I imagine they were probably more concerned with other issues like foreign programmers who could easily be hired to work on other military projects for rivals.
They'd even have large parts of the source available while programming on such systems and even if they didn't create backdoors they could still try and hack the system later if there was a change in their situation.
Google advertising is great for people who are looking for something.
TV is still king when it comes to certain companies where brand strength is critical. Companies like Coca-cola or Pepsi don't really advertise much online. That's starting a little with Google Videos and coming down the line for YouTube.
Adsense doesn't do much for a product that doesn't have anything to offer online. Sure there's potential there to do things like start delivering McDonalds (or any local restaurant) ads to people shortly before their lunch break. It hasn't happened yet. There's still no substitute for the power of TV ads. That's one of the main reasons why google are buying into YouTube. TV is changing, Google are hoping that this will put them in pole position.
1: Buy worthless penny stock 2: Spam millions of people telling them this stock is gonna make them lots of money 3: Some people actually buy the stock 4: Price rises 5: Spammer sells stock 6: Profit!!!!
Pledging really isn't something that most people like doing. Outside of the wider public this project has been remarkably quiet. I don't even remember seeing the Pledgebank.
Sign up to buy a computer and then a few months later find out later whether you'll be able to buy one. It's really inconvenient. Such a project requires wider grassroots adoption and the support of a lot of people. The amount of money pledged was huge.
100,000 computers at $300 a pop is $30m. Making the effort part of telethon's and charity drives might have been much more effective than just having a website where you can't even buy one.
It's a cheap simple computer. It might have found a good audience in non geeks interested in trading up from old Windows 98 boxes. It's the one laptop per child project. For selling it in the 1st world it was marketed wrong. It might have done very well if sold as something to get your kid for Christmas instead of an Xbox 360 or an iPod where most of the money goes to charity. Meanwhile the iPod nano Red will sell in huge numbers with a lower (but very decent) amount going to charity.
Actually increasing taxes (globally) enough would slow down global warming significantly. A sharp shock to the global economy would start a recession and depress demand. With lower production and economic contraction total emissions would decrease significantly. Emissions from the Soviet Union decreased significantly due to the economic shock of its break-up.
Bush sponsored a coup against Chavez. It was a stupid thing to do. What was the point of the coup? They were just pissed off at him were were trying to intimidate his neighbours.
Chavez gets to call Bush anything he wants when addressing the UN general assembly. Its a small price you have to pay for sponsoring a coup against a democratic government. Many feel that Bush should be punished properly.
Well they're just trying to do something to get the legal attack dogs away from the throat of a fan. t-shirts of artwork can still be considered viral marketing. A simple take down notice would have sufficed. They went totally overboard and the fans are angry and feel used.
They've exposed it and it will hurt Universal. Universal should count themselves lucky that this probably won't develop much more momentum and end up turning into a campaign of active un-marketing (sic) against Universal.
Sorry I'm not trying to troll I'm just curious. Why do you not want to use CentOS or one of the other clones? Updates are free where you were paying $300 before.
Small niche? Red Hat is the market leading distro. Oracle represents another huge company which depends on and is compatible with RHEL. RHEL has spawned several important clones CentOS, Scientific Linux and now Unbreakable Linux.
Unbreakable will most likely only compete with RHEL for Oracle customers. That's a profitable market for Red Hat though. What Oracle need to remember is that undercutting a Linux distro is a dangerous game because they can be undercut at any time. All it takes is someone selling good support for CentOS etc.
This strengthens the position of RHEL within the enterprise Linux sector. Red Hats position as the standard distro to certify to and test for is becoming stronger and stronger.
That would just mean that it's unsupported on non Apple hardware. They'd need to specifically state that it is not permitted to run on Dell etc.
Technically, it's not a problem as Tiger doesn't run without modification on non Apple hardware and you can't assume that you'll be allowed modify shrink wrap software.
In the longer run Red Hat will stop bothering to support Oracle if it's only so Oracle can reuse the source code in a downstream distro. If Red Hat don't make enough money from Oracle customers they will stop spending money developing for it. If this move by Oracle is too successful Oracle will be forced to fork because Red Hat will use all it's resources working on other applications.
At that point Red Hat can start using the patches that Oracle is forced to write.
Actually it's only potentially a fork. Oracle haven't forked it yet and probably won't until such time as they decide they need to.
Until Oracle actually issues an update that didn't come from Red Hat first Oracle will be 100% compatible. Once Oracle does that they will still have a window of opportunity to issue a second patch to bring Unbreakable Linux back in line with RHEL if RHEL updates suitably (from Oracles perspective).
Even if Oracle do that and become uncertified (with Red Hat) they are mostly concerned with compatibility with Oracle software and can still state that they are compatible with their database. In the meantime Red Hat would be under pressure to adopt their patch because Oracle could claim that Red Hat isn't necessarily compatible with Oracle.
I would have thought that some people would like the idea of Oracle Linux (only) to run Oracle because it's reassuring. Oracle can pick up some extra customers that way and get a larger proportion of that customers total spend.
Oracle would have needed to spend a lot of money on developers anyway if they were going to be running on Linux anyway. For the future this gives Oracle an existing customer base who'll follow them if they ever decide to fork Red Hat. It gives them more leverage over Red Hat.
The big question is whether they are going to leech off Red Hat. Red Hat contribute a lot to the kernel. If Oracle leech Red Hat will have to cut back on development to compete. OTOH if Oracle contribute in a meaningful way to Linux then every Linux user benefits.
LCARS interface isn't really optimised for web browsing. Where it might be really useful would be in some sort of Labview style interface. It's a control console that has a large range of information available quickly. It's specialised but should be useful for some people. It's optimised for touch screens and for mixing rich content with data that needs to be constantly monitored. It's actually quite intuititive and fast. I can see it being very good in embedded systems.
That's a good analogy but it doesn't really sum up what feed aggregators do. What Google News does is more akin to producing a TV guide of what's playing now and what's popular. People use a TV guide in the same way that they use Google News to find out what's on.
I know some networks charge for TV guide information and TV guides make money from advertising (and even subscriptions). In a radio sense it would be like having a station that lists what song other stations are playing to help you find the one that you are more interested in without having to cycle. Maybe the radio stations don't like that you might hear a fraction of an ad on their station while flipping around. Most I would imagine would just be happy that more listeners are being directed to what they want to hear (more relevant advertising).
Slashdot Mirror
In the UK they use text messages instead.
. shtml
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2003/jun2003/tag-j09
It was a law firm that specialised in small litigation, especially personal injuries.
I imagine they were probably more concerned with other issues like foreign programmers who could easily be hired to work on other military projects for rivals. They'd even have large parts of the source available while programming on such systems and even if they didn't create backdoors they could still try and hack the system later if there was a change in their situation.
Google advertising is great for people who are looking for something.
TV is still king when it comes to certain companies where brand strength is critical. Companies like Coca-cola or Pepsi don't really advertise much online. That's starting a little with Google Videos and coming down the line for YouTube.
Adsense doesn't do much for a product that doesn't have anything to offer online. Sure there's potential there to do things like start delivering McDonalds (or any local restaurant) ads to people shortly before their lunch break. It hasn't happened yet. There's still no substitute for the power of TV ads. That's one of the main reasons why google are buying into YouTube. TV is changing, Google are hoping that this will put them in pole position.
Tivo did a deal with Sky. They're known as SKY+ in the UK.
There are other PVRs out there for Freeview/analogue users but the strength of Tivo was its ability to record based on a TV guide.
Since the market for these DVRs is fragmented there hasn't been such a push for people to buy a PVR.
PVRs are about a whole lot more than just ad free TV. They're great for watching sports where you can replay live TV.
1: Buy worthless penny stock
2: Spam millions of people telling them this stock is gonna make them lots of money
3: Some people actually buy the stock
4: Price rises
5: Spammer sells stock
6: Profit!!!!
It's a standard pump and dump scam.
Yeah. Bill Gates sponsoring a Linux project. He may be giving most of his money away but he's not that charitable.
(Microsoft did of course offer their own operating system license free as did Apple)
Pledging really isn't something that most people like doing. Outside of the wider public this project has been remarkably quiet. I don't even remember seeing the Pledgebank.
Sign up to buy a computer and then a few months later find out later whether you'll be able to buy one. It's really inconvenient. Such a project requires wider grassroots adoption and the support of a lot of people. The amount of money pledged was huge.
100,000 computers at $300 a pop is $30m. Making the effort part of telethon's and charity drives might have been much more effective than just having a website where you can't even buy one.
It's a cheap simple computer. It might have found a good audience in non geeks interested in trading up from old Windows 98 boxes. It's the one laptop per child project. For selling it in the 1st world it was marketed wrong. It might have done very well if sold as something to get your kid for Christmas instead of an Xbox 360 or an iPod where most of the money goes to charity. Meanwhile the iPod nano Red will sell in huge numbers with a lower (but very decent) amount going to charity.
Actually he's a statistician. It's an excellent book and I highly recommend it.
His newer stuff is also interesting http://www.copenhagenconsensus.com/
Actually increasing taxes (globally) enough would slow down global warming significantly. A sharp shock to the global economy would start a recession and depress demand. With lower production and economic contraction total emissions would decrease significantly. Emissions from the Soviet Union decreased significantly due to the economic shock of its break-up.
It wouldn't be very sensible of course.
Bush sponsored a coup against Chavez. It was a stupid thing to do. What was the point of the coup? They were just pissed off at him were were trying to intimidate his neighbours.
Chavez gets to call Bush anything he wants when addressing the UN general assembly. Its a small price you have to pay for sponsoring a coup against a democratic government. Many feel that Bush should be punished properly.
Well they're just trying to do something to get the legal attack dogs away from the throat of a fan. t-shirts of artwork can still be considered viral marketing. A simple take down notice would have sufficed. They went totally overboard and the fans are angry and feel used.
They've exposed it and it will hurt Universal. Universal should count themselves lucky that this probably won't develop much more momentum and end up turning into a campaign of active un-marketing (sic) against Universal.
Sorry I'm not trying to troll I'm just curious. Why do you not want to use CentOS or one of the other clones? Updates are free where you were paying $300 before.
I just went onto the universal studios website to find out what movies to not watch. Shouldn't have bothered.
The Black Dahlia
Man of the Year
Idlewild
Accepted
Miami Vice
You, Me and Dupree
coming
Lets go to Prison
The Good Shepherd
Children of Men
Alpha Dog
Unbreakable will most likely only compete with RHEL for Oracle customers. That's a profitable market for Red Hat though. What Oracle need to remember is that undercutting a Linux distro is a dangerous game because they can be undercut at any time. All it takes is someone selling good support for CentOS etc.
This strengthens the position of RHEL within the enterprise Linux sector. Red Hats position as the standard distro to certify to and test for is becoming stronger and stronger.
Technically, it's not a problem as Tiger doesn't run without modification on non Apple hardware and you can't assume that you'll be allowed modify shrink wrap software.
I for one welcome our new iPod mini overlords
That's IMHO a very apt word to be the highest scoring word in scrabble. Quixotry itself seems like such a foolishly practical word.
At that point Red Hat can start using the patches that Oracle is forced to write.
Until Oracle actually issues an update that didn't come from Red Hat first Oracle will be 100% compatible. Once Oracle does that they will still have a window of opportunity to issue a second patch to bring Unbreakable Linux back in line with RHEL if RHEL updates suitably (from Oracles perspective).
Even if Oracle do that and become uncertified (with Red Hat) they are mostly concerned with compatibility with Oracle software and can still state that they are compatible with their database. In the meantime Red Hat would be under pressure to adopt their patch because Oracle could claim that Red Hat isn't necessarily compatible with Oracle.
In four cases it's profit. Otherwise, it's "I'm too busy to (or not interested) take your case."
Oracle would have needed to spend a lot of money on developers anyway if they were going to be running on Linux anyway. For the future this gives Oracle an existing customer base who'll follow them if they ever decide to fork Red Hat. It gives them more leverage over Red Hat.
The big question is whether they are going to leech off Red Hat. Red Hat contribute a lot to the kernel. If Oracle leech Red Hat will have to cut back on development to compete. OTOH if Oracle contribute in a meaningful way to Linux then every Linux user benefits.
Seemed to be an extension problem because the 2nd time I installed FF2 it recognised 2 incompatible extensions that weren't spotted the first time.
LCARS interface isn't really optimised for web browsing. Where it might be really useful would be in some sort of Labview style interface. It's a control console that has a large range of information available quickly. It's specialised but should be useful for some people. It's optimised for touch screens and for mixing rich content with data that needs to be constantly monitored. It's actually quite intuititive and fast. I can see it being very good in embedded systems.
I know some networks charge for TV guide information and TV guides make money from advertising (and even subscriptions). In a radio sense it would be like having a station that lists what song other stations are playing to help you find the one that you are more interested in without having to cycle. Maybe the radio stations don't like that you might hear a fraction of an ad on their station while flipping around. Most I would imagine would just be happy that more listeners are being directed to what they want to hear (more relevant advertising).
I've just been figuring out that myself. Google Safe Browsing is broken too for me as it opened the test page happily.