Now we know why the Chinese want it! Ownership of Tibet is the most monstrously conceived and dangerous communist plot we have ever had to face. It offers them a direct route to get their commie water into the stratosphere where it will rain down on all freedom-loving people. It's all part of the international communist-conspiracy to sap and impurify our precious bodily fluids.
"I have one question on your examples, it is whether it's better to put the "Save" button on the left (like Windows often does) or right (like this Mac example)."
The correct answer to this is "Yes."
On the Mac, the default button is located on the right-hand side of the dialog box. The reason for this, buried deep within some Apple UI studies or so I hear, is that most people are right handed, have their mouse on the right hand side, and will have an easier time hitting the button on the right-hand side. This is also why the collection of buttons is usually right-justified.
Windows, over the years, has developed the philosophy that most people read left-to-right and that the default button should be the left-most button, because it will be the first one that the user reads.
Putting the default button on the left on a Mac will annoy your Mac users. I don't know if putting the default button on the right will annoy Windows users. Windows users may not care--they're not used to consistency anyway.
To use a language analogy (they are Dialog boxes, after all), it's somewhat like the whole question of whether the adjective comes before or after the noun. In English, it comes before. In French, after. Which is "correct"? Hard to say. But get it backwards and the person you're talking to will be confused.
So it's best to do it the way the user expects it to be, as defined by whatever guidelines may exist or whatever popular applications do.
"Apparently a program can not know all possible graphics format, so if an unknown format is encountered it will have to be reported. What is the error message?
Example: Error! A file with the first few bytes '464f 524d 0000 4030' was encountered and I do not know what to do with it...
Does this help the user more than saying: Error! This program does not know how to open IFF-Files!"
This made me chuckle.
What the heck is an IFF file? You get the same question from the user...
How about a message like: "This program cannot open that file because it does not understand the data within."
"File associations benefit the user greatly, ie, the do not have to guess which program will open which file. We simply cannot abolish file extensions (or whatever metadata is used for association)."
Really? Tell that to my Mac.
I have Four or Five different programs which will read.jpg files. Some files get opened in Photoshop, some in GraphicConverter, some in Preview, never in QuickTime Player or Safari or OmniWeb. They all dutifully notify the Finder that they can open jpg files. Usually, they will open in the file that created them via the "creator code" on a Mac.
So how does "jpg" help me know which application will open a file again?
"I can't tell you how many of my friends (really smart people) can't download a file, then find it later. They just click OK, they don't know what a file extension is."
Exactly. How many tech support stories have we all heard that started with customers who claim to be very smart and know all about this stuff and have made some stupid mistake. Heck, I can plead guilty to that (Oops! The Firewall is blocking FTP--that's why I can't get to your FTP site...).
But some of it comes from the fact that there are things that we don't need to know, but the computer insists that we do know. File extensions are a great example. What does the extension "jpg" tell me? That it is an image encoded in JPEG. What is JPEG? Why do I care what it's encoded in? Why is that different from an image with the extension "tif"? They both look like the same image to me. Why do I need to know whether it's JPEG encoded or TIFF encoded? Why can't it just be a picture?
Well, because some programmer decided it would be easier to detect what kind of file something was if we gave the computer a hint. Thus, if the file extension is "jpg", the program uses a JPEG algorithm to extract the image. If the file extension is "tif", the program uses a TIFF algorithm. This is alot easier for the programmer and faster for the computer rather than reading, say, the first four bytes and looking for FFD8FFE0 and saying, "Ah! It's JPEG," or looking for "II" or "MM" in the first two bytes and saying, "Ah! It's TIFF!" So the file extensions "jpg" or "tif" really aren't there for the user's benefit at all--they're there to make the programmer's life easier.
But what about all these other three letter extensions, like "gif", "pgm", "psd", "bmp"? How is the user supposed to remember this alphabet soup of extensions and what they all mean? Why can't they just hide them? Because then the user won't see the "exe" that denotes a program and may inadvertently run a program which does nasty things.
See? File extensions seem basic to us, but they're pretty superfluous to most people.
Well, I'd make the argument that the problem exists between the keyboard and chair of the software developer--not the user.
Comments like yours remind me of the automobile industry of the 1960s. The problem, they insisted, was not with the cars but with the people who drove them. There was no way to make cars safe and the only hope was better driver education. Of course, the reality is more that they didn't want to devote the time, effort, and money to making cars safer because they'd see no real benefit in regards to sales. And to a certain degree, they were right. It actually took the government to come in and mandate safety standards for cars.
To me, blaming the user is a typical programmer cop-out. "Well, if the user was as smart as me, they wouldn't have these problems." Yeah, I too have seen users do the stupidest things with my software. The difference is that I try to find out what they were thinking when they did this and then work to make sure that others aren't inspired to do the same thing.
"How will Mac zealots claim 'superior' hardware when Apple is throwing in the same stuff that you get in a commodity PC?"
Well, one of the claims that Mac users always have used when comparing price against PCs is that Apple simply gives you more for your money. Like when comparing a Mac mini at $599 against a $399 PC--yeah, the PC is cheaper but you get wireless networking and bluetooth on the Mac mini which you don't get on the $399 PC. Of course, who cares about either of those things?
"What exactly is going to be the reason for why a Mac costs more? OS X? If so, then there is only a small amount more Apple could charge, say maybe $100 more."
Agreed. But you obviously haven't priced these things lately. Heck, the Dell Inspiron 710m is $949 (after $350 Rebate, so it's $1299 out-of-pocket)--$50 less than the low-end iBook. Personally, for the extra $50, I'd rather have Mac OS X, iMovie, etc.
The current price-points on the iBook are $999 for the 12" w/ 1.33GHz G4, 512MB of RAM, ATI Radeon 9550 w/32MB, CDRW/DVD, and a 40GB hard drive. $1299 gets you a 14" screen, 1.42GHz G4, SuperDrive, and 60GB hard drive.
So will Apple drop the $999 price-point? Can Apple make it a 13.3-inch display and built-in video camera and, say, a 1.66 GHz Core Duo as well as 512MB of RAM, the CDRW/DVD, and 40GB hard drive, price it at $999, and still keep their healthy margins?
"Your story about the Lambo sounds like a bit of urban legend to me. They won't let you rent the car if your own insurance won't cover it, but they didn't check the guy's insurance to ensure it covered the value of an expensive car [...]"
Nope. I saw the remains of the car and talked to the owner. I was there renting a Cooper Mini S--I like to rent cars I'm considering buying to see if I'm really going to like them and it's tough to get the 'S' version from the neighborhood Hertz or Avis.
The person he rented it to did have insurance sufficient to cover the Lambo. The problem is that he wasn't the guy who was driving. The guy who was driving's insurance wouldn't cover the Lambo and the insurance company for the guy who rented the car wouldn't pay because the accident wasn't his fault--he was just a passenger. So the guy who rented the car was on the hook for the money.
Well, part of the issue of course is how do you convince them it's serious.
For example, today, if you saw a chest with a skull and crossbones on it, your first reaction wouldn't be "danger" it would be "treasure!" You'd open that up as fast as possible to see all the doubloons, triploons, and quadrooploons.
It's the tricky part of this. Anything you protect that much must be valuable--otherwise, why would you go to such lengths to protect it?
Actually, I like the supplemental insurance. Like all "insurance", it's really great if something bad happens. Since something bad generally doesn't happen, it's a rip-off.
But I'll get it when I'm driving in Vermont at Christmastime just because I've forgotten everything I ever knew about driving in snow because I spend the other 11.5 months of the year in Southern California. I'll also occasionally get it if I'm renting something I'm not used to driving--like an SUV or a truck.
Actually, my favorite story is from a place that does "exotic car rentals." They don't offer insurance on their cars--your insurance has to be able to deal with it or they won't let you rent the car. Some guy rented a lamborghini for his buddy on his buddy's 30th birthday. His buddy was driving the car (the renter was the passenger) and the buddy totaled the car. Complete write off. Of course, the buddy's insurance won't go that high. And the guy who rented the car wasn't the driver, so his insurance won't cover it. So the guy who rented the car is buying the rental company a new lamborghini--and, yes, he'll be paying for it for the next 20 years.
"In your photograph & screw examples - how are you deprived if someone copies said screw or photograph? You still have the priceless photo of your parents, you still have the screw holding up your shelf."
Agreed. I have not lost any of the value of the objects to me if you copy them. I still have the priceless photo and the shelf is still hanging.
You'll notice that I keep emphasizing that word--value. If the value of an object is that I can resell it for something I might value more--say, money--then by copying it you have deprived me of the value of that object.
"For how long? You make it sound like a natural right, rather then a government mandated monopoly."
Well, arguably, as the owner, it would continue as long as it provides value to me. If that means my entire life, then I think that's reasonable. So if I got to define the law, I would make it such that the owner can continue to make money for the remainder of their life, but it cannot be transfered to kids, siblings, etc. If I write a beautiful song and die the next day, I get bupkus and so do my kids.
That's my opinion on how it should work.
"I was advocating people copy a 30 year old work, that has made its owner a lot of money - not wholesale breaking of copyright across the board."
Why not copy a 15 year-old work that has made it's owner a lot of money. Why not copy a ten year-old work that has made it's owner a lot of money. Or a 3 year-old work? Or a 6 month-old work? And who decides what is a "lot of money"? Personally, I think a million dollars is a lot of money. There are people who consider a million dollars to be pocket change. Who should decide what is "a lot of money"--the person who wants the object? Don't you think that person might be a tad biased? While the person who owns the object is also biased, the market will at least straighten them out.
This is one reason I usually go with the opinion that it is stealing and not copyright violation. Enzo Ferrari made a bunch of money selling Ferrari sports cars. If I go to the factory, grab a freshly completed car, and drive off with it, I have stolen it. If I left him the "cost" of the car--ie, the cost of all the components--it would still be stealing. As the owner of the car, Enzo defines what the value of the car is. I don't get to tell him what the value of the car is--or, more accurately, I get to tell him whether his concept of the value and my concept of the value match by buying or not buying the car.
Therefore George Lucas--as the owner of "Star Wars"--gets to decide the value of it. If he decides the value is zero and releases it to the public domain, that is his right. He could do that, too. But he won't while he can still get money for it--something he values. Which is his right, as the owner, to do. You may not like it, you may not agree with his choices, but that doesn't give you license to break whatever law you want to call it (theft or copyright violation).
First, I may be misreading it, but it appears that this is made up. The title of the page is "News fiction voted down, Bill Gates interview" and one of the sentences in the introduction says, "You'll vote for the Natalee Holloway is Alive fiction, but not the Bill Gates interview fiction?"
Y'See, I grew up around Dartmouth back in 1975 and used their Basic back then. Dartmouth's Basic compiler was written in assembly language for the GE635 mainframe and, of course, that's the code it produced. I can tell you for fact that there was no such thing as PEEK or POKE in Dartmouth's Basic, so I'm not sure what "functionality" was lost. Remember that this was the age of mainframes and terminals--not personal computers.
So I don't see that he could bum any code--maybe some design concepts or data structures...
"No its not. In one case you deprive the owner of the object you take, in the other case, you don't deprive the owner of the object you copy."
I'm going to disagree.
If you were to steal gasoline, you have deprived the owner of the money he would receive from the sale of the gasoline because the value of the gasoline to the owner is in the money he would make reselling it. So you have deprived the owner of the value of that object.
The value of an object is defined by the person who owns it. A photograph of my parents may only be worth ten cents based upon the value of the paper and inks but, to me, it is priceless. The value of a one cent screw may be considerably more if it keeps the bookshelf from falling apart. And the value of a tanker of gasoline to a gas station owner may be $10,000--the profit he would make from selling that gasoline as well as sodas, snack food, etc. to people who came to his store to buy gasoline and "pick up a few things."
Thus, by copying the work, you have deprived the owner of the value of the work as the owner sees it--namely, the cash he can make from selling it.
"Wait, wasn't it MS that created MS-DOS that outshined IBM's PC-DOS which then became Windows? [...] Then again I was in grade school when all of the above was being hashed out..."
Tsk tsk tsk...Kids today...:^)
There are some long, involved, and entertaining stories about the whole thing that you can find elsewhere. But, essentially, Microsoft wrote PC-DOS for IBM. Microsoft retained the right to sell it to other companies because IBM figured that there probably wouldn't be any other companies. So IBM figured that there wouldn't be any real harm in this.
Of course, when Compaq did one of the first clones, they went to Microsoft to get DOS. Microsoft sold them MS-DOS.
Part of what the parent is saying is that, way back when in the days before personal computers, IBM owned computing. It was IBM and the BUNCH (Buroughs, Unisys, NEC, CDC, and Honeywell?) and everybody went with IBM. This is one reason that the IBM PC sold so well--all the personal computers out there were "hobbyist toys." Only IBM made computers for serious computing professionals. Thus, when IBM made a personal computer, it was not some toy. It was a personal computer for serious computing professionals. No, it doesn't make sense, but that's how people thought about it at the time.
Then in 1984, IBM came out with the IBM PCjr, which IBM figured would take the home computing market from Commodore, Atari, etc. in the same way that the IBM PC took the business computing market from Apple and the CP/M machines. But it didn't really work that way--consumers were pretty unimpressed with the IBM PCjr and IBM just didn't have the same brand panache at home as it did with business users. That and some pretty stupid technology--the chicklet keyboard--gave IBM a black eye.
So, in theory, Vista may be Microsoft's IBM PCjr. Microsoft is expecting that, as soon as they release it, everybody is going to run out and buy the upgrade or a new computer. Why? Because it's "The Next Great Version of Windows." Much like IBM figured that everybody would buy IBM PCjrs because it was an IBM product. But, like the chicklet keyboard, Vista's new capabilities may not be enough to make people interested. A customer replacing a Windows PC may look at Vista but they might also look at Apple or Linspire.
I'm not sure I agree with that, necessarily. They may look at Gateway instead of Dell. I'm not sure that real people think too much about Microsoft when they buy a computer.
"Reminds me of when I could order groceries online, but that was cancelled due to the lack of popularity."
At least here in Southern California, you still can. Albertson's still will deliver groceries. But the "Amazons of the Grocery Business" (like WebVan) are long gone.
Slashdot Mirror
Whoops! Had the silly thing in reverse.
Now we know why the Chinese want it! Ownership of Tibet is the most monstrously conceived and dangerous communist plot we have ever had to face. It offers them a direct route to get their commie water into the stratosphere where it will rain down on all freedom-loving people. It's all part of the international communist-conspiracy to sap and impurify our precious bodily fluids.
That's the way your hardcore commie works.
"I have one question on your examples, it is whether it's better to put the "Save" button on the left (like Windows often does) or right (like this Mac example)."
The correct answer to this is "Yes."
On the Mac, the default button is located on the right-hand side of the dialog box. The reason for this, buried deep within some Apple UI studies or so I hear, is that most people are right handed, have their mouse on the right hand side, and will have an easier time hitting the button on the right-hand side. This is also why the collection of buttons is usually right-justified.
Windows, over the years, has developed the philosophy that most people read left-to-right and that the default button should be the left-most button, because it will be the first one that the user reads.
Putting the default button on the left on a Mac will annoy your Mac users. I don't know if putting the default button on the right will annoy Windows users. Windows users may not care--they're not used to consistency anyway.
To use a language analogy (they are Dialog boxes, after all), it's somewhat like the whole question of whether the adjective comes before or after the noun. In English, it comes before. In French, after. Which is "correct"? Hard to say. But get it backwards and the person you're talking to will be confused.
So it's best to do it the way the user expects it to be, as defined by whatever guidelines may exist or whatever popular applications do.
"Apparently a program can not know all possible graphics format, so if an unknown format is encountered it will have to be reported. What is the error message?
Example: Error! A file with the first few bytes '464f 524d 0000 4030' was encountered and I do not know what to do with it...
Does this help the user more than saying: Error! This program does not know how to open IFF-Files!"
This made me chuckle.
What the heck is an IFF file? You get the same question from the user...
How about a message like: "This program cannot open that file because it does not understand the data within."
Grammar Nazis, have at me!
"File associations benefit the user greatly, ie, the do not have to guess which program will open which file. We simply cannot abolish file extensions (or whatever metadata is used for association)."
.jpg files. Some files get opened in Photoshop, some in GraphicConverter, some in Preview, never in QuickTime Player or Safari or OmniWeb. They all dutifully notify the Finder that they can open jpg files. Usually, they will open in the file that created them via the "creator code" on a Mac.
Really? Tell that to my Mac.
I have Four or Five different programs which will read
So how does "jpg" help me know which application will open a file again?
"I can't tell you how many of my friends (really smart people) can't download a file, then find it later. They just click OK, they don't know what a file extension is."
Exactly. How many tech support stories have we all heard that started with customers who claim to be very smart and know all about this stuff and have made some stupid mistake. Heck, I can plead guilty to that (Oops! The Firewall is blocking FTP--that's why I can't get to your FTP site...).
But some of it comes from the fact that there are things that we don't need to know, but the computer insists that we do know. File extensions are a great example. What does the extension "jpg" tell me? That it is an image encoded in JPEG. What is JPEG? Why do I care what it's encoded in? Why is that different from an image with the extension "tif"? They both look like the same image to me. Why do I need to know whether it's JPEG encoded or TIFF encoded? Why can't it just be a picture?
Well, because some programmer decided it would be easier to detect what kind of file something was if we gave the computer a hint. Thus, if the file extension is "jpg", the program uses a JPEG algorithm to extract the image. If the file extension is "tif", the program uses a TIFF algorithm. This is alot easier for the programmer and faster for the computer rather than reading, say, the first four bytes and looking for FFD8FFE0 and saying, "Ah! It's JPEG," or looking for "II" or "MM" in the first two bytes and saying, "Ah! It's TIFF!" So the file extensions "jpg" or "tif" really aren't there for the user's benefit at all--they're there to make the programmer's life easier.
But what about all these other three letter extensions, like "gif", "pgm", "psd", "bmp"? How is the user supposed to remember this alphabet soup of extensions and what they all mean? Why can't they just hide them? Because then the user won't see the "exe" that denotes a program and may inadvertently run a program which does nasty things.
See? File extensions seem basic to us, but they're pretty superfluous to most people.
Well, I'd make the argument that the problem exists between the keyboard and chair of the software developer--not the user.
Comments like yours remind me of the automobile industry of the 1960s. The problem, they insisted, was not with the cars but with the people who drove them. There was no way to make cars safe and the only hope was better driver education. Of course, the reality is more that they didn't want to devote the time, effort, and money to making cars safer because they'd see no real benefit in regards to sales. And to a certain degree, they were right. It actually took the government to come in and mandate safety standards for cars.
To me, blaming the user is a typical programmer cop-out. "Well, if the user was as smart as me, they wouldn't have these problems." Yeah, I too have seen users do the stupidest things with my software. The difference is that I try to find out what they were thinking when they did this and then work to make sure that others aren't inspired to do the same thing.
Actually, I could see them spelling it out--"Macintosh Pro."
Well, when PowerBooks came out, they had Motorola 68K processors.
The "Power" in PowerBooks referred to the old marketing line, The Power to be your best.
"How will Mac zealots claim 'superior' hardware when Apple is throwing in the same stuff that you get in a commodity PC?"
Well, one of the claims that Mac users always have used when comparing price against PCs is that Apple simply gives you more for your money. Like when comparing a Mac mini at $599 against a $399 PC--yeah, the PC is cheaper but you get wireless networking and bluetooth on the Mac mini which you don't get on the $399 PC. Of course, who cares about either of those things?
"What exactly is going to be the reason for why a Mac costs more? OS X? If so, then there is only a small amount more Apple could charge, say maybe $100 more."
Agreed. But you obviously haven't priced these things lately. Heck, the Dell Inspiron 710m is $949 (after $350 Rebate, so it's $1299 out-of-pocket)--$50 less than the low-end iBook. Personally, for the extra $50, I'd rather have Mac OS X, iMovie, etc.
I agree, that's what I'm curious about.
The current price-points on the iBook are $999 for the 12" w/ 1.33GHz G4, 512MB of RAM, ATI Radeon 9550 w/32MB, CDRW/DVD, and a 40GB hard drive. $1299 gets you a 14" screen, 1.42GHz G4, SuperDrive, and 60GB hard drive.
So will Apple drop the $999 price-point? Can Apple make it a 13.3-inch display and built-in video camera and, say, a 1.66 GHz Core Duo as well as 512MB of RAM, the CDRW/DVD, and 40GB hard drive, price it at $999, and still keep their healthy margins?
I say no. But I wouldn't bet the farm on it.
"Your story about the Lambo sounds like a bit of urban legend to me. They won't let you rent the car if your own insurance won't cover it, but they didn't check the guy's insurance to ensure it covered the value of an expensive car [...]"
Nope. I saw the remains of the car and talked to the owner. I was there renting a Cooper Mini S--I like to rent cars I'm considering buying to see if I'm really going to like them and it's tough to get the 'S' version from the neighborhood Hertz or Avis.
The person he rented it to did have insurance sufficient to cover the Lambo. The problem is that he wasn't the guy who was driving. The guy who was driving's insurance wouldn't cover the Lambo and the insurance company for the guy who rented the car wouldn't pay because the accident wasn't his fault--he was just a passenger. So the guy who rented the car was on the hook for the money.
Well, part of the issue of course is how do you convince them it's serious.
For example, today, if you saw a chest with a skull and crossbones on it, your first reaction wouldn't be "danger" it would be "treasure!" You'd open that up as fast as possible to see all the doubloons, triploons, and quadrooploons.
It's the tricky part of this. Anything you protect that much must be valuable--otherwise, why would you go to such lengths to protect it?
Actually, I like the supplemental insurance. Like all "insurance", it's really great if something bad happens. Since something bad generally doesn't happen, it's a rip-off.
But I'll get it when I'm driving in Vermont at Christmastime just because I've forgotten everything I ever knew about driving in snow because I spend the other 11.5 months of the year in Southern California. I'll also occasionally get it if I'm renting something I'm not used to driving--like an SUV or a truck.
Actually, my favorite story is from a place that does "exotic car rentals." They don't offer insurance on their cars--your insurance has to be able to deal with it or they won't let you rent the car. Some guy rented a lamborghini for his buddy on his buddy's 30th birthday. His buddy was driving the car (the renter was the passenger) and the buddy totaled the car. Complete write off. Of course, the buddy's insurance won't go that high. And the guy who rented the car wasn't the driver, so his insurance won't cover it. So the guy who rented the car is buying the rental company a new lamborghini--and, yes, he'll be paying for it for the next 20 years.
True. On the other hand, making the ISPs do it makes little sense either. How does the ISP know what's in those packets?
Or a Land Shark!
"In your photograph & screw examples - how are you deprived if someone copies said screw or photograph? You still have the priceless photo of your parents, you still have the screw holding up your shelf."
Agreed. I have not lost any of the value of the objects to me if you copy them. I still have the priceless photo and the shelf is still hanging.
You'll notice that I keep emphasizing that word--value. If the value of an object is that I can resell it for something I might value more--say, money--then by copying it you have deprived me of the value of that object.
"For how long? You make it sound like a natural right, rather then a government mandated monopoly."
Well, arguably, as the owner, it would continue as long as it provides value to me. If that means my entire life, then I think that's reasonable. So if I got to define the law, I would make it such that the owner can continue to make money for the remainder of their life, but it cannot be transfered to kids, siblings, etc. If I write a beautiful song and die the next day, I get bupkus and so do my kids.
That's my opinion on how it should work.
"I was advocating people copy a 30 year old work, that has made its owner a lot of money - not wholesale breaking of copyright across the board."
Why not copy a 15 year-old work that has made it's owner a lot of money. Why not copy a ten year-old work that has made it's owner a lot of money. Or a 3 year-old work? Or a 6 month-old work? And who decides what is a "lot of money"? Personally, I think a million dollars is a lot of money. There are people who consider a million dollars to be pocket change. Who should decide what is "a lot of money"--the person who wants the object? Don't you think that person might be a tad biased? While the person who owns the object is also biased, the market will at least straighten them out.
This is one reason I usually go with the opinion that it is stealing and not copyright violation. Enzo Ferrari made a bunch of money selling Ferrari sports cars. If I go to the factory, grab a freshly completed car, and drive off with it, I have stolen it. If I left him the "cost" of the car--ie, the cost of all the components--it would still be stealing. As the owner of the car, Enzo defines what the value of the car is. I don't get to tell him what the value of the car is--or, more accurately, I get to tell him whether his concept of the value and my concept of the value match by buying or not buying the car.
Therefore George Lucas--as the owner of "Star Wars"--gets to decide the value of it. If he decides the value is zero and releases it to the public domain, that is his right. He could do that, too. But he won't while he can still get money for it--something he values. Which is his right, as the owner, to do. You may not like it, you may not agree with his choices, but that doesn't give you license to break whatever law you want to call it (theft or copyright violation).
Well, I have my doubts.
First, I may be misreading it, but it appears that this is made up. The title of the page is "News fiction voted down, Bill Gates interview" and one of the sentences in the introduction says, "You'll vote for the Natalee Holloway is Alive fiction, but not the Bill Gates interview fiction?"
Y'See, I grew up around Dartmouth back in 1975 and used their Basic back then. Dartmouth's Basic compiler was written in assembly language for the GE635 mainframe and, of course, that's the code it produced. I can tell you for fact that there was no such thing as PEEK or POKE in Dartmouth's Basic, so I'm not sure what "functionality" was lost. Remember that this was the age of mainframes and terminals--not personal computers.
So I don't see that he could bum any code--maybe some design concepts or data structures...
"No its not. In one case you deprive the owner of the object you take, in the other case, you don't deprive the owner of the object you copy."
I'm going to disagree.
If you were to steal gasoline, you have deprived the owner of the money he would receive from the sale of the gasoline because the value of the gasoline to the owner is in the money he would make reselling it. So you have deprived the owner of the value of that object.
The value of an object is defined by the person who owns it. A photograph of my parents may only be worth ten cents based upon the value of the paper and inks but, to me, it is priceless. The value of a one cent screw may be considerably more if it keeps the bookshelf from falling apart. And the value of a tanker of gasoline to a gas station owner may be $10,000--the profit he would make from selling that gasoline as well as sodas, snack food, etc. to people who came to his store to buy gasoline and "pick up a few things."
Thus, by copying the work, you have deprived the owner of the value of the work as the owner sees it--namely, the cash he can make from selling it.
It's "People-Ready", but some people are more ready for it than others.
Exactly. I was trying to be a bit clever.
I remember that every dot-com was going to be "The Amazon of --what amazon.com did for books, we're going to do for Toys/Pet Supplies/Groceries, etc."
It made it easier for the VCs to understand.
"Wait, wasn't it MS that created MS-DOS that outshined IBM's PC-DOS which then became Windows? [...] Then again I was in grade school when all of the above was being hashed out..."
:^)
Tsk tsk tsk...Kids today...
There are some long, involved, and entertaining stories about the whole thing that you can find elsewhere. But, essentially, Microsoft wrote PC-DOS for IBM. Microsoft retained the right to sell it to other companies because IBM figured that there probably wouldn't be any other companies. So IBM figured that there wouldn't be any real harm in this.
Of course, when Compaq did one of the first clones, they went to Microsoft to get DOS. Microsoft sold them MS-DOS.
Part of what the parent is saying is that, way back when in the days before personal computers, IBM owned computing. It was IBM and the BUNCH (Buroughs, Unisys, NEC, CDC, and Honeywell?) and everybody went with IBM. This is one reason that the IBM PC sold so well--all the personal computers out there were "hobbyist toys." Only IBM made computers for serious computing professionals. Thus, when IBM made a personal computer, it was not some toy. It was a personal computer for serious computing professionals. No, it doesn't make sense, but that's how people thought about it at the time.
Then in 1984, IBM came out with the IBM PCjr, which IBM figured would take the home computing market from Commodore, Atari, etc. in the same way that the IBM PC took the business computing market from Apple and the CP/M machines. But it didn't really work that way--consumers were pretty unimpressed with the IBM PCjr and IBM just didn't have the same brand panache at home as it did with business users. That and some pretty stupid technology--the chicklet keyboard--gave IBM a black eye.
So, in theory, Vista may be Microsoft's IBM PCjr. Microsoft is expecting that, as soon as they release it, everybody is going to run out and buy the upgrade or a new computer. Why? Because it's "The Next Great Version of Windows." Much like IBM figured that everybody would buy IBM PCjrs because it was an IBM product. But, like the chicklet keyboard, Vista's new capabilities may not be enough to make people interested. A customer replacing a Windows PC may look at Vista but they might also look at Apple or Linspire.
I'm not sure I agree with that, necessarily. They may look at Gateway instead of Dell. I'm not sure that real people think too much about Microsoft when they buy a computer.
"Bill gates stole the code for his first basic compiler out of a dumpster at Dartmouth."
Whoa...can I get a reference for this one? I've never seen this one before.
"Reminds me of when I could order groceries online, but that was cancelled due to the lack of popularity."
At least here in Southern California, you still can. Albertson's still will deliver groceries. But the "Amazons of the Grocery Business" (like WebVan) are long gone.
"MS [...] react fast enough if need be."
:^)
Are we talking about the same Microsoft?