The President is addressing concerns in a customer-facing fashion, adding value to the governmental process by streamlining customer inquiries by routing them to an appropriate effectuating center, where Constitution-based matters can be processed, administered, and serviced in a timely fashion. This is just one component of the President's full suite of customer-oriented governmental solutions. This patent-pending VAGUE (Value Added Government Unravelling Exercises) offering is a full-featured, soup-to-nuts package that delivers more value than previous open government methodologies. Tremendous price discounts are available to high-income organizations and individuals.
I'm not sure you could find a better article for bringing out latent feelings of superiority among Slashdotters. This is just what we need, another excuse to talk about the differences between "us" and "them." We are smart and inqusitive. They are stupid and lacking imagination. I'm a geek, not a nerd. Geeks are cool, nerds are dorks. Jocks are stupid. NASCAR lovers are stupid. Americans are stupid. The label I apply to my in-group is superior to the label I apply to those outside my group.
The fact that there are a lot of "intellectually curious" people out there, even if the term is ill-defined, should come as a surprise to nobody. Geeks, nerds, gamers, programmers, hackers, brains, smart kids, rocket scientists, and Slashdot readers are not the only people in the world who are smart, curious, and interesting. Think of it this way, how many non-Slashdot reading people do you know who truly interest you? How many of those people are intellectually curious, imaginative, and full of insight? I know a lot of people who have never even heard of Slashdot and would never imagine themselves as "geeks" but are nonetheless very curious about the world and very stimulating to be around.
Now your brain has been made fully compliant to the slashdot standard of simple horizontal lines, and monster scrolling.
Actually, since you could pack more text on screen if you had the days in a month listed as a series of horizontal lines of text, it would take up less, not more space than a calendar showing a month in the standard grid view. By scrolling I simply meant that the text would be arrayed vertically, not that it would necessitate scrolling in the browser window. I'm actually looking for a calendar view that is *more* space efficient, not less.
For example, have you ever tried to type in a nice long word like "association" in one of those calendar grid boxes? It either wraps in an odd way, or gets truncated by the app. If all of the items for a given day were shown on one horizontal line, that problem would vanish.
We're only attached to the month grid calendar view because it's been around for so long. There's really no reason we should use it in computer applications, any more than we should have rotary dials on cell phones.
This is nice, but as with kiko calendar, it only shows upcoming events. What I'd really like is a calendar app that allows me to switch the default box view to a list view, so I can see all the days in a month in one vertically-oriented view. I like being able to see upcoming events that way, but it would be really nice if I could see everything that way.
I understand that the calendar grid is the accepted paradigm for displaying days, weeks, and months, but I am continually frustrated by it because I don't think it is really optimal for the horizontally-oriented, low-resolution screens we all use for these calendars.
Something tells me I'm one of about five people in the world who feel this way.
Have you tried kiko's upcoming view? It's exactly what you're asking for. As a Kiko developer, I made sure that we had a list.
Nice. I just signed up for an account to see what you were talking about. I like the upcoming view, though I would also really enjoy it if the month view could be switched in prefs to the same kind of list view you use to show upcoming appointments.
I understand that you can't please all the people all the time, and I know I'm probably in the minority in my annoyance with calendar boxes. I'm going to give Kiko a spin and see how it operates.
I haven't explored all of the available calendars, but I've tried a few. My biggest problem with all of the ones I've tried thus far is that they try to replicate the 'boxes in a grid' design of paper calendars. I would prefer to see someone come up with a calendar that uses a list view, so I can always see by default a four-week view, with all of the dates laid out vertically.
I would find it much more efficient to look at dates that are stacked vertically, so I can scroll up or scroll down through the year. Weeks could be delineated by simple horizontal lines, and months by lightly shaded background colors.
Boxes truncate long words and are particularly inefficient for screen display, because the resolution of computer screens is so crappy compared to the resolution and flexibility of pen and paper. Providing a single long horizontal space for all the information relating to a day would be much more advantageous.
Adding more and more features to a flawed paradigm is simply annoying to me. Give me a layout that works, before adding all kinds of Ajax. Think outside the box (sorry, I had to say it).
Also FTFA - businesses needed to take the results of the study on board duh !!
You'd be surprised at how many businesses have no fuggin' clue about the importance of showing up on the first page of a Google search. I've talked to clients who say, "We're doing pretty good. Our most important keyword is ranked in the Top 40 on Google." Riiight.
It's the Attention Econony. If you have people's attention, you might be able to convince them to buy whatever it is you're selling (a product, an idea, the latest absurd Google Video), but if you can't get their attention, you've got nothing.
Any time you deal with a hierarchy, this situation manifests itself. As people move up the management chain, they become managers of people. No matter whether you're running a nuclear submarine, an IT department, or a high school, you are not managing the actual work. You are managing the people who do the work. By definition, you are becoming more removed from the work itself.
So unless you want to wind up doing all the work yourself, you have to develop methods of getting the people who work below you on the hierarchy to do that work. This is the part that a many, many people in business don't understand, whether they are managers, geeks, or some other breed of corporate denizen. Management is a discipline. I'll say it in a different way, just to be emphatic about it: Just as programmers have to learn how to program, managers have to learn how to manage.
Unfortunately, most people who are put in management positions have little or no training in how to lead people. Imagine if you were thrown into a big development project, and knowing only FORTRAN, you were expected to learn Java on the fly. You might be able to it, if you're sharp and committed, but it would be an extremely painful process. That's the situation most managers in American organizations wind up in. They're busy learning how to manage, and on top of it they're supposed to have some sort of knowledge about the tasks their subordinates perform.
If you look at how much training leaders in the US military receive in leadership skills alone, and compare that to the training corporate leaders receive, the comparison is ludicrous. I'm not suggesting that the sometimes life-and-death conditions of military life are directly analogous to corporate life, but there's a reason officers are heavily recruited when they leave the military. They have not only been trained in how to actually lead people and manage teams; they have also had to learn to do what their subordinates do.
Here's an example: Imagine if the VP of Technology Initiatives at your company actually had to learn how to program in the language you use, then had to spend time programming in that language with the software tools the company programmers use. During that time he would be evaluated by veteran programmers. If he didn't pass their examinations, he would not become the VP of Technology Initiatives. That's how it works with junior officers in the military. An Infantry officer is trained in how to be a grenadier, a light machinegunner, a heavy machinegunner, a vehicle driver, a rifleman, and so on. He gets bossed around by soldiers who have been in for years. He digs a lot of foxholes, gets pushed hard by the veteran NCOs, and in the end, if he fucks up, he doesn't get to lead a platoon.
I'm not suggesting that the business world should spend the time and money that the military does on training, because in most cases it would probably be cost-prohibitive. Plus, why would you train someone with that amount of rigor if you knew they'd leave the company at the first opportunity? The military has the advantage of being able to tie the training to tours of duty for specific lengths.
So we're still left with the original problem. There is a way to create better leaders in a hierarchy, but in many ways it is simply not cost-effective for companies to invest in leadership training. This leaves people who are placed in management positions because of their valuable technical skills in an odd position. They are not, in the main, being trained in management skills, so they have to pick those skills up on the fly. Their colleagues in management don't have the appropriate technical skills. Somehow everyone in the management organization still needs to communicate and try to get things done. The end result is a whole lot of fudging. It's not that people don't want to do things better, but everyone has been thrown into the water without much of a life jacket. It's actually amazing that any company ever busts out of this cycle and develops truly capable manageme
... but we feel compelled to do so. We like you. We think you're ok, kid. One of these days you just may make it. If you would just take our advice, you too could take over the world.
Asher, I think you might benefit from reading John's analysis of Boot Camp and Apple's overall strategy. Maybe you'll find it illuminating.
You might also want to consider writing a follow-up article in a year, so you can tell everyone about what you predicted back in 2006. Then again, maybe you shouldn't do that.
but a lot of content providers won't be happy about getting their ad revenue stolen.
Absolutely. I know I'd be pissed. This is not like an ISP caching content so it can be delivered more rapidly. This sounds more akin to basically scraping the Web and putting it in your own product and calling it your own.
Purely from a copyright issue, discarding ad revenue, I'm sure there are plenty of companies and individuals that would have a problem with this. If Webaroo even gets past the "burning through capital like it's 1998" phase, I would be surprised as hell if they didn't get sued for what amounts to publishing without permission.
In effect, a non-issue. Most of you already know you shouldn't go to the media and make comments about the job your boss is doing, or make comments about what they should do instead.
No, it *is* an issue. My tax dollars are at work funding government scientists. What's the fucking point of paying these scientists to do research if they can't talk about the results of their work with the public? We have a long tradition of federally-funded scientists being generally insulated from politics, because in the past both major parties have recognized the value of unbiased scientific research.
The Bush Administration has been muzzling the results of government-sponsored research for several years now, and this is a very troubling development. Representative democracies (yes, even republics, for those of you who will latch onto the semantics) need some areas of government to be devoid of partisanship.
If you're wondering about Hansen's reference to Nazi Germany and the USSR, read Hitler's Scientists to see how science can be co-opted for political ends.
On the other hand, Apple appears to be betting that people like OS X more than Windows, and that by doing this they can get more people to buy Macs, increase their market share, and maybe even turn the tables on the application porting equation.
Apple is betting that most users, when running both OSes on the same machine, will find OS X a better overall experience. They'll also be attracted to the Mac apps. They'll enjoy the fact that OS X doesn't get burdenened as much with malware or security problems as XP.
They'll also be running on Mac hardware. The more fence-sitters who buy Apple hardware, the bigger the installed user base. As Intel Mac users demonstrate their preference for OS X and Mac apps, previously Windows-only software developers will have to pay attention.
When people see how much better OS X really is, they'll jump on board with both feet and will leave XP behind. Boot Camp is just a way to ease that transition. I predict a year from now we'll have unequivocal proof that this move made a huge positive impact on the OS X platform.
Isn't this a disincentive to make Mac-native software? Why develop for a tiny fraction of the market when you can develop for the other 95% and wait for the remaining holdouts to install Windows on their Macs?
I know many, many regular computer users (not the Slashdot demographic, but regular folks) who would love to be rid of Redmond if they could. However, many of them feel that the transition would simply be too painful. This makes the transition much, much easier for those afraid to take the leap into unfamiliar terrain. The hardware is excellent, OS X sounds spiffy, and the machine boots natively into XP just in case you need to use a particular app, or in case OS X simply scares you.
My take on it is that when people have the chance to run OS X and Windows on the same machine, they may initially use some Windows apps they are familiar with, but the virtues of OS X will win them over. Eventually they'll find existing OS X software that does what their old Windows software did, but better. I find that in direct comparison, generally OS X apps simply function better than Windows counterparts.
Over time, switchers will stop buying as much Windows software, and they'll stop running XP except for occasionally. Once Windows-only vendors start realizing that their marketshare is being eaten up by Mac software developers, they'll move more vigorously into the OS X market in order to compete.
This is all obviously conjecture, but I think Apple is making a smart move here. They're confident enough that most customers, when given the opportunity, will choose OS X over XP. I think Apple is right about that.
I've seen Chu speak on the subject of how to explain technology to jurors. His methods are extremely effective, and Chu has a long and distinguished trial record. He is nothing like what you might expect of a corporate attorney. He is very down to earth, self-depricating, and respectful of others. If more lawyers were like him, the profession as a whole would have a much better reputation.
I know nothing about the opposing counsel, but I think Tivo would be hard-pressed to find a better lawyer to state their case.
Since the plaintiff brings the case, the American legal system is very much weighted in favor of allowing the plaintiff to bring suit wherever they want to, provided jurisdiction can be established.
Tivo's counsel would be quite remiss in bringing suit in a venue with a bias against plaintiffs.
I assume you wrote this because you perform tech support on newly-purchased Macs or in some other fashion have the inside scoop. Or are you gathering information about this in some other fashion?
I'm not saying you're wrong, because I don't know the truth of the matter myself. It would just be helpful to know on what basis you are making the statement that week 12 machines still have the problem.
What does this tool offer that's better in any way?
Google, for one, has some issues that make it a very poor resource for looking up materials relating to coding.
One of Google's biggest weaknesses is that the Web is littered with sites that have tons of old information mixed in with new info. The longer they've been around, and the more content they have, the higher their Page Rank. So a site that has buckets of info from seven years ago can show up at the top of a search. Some of this can be cured by using more sophisticated search queries, but even then, having to sift through results from many different sites can be time-consuming.
I'm not sure if SplunkBase will ever take off, because let's face it, building a valuable online community is difficult. It's made more difficult when you give it a name suggestive of something that belongs in the now-nixed.xxx domain. Still, I applaud them for trying.
That's certainly the strongest case I've yet heard for the Cellphones Will Destroy the iPod argument, but I still think that some sort of new device that incorporates both cell communication and music playback features has a much better chance of unseating the iPod than cellphones. The interface on cellphones sucks, even for their intended purpose. Even some sort of completely redesigned device might not unseat the iPod. I'd rather have two purpose-built devices, one for interactive communication, and the other for passive listening/watching, than a miniscule, cramped device that does many things poorly.
I also can't help but think about how I use my iPod. When I'm at home, I frequently plug it directly into my speaker system. When I'm out for a walk and I want to listen to music without interruption, I'll often turn off my cellphone entirely. For me, the cellphone and the iPod represent two fundamentally different states of being. When I want to interact with the world, I'm on my phone. When I want to become engrossed in a task, or simply zone out on some music, I use my iPod. That's just the way I interact with these devices, and I understand that there are differences relating to age and cultural factors. Still, I think that in general much of the push to cram features into cellphones has been driven by cellular carriers looking for greater revenue, rather than from actual user demand.
As for the old saw about cellphones overtaking iPods, this is exactly why nobody has come close to toppling the iPod so far. People who take this view insist that because cellphones are ubiquitous, they will miraculously overwhelm the iPod. If that were true, we'd all be watching TV from our refrigerators.
If I were a device manufacturer attempting to go after Apple, I'd: Think about what works for users. Recognize that if the hardware and software work together extremely smoothly, customers will be happy and will gladly fork over the dough for your device. Don't think about how many features you can cram into the feature list. Don't insist that the form factor of a freakin' cellphone is actually suited to use as a music and video device. Don't think about how happy Verizon will be if you team up with them to make exorbitantly-priced music downloads over crappy networks. Don't dismiss design as an afterthought ("I know, we'll make ours RED!"). Maybe, just maybe, think about how to work with Apple, rather than with Microsoft. After all, past performance is certainly no guarantee of future performance, as Microsoft's botched efforts in digital music have already demonstrated.
The hidden assumption in all of this prognostication about Apple's supposed weakness in iPod/iTunes is that somehow the 800 lb. gorilla from Redmond will eventually swamp Appple. Microsoft has tried everything it can to unseat Apple in this market, and they've fallen flat on their face. Apple has sidestepped Microsoft's OS dominance, and made iPod/iTunes the dominant player. Market effects don't just work in Microsoft's favor.
Alas ye olde pinkdot, we barely knew ye. Return unto us hither in a better life, anew.
I laughed out loud when I read that one.
After reading the vitriolic posts on Slashdot today, you'd think someone had pissed in everyone's Wheaties. It's just April Fool's Day. The editors of Slashdot wanted to have some fun. They do a great job of providing geek fodder 365 days a year, and this is the one day of the year they get to goof off. Maybe it could have been done better. Maybe it could have been done worse. Still, I don't really understand why everyone has become so unhinged.
The site is FREE, and unless you're in a really bad domestic situation, nobody is pointing a gun at your head, forcing you to read Slashdot. If the site makes you go into a homicidal rage every April Fool's Day, get stoned, sit in a corner, and don't point your browser at Slashdot for 24 hours. Better yet, come up with some witty responses like Kethinov's, rather than all of this foaming at the mouth, all caps nonsense. Nothing is more ludicrous than reading some mouth-breather's spelling-deprived, syntax-challenged account of how fucked up Slashdot gets on April Fool's Day.
Not to put too fine a point on it, if you ever read Watership Down, which was the inspiration for B&B, you know that even though bunnies look cute, there's all kinds of violence, dispair, chemical agents, deception, and mayhem goin' on underfoot.
This "article" is really a press release from a company that serves as "the missing link between buyers and suppliers of nanomaterials." However, Dr. Bawa seems to be someone who knows a lot about the subject and has been talking about this to anyone who will listen.
My knowledge of nanotech could fill a nanotube, but I pay attention when someone who does seem to be deeply involved in nanotech raises the alarm about this tide of patents.
Slashdot Mirror
The President is addressing concerns in a customer-facing fashion, adding value to the governmental process by streamlining customer inquiries by routing them to an appropriate effectuating center, where Constitution-based matters can be processed, administered, and serviced in a timely fashion. This is just one component of the President's full suite of customer-oriented governmental solutions. This patent-pending VAGUE (Value Added Government Unravelling Exercises) offering is a full-featured, soup-to-nuts package that delivers more value than previous open government methodologies. Tremendous price discounts are available to high-income organizations and individuals.
I'm not sure you could find a better article for bringing out latent feelings of superiority among Slashdotters. This is just what we need, another excuse to talk about the differences between "us" and "them." We are smart and inqusitive. They are stupid and lacking imagination. I'm a geek, not a nerd. Geeks are cool, nerds are dorks. Jocks are stupid. NASCAR lovers are stupid. Americans are stupid. The label I apply to my in-group is superior to the label I apply to those outside my group.
The fact that there are a lot of "intellectually curious" people out there, even if the term is ill-defined, should come as a surprise to nobody. Geeks, nerds, gamers, programmers, hackers, brains, smart kids, rocket scientists, and Slashdot readers are not the only people in the world who are smart, curious, and interesting. Think of it this way, how many non-Slashdot reading people do you know who truly interest you? How many of those people are intellectually curious, imaginative, and full of insight? I know a lot of people who have never even heard of Slashdot and would never imagine themselves as "geeks" but are nonetheless very curious about the world and very stimulating to be around.
Now your brain has been made fully compliant to the slashdot standard of simple horizontal lines, and monster scrolling.
Actually, since you could pack more text on screen if you had the days in a month listed as a series of horizontal lines of text, it would take up less, not more space than a calendar showing a month in the standard grid view. By scrolling I simply meant that the text would be arrayed vertically, not that it would necessitate scrolling in the browser window. I'm actually looking for a calendar view that is *more* space efficient, not less.
For example, have you ever tried to type in a nice long word like "association" in one of those calendar grid boxes? It either wraps in an odd way, or gets truncated by the app. If all of the items for a given day were shown on one horizontal line, that problem would vanish.
We're only attached to the month grid calendar view because it's been around for so long. There's really no reason we should use it in computer applications, any more than we should have rotary dials on cell phones.
See Google Calendar's Agenda view.
This is nice, but as with kiko calendar, it only shows upcoming events. What I'd really like is a calendar app that allows me to switch the default box view to a list view, so I can see all the days in a month in one vertically-oriented view. I like being able to see upcoming events that way, but it would be really nice if I could see everything that way.
I understand that the calendar grid is the accepted paradigm for displaying days, weeks, and months, but I am continually frustrated by it because I don't think it is really optimal for the horizontally-oriented, low-resolution screens we all use for these calendars.
Something tells me I'm one of about five people in the world who feel this way.
Have you tried kiko's upcoming view? It's exactly what you're asking for. As a Kiko developer, I made sure that we had a list.
Nice. I just signed up for an account to see what you were talking about. I like the upcoming view, though I would also really enjoy it if the month view could be switched in prefs to the same kind of list view you use to show upcoming appointments.
I understand that you can't please all the people all the time, and I know I'm probably in the minority in my annoyance with calendar boxes. I'm going to give Kiko a spin and see how it operates.
I haven't explored all of the available calendars, but I've tried a few. My biggest problem with all of the ones I've tried thus far is that they try to replicate the 'boxes in a grid' design of paper calendars. I would prefer to see someone come up with a calendar that uses a list view, so I can always see by default a four-week view, with all of the dates laid out vertically.
I would find it much more efficient to look at dates that are stacked vertically, so I can scroll up or scroll down through the year. Weeks could be delineated by simple horizontal lines, and months by lightly shaded background colors.
Boxes truncate long words and are particularly inefficient for screen display, because the resolution of computer screens is so crappy compared to the resolution and flexibility of pen and paper. Providing a single long horizontal space for all the information relating to a day would be much more advantageous.
Adding more and more features to a flawed paradigm is simply annoying to me. Give me a layout that works, before adding all kinds of Ajax. Think outside the box (sorry, I had to say it).
Also FTFA - businesses needed to take the results of the study on board duh !!
You'd be surprised at how many businesses have no fuggin' clue about the importance of showing up on the first page of a Google search. I've talked to clients who say, "We're doing pretty good. Our most important keyword is ranked in the Top 40 on Google." Riiight.
It's the Attention Econony. If you have people's attention, you might be able to convince them to buy whatever it is you're selling (a product, an idea, the latest absurd Google Video), but if you can't get their attention, you've got nothing.
Iteration is a good thing. The "this will be everything to everybody" model of product development is a tar baby.
Check out Getting Real if you're interested in seeing how less can be more not just in theory, but in the real, rough and tumble world o' business.
Any time you deal with a hierarchy, this situation manifests itself. As people move up the management chain, they become managers of people. No matter whether you're running a nuclear submarine, an IT department, or a high school, you are not managing the actual work. You are managing the people who do the work. By definition, you are becoming more removed from the work itself.
So unless you want to wind up doing all the work yourself, you have to develop methods of getting the people who work below you on the hierarchy to do that work. This is the part that a many, many people in business don't understand, whether they are managers, geeks, or some other breed of corporate denizen. Management is a discipline. I'll say it in a different way, just to be emphatic about it: Just as programmers have to learn how to program, managers have to learn how to manage.
Unfortunately, most people who are put in management positions have little or no training in how to lead people. Imagine if you were thrown into a big development project, and knowing only FORTRAN, you were expected to learn Java on the fly. You might be able to it, if you're sharp and committed, but it would be an extremely painful process. That's the situation most managers in American organizations wind up in. They're busy learning how to manage, and on top of it they're supposed to have some sort of knowledge about the tasks their subordinates perform.
If you look at how much training leaders in the US military receive in leadership skills alone, and compare that to the training corporate leaders receive, the comparison is ludicrous. I'm not suggesting that the sometimes life-and-death conditions of military life are directly analogous to corporate life, but there's a reason officers are heavily recruited when they leave the military. They have not only been trained in how to actually lead people and manage teams; they have also had to learn to do what their subordinates do.
Here's an example: Imagine if the VP of Technology Initiatives at your company actually had to learn how to program in the language you use, then had to spend time programming in that language with the software tools the company programmers use. During that time he would be evaluated by veteran programmers. If he didn't pass their examinations, he would not become the VP of Technology Initiatives. That's how it works with junior officers in the military. An Infantry officer is trained in how to be a grenadier, a light machinegunner, a heavy machinegunner, a vehicle driver, a rifleman, and so on. He gets bossed around by soldiers who have been in for years. He digs a lot of foxholes, gets pushed hard by the veteran NCOs, and in the end, if he fucks up, he doesn't get to lead a platoon.
I'm not suggesting that the business world should spend the time and money that the military does on training, because in most cases it would probably be cost-prohibitive. Plus, why would you train someone with that amount of rigor if you knew they'd leave the company at the first opportunity? The military has the advantage of being able to tie the training to tours of duty for specific lengths.
So we're still left with the original problem. There is a way to create better leaders in a hierarchy, but in many ways it is simply not cost-effective for companies to invest in leadership training. This leaves people who are placed in management positions because of their valuable technical skills in an odd position. They are not, in the main, being trained in management skills, so they have to pick those skills up on the fly. Their colleagues in management don't have the appropriate technical skills. Somehow everyone in the management organization still needs to communicate and try to get things done. The end result is a whole lot of fudging. It's not that people don't want to do things better, but everyone has been thrown into the water without much of a life jacket. It's actually amazing that any company ever busts out of this cycle and develops truly capable manageme
... but we feel compelled to do so. We like you. We think you're ok, kid. One of these days you just may make it. If you would just take our advice, you too could take over the world.
Asher, I think you might benefit from reading John's analysis of Boot Camp and Apple's overall strategy. Maybe you'll find it illuminating.
You might also want to consider writing a follow-up article in a year, so you can tell everyone about what you predicted back in 2006. Then again, maybe you shouldn't do that.
but a lot of content providers won't be happy about getting their ad revenue stolen.
Absolutely. I know I'd be pissed. This is not like an ISP caching content so it can be delivered more rapidly. This sounds more akin to basically scraping the Web and putting it in your own product and calling it your own.
Purely from a copyright issue, discarding ad revenue, I'm sure there are plenty of companies and individuals that would have a problem with this. If Webaroo even gets past the "burning through capital like it's 1998" phase, I would be surprised as hell if they didn't get sued for what amounts to publishing without permission.
In effect, a non-issue. Most of you already know you shouldn't go to the media and make comments about the job your boss is doing, or make comments about what they should do instead.
No, it *is* an issue. My tax dollars are at work funding government scientists. What's the fucking point of paying these scientists to do research if they can't talk about the results of their work with the public? We have a long tradition of federally-funded scientists being generally insulated from politics, because in the past both major parties have recognized the value of unbiased scientific research.
The Bush Administration has been muzzling the results of government-sponsored research for several years now, and this is a very troubling development. Representative democracies (yes, even republics, for those of you who will latch onto the semantics) need some areas of government to be devoid of partisanship.
If you're wondering about Hansen's reference to Nazi Germany and the USSR, read Hitler's Scientists to see how science can be co-opted for political ends.
On the other hand, Apple appears to be betting that people like OS X more than Windows, and that by doing this they can get more people to buy Macs, increase their market share, and maybe even turn the tables on the application porting equation.
Apple is betting that most users, when running both OSes on the same machine, will find OS X a better overall experience. They'll also be attracted to the Mac apps. They'll enjoy the fact that OS X doesn't get burdenened as much with malware or security problems as XP.
They'll also be running on Mac hardware. The more fence-sitters who buy Apple hardware, the bigger the installed user base. As Intel Mac users demonstrate their preference for OS X and Mac apps, previously Windows-only software developers will have to pay attention.
When people see how much better OS X really is, they'll jump on board with both feet and will leave XP behind. Boot Camp is just a way to ease that transition. I predict a year from now we'll have unequivocal proof that this move made a huge positive impact on the OS X platform.
Isn't this a disincentive to make Mac-native software? Why develop for a tiny fraction of the market when you can develop for the other 95% and wait for the remaining holdouts to install Windows on their Macs?
I know many, many regular computer users (not the Slashdot demographic, but regular folks) who would love to be rid of Redmond if they could. However, many of them feel that the transition would simply be too painful. This makes the transition much, much easier for those afraid to take the leap into unfamiliar terrain. The hardware is excellent, OS X sounds spiffy, and the machine boots natively into XP just in case you need to use a particular app, or in case OS X simply scares you.
My take on it is that when people have the chance to run OS X and Windows on the same machine, they may initially use some Windows apps they are familiar with, but the virtues of OS X will win them over. Eventually they'll find existing OS X software that does what their old Windows software did, but better. I find that in direct comparison, generally OS X apps simply function better than Windows counterparts.
Over time, switchers will stop buying as much Windows software, and they'll stop running XP except for occasionally. Once Windows-only vendors start realizing that their marketshare is being eaten up by Mac software developers, they'll move more vigorously into the OS X market in order to compete.
This is all obviously conjecture, but I think Apple is making a smart move here. They're confident enough that most customers, when given the opportunity, will choose OS X over XP. I think Apple is right about that.
I've seen Chu speak on the subject of how to explain technology to jurors. His methods are extremely effective, and Chu has a long and distinguished trial record. He is nothing like what you might expect of a corporate attorney. He is very down to earth, self-depricating, and respectful of others. If more lawyers were like him, the profession as a whole would have a much better reputation.
I know nothing about the opposing counsel, but I think Tivo would be hard-pressed to find a better lawyer to state their case.
+1 to Tivo for manipulating the system.
Since the plaintiff brings the case, the American legal system is very much weighted in favor of allowing the plaintiff to bring suit wherever they want to, provided jurisdiction can be established.
Tivo's counsel would be quite remiss in bringing suit in a venue with a bias against plaintiffs.
Most week 12 machines still have the problem.
I assume you wrote this because you perform tech support on newly-purchased Macs or in some other fashion have the inside scoop. Or are you gathering information about this in some other fashion?
I'm not saying you're wrong, because I don't know the truth of the matter myself. It would just be helpful to know on what basis you are making the statement that week 12 machines still have the problem.
What does this tool offer that's better in any way?
Google, for one, has some issues that make it a very poor resource for looking up materials relating to coding.
One of Google's biggest weaknesses is that the Web is littered with sites that have tons of old information mixed in with new info. The longer they've been around, and the more content they have, the higher their Page Rank. So a site that has buckets of info from seven years ago can show up at the top of a search. Some of this can be cured by using more sophisticated search queries, but even then, having to sift through results from many different sites can be time-consuming.
I'm not sure if SplunkBase will ever take off, because let's face it, building a valuable online community is difficult. It's made more difficult when you give it a name suggestive of something that belongs in the now-nixed .xxx domain. Still, I applaud them for trying.
People have a limited number of pockets.
That's certainly the strongest case I've yet heard for the Cellphones Will Destroy the iPod argument, but I still think that some sort of new device that incorporates both cell communication and music playback features has a much better chance of unseating the iPod than cellphones. The interface on cellphones sucks, even for their intended purpose. Even some sort of completely redesigned device might not unseat the iPod. I'd rather have two purpose-built devices, one for interactive communication, and the other for passive listening/watching, than a miniscule, cramped device that does many things poorly.
I also can't help but think about how I use my iPod. When I'm at home, I frequently plug it directly into my speaker system. When I'm out for a walk and I want to listen to music without interruption, I'll often turn off my cellphone entirely. For me, the cellphone and the iPod represent two fundamentally different states of being. When I want to interact with the world, I'm on my phone. When I want to become engrossed in a task, or simply zone out on some music, I use my iPod. That's just the way I interact with these devices, and I understand that there are differences relating to age and cultural factors. Still, I think that in general much of the push to cram features into cellphones has been driven by cellular carriers looking for greater revenue, rather than from actual user demand.
The iPod/iTunes system will move into a niche with Macintosh computers because Steve Jobs has again stuck with closed architecture and total control.
This is becoming extremely annoying. I can't say it any better than Jon Gruber already did: these writers need to stop pretending that 2006 is 1985.
As for the old saw about cellphones overtaking iPods, this is exactly why nobody has come close to toppling the iPod so far. People who take this view insist that because cellphones are ubiquitous, they will miraculously overwhelm the iPod. If that were true, we'd all be watching TV from our refrigerators.
If I were a device manufacturer attempting to go after Apple, I'd: Think about what works for users. Recognize that if the hardware and software work together extremely smoothly, customers will be happy and will gladly fork over the dough for your device. Don't think about how many features you can cram into the feature list. Don't insist that the form factor of a freakin' cellphone is actually suited to use as a music and video device. Don't think about how happy Verizon will be if you team up with them to make exorbitantly-priced music downloads over crappy networks. Don't dismiss design as an afterthought ("I know, we'll make ours RED!"). Maybe, just maybe, think about how to work with Apple, rather than with Microsoft. After all, past performance is certainly no guarantee of future performance, as Microsoft's botched efforts in digital music have already demonstrated.
The hidden assumption in all of this prognostication about Apple's supposed weakness in iPod/iTunes is that somehow the 800 lb. gorilla from Redmond will eventually swamp Appple. Microsoft has tried everything it can to unseat Apple in this market, and they've fallen flat on their face. Apple has sidestepped Microsoft's OS dominance, and made iPod/iTunes the dominant player. Market effects don't just work in Microsoft's favor.
Alas ye olde pinkdot, we barely knew ye. Return unto us hither in a better life, anew.
I laughed out loud when I read that one.
After reading the vitriolic posts on Slashdot today, you'd think someone had pissed in everyone's Wheaties. It's just April Fool's Day. The editors of Slashdot wanted to have some fun. They do a great job of providing geek fodder 365 days a year, and this is the one day of the year they get to goof off. Maybe it could have been done better. Maybe it could have been done worse. Still, I don't really understand why everyone has become so unhinged.
The site is FREE, and unless you're in a really bad domestic situation, nobody is pointing a gun at your head, forcing you to read Slashdot. If the site makes you go into a homicidal rage every April Fool's Day, get stoned, sit in a corner, and don't point your browser at Slashdot for 24 hours. Better yet, come up with some witty responses like Kethinov's, rather than all of this foaming at the mouth, all caps nonsense. Nothing is more ludicrous than reading some mouth-breather's spelling-deprived, syntax-challenged account of how fucked up Slashdot gets on April Fool's Day.
Try it, you'll like it.
Not to put too fine a point on it, if you ever read Watership Down, which was the inspiration for B&B, you know that even though bunnies look cute, there's all kinds of violence, dispair, chemical agents, deception, and mayhem goin' on underfoot.
This "article" is really a press release from a company that serves as "the missing link between buyers and suppliers of nanomaterials." However, Dr. Bawa seems to be someone who knows a lot about the subject and has been talking about this to anyone who will listen.
My knowledge of nanotech could fill a nanotube, but I pay attention when someone who does seem to be deeply involved in nanotech raises the alarm about this tide of patents.