch for their professional nature and interest a reader in purchasing/leasing one of their vehicles - then the problem is entirely on Ford.
Yeah... I can actually see it both ways.
(I'm not arguing that the "under God" part belongs in there. Personally, I feel that it doesn't. I also realize that Einsenhower probably thought it was little more than a harmless gesture to have that added. Apparently, he sided with the Knight of Columbus's opinion that it made a nice addition to remind everyone that we should always be humble - and realize that our country, however powerful, was not the "end all, be all" by itself. Obviously though, people are reading a lot more than that into it, and it's offending people.)
When I say "I can see it both ways", I mean this: None of us are being forced to remain U.S. citizens. Sure, we're born into the country, and we can't do much about that. But as we grow up, we have the ability to make choices. I think most of us feel rather comfortable in the U.S. -- at least enough that we don't want to move elsewhere. If we're going to keep our citizenship, then we should also be willing to agree to pledge our support for the system we live under. In other words, don't blindly accept things government does that you believe are wrong. Use the rights you've been granted (freedom of speech, freedom of the press, etc.) to speak out and try to get these things changed. Vote, too.
I see the "Pledge of Allegiance" as nothing more than that.... a publically recited promise (and reminder) to do our part as a U.S. citizen. Don't forget the last part of that pledge. It's referring to "liberty and justice for all". Who among us can say we don't want those things?
But, on the other hand, part of the very nature of our freedoms and rights in the U.S. includes the ability to choose not to recite such a thing. If you choose not to - I'm happy to defend that decision too. I just think maybe people look at it in the wrong light sometimes.
- Tom
Uh, actually - no, I don't think your argument would hold a lot of proverbial water.
It's a nice try... But the mere fact that government mints currency as our official form of "legal tender for all debts, public and private" could mean they can't go around printing references to a god on it.
True, you're not forced to use cash. These days, people do it less and less. But still, you're not offered any other choices in U.S. currency. It's not like postage stamps, where many different designs are printed and you can pick the type you prefer to stick onto your envelopes.
Well, actually - I suspect the founding fathers would have no real problem with the general idea of the pledge. After all, they put in quite a bit of effort to establish the form of government we still have today.
They weren't anarchists... They weren't proposing that everyone rebel from governmnet on a daily basis. They simply envisioned putting a fair and just form of governmnet in place, that was as non-intrusive as possible.
What they probably *would* be quite upset with is the way our legal system has twisted the meaning of parts of the Constitution in order to give government many additional powers it was never intended to have.
Uh, really, I think the guy was just trying to make a joke...
But seriously, regarding the backing of U.S. dollars and coins - I'm not sure that the old idea of backing it in gold is very practical. (Gold is heavy and takes up lots of space, among other problems.)
Still, we've transitioned to a system where currency is based completely on trust, as opposed to being based in the reality that our governmnet is "good" for every dollar and coin they mint.
Does it happen to benefit our economy? Yeah, sure, as long as everyone is confident that our govt. is stable and not in jeopardy of toppling. I think it's fair to say that we've generally been a society that's been confident of that ever since the time of the Civil War.
Nonetheless, it's worth considering that many powerful governments in history have fallen (AKA. Rome). There's no guarantee that the U.S. won't do the same someday....
Therefore, if things start looking more uncertain for our nation in the future, the citizens would be wise to start demanding financial backing of some kind to their money.
Yeah, I tend to agree with the original poster (although I can't really speak for why PVR's aren't available at Best Buy and the like -- maybe they are just always running out of stock?).
I'm starting to get really touchy about paying any more money out for subscription type services, and that's a big reason why I haven't bought a PVR. In today's society, we're expected to spend an awful large chunk of our monthly income on services. When you sit down and look where your money is going, it's rather scary.
I'm paying out $50 a month for my DSL circuit, another $30-50 for my analog phone line it runs through, $30 a month for my cellphone (more if I use it too much), $25 a month for my DirecTV subscription, $10 a month for a basic "EasyNews" subscription so I can download binaries from Usenet reliably and quickly, and am doing a free trial of the $19.95 per month NetFlix service to rent DVD movies by mail. Of course, none of this includes the "essential" utilities like gas, electricity, water, sewer, and trash pickup -- which are still services that disappear as soon as you quit paying for them.
Everything's always "only $10 a month!" or whatever, and before you know it - you're talking thousands a year in these non-essential services, chipping away at your income.
IMHO, the PVR thing is a neat idea - but really, could have been implemented a lot better if they got "buy-in" from the TV/cable/satellite networks. They cold broadcast some hidden data along with their signals that PVRs pick up -- eliminating the need for a service run by the PVR makers to give them their "brains".
Actually, I think it's a teriffic idea - if you can pull it off. For years, I've wished I could open up some type of online store and earn enough money with it to make it a living. It never seemed very realistic though. I don't have the starting capital to buy much inventory to sell, and I can't think of any category of product that someone else isn't already selling online for great prices.
eBay, on the other hand, allows someone to sell an endless variety of items from a central site that's guaranteed to get more potential buyers viewing a given listing than almost any other method.
People can and do make livings off eBay. I've seen these folks interviewed on the news before. Typically, they specialize in some sort of collectible or craft; items that have very high profit margins and low production costs.
So no, you probably won't have much of a life if you try to live off of selling used computers on eBay... If you build you own unique furniture though, you just might have something.
Ehh... about choice number 1 in your list; only if you're REAL lucky.
I originally had a Phillips DVD+RW drive, and quickly learned it wasn't compatible with anything but itself, and some of the DVD-ROM drives in computers out there. I returned it promptly.
Then, I read all the hype about the Pioneer A03 (and now A04) being the only sensible choice, since the write-once DVD-R media it burns is much more compatible with the average set-top DVD player.
I bought my A03, and while the drive seems to be great quality -- I haven't had any luck making a DVD movie that plays on anything other than a computer's DVD-ROM drive.
My Sony Playstation 2 makes a pretty valiant effort to play the DVD-R movies - but they seem to start getting read errors as you near the end of the disc. This is really frustrating when you're watching a 90 min. long or so movie, and right when it hits the action-packed climax - it stutters and quits playing with an "invalid media" message on the screen!
I also own a Samsung set-top DVD player (the model 812). It refuses to play anything on DVD-R discs I create. It seems to read the disc and recognize it as valid - but then it typically gets errors trying to bring up the initial menu screens. If you ignore that and press PLAY, it starts playing but skips large portions of the movie, freezes occasionally, and the sound stutters.
In my experience so far, the people tabulating lists of which DVD players are "compatible" are simply dropping DVD-R discs in the devices and seeing if it recognizes them as a movie. That's only the first part of the battle, folks. If it can't play the entire movie error-free, what's the use?
Bleah.... We came up with this exact same idea several years ago when we were sitting around, talking about future technologies we'd probably see for sale.
In fact, I also pointed out (to the software developer I was discussing this with) that although they'll probably sell the bar code scanning thing - users won't find it very friendly to work with, and it will eventually fail.
(For the fridge to keep up-to-date on what it's stocked with, you have to manually scan in each and every item you add to it. I don't know about you, but that's the last thing I feel like doing after I just got home from the store, with bags full of groceries to put away. Have you ever seen one of those bar code wands read your UPC codes perfectly on the first try, every time? I haven't. People will get pissed when that odd-shaped package requires 7 attempts to get it to register.)
You know what I do think would sell though? A soda dispensing option on the front, where they put the ice-maker and water dispenser. They should let home users purchase the large bags of syrup and rechargeable CO2 cylinders that the stores use for fountain beverages, and attach them to the fridge. In the long run, it would save a *lot* of money on soda, eliminate the need to throw away or recycle a bunch of cans or bottles, save space in the fridge for other things, and never have to worry about your open 2 litre bottle losing its fizz.
Check out this link:
http://www.ghg.net/dharrison/palm.htm
This guy makes a universal reader for pretty much all makes and models of vehicles, for under $150. This link specifically mentions his version that runs on a Palmpilot - but he also has one for PCs running Windows. I use his "beta" version on a laptop in Windows with my Toyota Supra twin-turbo and it works quite well. Not only lets you see what those "check engine light" trouble codes really are, but lets you reset them, watch your O2 sensor and engine timing, and other nifty stuff.
I used mine to determine that I had an O2 sensor starting to go bad.
Wow - lots of interesting comments posted here, and some things to think about.
I'm starting to come to the conclusion that perhaps the most valuable thing about a project manager is the way they act as the "shield", protecting a group from becoming the direct pawn of an upper-level management person (CEO, VP, or what-have-you).
I can recall a situation with a previous employer where the software development dept. used to be pretty much directly controlled by the company president. Eventually, some things got restructured, and a person was assigned as a project manager over their department.
They didn't really like this, because they felt like the guy was technically clueless and just more middle-management wastefulness. (In fact, both of these things were arguably true, to an extent.) The interesting thing, though, is the department started becoming more focused on completing the development tasks that the *users* wanted, vs. only working on the "pet projects" the company president envisioned.
I've been tempted to get into project management before. (Especially after talking with a few of my buddies who came from tech. backgrounds, and now swear that project management is such a great career move for them. Better pay, more respect, etc.) Honestly, I think it requires a completely different skillset - and it's too bad so many places treat it like a "promotion" from a tech. position. IMHO, there's no reason at all to pay these guys *more* than your tech. workers.
People with good technical skills should try to continue to work where they can put those skills to the best use. Trying to become a "technical project manager" is only going to make you slowly lose your technical edge, and spend half your time doing things you don't enjoy - like building time-management charts and sitting in boring meetings.
Hmm.... now that's a possibility I didn't consider, and you may be right. I sure hope not. I *hope* IBM is smart enough to realize their laptops command a premium price and are highly regarded BECAUSE they engineer them to superior quality standards. They innovate, when everyone else is imitating. (Remember the "butterfly keyboard" that folded out when you opened the lid of a Thinkpad? Remember the built-in keyboard light on a few models? And love it or hate it, didn't they bring a whole new mouse technology to the laptop world with the eraser-point? Aren't they doing new things now with secure encryption chips integrated into their laptops?)
If they opt to use cheap generic laptop parts, they eliminate the only real reason to keep buying Thinkpads in the first place.
Actually, I'd bet it's not a "poor choice" at all, from their standpoint. The majority of their customers are business users who are sold on Linux because it provides them a cost-savings and increase in efficiency. Loading Linux on corporate laptops has yet to accomplish either of these things for anyone I know.
.5% of the exceptions. That's what IBM is obviously concerned with too.)
(Sure, sure - someone on here can probably drag out an isolated case where Linux is used daily on laptops, and with great success. I'm talking about the 99.5% of corporations today - not the
Loading an OS like Linux on your laptop has always been sort of a "geeky power-user" thing to do. Mainstream support for that isn't really ready yet, IMO.
Unix has traditionally been a *server OS*, and attempts to make it do anything else are much more recent/modern - and not as "proven". Let's face it, we can't even get a simply majority of users out there to run something like KDE or Gnome on a full-blown desktop workstation yet. The laptop is the last terrority to be conquerored.
Uh, now *you're* the one coming off as an "anti-Linux zealot". Not sure what your OS of choice is. Obviously neither Microsoft *or* Linux, and it sounds like not BeOS or OS/2 either.
Therefore, I'm guessing you're either a Solaris junkie, or a frustrated BSD user who hates the fact that Linux steals the spotlight away from them so often.
Since you automatically find fault with OS/2 and BeOS for their "proprietary nature" - I'm thinking you probably prefer BSD.
Anyway - I stand by my original statement. Linux is quickly becoming the only option left other than Microsoft for a viable x86 OS.
Apple could add an interesting twist to things by releasing an x86 version of MacOS - IMHO. But I'd also be willing to wager they'll never do it. Why? Because that would instantly devalue/invalidate all of their hardware. (Why pay a premium for a proprietary Mac when you can run the same thing faster on a late-model x86 processor?)
BTW, I never discounted BSD at all. I just question its ability to be competitive at this point in the game. By the very nature of its licensing, people can easily take portions of its code for their use in any other project they like. While that's great from a philosophical standpoint, and will keep it strong and viable with certain sectors - it also nullifys its significance as a stand-alone OS choice.
AKA. "My company, Widgets, Inc. - sees no point in implementing BSD Unix. We're already using the advantageous portions of their networking code as built-in firmware in our routers. All the applications can run under Linux. In fact, my copies of Windows NT use many of their command line utilities, ported directly over from their source code. If I want to buy commercial support, it's available from a number of vendors with Linux. Not so with BSD."
Just from the small list you gave of cost vs. box-office performance, you can start to see a trend.
The movies costing more to make than their theater revenue are all relatively "modern" sounding - with no recognizable Disney characters featured in the titles.
In fact, isn't it "Lilo & Stitch" that has an AC/DC song in its soundtrack now? It seemed to me that ever since Aladdin came out, Disney was trying to change their animations to become more "hip" and "modern" - and I'm not sure it's paying off for them.
Lots of grandparents are the ones buying those tickets to the Disney movies, and many of them don't want to pay to see some title with characters they've never hesrd of before from movies or books, with hard rock music blaring in the background. Tarzan, they can relate to. They know the original story and characters and know basically what to expect. (And look, it's one of the recent Disney releases that turned a profit at the box office.) Hercules almost broke-even, and I'd say that makes sense. People have heard of Hercules, but don't necessarily visualize a "classic tale" for the little ones when they think of him. Hercules certainly has none of the "cute appeal" of 101 Dalmations....
Right now, the fragmentation of the Unix market makes it far too difficult to hire people.
Say company A uses all HPUX, and company B uses AIX. You have lots of Linux experience, but try getting anything other than an "entry level" job at either company A or B. You're not likely to get hired. This seems rather silly - because someone with Unix talent should be able to make good use of it on any Unix platform.
Nonetheless, companies screen based on keywords, and if the H.R. people don't see HPUX or AIX on that resume someplace - it's probably getting passed over.
Surely, there are advantages to some of these Unix variants. (Take the claim that IRIX is superior at handling multimedia, mentioned above.) Still - to compete with a giant like Microsoft, you really need to consolidate your resources. If everyone develops for Linux instead of developing for 10 different commercial flavors of Unix that are slowly dying, Unix will come out much stronger in the end.
It's interesting... My wife just mentioned a day or two ago that Disney was laying off hundreds of animators. Reason given? They had too many people drawing animations by hand, and didn't need all of them anymore.
Looks like the switch to more computer-generated animation is primarily cost-motivated. (We can crank out movies much more quickly if we computerize as much of it as possible.)
Very good post, BTW... All I was going to add is that arguably, a "technical merit" of a platform is the ability to run the widest range of software applications available.
It's probably for this reason, alone, that MS products still get entrenched in new business start-ups. Say you need a really powerful accounting/financial package. In Linux, what do you go with? I know there are a few packages around for small or medium-sized businesses, but what if you're larger than that? Perhaps, if things were really based completely on "technical merits" - you'd just hire devlopers and write your own. Realistically though, almost every large business will instead choose one of the big ERP packages made to run in the Windows environment, or go with something for an AS/400.
As someone who has worked for years in a "Microsoft shop", and also been a Linux user at home for even longer - I think everything has its place.
When an old friend of mine started up a business as a local ISP, I remember him wanting to go with Linux for everything. Everyone else running a similar ISP recommended OpenBSD instead. (Something about it being better at handling concurrent tasks when you start getting hundreds of simultaneous users, and arguably more efficient TCP/IP and routing capabilities.)
In the end, he stuck with Linux, mostly because he was more familiar with it - and was confident it would suit his needs reasonably well. As far as I know, he still uses Linux today and it gets the job done - but he did have some hassles that only got fixed with newer Linux kernel versions over the years.
Many MS shops are this way too. They've been told numerous times that Linux servers are better solutions, and in fact, they don't dispute it. They simply opt to deal with the "devil they know" instead of the unknown. Hundreds of thousands of businesses "get the job done" every day on MS software, despite all the bugs, security issues, and expense.
What some people perceive as being a "Linux Zealot" is often a frustrated systems admin trying to drive the point home that it's worth the trouble to learn something new and throw out the existing, even though it "gets the job done".
Right now, if you don't go with MS products, you are in a "any color you want, as long as it's black" type of world. Linux is currently the only other viable operating system that runs on a PC platform, in many cases. (Apologies to the BSD guys here - but BSD is a lot more conservative in their hardware support. Sometimes it just won't run all the peripherals or newer hardware you own, making it an unworkable option.)
We had BeOS - but it's dead. We had OS/2 - but it's dead. We still have Mac OS, but it's proprietary.
You know, there are *still* a few people out there supporting the Tandy Color Computers - but mostly, it's become possible to use them through emulation. That's primarily why I don't mind having sold all my old "CoCo" stuff.
m
http://www.burgins.com/emulators.html
http://discover-net.net/%7Edmkeil/coco/index.ht