People seem to forget that Bill Gates saved Apple (made a substantial investment) or they *would* have gone bankrupt. Gates also bailed out... Sun Microsystems.
Market caps are meaningless in a vacuum: PE ratios, cost of good sold, gross margins would favor Microsoft. Apple relies on creating the next big fad, first time they fail the stock will tank. Remember the Newton?
Microsoft on the other hand makes huge margins selling the same thing... over and over and over again.
Hmm. I find this analysis to be metaphorical of the American two-party political process. Dispite Kennedy's famous assertion, people join political parties not for what they can give the party, but what the party can give them. Like the toilet paper dilema we subconsciously choose the "bigger roll", as it were, because that party has "more" to offer. We are oblivious to normative rate of decay in the system because our initial strategy is a subconscious one.
It does not do any good to have a price war with
IBM and Dell. So, yeah, if you are the Linux
specialists you charge more for your expertise -- at least at retail.
BTW, IBMs profit margins are very low on hardware. They make their money in professional service, and customer service & support (CS&S). IBM basically gives the hardware away to get their foot in the door of corporate IT.
Personally, I don't understand why companies like VA, Yahoo, and Covad are not being bought out by
the profitable companies. IBM, Pac Bell, and AOL suffer because of the weakness of the market; no Covad makes the cable modem look real attractive. VA might not help IBM get their foot into any fortune 500 companies, but it would be a great boost for HR.
Well, at least I know why Microsoft is sitting on the fence.:-) Hi, Bill. Love ya!
Well, given the history of the film industry at least they were kind enough to leave UA out of it. It would be too ironic to see the Chaplin, Pickford, Fairbanks named studio try to muscle the little guy.
Red Hat could make it even easier by placing security fixes in one place. However, lets put this in perspective:
First, Microsoft service packs are several in number and are usually applied in turn. So, even on that platform there is not ONE patch. For the testing teams manager to decide that five service packs is ok, but twenty rpms is too many shows an unprofessional attitude.
Second, the security of a system could be compromised by any application listening to a port. On the Microsoft platform this is more likely to include individually distributed proprietary applications; each of which would maintain their own security patches.
Several major universities are working on "Internet II". To techies this has been portrayed as a faster technology proving ground for the Internet, with limited access to the chosen developers at universities. However, I've heard it marketed as the future "secure commerce internet" by someone from a certain big blue American corporation. This person specifically claimed that host traffic would be verifiable, and thereby secure, and ISPs would be approved. Of couse big brother is going to have a backdoor, and your chip ID is going to uniquely identify you on the internet.
There is *some* reason for government to worry; If Internet technologies are going to be used for commerce of course people should worry that a cyber-terrorist could bring the banking system to its knees. But is that really what is happening? Transaction processing at that level has been taking place on private networks for years, and on that scale private networks are not nearly so cost prohibitive. In the decades long electronic banking era, have we had any national security level incidents? Not that I know of. So what if we now use TCP instead of SNA.
In my opinion, big brother is looking to gain more control of the every-day Internet -- it's a reflex action -- and big business is looking to create barriers to entry for the new economy -- another reflex action -- and they are willing to sacrifice a lot of economic growth in order to get it. Just an opinion.
A fellow graduate student from England told me a story a few years ago about American Intelligence and the atom bomb. The Manhatten Project was our top top secret; we wouldn't even tell our allies about it. However, when the device was detonated, possibly over Hiroshima, the U.S. government gladly distributed time elapse photographs of the expanding mushroom cloud: What a historic moment! What an achievement! From this little bit of information British scientists, and possibly others, were able to deduce the critical mass of U238.
People are careless, dumb and vain: one of the reasons security through obscurity is a bad idea.
Not only am I concerned that this will inspire a "security crackdown", but I'm afraid that this might be the beginning of a P.R. campaign by those who would benifit by it. The only way for big corporate America to cut down the no-barriers-to-entry competitive enviroment they are facing is to have Draconian laws passed about who can connect and with what.
I attended a security seminar, given by a big American corporation, within in the last year. The instructor was a ex Air Force half-wit who regurgitated a bunch of bad ideas for network security. I came a way with the feeling that people are already making plans to make the Internet less open: fewer hosts, fewer competitiors (Internet 2). It fits right in with Microsoft's new server applications strategy.
I'm telling you: This is a very important election cycle. We had better make sure that the public understands the issues, and that the politicians disclose their positions... and then vote!
To me, the issue is not whether someone owns the word hacker; but, whether someone can identify you in the public's mind as a social pariah, and have unpleasent thing happen to you. Witch hunts happen, and for political reasons. Why stand in the way of a coming train? Just to prove a point?
The term 'hacker' will be -- is -- used against freelance software developers in bad ways. Among friends, fine; with the public, be cautious.
Cast off the use of slang; use a title that accurately reflects what you are doing: Freelance Software Developer.
In the commercial writing business "freelance" work is often done with the hope of somehow getting paid for it. Sometimes freelance work is commisioned in advance; if the work is good, it is accepted. This is effectively what hackers are doing.
The term 'hacker' has always had unspoken meaning in the sub-culture of hackers. To me it implies possibly kludgie, amateur, or social; in general, it conveys humility (sometimes falsely, sometimes unnecessarily). Programmers need not be demure with the general public, nor include them in the sub-culture; therefore, the best thing to do is use plain english with the public: freelance software development.
The best way to get *writers* to stop using the term "hacker" is to complain to their EDITORS. Really, editors HATE the use of slang in mainstream journalism. If you complain loudly it will be an embarrassment for them and they will *demand* revision.
I have very little legal background, but I'll comment anyway.:-)
The overall information contained in this document is the _position_ of Nintendo; while they do present some facts other information there is just their opinion: ROM images are illegal, Emulators are illegal, ROM burners are illegal. N could not possibly know the copyright status of every piece of information ever burned on a ROM. Burners and readers are standard industry tools, just owning one is not illegal. Emulators, in my mind, are an open debate for many reasons; Like ROMs, N could not possibly know the IP status of everything emulatable; but more importantly, hardware is covered by patent not copyright--I question whether software, an emulator, capable of producing a similar effect as a patented hardware is an infringement. This is almost a look-and-feel issue.
Make the whole debate moot. Write free software games for open standard architecture. Then Nintendo will beg you to use their products!
Slashdot Mirror
Had to login and add a comment on this thread, if just to remember my UID.
Good luck with your future endevours.
Last post!
All spelling intentional.
People seem to forget that Bill Gates saved Apple (made a substantial investment) or they *would* have gone bankrupt. Gates also bailed out... Sun Microsystems.
Market caps are meaningless in a vacuum: PE ratios, cost of good sold, gross margins would favor Microsoft. Apple relies on creating the next big fad, first time they fail the stock will tank. Remember the Newton?
Microsoft on the other hand makes huge margins selling the same thing... over and over and over again.
Dual use too. Remove the roof and you have a railgun.
Perfect for launching small satellites into space, or for duck hunting.
Mmm. Yeah. You could market the ride as the ultimate vomit comet.
52nd. Canada was the 51st state.
bastard.
VHS! My old family videos are on super 8!
What I wouldn't give to have all my old family
videos on VHS!
Hmm. I find this analysis to be metaphorical of the
:-)
American two-party political process. Dispite
Kennedy's famous assertion, people join political
parties not for what they can give the party, but
what the party can give them. Like the toilet paper
dilema we subconsciously choose the "bigger roll",
as it were, because that party has "more" to offer.
We are oblivious to normative rate of decay in the
system because our initial strategy is a subconscious
one.
Write 3000 words on the subject.
Isn't this what Microsoft is in trouble for doing? Non-price predation I beleive it's called (not that I'm a lawyer, but I do read Slashdot :-) ).
Read more in Dr. Dobb's Journal. It's great.
It does not do any good to have a price war with IBM and Dell. So, yeah, if you are the Linux specialists you charge more for your expertise -- at least at retail.
BTW, IBMs profit margins are very low on hardware. They make their money in professional service, and customer service & support (CS&S). IBM basically gives the hardware away to get their foot in the door of corporate IT.
Personally, I don't understand why companies like VA, Yahoo, and Covad are not being bought out by the profitable companies. IBM, Pac Bell, and AOL suffer because of the weakness of the market; no Covad makes the cable modem look real attractive. VA might not help IBM get their foot into any fortune 500 companies, but it would be a great boost for HR.
Well, at least I know why Microsoft is sitting on the fence. :-) Hi, Bill. Love ya!
Well, given the history of the film industry at least they were kind enough to leave UA out of it. It would be too ironic to see the Chaplin, Pickford, Fairbanks named studio try to muscle the little guy.
Does Mcmillion include a CDROM with every book or magazine sold? Do they count these as sales?
I don't.
This seems like a PR stunt to confuse the masses. They are not earning any brownie point from me.
Red Hat could make it even easier by placing security fixes in one place. However, lets put this in perspective:
First, Microsoft service packs are several in number and are usually applied in turn. So, even on that platform there is not ONE patch. For the testing teams manager to decide that five service packs is ok, but twenty rpms is too many shows an unprofessional attitude.
Second, the security of a system could be compromised by any application listening to a port. On the Microsoft platform this is more likely to include individually distributed proprietary applications; each of which would maintain their own security patches.
Several major universities are working on "Internet II". To techies this has been portrayed as a faster technology proving ground for the Internet, with limited access to the chosen developers at universities. However, I've heard it marketed as the future "secure commerce internet" by someone from a certain big blue American corporation. This person specifically claimed that host traffic would be verifiable, and thereby secure, and ISPs would be approved. Of couse big brother is going to have a backdoor, and your chip ID is going to uniquely identify you on the internet.
There is *some* reason for government to worry; If Internet technologies are going to be used for commerce of course people should worry that a cyber-terrorist could bring the banking system to its knees. But is that really what is happening? Transaction processing at that level has been taking place on private networks for years, and on that scale private networks are not nearly so cost prohibitive. In the decades long electronic banking era, have we had any national security level incidents? Not that I know of. So what if we now use TCP instead of SNA.
In my opinion, big brother is looking to gain more control of the every-day Internet -- it's a reflex action -- and big business is looking to create barriers to entry for the new economy -- another reflex action -- and they are willing to sacrifice a lot of economic growth in order to get it. Just an opinion.
A fellow graduate student from England told me a story a few years ago about American Intelligence and the atom bomb. The Manhatten Project was our top top secret; we wouldn't even tell our allies about it. However, when the device was detonated, possibly over Hiroshima, the U.S. government gladly distributed time elapse photographs of the expanding mushroom cloud: What a historic moment! What an achievement! From this little bit of information British scientists, and possibly others, were able to deduce the critical mass of U238.
People are careless, dumb and vain: one of the reasons security through obscurity is a bad idea.
Not only am I concerned that this will inspire a "security crackdown", but I'm afraid that this might be the beginning of a P.R. campaign by those who would benifit by it. The only way for big corporate America to cut down the no-barriers-to-entry competitive enviroment they are facing is to have Draconian laws passed about who can connect and with what.
I attended a security seminar, given by a big American corporation, within in the last year. The instructor was a ex Air Force half-wit who regurgitated a bunch of bad ideas for network security. I came a way with the feeling that people are already making plans to make the Internet less open: fewer hosts, fewer competitiors (Internet 2). It fits right in with Microsoft's new server applications strategy.
I'm telling you: This is a very important election cycle. We had better make sure that the public understands the issues, and that the politicians disclose their positions... and then vote!
To me, the issue is not whether someone owns the word hacker; but, whether someone can identify you in the public's mind as a social pariah, and have unpleasent thing happen to you. Witch hunts happen, and for political reasons. Why stand in the way of a coming train? Just to prove a point?
The term 'hacker' will be -- is -- used against freelance software developers in bad ways. Among friends, fine; with the public, be cautious.
Cast off the use of slang; use a title that accurately reflects what you are doing: Freelance Software Developer.
In the commercial writing business "freelance" work is often done with the hope of somehow getting paid for it. Sometimes freelance work is commisioned in advance; if the work is good, it is accepted. This is effectively what hackers are doing.
The term 'hacker' has always had unspoken meaning in the sub-culture of hackers. To me it implies possibly kludgie, amateur, or social; in general, it conveys humility (sometimes falsely, sometimes unnecessarily). Programmers need not be demure with the general public, nor include them in the sub-culture; therefore, the best thing to do is use plain english with the public: freelance software development.
The best way to get *writers* to stop using the term "hacker" is to complain to their EDITORS. Really, editors HATE the use of slang in mainstream journalism. If you complain loudly it will be an embarrassment for them and they will *demand* revision.
I have very little legal background, but I'll comment anyway. :-)
The overall information contained in this document is the _position_ of Nintendo; while they do present some facts other information there is just their opinion: ROM images are illegal, Emulators are illegal, ROM burners are illegal. N could not possibly know the copyright status of every piece of information ever burned on a ROM. Burners and readers are standard industry tools, just owning one is not illegal. Emulators, in my mind, are an open debate for many reasons; Like ROMs, N could not possibly know the IP status of everything emulatable; but more importantly, hardware is covered by patent not copyright--I question whether software, an emulator, capable of producing a similar effect as a patented hardware is an infringement. This is almost a look-and-feel issue.
Make the whole debate moot. Write free software games for open standard architecture. Then Nintendo will beg you to use their products!