I was actually compating Macs to Wintel machines If you use an AMD (or whatever compatible) chip to run a Microsoft OS, then I think the term Wintel still applies. Obviously if you run something else on your AMD (or Intel for that matter) chip then the term does not apply.
While that distinction makes a lot of sense at the technical level, it's meaningless in economic terms.
No, it does make a difference in economic terms. If you want to buy a Macintosh, you have to buy it from apple. There is no competition for a Macintosh. If you do not draw a distinction between PCs and Macs then there is no economic difference.
I get the feeling we're not getting through to each other.
That's what I get for trying to extend an annology. Nice job ripping it to shreds. My point was the software, and that's what I was reaching for (obviously without success) with the garage, gas and wheel.
It's not that I really disagree with you, it's just that you're choosing examples that don't support your argument well.
If you want a computer, you can choose between several hardware platforms (Wintel, Macintosh, Sparcs...). But if you decide that you want a Macintosh then you are stuck with Apple as your provider. Does that make them a monopoly? They are the sole provider of a good or service, so in that respect they are. But how does that relate to your example?
If you want to watch TV you have several choices (Cable, Satilite, Radio Waves...[?]). But if you decide that you want Cable then you're stuck with AT&T (or whomever you're stuck with). Does that make them a monopoly? I think we both agree that it does --sort of.
As an aside, I'm getting pretty tired of the widespread misuse of the word "monopoly" by the Slashdot community. It's not really a monopoly, in the strictest sense of the word, when only Apple can make Apple computers. Only Volkswagen can make the Beetle; that's not really a monopoly. You guys may wish that every product or service could be decentralized, but that's just now how the world works.
Maybe not in the strictest sense, but it's pretty darn close. If your anology was completely apt, we would be living in a world where switching from a VW Beetle to a Ford Focus would require a new garage, different gasoline, and a new kind of steering wheel. But we don't. If you get a different car, everything else works pretty much the same. But if I switch between a Windows PC and a Macintosh, I have to also spend about as much on new software.
....So you have to make sure you switch computers when it's time to upgrade software....
It was the last project we did in a Pascal class in high school. We broke it into 3 parts:
1) input (random, "drawn") 2) Computing states 3) displaying
There were two of us working on competing versions of each sections, and they had to work interchangably. Funniest moment was when we compared the two systems for computing the states. One of the two was about an order of magetude faster. The guy who wrote the slower one said, "There's no way it can be faster. You used booleans. Boolean/sounds/ so much slower than integer. It can't be faster.
But apart from that, has anyone actually seen Microsoft deflecting/spinning the exploits that Windows allows? I don't think they have to do that. I don't see the press asking hard questions. You read "bad hackers" stories, but you don't read "bad microsoft" stories --present company excepted.
Maybe I'm just not listening right, or maybe Microsoft's PR department is that good, but I see software company accountability as a non-issue in the main stream. It would be interesting if these Lindows machines were not secure. If Microsoft made a point of it, then the press might pickup on a comparison between operating systems, or at least treat it as an issue.
Anything to get rid of the "we wrote it, but we're not responcible for it" attitude that companies get away with now.
I can just imagine millions of these things selling widely. Then every single one being hacked by one group with the same root exploit. Think of the headlines "Wal- Mart facilitates domestic terrorism" "Internet Weakened by Linux manchines" etc.[...]
Now just imagine the PR nightmare for Microsoft if they sold millions of machines that were routinely vulnerable to exploits. Oh, nevermind.
I don't see that it particularly matters that the information is optional. My question was whether or not they attempted to use that information to inform people about the potential problem that could result from using the installer.
Presumably, some people provided the optional information, and perhaps some part of that information was not bogus, but included a real email address.
I noticed on the download page that Apple asks for email addresses. Does anyone know if they emailed warnings to people who had downloaded the effected version? Seems sort of crappy if they didn't do that.
It [Python Essential Reference] makes no attempt to teach you how to program --so don't buy it if you are new to programming AND to Python. But ifyou've used several languages and want to do a project in Python it is quite useful.
It is the only Python book I own, and the few times it has not had the information I need (mostly specifics about modules) I've been able to find what I need in the online documentation.
I run the technical operations for a larger webcast company (one that produces our own music stations). For a very long time now, we have been paying ASCAP, BMI, and SESAC fees just like traditional broadcast stations. [...]
Another thing I should mention is that these fees are NOT EVEN EXPENSIVE for small stations (read: stations with little to no profit) We're talking like 100 bucks per year, for Christ's sake!
[...]We usually get our music via promotional lists directly from record companies, but if we wanted to, we could LEGALLY download and broadcast music from Napster users!
So all I have to do to pay the artists whose music I so shamefully download from Napster users and play in my home is become a licensed webcast station? I would LOVE that. My entire audience would be myself and my wife, and the artists would get there money, and everything would be legal.
Yeah, it would still bother me that they don't get more of that money, but one would think that if that money added up they would eventually sign contracts with people who gave them a larger slice of the pie.
Does anyone remember firefly.com? They licensed technology that let web sites implement collaborative filtering. Filmfinder.com used it for movies, and barnsandnoble.com used it for books. They seem to be out of business now, but this is the basic idea:
You rate things (books, movies, posts, posters, stories) that you like, and your ratings are compared to other people who rated those same items similarly to you. You are then presented with new items that you theoretically might be interested in based on what other people who rated in a similar manner to you liked.
This becomes a continual feedback system, as you can rate these new items as well. Eventually, you should see things that interest you and people who have views that are "compatible" with yours.
Would this work as a moderation system?
It has a couple of things going for it. You could tie it to posts OR to users. Personally, I prefer users, as "first posts" and all such nonsense seem to come from the same people. It is an "opt in" system. Don't want to play? Don't rate anything and you see the same stuff that veryone else who doesn't rate anything sees (everything).
Personally, I would find it helpful to be able tosay (on SlashDot) that I liked a particular poster, and would like all of their posts "moderated" up when I read posts. That's a much simpler approach than a complete collaborative filtering system, but would be useful.
At any rate, does anyone know if anyone is using this type of system anymore? Specifically for discussions, but any example would be useful.
I have --soon to be had-- two accounts with ciHost, and the initial two days of down time is not why I decided to leave (ignore for a moment their more recent performance). The reason I decided to leave is because I did not hear anything from them.
The sites were down for a day, and the first "responce" I recieved concerning it was not from ciHost, but from another hosting company. They evidently sent email to everyone who used ciHost's nameserver. Perhaps not the most ethical course of action, but certainly a timely one.
It was a full day before I heard anything official fro ciHost, and --although one of my sites was (and has remains to this time) down-- Their rosey press-release email told the story of the problem you're now familiar with and that they said was solved.
Prompt, honest answers would have kept me as client.
Slashdot Mirror
Dang, I didn't read your post carefully enough. I did say hardware platforms, and probably should have said computer systems or some such. Ignore me.
I was actually compating Macs to Wintel machines If you use an AMD (or whatever compatible) chip to run a Microsoft OS, then I think the term Wintel still applies. Obviously if you run something else on your AMD (or Intel for that matter) chip then the term does not apply.
No, it does make a difference in economic terms. If you want to buy a Macintosh, you have to buy it from apple. There is no competition for a Macintosh. If you do not draw a distinction between PCs and Macs then there is no economic difference.
I get the feeling we're not getting through to each other.
That's what I get for trying to extend an annology. Nice job ripping it to shreds. My point was the software, and that's what I was reaching for (obviously without success) with the garage, gas and wheel.
It's not that I really disagree with you, it's just that you're choosing examples that don't support your argument well.
If you want a computer, you can choose between several hardware platforms (Wintel, Macintosh, Sparcs...). But if you decide that you want a Macintosh then you are stuck with Apple as your provider. Does that make them a monopoly? They are the sole provider of a good or service, so in that respect they are. But how does that relate to your example?
If you want to watch TV you have several choices (Cable, Satilite, Radio Waves...[?]). But if you decide that you want Cable then you're stuck with AT&T (or whomever you're stuck with). Does that make them a monopoly? I think we both agree that it does --sort of.
Maybe not in the strictest sense, but it's pretty darn close. If your anology was completely apt, we would be living in a world where switching from a VW Beetle to a Ford Focus would require a new garage, different gasoline, and a new kind of steering wheel. But we don't. If you get a different car, everything else works pretty much the same. But if I switch between a Windows PC and a Macintosh, I have to also spend about as much on new software.
....So you have to make sure you switch computers when it's time to upgrade software....
It was the last project we did in a Pascal class in high school. We broke it into 3 parts:
/sounds/ so much slower than integer. It can't be faster.
1) input (random, "drawn")
2) Computing states
3) displaying
There were two of us working on competing versions of each sections, and they had to work interchangably. Funniest moment was when we compared the two systems for computing the states. One of the two was about an order of magetude faster. The guy who wrote the slower one said, "There's no way it can be faster. You used booleans. Boolean
You're right, I was just going for the joke...
But apart from that, has anyone actually seen Microsoft deflecting/spinning the exploits that Windows allows? I don't think they have to do that. I don't see the press asking hard questions. You read "bad hackers" stories, but you don't read "bad microsoft" stories --present company excepted.
Maybe I'm just not listening right, or maybe Microsoft's PR department is that good, but I see software company accountability as a non-issue in the main stream. It would be interesting if these Lindows machines were not secure. If Microsoft made a point of it, then the press might pickup on a comparison between operating systems, or at least treat it as an issue.
Anything to get rid of the "we wrote it, but we're not responcible for it" attitude that companies get away with now.
Now that really doesn't seem all that likely, does it?
I don't see that it particularly matters that the information is optional. My question was whether or not they attempted to use that information to inform people about the potential problem that could result from using the installer.
Presumably, some people provided the optional information, and perhaps some part of that information was not bogus, but included a real email address.
I noticed on the download page that Apple asks for email addresses. Does anyone know if they emailed warnings to people who had downloaded the effected version? Seems sort of crappy if they didn't do that.
It [Python Essential Reference] makes no attempt to teach you how to program --so don't buy it if you are new to programming AND to Python. But ifyou've used several languages and want to do a project in Python it is quite useful.
It is the only Python book I own, and the few times it has not had the information I need (mostly specifics about modules) I've been able to find what I need in the online documentation.
So all I have to do to pay the artists whose music I so shamefully download from Napster users and play in my home is become a licensed webcast station? I would LOVE that. My entire audience would be myself and my wife, and the artists would get there money, and everything would be legal.
Yeah, it would still bother me that they don't get more of that money, but one would think that if that money added up they would eventually sign contracts with people who gave them a larger slice of the pie.
Someone point me to information about signing up.
L. Sommerer
URL to the slashdot help files:
http://dotdot.stashslashslashdot.dot
Does anyone remember firefly.com? They licensed technology that let web sites implement collaborative filtering. Filmfinder.com used it for movies, and barnsandnoble.com used it for books. They seem to be out of business now, but this is the basic idea:
You rate things (books, movies, posts, posters, stories) that you like, and your ratings are compared to other people who rated those same items similarly to you. You are then presented with new items that you theoretically might be interested in based on what other people who rated in a similar manner to you liked.
This becomes a continual feedback system, as you can rate these new items as well. Eventually, you should see things that interest you and people who have views that are "compatible" with yours.
Would this work as a moderation system?
It has a couple of things going for it. You could tie it to posts OR to users. Personally, I prefer users, as "first posts" and all such nonsense seem to come from the same people. It is an "opt in" system. Don't want to play? Don't rate anything and you see the same stuff that veryone else who doesn't rate anything sees (everything).
Personally, I would find it helpful to be able tosay (on SlashDot) that I liked a particular poster, and would like all of their posts "moderated" up when I read posts. That's a much simpler approach than a complete collaborative filtering system, but would be useful.
At any rate, does anyone know if anyone is using this type of system anymore? Specifically for discussions, but any example would be useful.
The sites were down for a day, and the first "responce" I recieved concerning it was not from ciHost, but from another hosting company. They evidently sent email to everyone who used ciHost's nameserver. Perhaps not the most ethical course of action, but certainly a timely one.
It was a full day before I heard anything official fro ciHost, and --although one of my sites was (and has remains to this time) down-- Their rosey press-release email told the story of the problem you're now familiar with and that they said was solved.
Prompt, honest answers would have kept me as client.
Lloyd Sommerer