Precisely. I'm sick of old people lecturing about the "good old days" especially in reference to product quality and value. How anyone for instance can compare the piles of s*** people drove 'x' number of decades ago or appliances, or electronics, even clothing, food, houses, etc., etc. to modern goods, claim they were "better" then claim they were "cheaper" is beyond absurd.
That's right gramps, you go drive your 1940 Packard, park it in the garage of your 700 sq. ft., drafty and cold cotton fiber insulated home (if you can make it home before it breaks down, it is pushing 5000 miles after all). Then eat your dinner it took your wife an hour plus to make provided through a grocery budget that costs you 40-50% of your wages. And stay the hell away from all those god damn pharmaceuticals you take to prop up your sorry ass. Parcheesi? No thanks gramps, my friends and I are hooking up on the XBox later. Did you hear about... no of course not. Gotta wait for the morning paper don't ya?
Actually with the protraction involved in any (American) death penalty case it is almost universally more expensive than a lifetime incarceration. Decide whether we should punish or should we rehabilitate and take action accordingly. The American justice system is torn between these two poles and as a consequence is doing neither very effectively.
That's a judgement call. There are some questions that really should be being answered. The first question is: "is it possible for a person to truly be worthless?" If it is not possible, "how do we extract the maximum value out of people deemed destructive and/or parasitic by society?" If it is possible "what is the most cost effective way to dispose of a person deemed worthless by society?" Originally the death penalty was viewed as the most efficient and expeditious means not to mention cathartic for the victims. However, with all the concern for wrongful prosecution and humane methodology it has come to be far more expensive and anything but cathartic for the victims than institutionalizing that person for the remainder of their natural life--because of the protraction of dispensing final justice.
To further conflict things is the realization that with rare exception criminals are a product of their upbringing and environment. While their actions are inexcusable to society the person is a product of their own victimization. Should we treat? Can we treat? Or should we discard?
Except that the goals Apple has set out for its lawyers would result in effectively zero consumer choice. If you've ever read Peter Hamilton's "Commonwealth Saga" surely you would draw parallels to the Prime...
HTML5/JavaScript is more expensive to develop for than.NET/WPF. In some cases I might even suggest an order of magnitude more expensive. Try to justify the expense when you don't have to.
The only thing MS is notorious for breaking compatibility with is IE. For example much of the software written for Window 2000 by and large still works just fine on Win 7, especially if the developers followed MS developer recommendations.
Business does not go out and spin new "meat and potatoes" software at the drop of a hat. This is especially true when it's to be built on top of new and largely unproven platform. Legacy software exists, and no one is going to replace it without a compelling reason. Incremental change is cheap to develop, cheap to train. Being able to run with minimal if any modification on a mobile device is an argument in the opposite direction.
Security wise, you would have a very challenging time convincing the decision makers that an HTML5/JavaScript based solution is anything close to as secure as an installed application. You would face a near impossible obstacle convincing them that you can do it for the same or less money.
A citation would be helpful for I've never seen, nor heard of such a comment. In fact actually the opposite. We're also talking directly about the tablet not necessarily the PC/Laptop form factors anyway and Win 8 is well suited for the mobile space. Getting Microsoft into a mobile form factor capable of doing not just the traditional ancillary office work but the "meat and potatoes" as well, especially with out need for purpose written mobile apps will answer the headaches of nearly every CTO/CIO when it comes to delivering "acceptable" mobile solutions to office staff.
If you really want to use Windows, you need to pay up for the privilege.
Even though you meant it in jest, there's actually something to that. There's something that Microsoft brings to the table that no one else can really say. They have an overwhelming majority presence in the business end-user arena. End-user business software runs on Microsoft, period. To be able to seamlessly untether them from the heavier form factors is a value that neither Apple nor Google can offer.
Right now if I want to deliver mobile solutions to the end-user I have to compromise with HTML5/JavaScript. This incurs penalties not only in functionality but also higher development costs. These costs come from the greater expense to develop (as opposed to native) as well as the need to produce redundant code bases. With the ability to simply target.NET I can reuse existing components from our PC based software. I don't need to bother with an HTML5/JavaScript stack because I no longer need to worry about WORA. I can just write-once run Microsoft without the restrictions imposed by using the lowest common denominator among the menagerie of platforms. End-users can enjoy being able to install our software on ALL of the form factors they desire with little concern for compatibility: PC, laptop, tablet, even smart phone.
Does everything have to be a polished final product before the scientists and engineers get some credit? Just because the final destination is still out of reach doesn't mean there aren't and won't be any interesting stops along the way of pursuing unlikely if not impossible dreams.
Well, not sure about the wall sized white-board with hieroglyphics on it but they are supposedly going to go play with lasers to create some micro-warps so they may well be able to tease out some reality...
It's the whole E=MC^2 Mass-energy equivalence bit.
For comparison:
E / m = c2 = (299,792,458 m/s)2 = 89,875,517,873,681,764 J/kg (9.0 × 1016 joules per kilogram).
So the energy equivalent of one gram (1/1000 of a kilogram) of mass is equivalent to:
89.9 terajoules
25.0 million kilowatt-hours (25 GWh)
21.5 billion kilocalories (21 Tcal)
85.2 billion BTUs
or to the energy released by combustion of the following:
21.5 kilotons of TNT-equivalent energy (21 kt)
568,000 US gallons of automotive gasoline
You have no idea what the hell a warp drive is do you? The ship in question actually isn't moving. There are no infractions of the universal speed limit and thus no time-travel.
I know VMware is well known for the vacuous and unintelligible products of its marketing department but this one really has to take the cake. How does this software/hardware deployment even remotely resemble the Hubble space telescope? How can this "cotton candy" style marketing actually be effective? Who could possible be willing to waste their time consuming such a large puffball of words for a few grains of substance? And again, how the hell does this resemble the Hubble space telescope?
Except when the 9 is really an 8 or an 8.9. Numbers are a very weak mnemonic compared to names and they're far more susceptible to irrecoverable data loss. Internally version numbers are great and much easier to use but, believe me if my boss would let me version a public release as "Harry the Hamster" instead of 1.11.27 I'd jump all over that. It'd save a great deal of customer support hassles. Heck, it'd help internally as well with the sales team since we produce a number of products and they're always getting version numbers crossed up.
It really doesn't matter of the non-techie knows the order of release. The non-techie simply needs to tell the tech helping them out that they have Jaunty Jackalope. Even if the non-tech mangles the name it's still more likely to communicate to the tech--in spite of the data loss--what they have. You'll dance in circles all day if you're trying to coax a version number out of them from memory.
Non-tech: "I remember it starts with a 'J' and um I remember something about an antelope, no, that's not right, um..."
Tech: "Do you mean Jaunty Jackalope?"
Non-tech: "Yes that's it! Jaunty Jackalope."
It sounded to me like he was less interested in providing them to his students as a "calculator" and more interested in using them for either personal or classroom geeky type things. Things like integrating them into a robotics device.
That said, I personally feel that the best use they could have would be in the hands of a child whose parents cannot afford to purchase a calculator.
Slashdot Mirror
Then I applaud you sir, for in my albeit youthfully limited experience you are in the minority.
Precisely. I'm sick of old people lecturing about the "good old days" especially in reference to product quality and value. How anyone for instance can compare the piles of s*** people drove 'x' number of decades ago or appliances, or electronics, even clothing, food, houses, etc., etc. to modern goods, claim they were "better" then claim they were "cheaper" is beyond absurd.
That's right gramps, you go drive your 1940 Packard, park it in the garage of your 700 sq. ft., drafty and cold cotton fiber insulated home (if you can make it home before it breaks down, it is pushing 5000 miles after all). Then eat your dinner it took your wife an hour plus to make provided through a grocery budget that costs you 40-50% of your wages. And stay the hell away from all those god damn pharmaceuticals you take to prop up your sorry ass. Parcheesi? No thanks gramps, my friends and I are hooking up on the XBox later. Did you hear about... no of course not. Gotta wait for the morning paper don't ya?
So I shouldn't rub it in that I have a 14'X12' (albeit interior) office to myself?
Actually with the protraction involved in any (American) death penalty case it is almost universally more expensive than a lifetime incarceration. Decide whether we should punish or should we rehabilitate and take action accordingly. The American justice system is torn between these two poles and as a consequence is doing neither very effectively.
That's a judgement call. There are some questions that really should be being answered. The first question is: "is it possible for a person to truly be worthless?" If it is not possible, "how do we extract the maximum value out of people deemed destructive and/or parasitic by society?" If it is possible "what is the most cost effective way to dispose of a person deemed worthless by society?" Originally the death penalty was viewed as the most efficient and expeditious means not to mention cathartic for the victims. However, with all the concern for wrongful prosecution and humane methodology it has come to be far more expensive and anything but cathartic for the victims than institutionalizing that person for the remainder of their natural life--because of the protraction of dispensing final justice.
To further conflict things is the realization that with rare exception criminals are a product of their upbringing and environment. While their actions are inexcusable to society the person is a product of their own victimization. Should we treat? Can we treat? Or should we discard?
Bullies always appreciates it when they can get some lackeys to hold the victim down for them.
Except that the goals Apple has set out for its lawyers would result in effectively zero consumer choice. If you've ever read Peter Hamilton's "Commonwealth Saga" surely you would draw parallels to the Prime...
What would your response be to the bully on the playground? Bend over?
Best god damn soap opera going...
You mean like this one or perhaps this one? Or maybe this one?
You do not understand the issues at hand.
HTML5/JavaScript is more expensive to develop for than .NET/WPF. In some cases I might even suggest an order of magnitude more expensive. Try to justify the expense when you don't have to.
The only thing MS is notorious for breaking compatibility with is IE. For example much of the software written for Window 2000 by and large still works just fine on Win 7, especially if the developers followed MS developer recommendations.
Business does not go out and spin new "meat and potatoes" software at the drop of a hat. This is especially true when it's to be built on top of new and largely unproven platform. Legacy software exists, and no one is going to replace it without a compelling reason. Incremental change is cheap to develop, cheap to train. Being able to run with minimal if any modification on a mobile device is an argument in the opposite direction.
Security wise, you would have a very challenging time convincing the decision makers that an HTML5/JavaScript based solution is anything close to as secure as an installed application. You would face a near impossible obstacle convincing them that you can do it for the same or less money.
A citation would be helpful for I've never seen, nor heard of such a comment. In fact actually the opposite. We're also talking directly about the tablet not necessarily the PC/Laptop form factors anyway and Win 8 is well suited for the mobile space. Getting Microsoft into a mobile form factor capable of doing not just the traditional ancillary office work but the "meat and potatoes" as well, especially with out need for purpose written mobile apps will answer the headaches of nearly every CTO/CIO when it comes to delivering "acceptable" mobile solutions to office staff.
If you really want to use Windows, you need to pay up for the privilege.
Even though you meant it in jest, there's actually something to that. There's something that Microsoft brings to the table that no one else can really say. They have an overwhelming majority presence in the business end-user arena. End-user business software runs on Microsoft, period. To be able to seamlessly untether them from the heavier form factors is a value that neither Apple nor Google can offer.
Right now if I want to deliver mobile solutions to the end-user I have to compromise with HTML5/JavaScript. This incurs penalties not only in functionality but also higher development costs. These costs come from the greater expense to develop (as opposed to native) as well as the need to produce redundant code bases. With the ability to simply target .NET I can reuse existing components from our PC based software. I don't need to bother with an HTML5/JavaScript stack because I no longer need to worry about WORA. I can just write-once run Microsoft without the restrictions imposed by using the lowest common denominator among the menagerie of platforms. End-users can enjoy being able to install our software on ALL of the form factors they desire with little concern for compatibility: PC, laptop, tablet, even smart phone.
You have to recoup R & D, maintenance, sales and marketing, etc.
This may simply be evidence that the Win 8 tablet platform is intended for the business audience.
Does everything have to be a polished final product before the scientists and engineers get some credit? Just because the final destination is still out of reach doesn't mean there aren't and won't be any interesting stops along the way of pursuing unlikely if not impossible dreams.
Well, not sure about the wall sized white-board with hieroglyphics on it but they are supposedly going to go play with lasers to create some micro-warps so they may well be able to tease out some reality...
Sorry, wiki link ref.
E / m = c2 = (299,792,458 m/s)2 = 89,875,517,873,681,764 J/kg (9.0 × 1016 joules per kilogram).
So the energy equivalent of one gram (1/1000 of a kilogram) of mass is equivalent to:
89.9 terajoules
25.0 million kilowatt-hours (25 GWh)
21.5 billion kilocalories (21 Tcal)
85.2 billion BTUs
or to the energy released by combustion of the following:
21.5 kilotons of TNT-equivalent energy (21 kt)
568,000 US gallons of automotive gasoline
You have no idea what the hell a warp drive is do you? The ship in question actually isn't moving. There are no infractions of the universal speed limit and thus no time-travel.
De Beers presently sets their price at roughly that of the price to have one manufactured by Gemesis.
I know VMware is well known for the vacuous and unintelligible products of its marketing department but this one really has to take the cake. How does this software/hardware deployment even remotely resemble the Hubble space telescope? How can this "cotton candy" style marketing actually be effective? Who could possible be willing to waste their time consuming such a large puffball of words for a few grains of substance? And again, how the hell does this resemble the Hubble space telescope?
Except when the 9 is really an 8 or an 8.9. Numbers are a very weak mnemonic compared to names and they're far more susceptible to irrecoverable data loss. Internally version numbers are great and much easier to use but, believe me if my boss would let me version a public release as "Harry the Hamster" instead of 1.11.27 I'd jump all over that. It'd save a great deal of customer support hassles. Heck, it'd help internally as well with the sales team since we produce a number of products and they're always getting version numbers crossed up.
Non-tech: "I remember it starts with a 'J' and um I remember something about an antelope, no, that's not right, um..."
Tech: "Do you mean Jaunty Jackalope?"
Non-tech: "Yes that's it! Jaunty Jackalope."
It sounded to me like he was less interested in providing them to his students as a "calculator" and more interested in using them for either personal or classroom geeky type things. Things like integrating them into a robotics device.
That said, I personally feel that the best use they could have would be in the hands of a child whose parents cannot afford to purchase a calculator.