"We're trying to crank up the security level higher than ever," he said. "This came down to a few weeks. We are trying to do the responsible thing here... Maybe in the past we would have just gone ahead but now we're not going to do that."
How about a slashdot poll on how many security patches for holes found within a month because it was rushed and they 'went ahead anyway'? I think it could be quite interesting.
To me this harkens back to the release of Windows 2000 with Bill's famous quote "It's our most stable windows ever." followed precipitously by BSOD.
I can't see how this article could promote thoughtful, 2 sided discussion. A quick breeze through the comments confirms this, with the exception of one or two responses pointing out how the Australian Democrats can't get elected.
Think someone needs to add a few more tags to the article... maybe "slownewsday", "troll", or "flamebait".
Sure, Apple decides to give away $15k, $20k or whatever it comes out to worth of stuff for the lucky punk who happens to download the billionth song - and a bad song at that.
Why couldn't they have put that money to better use like say...
Porting iTunes to linux?!?!
I mean come on! How long have we been asking for that? Wouldn't it be one little victory over MS if this application ran seamlessly on the only operating systems that can remotely be considered competition for windows (sorry BSD, I don't mean to offend) Isn't it always said that the enemy of my enemy is my friend? Now that money might not ahve gone all the way to building a working version (I'm no development expert, that's for sure) but it certainly would have helped.
I agree with the longevity arguement. I worked at an architectural firm running a UNIX file and print server that had not changed since it wat bought in the mid eighties. It worked like a dream. Then the admin left, they replaced it with a windows server, which has been replaced twice since then (NT, server 2000, server 2003). There was nothing wrong with that UNIX except that the new admin didn't understand it. Bloody waste of money if you ask me.
Let's not forget that Apple doesn't make money without both their hardware and their OS. People buy Mac hardware (where Apple makes their money) for the OS (on which Apple make no money) To make money at software, you must either:
a) Sell a retarded amount of it like MS. The upfront cost of writing software is huge. The cost for the first copy is the entire development cost plus one blank cd. The cost for the second copy is the entire development cost plus 2 blank cd's. You see where this goes right? Sell enough and it costs you nothing per copy to make. However, to sell this much, you must either have huge marketing costs (now you're not making money any more) or a locked in market (like MS).
b) Sell is to one person _for_ a retarded amount. Think custom IT solutions for someone like the military, or a company the size of Merril Lynch.
Software is a weird business. Hardware is much more traditional in terms of the relationships of cost of production and sales.
What all this means is that Apple uses the popularity and quality of the OS, which makes no money, to sell the hardware, which makes lots of money. That's the trade off. Apple abandoning the Mac OS would be economic suicide and CAN NEVER HAPPEN.. unless the laws of economics change.. which they can't.
Anyone.. ANYONE explain how this is legal. How can you possibly make a product so blatantly anti-competitive? I mean, this stuff used to be done quietly behind closed doors and even then it was still sketchy.
It's disturbing to know that everyone's soul has a price.
Seeing as I just had to wipe the pizza oil off my fingers to type this reply... you've got quite a good point there.
On antoher note, I don't think organs will cut it for this thing. I think we're talking first born son here. I mean come on.. it's 2 steps away from the display in minority report:
1. Immersive 3d
2. Wicked awesome 3 finger glove deallies.
And I totally want one.
The family's first computer ran on an 8088 (I still have the chip). I was too young to remember anything about it other than it had a wicked awesome hangman game my dad and I used to play. My first (at age 8) was a Macintosh Classic. That puppy ran on 32K of RAM with an enourmous 32MiB HD. Oh the memories.
Now my Cisco phone at work runs on a 386, and the flash drive in my watch holds 512M. My $20 calculator has more computing power than an Apollo space flight.
I think we may have lost sight of the simpler things in life like when a phone was a phone not a personal organiser, portable entertainment unit, and a camera. I should not have to wait for my cell phone to boot. I'll probably get torn to shreds for suggesting technology might be getting ridiculous, but that's how I feel. Maybe I'm just a person out of time.
No... all it means is that the researchers were only able to _reliably_ project climate data back that far. The problem with previous studies and attempts to project further back was underlying assumptions and accuracy/defendability of the data generated.
Re:There ought to be a law
on
Vonage IPO
·
· Score: 1
There is a simple economic law: The law of gross stupidity. Don't buy something without having looked at it enough to know it's not going to tank in 6 months.
That said, with losses like that, the IPO might fail and the stock price overcompensate. Then you could pick it up at a bargain price, while everyone's in a hysteria about how poorly the IPO did, watch it closely through modest recovery, then sell before it goes out of control (remember what you were _supposed_ to do with your stocks in late 99?)
At the risk of being redundant, their losses are not completely from marketing costs. Even if they were, Vonage needs to seriously rethink their business model rather than just go for a cash grab IPO.
Over 90% of the fibre backbone is dark thanks to WorldCom laying it like railroad tracks were laid 150 years ago? Let's get _something_ on there! Not that I'm a fan of Verizon (recently screwed over DSL service), but I don't really see a problem with this proposal unless they're blocking/impeading public use of chunks of the network.
"A book??...
That's right. In my day [the internet] was called books!"
-William Goldman The Princess Bride
There are very special books called reference books that contain the wealth of human knowledge. It's like, just written down on paper and handily bound into volumes by subject area. Maybe people should open them again. Anyone who's thesis is based on that much internet research holds no academic weight at all. Believe me.
One thing that no one seems to realise - and is very important for Canadians and other countries who do business in the United Sates (so almost everyone) - is that this law also allows US intelligence agencies to spy on our businesses and citizens who have dealings with the US. They have no right to do this. It is an act of espionage and just another example the gross hypocrisy and mass stupidity of an administration claiming to stand for personal freedoms, civil liberties, and human rights.
While I whole-heartedly support your call of shenanigans, I must take issue with something in this post: the second sentence.
I know, I know, not relevant to the discussion, but this must be said.
The expression is not "tow the line". It has absolutely nothing to do with conforming to or upholding the opinions/assertions of some larger thing. The expression is "toe the line". It actually means the complete opposite, in that someone who "toes the line" steps up and challenges (ie. the opinions/assertions of some larger thing or other antagonist) and is derived from boxing and fighting. A less popular interpretation is something akin to "living on the edge" where the boundaries of conformity are flirted with but not crossed.
Now that we've cleared that up, back to the deconstruction of the very carefully crafted responses to honest questions by the OSS community.
-Graham
(for more about how to properly speak this language of ours, see the essay Politics and the English Language by George Orwell, 1946.
Slashdot Mirror
From the article:
"We're trying to crank up the security level higher than ever," he said. "This came down to a few weeks. We are trying to do the responsible thing here... Maybe in the past we would have just gone ahead but now we're not going to do that."
How about a slashdot poll on how many security patches for holes found within a month because it was rushed and they 'went ahead anyway'? I think it could be quite interesting.
To me this harkens back to the release of Windows 2000 with Bill's famous quote "It's our most stable windows ever." followed precipitously by BSOD.
-1 Flamebait.
I can't see how this article could promote thoughtful, 2 sided discussion. A quick breeze through the comments confirms this, with the exception of one or two responses pointing out how the Australian Democrats can't get elected.
Think someone needs to add a few more tags to the article... maybe "slownewsday", "troll", or "flamebait".
Trace-buster-buster-buster.
Sure, Apple decides to give away $15k, $20k or whatever it comes out to worth of stuff for the lucky punk who happens to download the billionth song - and a bad song at that.
Why couldn't they have put that money to better use like say...
Porting iTunes to linux?!?!
I mean come on! How long have we been asking for that? Wouldn't it be one little victory over MS if this application ran seamlessly on the only operating systems that can remotely be considered competition for windows (sorry BSD, I don't mean to offend) Isn't it always said that the enemy of my enemy is my friend? Now that money might not ahve gone all the way to building a working version (I'm no development expert, that's for sure) but it certainly would have helped.
I agree with the longevity arguement. I worked at an architectural firm running a UNIX file and print server that had not changed since it wat bought in the mid eighties. It worked like a dream. Then the admin left, they replaced it with a windows server, which has been replaced twice since then (NT, server 2000, server 2003). There was nothing wrong with that UNIX except that the new admin didn't understand it. Bloody waste of money if you ask me.
Let's not forget that Apple doesn't make money without both their hardware and their OS. People buy Mac hardware (where Apple makes their money) for the OS (on which Apple make no money) To make money at software, you must either: a) Sell a retarded amount of it like MS. The upfront cost of writing software is huge. The cost for the first copy is the entire development cost plus one blank cd. The cost for the second copy is the entire development cost plus 2 blank cd's. You see where this goes right? Sell enough and it costs you nothing per copy to make. However, to sell this much, you must either have huge marketing costs (now you're not making money any more) or a locked in market (like MS). b) Sell is to one person _for_ a retarded amount. Think custom IT solutions for someone like the military, or a company the size of Merril Lynch. Software is a weird business. Hardware is much more traditional in terms of the relationships of cost of production and sales. What all this means is that Apple uses the popularity and quality of the OS, which makes no money, to sell the hardware, which makes lots of money. That's the trade off. Apple abandoning the Mac OS would be economic suicide and CAN NEVER HAPPEN.. unless the laws of economics change.. which they can't.
Anyone.. ANYONE explain how this is legal. How can you possibly make a product so blatantly anti-competitive? I mean, this stuff used to be done quietly behind closed doors and even then it was still sketchy. It's disturbing to know that everyone's soul has a price.
Seeing as I just had to wipe the pizza oil off my fingers to type this reply... you've got quite a good point there. On antoher note, I don't think organs will cut it for this thing. I think we're talking first born son here. I mean come on.. it's 2 steps away from the display in minority report: 1. Immersive 3d 2. Wicked awesome 3 finger glove deallies. And I totally want one.
The family's first computer ran on an 8088 (I still have the chip). I was too young to remember anything about it other than it had a wicked awesome hangman game my dad and I used to play. My first (at age 8) was a Macintosh Classic. That puppy ran on 32K of RAM with an enourmous 32MiB HD. Oh the memories. Now my Cisco phone at work runs on a 386, and the flash drive in my watch holds 512M. My $20 calculator has more computing power than an Apollo space flight. I think we may have lost sight of the simpler things in life like when a phone was a phone not a personal organiser, portable entertainment unit, and a camera. I should not have to wait for my cell phone to boot. I'll probably get torn to shreds for suggesting technology might be getting ridiculous, but that's how I feel. Maybe I'm just a person out of time.
No... all it means is that the researchers were only able to _reliably_ project climate data back that far. The problem with previous studies and attempts to project further back was underlying assumptions and accuracy/defendability of the data generated.
There is a simple economic law: The law of gross stupidity. Don't buy something without having looked at it enough to know it's not going to tank in 6 months. That said, with losses like that, the IPO might fail and the stock price overcompensate. Then you could pick it up at a bargain price, while everyone's in a hysteria about how poorly the IPO did, watch it closely through modest recovery, then sell before it goes out of control (remember what you were _supposed_ to do with your stocks in late 99?) At the risk of being redundant, their losses are not completely from marketing costs. Even if they were, Vonage needs to seriously rethink their business model rather than just go for a cash grab IPO.
Over 90% of the fibre backbone is dark thanks to WorldCom laying it like railroad tracks were laid 150 years ago? Let's get _something_ on there! Not that I'm a fan of Verizon (recently screwed over DSL service), but I don't really see a problem with this proposal unless they're blocking/impeading public use of chunks of the network.
"A book??... That's right. In my day [the internet] was called books!" -William Goldman The Princess Bride
There are very special books called reference books that contain the wealth of human knowledge. It's like, just written down on paper and handily bound into volumes by subject area. Maybe people should open them again. Anyone who's thesis is based on that much internet research holds no academic weight at all. Believe me.
One thing that no one seems to realise - and is very important for Canadians and other countries who do business in the United Sates (so almost everyone) - is that this law also allows US intelligence agencies to spy on our businesses and citizens who have dealings with the US. They have no right to do this. It is an act of espionage and just another example the gross hypocrisy and mass stupidity of an administration claiming to stand for personal freedoms, civil liberties, and human rights.
While I whole-heartedly support your call of shenanigans, I must take issue with something in this post: the second sentence.
I know, I know, not relevant to the discussion, but this must be said.
The expression is not "tow the line". It has absolutely nothing to do with conforming to or upholding the opinions/assertions of some larger thing. The expression is "toe the line". It actually means the complete opposite, in that someone who "toes the line" steps up and challenges (ie. the opinions/assertions of some larger thing or other antagonist) and is derived from boxing and fighting. A less popular interpretation is something akin to "living on the edge" where the boundaries of conformity are flirted with but not crossed.
Now that we've cleared that up, back to the deconstruction of the very carefully crafted responses to honest questions by the OSS community.
-Graham
(for more about how to properly speak this language of ours, see the essay Politics and the English Language by George Orwell, 1946.