I know it's an attempt to be funny, but even then it doesn't work. Think of it this way: Linux is Open Source and Windows isn't. So you can't use any Linux at all unless you're planning to ditch Microsoft's business model as well.
Which really isn't an option for Microsoft. So what they did, doing Windows the engineering way, really was the only thing to do.
First off... I'm not using MS Windows Vista, and I wouldn't want it on my old machines, nor on my new machine until all the little problems have been addressed. I expect that will take a year or so.
Having said this, I would like to note that there is a very good reason for bringing out Vista: plain old software engineering. The last thing I expected to do was to defend Microsoft from a software engineering point of view, but here goes.
Here is why:
Jim Allchin, group VP in charge of Windows, told the Wall Street Journal he dropped the bombshell last summer, simply telling Gates "It's not going to work". Longhorn was so complex that Microsoft's developers would never be able to make it run properly, Allchin told Gates.
The root of the problem was Microsoft's historical approach to developing software - the so-called 'spaghetti code culture' - where the company's thousands of programmers would each develop their own piece of code and it would then all be stitched together at the end.
In other words: the design was so complex, so haphazard, and consisted of so many interlocking parts that it was no longer really modular.
In software engineering that's a killer. Because it's then impossible to really isolate problems. Let alone fix them. The remedy was as simple as it was brutal: stop the current line of MS Windows (i.e. kill Longhorn), start from scratch, and rigorously use good software engineering practice throughout.
The result is... MS Windows Vista.
So... did that approach work?
Yes it did:
As a result of this Microsoft received thousands fewer bug reports than usual when it released the beta version of Windows Vista this summer. Allchin's culture change also appears to be spreading through the rest of Microsoft. Gates said the new tools are now being used by the Office group. "I wish we'd done it earlier," he told the paper.
Unfortunately there is nothing about running current applications that Vista does that Windows XP can't do just as well. But then you don't always go by the best way to run current applications. Longhorn wasn't about that either. If it had been, you would be able to completely stop the development of Windows with XP and call it a completed work of art. Any takers?
It's not that Microsoft did the wrong thing or the right by moving to Vista. They did the *only* thing from a long-term perspective. Too bad the short-term payoff is a bit less rosy, but that's what you get when you redo the internals of a spaghetti-code system that works.
Strictly speaking, in an ideal world, you'd copy the list to Ebay, and they would *immediately* block all accounts on the list, contact all affected customers telling them their credit-card data plus contact information has been compromised, that they should change their credit-card number at once, that they would be willing to speak to their credit-card company to explain what happened and absorb any fees the credit-card company charges to issue a new card, help them to create new Ebay logins, and report the breach of their security to the CERT and the FBI. And we all trust Ebay to do all of that on their own initiative, right?
Given that Ebay's response is along the lines of "It's a hoax, our security is fine, don't worry" I really wonder if keeping things like this under wraps is enough to keep companies like Ebay honest. I'm not optimistic since any admissions on their part cost them money, dent their public image, may cost them customers, and could make them easier to sue in case accounts are abused (either before or after the data becomes public).
Of course it's irresponsible to publish this sort of information (credit-card numbers, contact details) on the web. And yes... perhaps there should be an independent authority (e.g. the police, the FBI) where you can go with your information and be certain that action will be taken instead of making it accessible to the world and his dog.
In the absence of a clear-cut authority to report to I'm still not quite convinced that the "shock-and-awe" effect of bluntly putting the data on the web isn't needed to prod Ebay into action to take measures.
The quote from Neelie Kroes really is extremely dubious at first sight, but the follow-up comment by her spokesman makes more sense. From what I've read on her here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neelie_Kroes), the last thing one could say of mrs. Kroes is that she is a socialist, or even a crypto-socialist who delights in bashing successful companies.
I suspect that this comment is based on ordinary econometric marketshare modelling, which predicts marketshare as a function of explanatory variables that define economic utility... such as price, performance, and connectivity. Extreme deviations between model prediction and actual marketshare could be viewed as a possible indication that the company in question is practising unfair competition (*not* as evidence of course, note the reservations I'm building in), and might serve as an additional reason to investigate that company if complaints are received. Which is what happened.
In this case I guess that what is meant is that econometric models predict marketshares around 50% in a genuinely free market, which would emerge after Microsoft complies with the order to provide interoperability information (without its current chicanery in the form of minimise-information-and-maximise-pagecount and it's license which is calculated to cut off Open Source competitors), which in turn would explain the comment.
I'm speculating of course, but I think this a more likely interpretation that gratuitous Microsoft-bashing on part mrs. Neelie Kroes.
First of all, the verdict from the EU court isn't just about money.
That court just upheld the EU commission's view that Microsoft violated EU fair competition laws. It *publicly* told Microsoft that it was dead wrong in its views that it had (a) not violated fair-competition laws, and (b) that it had done enough to comply with the EU Commission's demand for interoperability information.
No international company (like Microsoft) can afford to shrug that off. Why? Because *every* single government out there now has a template with which they can credibly find Microsoft guilty of unfair competition in their own jurisdiction, *and* demand the inter-operability information that the EU is demanding. Don't think that Microsoft will be concerned? Think again.
In addition, Microsoft just received a court order to comply with the demands of the EU commission to supply third parties with the information they need to achieve interoperability. The longer Microsoft remains non-compliant with this order, the longer it will accumulate fines. To the tune of 10%-15% of its revenues. What company in the world can ignore that? If Microsoft's management were to try and ignore this, and continue to accumulate fines, they can be held liable to shareholders in the US. What would *you* do if you were the person responsible at Microsoft? Risk being sued for mismanagement by angry shareholders and then try to argue that it was in the best interests of the company and the shareholders to loose 10%-15% of its annual revenues in fines rather than to allow competitors a level playing field? Really?
Last but not least... I really can't believe the contempt with which you seem to view that a $600 mln fine, even from the point of view of Microsoft. Loosing that amount in a genuinely risky investment is part of the cost of doing business, and presumably your investment had commensurate payoff prospects. On the other hand, loosing it by incurring (unnecessary) fines is just abysmal management. Even more so if youy stand to loose that kind of money *every year*. Microsoft didn't get to where it is now by holding that kind of money in contempt.
Personally I think that Microsoft will now, as a matter of priority, make interoperability information available in a form that is genuinely usable to anyone who wants to interface with or provide its Open Directory services.
Could you please show us a link where we can verify>/i> your claim that "[...] Neelie Kroes (EU competition czar) saying that the desired outcome is for Microsoft to have 50% market share (or at least a significant reduction)"
Until you do, how are we to regard this claim as anything but random noise at best?
"When users launch Windows Update, Microsoft's online service can check the version of its executables on the PC and update them if necessary. What's unusual is that people are reporting changes in these files although WU wasn't authorized to install anything."
The question of whether Microsoft is in the right to update Windows Update executables without asking permission seems simple, but there are interesting aspects due to the closed-source nature of Windows.
One the one hand users (especially business users) have a legitimate interest in having their Windows systems remain stable and unaltered unless they wish them to change. So from that point of view it's not correct on Microsoft's part to change files, any files, without user's permission.
On the other hand, the Windows Update files only implement a functionality that allows Windows machines to communicate with Microsoft's Update services and nothing else. Strictly speaking therefore a Windows user has no legitimate interest in keeping those files frozen.
On the other hand, Microsoft has a clear interest in being able to change those files. Just imagine that Microsoft wants to change the compression format in which Windows Updates are sent. Or the protocol. Or the server name. It would be impractical and unreasonable to demand of them that they (a) ask individual users if they can please change the file format, the transmission format, the server name, or anything else (because this is no business of the user anyway), or (b) have to support umpteen different versions of Windows Update.
Furthermore, one can continue this line of thought and make a case that it's really none of the user's business what exact Windows system files are on his machine. They're all unreadable to him because they're binary, and he is debarred by law from trying to read them (that would be decompiling which is forbidden in the EULA).
In short... when our Windows user bought a license for a closed-source product like Windows, which must (for security reasons) be updated regularly, one can argue that he didn't buy a license to any specific set of files but he bought a license to a system called "Windows", which promises him a certain functionality. And it's Microsoft who defines the technical details of what goes into Windows. Not the user. So Microsoft should be able to change the technical details of MS Windows, provided that the user retains broadly the same functionality as what he bought his license for. And certainly that part which communicates with them about patches.
Of course I'm playing devil's advocate here, but I think you'll see the logic.
For better or worse, the US judiciary is often the last defender of
(a) the constitution (just think of the PATRIOT act and other legal shenennigans by the current administration)
(b) individual freedom (versus the government)
(c) individual rights (versus the government and any other body that wields large amounts of power such as large corporations).
And yes, a large amount of time, care, money and attention is needed to adjudicate the conflicting claims and counterclaims. However I personally believe that it's safe to say that an impartial legal system is by and large one of the few remaining moral high grounds that the US can show to the world. Not that it's always perfect of course: the more money you can throw at it, the better your interests will be protected. But a certain minimum protection is guaranteed.
Unfortunately it is all but impossible to say what part of the care and the proceedings is "waste", and what part is "essential safeguard". And yes... a particularly clever lawyer will know ways of "gaming the system" by complicating a case, raising far-out but still undeniable issues, and can usually secure long delays if nothing else. This costs a heap of money of course, which is why you don't usually see this sort of thing in disputes involving ordinary citizens or small corporations.
But having said this, those who feel the urge to wave their "Libertarian" flag and slag judicial procedures should realise that this regulated form of dispute resolution is what allows a modern society to exist, and that anarchy and "afghanistan-style" dispute resolution are just around the corner. This is the country that struggled its way out of "Wild West" style justice to where it is now. Remove or curtail judicial care and you'll be back there before you know.
The Microsoft article you reference notes that the whole problem is caused by a single flag (the DHCP BROADCAST) that Vista sets and previous Windows versions didn't. The article also contains the following quick and easy solution:
RESOLUTION
Warning Serious problems might occur if you modify the registry incorrectly by using Registry Editor or by using another method. These problems might require that you reinstall your operating system. Microsoft cannot guarantee that these problems can be solved. Modify the registry at your own risk.
To resolve this issue, disable the DHCP BROADCAST flag in Windows Vista. To do this, follow these steps:
1. Click StartStart button, type regedit in the Start Search box, and then click regedit in the Programs list.
User Account Control permission If you are prompted for an administrator password or for confirmation, type your password, or click Continue.
2. Locate and then click the following registry subkey: HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SYSTEM\CurrentControlSet\Servic es\Tcpip\Parameters\Interfaces\{GUID} In this registry path, click the (GUID) subkey that corresponds to the network adapter that is connected to the network.
3. On the Edit menu, point to New, and then click DWORD (32-bit) Value.
4. In the New Value #1 box, type DhcpConnDisableBcastFlagToggle, and then press ENTER.
5. Right-click DhcpConnDisableBcastFlagToggle, and then click Modify.
6. In the Value data box, type 1, and then click OK.
7. Close Registry Editor.
So Vista isn't (formally) going counter to protocol, it's just going counter to a 15-year old custom. Nonetheless, Vista *can* cooperate, it just needs to be told not to raise the DHCP BROADCAST flag. And yes, that route goes via a registry modification.
Well... I'm surprised and gratified that in this case the law actually protects users instead of companies out to turn a buck. That isn't always the case I feel.
And yes, I think the immunity is for the right reasons: there are lots of advertisements and pieces of commercial attention-grabbing software that I don't want on my system. I don't care a hoot if that's fair or not w.r.t. whatever company thought they'd bring out such software. I just want to be able to prevent it from installing.
So any anti-virus software, anti-spyware software like Adaware is something *I* run, and what they remove or disable they do so on *my* authority.
I'm just relieved to see that not every random company out there can sue them for providing me the service I ask for on my own computer.
Ok, sorry to be so flippant about those photographs (my ignorance shows here I'm afraid, and I just skipped them while searching for the text). They really look so generic and nondescript that it never crossed my mind that they might have value. But that's not an excuse of course.
On second thought, and when I look closer, I see that they are good-quality photographs that weren't taken as an afterthought with someone's mobile phone. So you're right... someone had to go and take them, and that someone had to be paid out of the licensing fees. Point taken.
I'm surprised. I never saw any scientific journal that I had to pay to publish in, and I never saw any scientific journal stating that its contents were "paid advertising".
It might be that it differs by field and by journal (I'm in engineering / maths), and I'm sure that e.g. Nature doesn't demand fees to publish.
I had a look at the website (on behalf of commercial science publishers) in question and I really couldn't care less about those pictures. It's probably fair-use anyway. What did grab my attention is
the sneakily dishonest attempts to rouse public sentiment against federal support for alternatives to commercial journals (such as Open Source journals) or even the use of federal money for outright support of such journals, which I'll share with you:
Various initiatives and proposals have been put forth by special interest groups and some legislators that would force private sector publishers to surrender to the federal government all peer-reviewed articles that report on research supported by federal research grants.
Such undue government intervention in scholarly publishing poses inherent risks and problems, including:
(1)undermining the peer review process by compromising the viability of non-profit and commercial journals that manage and fund it
[...]
(4) introducing duplication and inefficiencies that will divert resources that would otherwise be dedicated to research.
I admire the chutzpa of the complaint about "undue government intervention". Research federally funded, peer-review carried out by publicly funded academics, but commercial publishers would first copyright articles sent to them for free, and them charge federal government for those same articles? Measures to ensure that the feds can download and copy those articles for free is "interfering"? Oh boy!
How about some proper negotiation with those publishers about copyrights? How about setting up all-electronic Open Source journals that offer access free of charge, and let commercial publishers compete with the Open Source journals for articles they want to publish? Or is that "compromising the viability" of the commercial offerings?
Yes... on the subject of "compromising the viability". Joe Sixpack might not recognise this statement for the fallacy it is. Research is carried out (often funded by federal government), and written of for free by the researchers who did it. Peer review of scientific articles is carried out for free by scientists in their field. Those are the "peers" that conduct peer-review. And they are *not* funded by the publishers, the are funded by their respective employers (universities, companies), and by the individual researchers themselves, who will often spend their own time reviewing papers..
Now it's widely known that todays science publishing is big business (commercial science publishers post excellent earnings every year) and scientific journals are terribly expensive (just ask any university library near you).
The fun part is that commercial publishers really do very little for the journals they publish. Just consider:
- the raw material is delivered to them in the electronic format of their choice, free of charge
- they must then employ a qualified editor who does the first crude selection. (This individual will have to be paid be paid a good salary, say $60k - $80k a year.)
- then they send the articles to individual researchers for peer-review. This takes a few hours of secretarial support, a rolodex, and an email account.
- then they read the comments from the peer reviewers that help them decide whether the article is publishable, and they route the comments to the authors for improvement and response
- finally they receive the amended article, in electronic form, do a final check, and have it typeset.
That's all. The little secret is that commercial publishers don't really add that much of value. But a library subscription can easily come to $8,000 - $12,000 per year. How many of them would you need to cover your costs? Publishers don't let on obviously, but a fair guess is that $200,000 annually will be enough to keep a journal running. That would be, say 40 subscriptions of $5
-Q(3) What's the practical relevance of the question whether OOXML is flawed?
-Q(4) So what's in it for Microsoft? Why do they bother?
-
- Q(1) : What does Rodriguez's article show?
- A(1) : Rodriguez's article show that the OOXML format written by latest Microsoft Office applications, among them MS Excel, is:
- sorely defective in that you can't be sure to get your original data back after saving it to OOXML
- impossible to change outside MS Office applications
- tied to the MS Office way of representing internationalised versions of documents because "of the way Microsoft chose to store XML using the US English locale, no matter how good your implementation is, you have to retrofit it to work just like Office does" in order to accommodate internationalised documents
- MS Office legacy formats supported throughout, greatly (and unnecessarily) contributing to the size and complexity of the 6,000 page standard.
- Q(2): Is OOXML flawed in and by itself?
- A(2):Yes, I think so, partly because of Rodriguez's article, partly because of flaws documented elsewhere: see http://www.noooxml.org/petition The points 2,3,4,5 listed there seem especially crippling to me:
(2) There is no provable implementation of the OOXML specification: Microsoft Office 2007 produces a special version of OOXML, not a file format which complies with the OOXML specification;
(3) There is information missing from the specification document, for example how to do a autoSpaceLikeWord95 or useWord97LineBreakRules;
(4) More than 10% of the examples mentioned in the proposed standard do not validate as XML;
(5) There is no guarantee that anybody can write software that fully or partially implements the OOXML specification without being liable to patent lawsuits or patent license fees by Microsoft;
- Q(3): What's the practical relevance of the question whether OOXML is flawed?
- A(3): Enormous. We currently see that Microsoft is trying to convince the world to accepted OOXML as an ISO "standard", whereas it's no such thing. It's too loosely defined, and opposed to the existing Opendoc standard there is no open-source reference implementation. So there will be a morass of possible implementations, of which only Microsoft's own implementations will be guaranteed mutually compatible. That's a polite way of saying that Microsoft simply aims at continuing its format lock-in, only this time the under the name of OOXML.
- Q(4) : So what's in it for Microsoft? Why do they bother?
- A(4) : Well... Microsoft has a policy whereby it quite explicitly does not want other people's software, let alone Open Source software, to render MS Office documents correctly.
For reference, see this email, (cited from Rodriguez's article):
From: Bill Gates
Sent: Saturday, December 5 1998
To: Bob Muglia, Jon DeVann, Steven Sinofsky
Subject : Office rendering
One thing we have got to change in our strategy - allowing Office documents to be rendered very well by other peoples browsers is one of the most destructive things we could do to the company.
We have to stop putting any effort into this and make sure that Office documents very well depends on PROPRIETARY IE capabilities.
Anything else is suicide for our platform. This is a case where Office has to avoid doing something to destroy Windows.
I would be glad to explain at a greater length.
Likewise this love of DAV in Office/Exchange is a huge problem. I would also like to make sure people understand this as well.
I'm sure I'll be blasted for this, but to me the user experience of the Linux desktop (specifically the KDE desktop under Open Suse 10.2 that I tend to use) simply isn't as good as say Windows 2000 (on the same hardware), and to me therefore needs more work.
Why?
- Fonts: the fonts under Windows are much better. Crisper and more readable at small fontsizes, thereby giving the desktop a more compact and more readable appearance. And yes, that's after you download and install the optional Truetype fonts.
- Polish: the look of individual windows and the desktop as a whole is more "polished" under Windows. Despite all the work that has been put into KDE. I don't mean tomfoolery like transparent floppy windows, I mean
- Responsiveness: under Windows 2000 the responsiveness of the system to user input is much better when the system is opening a new application. When I e.g. start an instance of Mozilla under Linux, the system responds sluggishly while it's loading. Windows remains responsive and loads the application quicker. I don't mind that it tends to take longer under Linux to load the thing, but I hate being forced to sit still and watch until it's up.
Oh yes, and please don't jump on me to tell me that I should try GNOME; I tried it and discarded it.
I do think you are missing a point, and an important one.
There are many shades of "being allowed to speak to the public" when it comes to organisations.
If the only thing Miss. Nason was interested in was ensuring, in good faith, that individuals don't hijack the authority of the organisation, then it would have been sufficient, even appropriate, to insist that only the PR office could speak "for the organisation", and that everyone one else could only speak "on a personal title".
Instead she went a step further. She not just centralised the authority to speak for the organisation, but also forbade individuals to speak out on a personal title. They have to be anonymous. The point is that the expertise in the NHTSA about technical matters is with the engineers, not with management. And unless you wanted to know about NHTSA policies, why would you want to speak to anyone but an engineer?
In fact, the article quotes the former head of the NHTSA:
"My God," said Joan Claybrook, who was N.H.T.S.A. administrator from 1977 to 1981 and is now president of Public Citizen, a consumer advocacy group. Given that N.H.T.S.A. is the leading source of automotive safety information in the United States, its researchers are public officials and people are entitled to "know what information they have, whether it is on paper or in their heads," Ms. Claybrook said.
This seems a much more reasonable stance: we, the public, pay for the NHTSA, and so we should have some way of knowing what their findings are. And it should be up to *us* to decide if we want to hear the opinion of NHTSA management or its engineers.
Unfortunately it seems typical of a certain philosophy on government to restrict access to potentially unfavourable news as in:
"Ms. Nason felt it was necessary for N.H.T.S.A. to have a "central spokesperson" and "we were finding a lot of stuff did not need to be on the record," David Kelly, her chief of staff, told me.".
*coughs* "We" were finding a lot of stuff "did not have to be on record". Sorry, but who are you to decide that? It just sounds like a flimsy pretext for spin-doctoring to me, coupled to a corporate philosophy of information-control.
There are many thing that a corporate mindset is more efficient at than a civil-servant mentality, but honesty and transparency aren't among them.
Err... as much as I dislike Bill Gates' hyper-agressive way of doing business, and detest Microsoft's marketing practices and general dishonesty... I think I should give ole Bill credit for being really sharp.
First of all: by all accounts he was an extremely good programmer. To the point where the joke in Redmond was: "Can't hack it? Give it to Bill, he'll program it in Basic over the weekend." Well... there are other very good programmers, and not a few who are better than Bill, but as far as I understand, Bill was also very good at helicoptering between programming detail and marketing significance. There aren't many who can do that.
Secondly he spotted the main chance and succeeded in grabbing it. Not so much as a visionary, but as someone who carefully listens to what people have to say... in case they say something that he can use. Personally I think this is reflected in Microsoft's "tail light chaser tactics".
I think we can agree that although Microsoft hardly ever came up with any *conceptually* new software (except perhaps Clippy the Office Assistant... may he rest in peace forevermore}, it tended to buy good ideas and usually succeeded in turning those into software that people wanted to buy. Because it was cheaper than the competition, fairly intuitive to use, and "good enough".
Now that *sounds* easy... just spot a good idea and do it better. But the industry is awash with people who had a good idea and slipped up because they missed some detail along the line and continued not to spot the problem until it was too late. Like e.g. IBM's micro-computer division to IBM's PC operating system division to the WordPerfect Corporation to Borland to Lotus to Ashton-Tate. All of them had success, and woke up too slowly when things went subtly wrong for them. In most cases that "something" was Microsoft coming up with a competing product (whether home-grown or bought}.
You can't pull something like that off without a very clear perception of where things stand and where they're moving. I think that that is an area in which Bill excelled.
Remember when Microsoft threatened to miss the boat on this thing called "Internet"? Remember how a certain Billg first refused to see it, then suddenly did, and then made his company turn on a dime and go all-out for Internet functionality? He later admitted that he'd seen the new development too late... but he did catch on in the end, and long before many other captains of industry. And when he did, he took the right action.
That's what I mean. How many big bosses are perceptive enough to spot when they're barking totally up the wrong tree, and objective enough to switch trees? That's what I think we should credit him for. Regardless of anything else.
Err... who might be interested in hearing from Linus?
- anybody who likes to hear an opinion that's usually sensible, well thought-through, honest, and devoid of humbug?
- someone who is interested in hearing from the guy who succeeds in maintaining sufficient technical credit to have the likes of Alan Cox, Andrew Morton, and a raft of others you've never heard about listen to him?
- people who think that the ideas of a fellow whose ideas proved fruitful might be interesting?
Come to think of it... why would anyone care about what Bill Gates thinks? Apart from him still being one of the sharpest cookies in the industry that is. Why indeed? The money he has to spend? Is that your criterion?
*sighs* Yes... that was my intention why I posted. That's why I shot off random (but good-sounding} "facts" without reference.
I personally think it's going a bit too far to systematically demand passports from people's from states that don't support the REAL-ID act.
I'm no security expert, but I might agree that under the current circumstances a legal requirement that you must be able to show an ID to a police officer when asked isn't totally stupid. On the other hand... how hard is it for dedicated terrorists (or criminals} to get hold of a legitimate ID? Seriously... what terrorist worth his salt would try to enter the US with a phony ID? Border checks may be mechanical and conducted by less-than-totally-bright underpaid people, but they *can* spot fake IDs. And home-grown terrorists? Why shouldn't they have perfectly good IDs up to and until they strike?
The only thing you might do better with those databases is what the Germans called "Rasterfahndung". Which basically is database mining for any criterion that might let you select a set of people with higher probability of being a terrorist than those outside. It's like mining gold from seawater. It can be done, but it's much more costly and less effective than conventional methods of policing. So I'm still a bit hazy on the benefits of REAL-ID.
The downside is of course that central government's knowledge of, and hold on, those 250-odd million of us who are no security risk at all increases substantially. Not to mention all those massive juicy databases with personal information that will have to be built. Nobody's going to try and target them for identity theft, there will be no un-authorised access by private investigators, nor will there be any accidental leakages at all... honest.
To my chagrin, and to my substantial amazement, I find my previous post being taken seriously. Did I inadvertently say something that makes sense in my first post? Ordinary Americans so much of a security risk that you really have to keep an eye on them and trace their movements? I should hope not.
Of course at that age nobody can predict, let alone choose their career.
However... what people *can* do is look into themselves and see how much aptitude and interest they have in a career that involves higher learning. Of course the opinions of their parents and their teachers will have some weight, but it won't *determine* their choice generally speaking.
Now... people who expect to go into retail, management, business, or choose a vocational career can simply choose subjects that won't unduly tire them during school hours and might even come in handy... like car mechanics or cooking or embroidery.
On the other hand, pupils who like learning... and who are reasonably good at it (so they don't have to bust their backside to complete the course)... may e.g. take a combined major in Maths, Physics, Chemistry, English, and Spanish or French if they are thinking of going into science or engineering, and perhaps Economics, English, History, Geography, and Spanish or French if they are thinking of a going further in humanities.
It's quite doable and it won't close any avenues for them. It may stretch and/or challenge them a bit, but how bad is that? School (not to mention "High" school) is a place for learning, not a day-care centre.
One of the main reasons why most PhD students and about half the faculty in the US are from abroad is that the US seems incapable of producing sufficient competent scientists / researchers.
As far as I can see, the main reason is that pupils in the US are encouraged to waste the whole time they spend in High School goofing off, and then spend about half the time in College making up for their deficiencies. Unfortunately a typical high-school graduate can't spell, can't write even a small report, can't do arithmetic, knows damn-all about mathematics, physics, chemistry, biology, history or geography. Not bad for a budding plumber or manager, but quite lethal to anyone thinking of going into science or engineering.
If this is to change, there has to be a division _at high school level_ between those wishing to go to college, and those wishing to enter the job market, or choose a vocational career after high school. Only then will it be possible to give high-school pupils with appropriate majors the depth they are currently lacking.
Making it mandatory to choose a majors that early may seem stupid, but there are plenty of meaningful majors that don't close off any significant career avenues. (High}
And besides... school is supposed to prepare pupils for their later career. This includes teaching them how to study, how to work hard, and where their limits are. Nobody ever discovered his limits without trying to see how far they can go. What we have now is a system where the pace and depth of learning of a heterogeneous class is determined by that of the least talented, the least industrious, and the least motivated.
As a result, pupils either have to shine *despite* the efforts of the school system to keep them dumbed down, which is a really mean way of selecting people on self-motivation, or they have to be lucky enough to have wealthy parents who understand the value of education and send their children to very expensive special schools. How else do you suppose the current president made it through one of the Ivy League universities?
Schools should not leave all to pupil's self motivation. Of course... if a pupil is un-motivated, there is little one can do. What one *can* and *should* do is to offer challenging and rewarding education to those that want it. For example to pupils who choose a science-heavy majors.
Ok ... some people are captive
on
Manhattan 1984
·
· Score: 1
After reading your response I realise that you are pretty much captive to a specific mode (given your residential location and your workplace)... and to a specific route, as the alternative you list is an order of magnitude more expensive and takes twice as long. You are caught between a rock and a hard place as the saying goes.
In your specific case, as you describe it, congestion charging would indeed achieve nothing for you, except make your life more expensive because the next-best mode alternative is likely to be even worse. And yes... public transport is notorious for requiring additional travel for access to and egress from the public transport network. And yes... I know that the British train system suffers from decades of under-investment. And no... of course you can't be blamed for the poor service level of public transport you describe. The only remaining question is: what would the impact of that congestion charging scheme that you describe be on Birmingham as a whole plus, say, people withing 10 miles of it? In other words... would the welfare decrease for you and others like you be offset by a welfare increase for others? Chances are that either economic studies of congestion charging and its effects would show a net economic benefit, or that the importance of relieving congestion in the center of Birmingham is rated very highly.
Unfortunately it's darned near impossible to come up with any policies that affect lots of people that aren't plain unreasonable in at least some of the cases. And market-based approaches and overall economic perspectives only consider overall monetary (or monetizable) effects and contain no consideration whatsoever for individual hardship or reasonableness.
Orthodox economic thought would say "You choose this consumption bundle, consisting of residential location, choice of workplace, travel mode etc., which was optimal for you. This apparently includes a residential location away from the big city with a poor accessability. Now external factors (read congestion charging) are changing the cost of that consumption bundle so it's no longer optimal. It's your responsability to re-optimize your consumption bundle, taking transaction cost into account.".
Freely translated as: "If you don't like the price increase of your commute, change home or workplace or both. If those costs outweigh the cost increase of your commute, suck it up.".
This line of thought doesn't contain a lot of empathy, I admit. But it's pure market-oriented thought nonetheless. The underlying idea is that if places like Birmingham can't offer a decent level of accessability for specific commuters, then those people should just move elsewhere. And it's true... from the perspective of a whole region or even a country,... but not exactly fair to the individuals involved.
First off, this idea isn't new. It's being used more or less in that fashion. However there are two problems:
- (a} earmarking of funds
- {b} insufficient differentiation
{a} As regards earmarking of funds: the temptation is enormous to use gasoline taxes for other things besides road maintenance. Think of e.g. Defense, Homeland Security, Education. Those departments have huge, and varying, needs. How about persuading your average politician, say VP Cheney, that he can't spend gasoline tax income on the military or DHS or whatever? I'd love to hear back from you after you've tried...
{b} A tax on gasoline won't help reduce congestion. Any tax that even comes close to keeping people away from much-in-demand roads during the rush hour, would be totally un-affordable to anyone driving on a country road in the late evening.
First off... sorry, but paying road tax doesn't make you "part owner". Compare it to software if you like... you pay for a license, not for ownership. The most you'd own is the license.
And yes, it seems ridiculous to charge you for road use after you pay for a license. But no, it isn't really.
Look at it this way... some stretches of road are in higher demand than can be accommodated. Hence congestion. With congestion everybody pays... in lost time {time is money}, reduced accessibility, increased fuel cost, unavailability of parking places etc. Congestion is generally seen as undesirable. But how to avoid it on roads that are in high demand?
The basic idea is to treat road use as any other scarce good: auction it. You could, in theory, do this by allocating say X time-limited slots and auctioning them. This would rank all potential users of that particular road by how much that road-use is worth to them, and only the X highest bidders would get a slot. Not sympathetic, but economically sound. If you can't afford a resource (road use} then it's economically inefficient to let you have it. Singapore for example does something like that. Annual vehicle licenses are limited, and are usually worth more than the cars people drive.
Now auctioning time-limited slots has a practical downside: you never know if you're going to be able to get to your destination, and it costs a lot of money to stage the auction, and then police the use of roads. So people try the next-best thing: road tolling. It's easier and less costly to police than straight time-slots, and it's easier on the users. Done properly it gets rid of those potential users to whom that scarce good (road use} is worth least... and it allows others, whose need is apparently more urgent, to have it. Not nice, but effective.
And yes... if you held a referendum you probably wouldn't be able to get support for road pricing. But then voters are famously inconsistent and short-sighted, and sometimes downright stupid. That's why we have a system of representation instead of direct voting on all major issues. It allows unpopular but necessary measures to go through. Of course it allows plenty of stupid money-wasting schemes to go through as well... but there you go.
Slashdot Mirror
Which really isn't an option for Microsoft. So what they did, doing Windows the engineering way, really was the only thing to do.
Having said this, I would like to note that there is a very good reason for bringing out Vista: plain old software engineering. The last thing I expected to do was to defend Microsoft from a software engineering point of view, but here goes.
I think it started when Jim Allchin (whom I much respect) had to report to Bill Gates that he would not be able to deliver the next Windows version (Longhorn) in time ... or at all (see http://software.silicon.com/os/0,39024651,39152715,00.htm and the original WSJ interview (subscription required) http://online.wsj.com/article/SB112743680328349448.html?mod=todays_us_page_one).
Why ever not?
Here is why: Jim Allchin, group VP in charge of Windows, told the Wall Street Journal he dropped the bombshell last summer, simply telling Gates "It's not going to work". Longhorn was so complex that Microsoft's developers would never be able to make it run properly, Allchin told Gates.
The root of the problem was Microsoft's historical approach to developing software - the so-called 'spaghetti code culture' - where the company's thousands of programmers would each develop their own piece of code and it would then all be stitched together at the end.
In other words: the design was so complex, so haphazard, and consisted of so many interlocking parts that it was no longer really modular.
In software engineering that's a killer. Because it's then impossible to really isolate problems. Let alone fix them. The remedy was as simple as it was brutal: stop the current line of MS Windows (i.e. kill Longhorn), start from scratch, and rigorously use good software engineering practice throughout.
The result is ... MS Windows Vista.
So ... did that approach work?
Yes it did:
As a result of this Microsoft received thousands fewer bug reports than usual when it released the beta version of Windows Vista this summer. Allchin's culture change also appears to be spreading through the rest of Microsoft. Gates said the new tools are now being used by the Office group. "I wish we'd done it earlier," he told the paper.
Unfortunately there is nothing about running current applications that Vista does that Windows XP can't do just as well. But then you don't always go by the best way to run current applications. Longhorn wasn't about that either. If it had been, you would be able to completely stop the development of Windows with XP and call it a completed work of art. Any takers?
It's not that Microsoft did the wrong thing or the right by moving to Vista. They did the *only* thing from a long-term perspective. Too bad the short-term payoff is a bit less rosy, but that's what you get when you redo the internals of a spaghetti-code system that works.
Given that Ebay's response is along the lines of "It's a hoax, our security is fine, don't worry" I really wonder if keeping things like this under wraps is enough to keep companies like Ebay honest. I'm not optimistic since any admissions on their part cost them money, dent their public image, may cost them customers, and could make them easier to sue in case accounts are abused (either before or after the data becomes public).
Of course it's irresponsible to publish this sort of information (credit-card numbers, contact details) on the web. And yes ... perhaps there should be an independent authority (e.g. the police, the FBI) where you can go with your information and be certain that action will be taken instead of making it accessible to the world and his dog.
In the absence of a clear-cut authority to report to I'm still not quite convinced that the "shock-and-awe" effect of bluntly putting the data on the web isn't needed to prod Ebay into action to take measures.
An independent link seems to be: http://asia.news.yahoo.com/070917/3/37zv8.html
The quote from Neelie Kroes really is extremely dubious at first sight, but the follow-up comment by her spokesman makes more sense. From what I've read on her here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neelie_Kroes), the last thing one could say of mrs. Kroes is that she is a socialist, or even a crypto-socialist who delights in bashing successful companies.
I suspect that this comment is based on ordinary econometric marketshare modelling, which predicts marketshare as a function of explanatory variables that define economic utility ... such as price, performance, and connectivity. Extreme deviations between model prediction and actual marketshare could be viewed as a possible indication that the company in question is practising unfair competition (*not* as evidence of course, note the reservations I'm building in), and might serve as an additional reason to investigate that company if complaints are received. Which is what happened.
In this case I guess that what is meant is that econometric models predict marketshares around 50% in a genuinely free market, which would emerge after Microsoft complies with the order to provide interoperability information (without its current chicanery in the form of minimise-information-and-maximise-pagecount and it's license which is calculated to cut off Open Source competitors), which in turn would explain the comment.
I'm speculating of course, but I think this a more likely interpretation that gratuitous Microsoft-bashing on part mrs. Neelie Kroes.
That court just upheld the EU commission's view that Microsoft violated EU fair competition laws. It *publicly* told Microsoft that it was dead wrong in its views that it had (a) not violated fair-competition laws, and (b) that it had done enough to comply with the EU Commission's demand for interoperability information.
No international company (like Microsoft) can afford to shrug that off. Why? Because *every* single government out there now has a template with which they can credibly find Microsoft guilty of unfair competition in their own jurisdiction, *and* demand the inter-operability information that the EU is demanding. Don't think that Microsoft will be concerned? Think again.
In addition, Microsoft just received a court order to comply with the demands of the EU commission to supply third parties with the information they need to achieve interoperability. The longer Microsoft remains non-compliant with this order, the longer it will accumulate fines. To the tune of 10%-15% of its revenues. What company in the world can ignore that? If Microsoft's management were to try and ignore this, and continue to accumulate fines, they can be held liable to shareholders in the US. What would *you* do if you were the person responsible at Microsoft? Risk being sued for mismanagement by angry shareholders and then try to argue that it was in the best interests of the company and the shareholders to loose 10%-15% of its annual revenues in fines rather than to allow competitors a level playing field? Really?
Last but not least ... I really can't believe the contempt with which you seem to view that a $600 mln fine, even from the point of view of Microsoft. Loosing that amount in a genuinely risky investment is part of the cost of doing business, and presumably your investment had commensurate payoff prospects. On the other hand, loosing it by incurring (unnecessary) fines is just abysmal management. Even more so if youy stand to loose that kind of money *every year*. Microsoft didn't get to where it is now by holding that kind of money in contempt.
Personally I think that Microsoft will now, as a matter of priority, make interoperability information available in a form that is genuinely usable to anyone who wants to interface with or provide its Open Directory services.
Until you do, how are we to regard this claim as anything but random noise at best?
"When users launch Windows Update, Microsoft's online service can check the version of its executables on the PC and update them if necessary. What's unusual is that people are reporting changes in these files although WU wasn't authorized to install anything."
The question of whether Microsoft is in the right to update Windows Update executables without asking permission seems simple, but there are interesting aspects due to the closed-source nature of Windows.
One the one hand users (especially business users) have a legitimate interest in having their Windows systems remain stable and unaltered unless they wish them to change. So from that point of view it's not correct on Microsoft's part to change files, any files, without user's permission.
On the other hand, the Windows Update files only implement a functionality that allows Windows machines to communicate with Microsoft's Update services and nothing else. Strictly speaking therefore a Windows user has no legitimate interest in keeping those files frozen.
On the other hand, Microsoft has a clear interest in being able to change those files. Just imagine that Microsoft wants to change the compression format in which Windows Updates are sent. Or the protocol. Or the server name. It would be impractical and unreasonable to demand of them that they (a) ask individual users if they can please change the file format, the transmission format, the server name, or anything else (because this is no business of the user anyway), or (b) have to support umpteen different versions of Windows Update.
Furthermore, one can continue this line of thought and make a case that it's really none of the user's business what exact Windows system files are on his machine. They're all unreadable to him because they're binary, and he is debarred by law from trying to read them (that would be decompiling which is forbidden in the EULA).
In short ... when our Windows user bought a license for a closed-source product like Windows, which must (for security reasons) be updated regularly, one can argue that he didn't buy a license to any specific set of files but he bought a license to a system called "Windows", which promises him a certain functionality. And it's Microsoft who defines the technical details of what goes into Windows. Not the user. So Microsoft should be able to change the technical details of MS Windows, provided that the user retains broadly the same functionality as what he bought his license for. And certainly that part which communicates with them about patches.
Of course I'm playing devil's advocate here, but I think you'll see the logic.
(a) the constitution (just think of the PATRIOT act and other legal shenennigans by the current administration)
(b) individual freedom (versus the government)
(c) individual rights (versus the government and any other body that wields large amounts of power such as large corporations).
And yes, a large amount of time, care, money and attention is needed to adjudicate the conflicting claims and counterclaims. However I personally believe that it's safe to say that an impartial legal system is by and large one of the few remaining moral high grounds that the US can show to the world. Not that it's always perfect of course: the more money you can throw at it, the better your interests will be protected. But a certain minimum protection is guaranteed.
Unfortunately it is all but impossible to say what part of the care and the proceedings is "waste", and what part is "essential safeguard". And yes ... a particularly clever lawyer will know ways of "gaming the system" by complicating a case, raising far-out but still undeniable issues, and can usually secure long delays if nothing else. This costs a heap of money of course, which is why you don't usually see this sort of thing in disputes involving ordinary citizens or small corporations.
But having said this, those who feel the urge to wave their "Libertarian" flag and slag judicial procedures should realise that this regulated form of dispute resolution is what allows a modern society to exist, and that anarchy and "afghanistan-style" dispute resolution are just around the corner. This is the country that struggled its way out of "Wild West" style justice to where it is now. Remove or curtail judicial care and you'll be back there before you know.
RESOLUTION
Warning Serious problems might occur if you modify the registry incorrectly by using Registry Editor or by using another method. These problems might require that you reinstall your operating system. Microsoft cannot guarantee that these problems can be solved. Modify the registry at your own risk.
To resolve this issue, disable the DHCP BROADCAST flag in Windows Vista. To do this, follow these steps:
1. Click StartStart button, type regedit in the Start Search box, and then click regedit in the Programs list.
User Account Control permission If you are prompted for an administrator password or for confirmation, type your password, or click Continue.
2. Locate and then click the following registry subkey:c es\Tcpip\Parameters\Interfaces\{GUID}
HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SYSTEM\CurrentControlSet\Servi
In this registry path, click the (GUID) subkey that corresponds to the network adapter that is connected to the network.
3. On the Edit menu, point to New, and then click DWORD (32-bit) Value.
4. In the New Value #1 box, type DhcpConnDisableBcastFlagToggle, and then press ENTER.
5. Right-click DhcpConnDisableBcastFlagToggle, and then click Modify.
6. In the Value data box, type 1, and then click OK.
7. Close Registry Editor.
So Vista isn't (formally) going counter to protocol, it's just going counter to a 15-year old custom. Nonetheless, Vista *can* cooperate, it just needs to be told not to raise the DHCP BROADCAST flag. And yes, that route goes via a registry modification.
In summary: a tropical storm in a teacup.
And yes, I think the immunity is for the right reasons: there are lots of advertisements and pieces of commercial attention-grabbing software that I don't want on my system. I don't care a hoot if that's fair or not w.r.t. whatever company thought they'd bring out such software. I just want to be able to prevent it from installing.
So any anti-virus software, anti-spyware software like Adaware is something *I* run, and what they remove or disable they do so on *my* authority.
I'm just relieved to see that not every random company out there can sue them for providing me the service I ask for on my own computer.
On second thought, and when I look closer, I see that they are good-quality photographs that weren't taken as an afterthought with someone's mobile phone. So you're right ... someone had to go and take them, and that someone had to be paid out of the licensing fees. Point taken.
It might be that it differs by field and by journal (I'm in engineering / maths), and I'm sure that e.g. Nature doesn't demand fees to publish.
I admire the chutzpa of the complaint about "undue government intervention". Research federally funded, peer-review carried out by publicly funded academics, but commercial publishers would first copyright articles sent to them for free, and them charge federal government for those same articles? Measures to ensure that the feds can download and copy those articles for free is "interfering"? Oh boy!
How about some proper negotiation with those publishers about copyrights? How about setting up all-electronic Open Source journals that offer access free of charge, and let commercial publishers compete with the Open Source journals for articles they want to publish? Or is that "compromising the viability" of the commercial offerings?
Yes ... on the subject of "compromising the viability". Joe Sixpack might not recognise this statement for the fallacy it is. Research is carried out (often funded by federal government), and written of for free by the researchers who did it. Peer review of scientific articles is carried out for free by scientists in their field. Those are the "peers" that conduct peer-review. And they are *not* funded by the publishers, the are funded by their respective employers (universities, companies), and by the individual researchers themselves, who will often spend their own time reviewing papers..
Now it's widely known that todays science publishing is big business (commercial science publishers post excellent earnings every year) and scientific journals are terribly expensive (just ask any university library near you).
The fun part is that commercial publishers really do very little for the journals they publish. Just consider:
- the raw material is delivered to them in the electronic format of their choice, free of charge
- they must then employ a qualified editor who does the first crude selection. (This individual will have to be paid be paid a good salary, say $60k - $80k a year.)
- then they send the articles to individual researchers for peer-review. This takes a few hours of secretarial support, a rolodex, and an email account.
- then they read the comments from the peer reviewers that help them decide whether the article is publishable, and they route the comments to the authors for improvement and response
- finally they receive the amended article, in electronic form, do a final check, and have it typeset.
That's all. The little secret is that commercial publishers don't really add that much of value. But a library subscription can easily come to $8,000 - $12,000 per year. How many of them would you need to cover your costs? Publishers don't let on obviously, but a fair guess is that $200,000 annually will be enough to keep a journal running. That would be, say 40 subscriptions of $5
-Q(1) What does Rodriguez's article show?
-Q(2) is OOXML in and by itself flawed?
-Q(3) What's the practical relevance of the question whether OOXML is flawed?
-Q(4) So what's in it for Microsoft? Why do they bother?
-
- Q(1) : What does Rodriguez's article show?
- A(1) : Rodriguez's article show that the OOXML format written by latest Microsoft Office applications, among them MS Excel, is:
- sorely defective in that you can't be sure to get your original data back after saving it to OOXML
- impossible to change outside MS Office applications
- tied to the MS Office way of representing internationalised versions of documents because "of the way Microsoft chose to store XML using the US English locale, no matter how good your implementation is, you have to retrofit it to work just like Office does" in order to accommodate internationalised documents
- MS Office legacy formats supported throughout, greatly (and unnecessarily) contributing to the size and complexity of the 6,000 page standard.
- Q(2): Is OOXML flawed in and by itself?
- A(2):Yes, I think so, partly because of Rodriguez's article, partly because of flaws documented elsewhere: see http://www.noooxml.org/petition The points 2,3,4,5 listed there seem especially crippling to me:
(2) There is no provable implementation of the OOXML specification: Microsoft Office 2007 produces a special version of OOXML, not a file format which complies with the OOXML specification;
(3) There is information missing from the specification document, for example how to do a autoSpaceLikeWord95 or useWord97LineBreakRules;
(4) More than 10% of the examples mentioned in the proposed standard do not validate as XML;
(5) There is no guarantee that anybody can write software that fully or partially implements the OOXML specification without being liable to patent lawsuits or patent license fees by Microsoft;
- Q(3): What's the practical relevance of the question whether OOXML is flawed?
- A(3): Enormous. We currently see that Microsoft is trying to convince the world to accepted OOXML as an ISO "standard", whereas it's no such thing. It's too loosely defined, and opposed to the existing Opendoc standard there is no open-source reference implementation. So there will be a morass of possible implementations, of which only Microsoft's own implementations will be guaranteed mutually compatible. That's a polite way of saying that Microsoft simply aims at continuing its format lock-in, only this time the under the name of OOXML.
- Q(4) : So what's in it for Microsoft? Why do they bother?
- A(4) : Well ... Microsoft has a policy whereby it quite explicitly does not want other people's software, let alone Open Source software, to render MS Office documents correctly.
For reference, see this email, (cited from Rodriguez's article):
Is that
Why?
- Fonts: the fonts under Windows are much better. Crisper and more readable at small fontsizes, thereby giving the desktop a more compact and more readable appearance. And yes, that's after you download and install the optional Truetype fonts.
- Polish: the look of individual windows and the desktop as a whole is more "polished" under Windows. Despite all the work that has been put into KDE. I don't mean tomfoolery like transparent floppy windows, I mean
- Responsiveness: under Windows 2000 the responsiveness of the system to user input is much better when the system is opening a new application. When I e.g. start an instance of Mozilla under Linux, the system responds sluggishly while it's loading. Windows remains responsive and loads the application quicker. I don't mind that it tends to take longer under Linux to load the thing, but I hate being forced to sit still and watch until it's up.
Oh yes, and please don't jump on me to tell me that I should try GNOME; I tried it and discarded it.
I do think you are missing a point, and an important one.
There are many shades of "being allowed to speak to the public" when it comes to organisations.
If the only thing Miss. Nason was interested in was ensuring, in good faith, that individuals don't hijack the authority of the organisation, then it would have been sufficient, even appropriate, to insist that only the PR office could speak "for the organisation", and that everyone one else could only speak "on a personal title".
Instead she went a step further. She not just centralised the authority to speak for the organisation, but also forbade individuals to speak out on a personal title. They have to be anonymous. The point is that the expertise in the NHTSA about technical matters is with the engineers, not with management. And unless you wanted to know about NHTSA policies, why would you want to speak to anyone but an engineer?
In fact, the article quotes the former head of the NHTSA:
"My God," said Joan Claybrook, who was N.H.T.S.A. administrator from 1977 to 1981 and is now president of Public Citizen, a consumer advocacy group. Given that N.H.T.S.A. is the leading source of automotive safety information in the United States, its researchers are public officials and people are entitled to "know what information they have, whether it is on paper or in their heads," Ms. Claybrook said.
This seems a much more reasonable stance: we, the public, pay for the NHTSA, and so we should have some way of knowing what their findings are. And it should be up to *us* to decide if we want to hear the opinion of NHTSA management or its engineers.
Unfortunately it seems typical of a certain philosophy on government to restrict access to potentially unfavourable news as in:
"Ms. Nason felt it was necessary for N.H.T.S.A. to have a "central spokesperson" and "we were finding a lot of stuff did not need to be on the record," David Kelly, her chief of staff, told me.".
*coughs* "We" were finding a lot of stuff "did not have to be on record". Sorry, but who are you to decide that? It just sounds like a flimsy pretext for spin-doctoring to me, coupled to a corporate philosophy of information-control.
There are many thing that a corporate mindset is more efficient at than a civil-servant mentality, but honesty and transparency aren't among them.
First of all: by all accounts he was an extremely good programmer. To the point where the joke in Redmond was: "Can't hack it? Give it to Bill, he'll program it in Basic over the weekend." Well ... there are other very good programmers, and not a few who are better than Bill, but as far as I understand, Bill was also very good at helicoptering between programming detail and marketing significance. There aren't many who can do that.
Secondly he spotted the main chance and succeeded in grabbing it. Not so much as a visionary, but as someone who carefully listens to what people have to say ... in case they say something that he can use. Personally I think this is reflected in Microsoft's "tail light chaser tactics".
I think we can agree that although Microsoft hardly ever came up with any *conceptually* new software (except perhaps Clippy the Office Assistant ... may he rest in peace forevermore}, it tended to buy good ideas and usually succeeded in turning those into software that people wanted to buy. Because it was cheaper than the competition, fairly intuitive to use, and "good enough".
Now that *sounds* easy ... just spot a good idea and do it better. But the industry is awash with people who had a good idea and slipped up because they missed some detail along the line and continued not to spot the problem until it was too late. Like e.g. IBM's micro-computer division to IBM's PC operating system division to the WordPerfect Corporation to Borland to Lotus to Ashton-Tate. All of them had success, and woke up too slowly when things went subtly wrong for them. In most cases that "something" was Microsoft coming up with a competing product (whether home-grown or bought}.
You can't pull something like that off without a very clear perception of where things stand and where they're moving. I think that that is an area in which Bill excelled.
Remember when Microsoft threatened to miss the boat on this thing called "Internet"? Remember how a certain Billg first refused to see it, then suddenly did, and then made his company turn on a dime and go all-out for Internet functionality? He later admitted that he'd seen the new development too late ... but he did catch on in the end, and long before many other captains of industry. And when he did, he took the right action.
That's what I mean. How many big bosses are perceptive enough to spot when they're barking totally up the wrong tree, and objective enough to switch trees? That's what I think we should credit him for. Regardless of anything else.
- anybody who likes to hear an opinion that's usually sensible, well thought-through, honest, and devoid of humbug?
- someone who is interested in hearing from the guy who succeeds in maintaining sufficient technical credit to have the likes of Alan Cox, Andrew Morton, and a raft of others you've never heard about listen to him?
- people who think that the ideas of a fellow whose ideas proved fruitful might be interesting?
Come to think of it ... why would anyone care about what Bill Gates thinks? Apart from him still being one of the sharpest cookies in the industry that is. Why indeed? The money he has to spend? Is that your criterion?
I personally think it's going a bit too far to systematically demand passports from people's from states that don't support the REAL-ID act.
I'm no security expert, but I might agree that under the current circumstances a legal requirement that you must be able to show an ID to a police officer when asked isn't totally stupid. On the other hand ... how hard is it for dedicated terrorists (or criminals} to get hold of a legitimate ID? Seriously ... what terrorist worth his salt would try to enter the US with a phony ID? Border checks may be mechanical and conducted by less-than-totally-bright underpaid people, but they *can* spot fake IDs. And home-grown terrorists? Why shouldn't they have perfectly good IDs up to and until they strike?
The only thing you might do better with those databases is what the Germans called "Rasterfahndung". Which basically is database mining for any criterion that might let you select a set of people with higher probability of being a terrorist than those outside. It's like mining gold from seawater. It can be done, but it's much more costly and less effective than conventional methods of policing. So I'm still a bit hazy on the benefits of REAL-ID.
The downside is of course that central government's knowledge of, and hold on, those 250-odd million of us who are no security risk at all increases substantially. Not to mention all those massive juicy databases with personal information that will have to be built. Nobody's going to try and target them for identity theft, there will be no un-authorised access by private investigators, nor will there be any accidental leakages at all ... honest.
To my chagrin, and to my substantial amazement, I find my previous post being taken seriously. Did I inadvertently say something that makes sense in my first post? Ordinary Americans so much of a security risk that you really have to keep an eye on them and trace their movements? I should hope not.
Just look at the facts:
- in the US, on average, one in two households has a firearm ... because they feel threatened by other Americans
- the US has the highest murder rate in the developed world
The facts are clear ... let's face it: Americans constitute a security risk.
Mandating photo ID's to be worn by all of then is therefore a spot-on measure, and probably the least we can do. Right?
However ... what people *can* do is look into themselves and see how much aptitude and interest they have in a career that involves higher learning. Of course the opinions of their parents and their teachers will have some weight, but it won't *determine* their choice generally speaking.
Now ... people who expect to go into retail, management, business, or choose a vocational career can simply choose subjects that won't unduly tire them during school hours and might even come in handy ... like car mechanics or cooking or embroidery.
On the other hand, pupils who like learning ... and who are reasonably good at it (so they don't have to bust their backside to complete the course) ... may e.g. take a combined major in Maths, Physics, Chemistry, English, and Spanish or French if they are thinking of going into science or engineering, and perhaps Economics, English, History, Geography, and Spanish or French if they are thinking of a going further in humanities.
It's quite doable and it won't close any avenues for them. It may stretch and/or challenge them a bit, but how bad is that? School (not to mention "High" school) is a place for learning, not a day-care centre.
As far as I can see, the main reason is that pupils in the US are encouraged to waste the whole time they spend in High School goofing off, and then spend about half the time in College making up for their deficiencies. Unfortunately a typical high-school graduate can't spell, can't write even a small report, can't do arithmetic, knows damn-all about mathematics, physics, chemistry, biology, history or geography. Not bad for a budding plumber or manager, but quite lethal to anyone thinking of going into science or engineering.
If this is to change, there has to be a division _at high school level_ between those wishing to go to college, and those wishing to enter the job market, or choose a vocational career after high school. Only then will it be possible to give high-school pupils with appropriate majors the depth they are currently lacking.
Making it mandatory to choose a majors that early may seem stupid, but there are plenty of meaningful majors that don't close off any significant career avenues. (High}
And besides ... school is supposed to prepare pupils for their later career. This includes teaching them how to study, how to work hard, and where their limits are. Nobody ever discovered his limits without trying to see how far they can go. What we have now is a system where the pace and depth of learning of a heterogeneous class is determined by that of the least talented, the least industrious, and the least motivated.
As a result, pupils either have to shine *despite* the efforts of the school system to keep them dumbed down, which is a really mean way of selecting people on self-motivation, or they have to be lucky enough to have wealthy parents who understand the value of education and send their children to very expensive special schools. How else do you suppose the current president made it through one of the Ivy League universities?
Schools should not leave all to pupil's self motivation. Of course ... if a pupil is un-motivated, there is little one can do. What one *can* and *should* do is to offer challenging and rewarding education to those that want it. For example to pupils who choose a science-heavy majors.
In your specific case, as you describe it, congestion charging would indeed achieve nothing for you, except make your life more expensive because the next-best mode alternative is likely to be even worse. And yes ... public transport is notorious for requiring additional travel for access to and egress from the public transport network. And yes ... I know that the British train system suffers from decades of under-investment. And no ... of course you can't be blamed for the poor service level of public transport you describe. The only remaining question is: what would the impact of that congestion charging scheme that you describe be on Birmingham as a whole plus, say, people withing 10 miles of it? In other words ... would the welfare decrease for you and others like you be offset by a welfare increase for others? Chances are that either economic studies of congestion charging and its effects would show a net economic benefit, or that the importance of relieving congestion in the center of Birmingham is rated very highly.
Unfortunately it's darned near impossible to come up with any policies that affect lots of people that aren't plain unreasonable in at least some of the cases. And market-based approaches and overall economic perspectives only consider overall monetary (or monetizable) effects and contain no consideration whatsoever for individual hardship or reasonableness.
Orthodox economic thought would say "You choose this consumption bundle, consisting of residential location, choice of workplace, travel mode etc., which was optimal for you. This apparently includes a residential location away from the big city with a poor accessability. Now external factors (read congestion charging) are changing the cost of that consumption bundle so it's no longer optimal. It's your responsability to re-optimize your consumption bundle, taking transaction cost into account.".
Freely translated as: "If you don't like the price increase of your commute, change home or workplace or both. If those costs outweigh the cost increase of your commute, suck it up.".
This line of thought doesn't contain a lot of empathy, I admit. But it's pure market-oriented thought nonetheless. The underlying idea is that if places like Birmingham can't offer a decent level of accessability for specific commuters, then those people should just move elsewhere. And it's true ... from the perspective of a whole region or even a country, ... but not exactly fair to the individuals involved.
- (a} earmarking of funds
- {b} insufficient differentiation
{a} As regards earmarking of funds: the temptation is enormous to use gasoline taxes for other things besides road maintenance. Think of e.g. Defense, Homeland Security, Education. Those departments have huge, and varying, needs. How about persuading your average politician, say VP Cheney, that he can't spend gasoline tax income on the military or DHS or whatever? I'd love to hear back from you after you've tried ...
{b} A tax on gasoline won't help reduce congestion. Any tax that even comes close to keeping people away from much-in-demand roads during the rush hour, would be totally un-affordable to anyone driving on a country road in the late evening.
And yes, it seems ridiculous to charge you for road use after you pay for a license. But no, it isn't really.
Look at it this way ... some stretches of road are in higher demand than can be accommodated. Hence congestion. With congestion everybody pays ... in lost time {time is money}, reduced accessibility, increased fuel cost, unavailability of parking places etc. Congestion is generally seen as undesirable. But how to avoid it on roads that are in high demand?
The basic idea is to treat road use as any other scarce good: auction it. You could, in theory, do this by allocating say X time-limited slots and auctioning them. This would rank all potential users of that particular road by how much that road-use is worth to them, and only the X highest bidders would get a slot. Not sympathetic, but economically sound. If you can't afford a resource (road use} then it's economically inefficient to let you have it. Singapore for example does something like that. Annual vehicle licenses are limited, and are usually worth more than the cars people drive.
Now auctioning time-limited slots has a practical downside: you never know if you're going to be able to get to your destination, and it costs a lot of money to stage the auction, and then police the use of roads. So people try the next-best thing: road tolling. It's easier and less costly to police than straight time-slots, and it's easier on the users. Done properly it gets rid of those potential users to whom that scarce good (road use} is worth least ... and it allows others, whose need is apparently more urgent, to have it. Not nice, but effective.
And yes ... if you held a referendum you probably wouldn't be able to get support for road pricing. But then voters are famously inconsistent and short-sighted, and sometimes downright stupid. That's why we have a system of representation instead of direct voting on all major issues. It allows unpopular but necessary measures to go through. Of course it allows plenty of stupid money-wasting schemes to go through as well ... but there you go.