Isn't anybody concerned about autonoumous vehicles running over spectators? "Hey, I thought it was a rock." I certainly wouldn't trust my life to a DARPA visual recognition system.
Let's offer a "bypass airport security" card and charge enough for it to pay to have agents tail anybody who purchases one full time, as they're the most likely terrorist suspects! While we're at it, maybe we can issue Bush's daughters "bypass liquor sales age check" cards! And how much would former Enron executives pay for a "get out of federal pound-me-in-the-ass prison free" cards?
You're mistake was referring to them as "spammers" instead of "terrorists". Isn't anybody who cracks a system now official considered a "digital terrorist"?
(Wiping the tears from my face while I shake with laughter) If the current mess of the state of Windows is his idea of things working "pretty well," oh never mind...This speech sure wasn't directed at the cluefull.
Ballmer is rich. Not just rich, but disgustingly fucking rich. You're not. Perhaps you have a different definition of "works pretty well" then he does, all I can say it that Microsoft's model is certainly working pretty well for Ballmer! What, you thought he was refering to working well for Microsoft's customers? Since when has M$ given a shit about it's customers?
When it stops being enjoyable, stop playing it. Feel bad about shelling out $50 for something you never use? Form a lending library with all your friends. Each agrees to buy a different game, and lend it to one of the others when they're not using it. I really don't see the economic sense it spending so much money for something you're going to play with for a few week, then stick on a shelf and forget about. Let's spread these unused games around! (And yes, I do have a 6 foot long shelf full of software I never use!)
Sue the syringe manufactures for "profiting from the proliferation of drugs." Then sue prisons for "profiting from the proliferation of crime." Next, sue abortion clinics for "profiting from the proliferation of rape." Later, sue CDROM manufacturers, CD burner manufacturers, and MP3 player manufacturers for "profiting from the proliferation of online music"! Where does it all stop?
But aren't there 10-15% losses in the electricity grid, which is basically one BIG resistor? (Granted, there are inefficiencies in the distribution of gas as well.)
Actually, customers click on "Windows Update" or have automatic "Windows Update" notification, plus most IT publications announce whenever there are new patches available, so PR costs should be negligible. Yes, there are fixed development costs associated with each patch, but these are probably only twice as costly as doing the fix before release (does anybody really beleive they go through a full test cycle on every patch?) Agreed, the cost per patched system is non-zero, but it may be so low as to be less than the opportunity costs of delaying shipment of a product due to potential bugs. Mnay companies seem to have this "drop whatever features are necessary to meet the announced ship data" mentality; apparently some consider adequate design analysis and testing to be two of the things that can be dropped...
Design bugs are the killer. And yet, every place I've worked has given only lip service to design reviews, refusing to spend the time to actually analyze the designs or fix flaws pointed out...
Uh, Micro$oft just posts the patch to their servers. Patching those millions of systems doesn't cost Micr$oft a cent! And Micro$oft assumes no liability whatsoever for problems caused by their security holes. On the other hand, if they delay a release, their revenue slips. Now do you begin to understand their business model?
Let's further assume that the vendors of HypotheticalDB insist that your server be connected to the internet "for support purposes". When their first customer encounters a bug, they rush to the customer site, analyze the problem, fix it, and patch all the other customers systems over the net without telling the customers. Now they haven't lost any sales, and they've saved themselves the cost of doing massive testing in a live enviroment. (I.e. look at an airline reservation system with tens of thousand of concurrent clients -- how do you simulate that load in a lab?) Remember the M$ mantra: "Our customer is our best quality assurance!"
Uh, maybe bugs found earlier in the development process are cheaper and easier to fix because they're much more obvious bugs! I don't know about you, but as a developer I always fix the easy problems first, and leave the "pie in the sky" enhancement requests for future development...
Back when you had to physically send an employee to fix the problem after it shipped, or to send replacement ROMs, it would have been 100:1. Now everbody assumes bugs found after ship are par for the course and builds in software/firmware upgradability over the 'net, it's probably more cost effective to ship with bugs and fix them later, when you factor in the opportunity cost of delaying shipment to be absolutely sure there are no bugs. Many companies appear to operate that way these days (cough, microsoft, cough). The only downside seems to be that sending customers an email telling them they need to upgrade because what you sold them is a crock of manure could be damaging to you companies reputation. However, software companies are working on a fix for that too... they'll simply update your software for you without bothering to tell you about it! Isn't it wonderful now that almost every computing deviced is connected to the 'net?
... and those darn Colonists would have done much better to just sit down to tea and have a nice friendly chat with their British overlords, rather then committing terrorist acts like dumping all that tea in the harbor... lets see now... when you try nonviolent protest and your opponents respond by shooting at you, is that a sign that you're in that 1% of cases?
Mac OS's captive-interface GUI metaphor (organized around a single main event loop) leads to a weak scheduler without presumption... Uh, I think the phrase you're looking for is "without premption". I'll assume this was the reviewer's typo, and not ESR's original text...
Of course we should abandon all our old software that still works and buy new software; this generates more income for the software vendors! Win98 SE is a case in point; I have a LOT of software that runs on Win9X but not on NT/Win2K/XP. And a lot of hardware for which no NT/Win2K/XP drivers were ever written. If the PC and software I've got are doing the job, why should I replace them? 'cause they're insecure? Then put them behind a firewall! It's not as if XP is perfectly secure either!
... the death of the PDA running BSD, since most PDAs will soon be running Linux (except for the really expensive ones with short battery life, which will be running WinCE).
They're also famous for how good they are at counting... which sort of essential in cost analysis, isn't it? And I'm sure their is nobody in the state of Florida whose opinions could be swayed by dinners, vacations, lavish gifts, or even outright bribes, which some marketing departments are know for...
So, keeping the existing software they've already bought and paid for is cheaper the retraining people to use different software. Fine. Now, tell me how much more it costs to switch to Windows XP, train workers to use XP, and to maintain XP than to stick with the software they've already bought and paid for, and for which M$ will abandon support within about a year? Let's face it, even if M$ paid you to use their software, they still figure out someway to make it cost you more in the long run... afterall, that's what they are really good at -- getting money out of people.
shouldn't decisions based on taxpayer money usually be based on cost analysis?
Yes, they should, but I think the principle here is that "What we don't know may cost us money in the future." This policy is not anti-Microsoft, it is anti-closed source and anti-lockin. Clearly, Microsoft's business strategy is to do everything possible to keep customers locked into their proprietary software; this can only make it more expensive in the future. Open Source's business strategy is to comoditize software and make the money on service and support. This is a much more competive model based on very small margins, and thus can only be cheaper -- provided the Open Source software provides the functionality you need. If it doesn't, it may be cheaper and easier for Mass to hire a consultant to add that functionality to the open source than to beg and plead with Microsoft to add it in, say, the Longhorn time frame (which appears to have been pushed back from 2002 to 2006 so far, somebody please correct me if I'm exagerating).
This as not as obvious as it seems at first glance; M$ has actually been claiming that it's Total Cost of Ownership (TCO) is lower than that if Free/Open Source software, because it's easier to maintain. This report points out that the TCO claims are bullshit (to those few people that didn't realize that in the first place.)
Slashdot Mirror
Isn't anybody concerned about autonoumous vehicles running over spectators? "Hey, I thought it was a rock." I certainly wouldn't trust my life to a DARPA visual recognition system.
Let's offer a "bypass airport security" card and charge enough for it to pay to have agents tail anybody who purchases one full time, as they're the most likely terrorist suspects! While we're at it, maybe we can issue Bush's daughters "bypass liquor sales age check" cards! And how much would former Enron executives pay for a "get out of federal pound-me-in-the-ass prison free" cards?
You're mistake was referring to them as "spammers" instead of "terrorists". Isn't anybody who cracks a system now official considered a "digital terrorist"?
Ballmer is rich. Not just rich, but disgustingly fucking rich. You're not. Perhaps you have a different definition of "works pretty well" then he does, all I can say it that Microsoft's model is certainly working pretty well for Ballmer! What, you thought he was refering to working well for Microsoft's customers? Since when has M$ given a shit about it's customers?
When it stops being enjoyable, stop playing it. Feel bad about shelling out $50 for something you never use? Form a lending library with all your friends. Each agrees to buy a different game, and lend it to one of the others when they're not using it. I really don't see the economic sense it spending so much money for something you're going to play with for a few week, then stick on a shelf and forget about. Let's spread these unused games around! (And yes, I do have a 6 foot long shelf full of software I never use!)
What joystick/control system out there is closest to the controls of an actual aircraft?
... that the majority of picture taken will be of somebody's ear? "What was that again? Oops! Damn, I just took another picture!"
Sue the syringe manufactures for "profiting from the proliferation of drugs." Then sue prisons for "profiting from the proliferation of crime." Next, sue abortion clinics for "profiting from the proliferation of rape." Later, sue CDROM manufacturers, CD burner manufacturers, and MP3 player manufacturers for "profiting from the proliferation of online music"! Where does it all stop?
But aren't there 10-15% losses in the electricity grid, which is basically one BIG resistor? (Granted, there are inefficiencies in the distribution of gas as well.)
Actually, customers click on "Windows Update" or have automatic "Windows Update" notification, plus most IT publications announce whenever there are new patches available, so PR costs should be negligible. Yes, there are fixed development costs associated with each patch, but these are probably only twice as costly as doing the fix before release (does anybody really beleive they go through a full test cycle on every patch?) Agreed, the cost per patched system is non-zero, but it may be so low as to be less than the opportunity costs of delaying shipment of a product due to potential bugs. Mnay companies seem to have this "drop whatever features are necessary to meet the announced ship data" mentality; apparently some consider adequate design analysis and testing to be two of the things that can be dropped...
Design bugs are the killer.
And yet, every place I've worked has given only lip service to design reviews, refusing to spend the time to actually analyze the designs or fix flaws pointed out...
Uh, Micro$oft just posts the patch to their servers. Patching those millions of systems doesn't cost Micr$oft a cent! And Micro$oft assumes no liability whatsoever for problems caused by their security holes. On the other hand, if they delay a release, their revenue slips. Now do you begin to understand their business model?
Let's further assume that the vendors of HypotheticalDB insist that your server be connected to the internet "for support purposes". When their first customer encounters a bug, they rush to the customer site, analyze the problem, fix it, and patch all the other customers systems over the net without telling the customers. Now they haven't lost any sales, and they've saved themselves the cost of doing massive testing in a live enviroment. (I.e. look at an airline reservation system with tens of thousand of concurrent clients -- how do you simulate that load in a lab?) Remember the M$ mantra: "Our customer is our best quality assurance!"
Uh, maybe bugs found earlier in the development process are cheaper and easier to fix because they're much more obvious bugs! I don't know about you, but as a developer I always fix the easy problems first, and leave the "pie in the sky" enhancement requests for future development...
Back when you had to physically send an employee to fix the problem after it shipped, or to send replacement ROMs, it would have been 100:1. Now everbody assumes bugs found after ship are par for the course and builds in software/firmware upgradability over the 'net, it's probably more cost effective to ship with bugs and fix them later, when you factor in the opportunity cost of delaying shipment to be absolutely sure there are no bugs. Many companies appear to operate that way these days (cough, microsoft, cough). The only downside seems to be that sending customers an email telling them they need to upgrade because what you sold them is a crock of manure could be damaging to you companies reputation. However, software companies are working on a fix for that too... they'll simply update your software for you without bothering to tell you about it! Isn't it wonderful now that almost every computing deviced is connected to the 'net?
... and those darn Colonists would have done much better to just sit down to tea and have a nice friendly chat with their British overlords, rather then committing terrorist acts like dumping all that tea in the harbor... lets see now... when you try nonviolent protest and your opponents respond by shooting at you, is that a sign that you're in that 1% of cases?
Mac OS's captive-interface GUI metaphor (organized around a single main event loop) leads to a weak scheduler without presumption...
Uh, I think the phrase you're looking for is "without premption". I'll assume this was the reviewer's typo, and not ESR's original text...
Of course we should abandon all our old software that still works and buy new software; this generates more income for the software vendors! Win98 SE is a case in point; I have a LOT of software that runs on Win9X but not on NT/Win2K/XP. And a lot of hardware for which no NT/Win2K/XP drivers were ever written. If the PC and software I've got are doing the job, why should I replace them? 'cause they're insecure? Then put them behind a firewall! It's not as if XP is perfectly secure either!
... the death of the PDA running BSD, since most PDAs will soon be running Linux (except for the really expensive ones with short battery life, which will be running WinCE).
Gee, funny how those damn conservatives managed to pass all those with a Democrat majority in congress...
They're also famous for how good they are at counting... which sort of essential in cost analysis, isn't it? And I'm sure their is nobody in the state of Florida whose opinions could be swayed by dinners, vacations, lavish gifts, or even outright bribes, which some marketing departments are know for...
So, keeping the existing software they've already bought and paid for is cheaper the retraining people to use different software. Fine. Now, tell me how much more it costs to switch to Windows XP, train workers to use XP, and to maintain XP than to stick with the software they've already bought and paid for, and for which M$ will abandon support within about a year? Let's face it, even if M$ paid you to use their software, they still figure out someway to make it cost you more in the long run... afterall, that's what they are really good at -- getting money out of people.
Give the liberals a break. Their heart is in the right place; they just think that they know what's best for you better than you know yourself.
Yes, they should, but I think the principle here is that "What we don't know may cost us money in the future." This policy is not anti-Microsoft, it is anti-closed source and anti-lockin. Clearly, Microsoft's business strategy is to do everything possible to keep customers locked into their proprietary software; this can only make it more expensive in the future. Open Source's business strategy is to comoditize software and make the money on service and support. This is a much more competive model based on very small margins, and thus can only be cheaper -- provided the Open Source software provides the functionality you need. If it doesn't, it may be cheaper and easier for Mass to hire a consultant to add that functionality to the open source than to beg and plead with Microsoft to add it in, say, the Longhorn time frame (which appears to have been pushed back from 2002 to 2006 so far, somebody please correct me if I'm exagerating).
This as not as obvious as it seems at first glance; M$ has actually been claiming that it's Total Cost of Ownership (TCO) is lower than that if Free/Open Source software, because it's easier to maintain. This report points out that the TCO claims are bullshit (to those few people that didn't realize that in the first place.)