In this article it was stated that Ballmer and Gates both said that only by having a unified company that was able to deliver across-the-board solutions was the company able to add ``real value.''
Is it just me, or does that statement parse as "Without our monopoly position, we cannot compete"? If they cannot add real value without controlling every aspect of the software market, how can they expect anyone else to compete with them?
I can't help but shake my head at the cluelessness of these guys!
which was watchable, until the "coming back to life" thing they had - Anyone else think the film would have been better if he had just died?
I'm afraid you are missing one of the major points of the movie. Almost all the symbolism was taken from Christianity, with Neo representing a "Christ" figure. One of the essential elements in Christianity is the death and ressurection of Christ. The Wachowski brothers could not eliminate that essential element in order to have their astounding metaphor complete.
There are plenty of other symbols to lead you to this conclusion, such as the name Zion representing the better world, Trinity is the one who effects the resurrection, and Cipher is an obvious Judas character, betraying the messiah.
For a better analysis than mine, go look at this article.
Some guy named Chris
Abuse of Slashdot Drinking Game!
on
Humpday Quickies
·
· Score: 1
Dr. Jack Kervorkian recommends the Slashdot Drinking Game to his patients.
I should have mentioned the fact that webturbotax checks the user_agent in my post. I ran it through a proxy and claimed to be Netscape for Windows. I had no problems, other than having to enable Java, which I normally leave off because it's so flakey.
I do wish they wouldn't make us jump through hoops. Heck, if they would just write for a specific set of browsers, that would be great.
Maybe I don't know enough, but how hard can it be to make a robust, safe application that uses only the features of a specific browser (like Netscape) that are platform independant? It's a web page after all. I've developed several web applications, and forgone some of the more esoteric visuals to make it portable, because functionality was more critical than beauty.
Last year I used www.webturbotax.com. It's a web/java based version of TurboTax by Intuit.
Last year it was free if you didn't want to file electronically. You went through the program with your browser, and when you were done, you download a.pdf file with your completed forms already filled out, complete with all the relevant attachments.
I of course filed electronically, which was (I think) $19.95. It was a deal for me.
Amazon, B&N, Borders and the ilk really overcharge for computer books. My guess is that they try to make up for their discounts on other items by gouging the techie sector. After all, we collectively tend to love our books.
Go to bookpool.com and buy your nerd books. They have DEEP discounts. Like I got the boxed set of Knuth's "Art of Programming" for $45.00 less than Amazon charges.
it sure would be great if JC could simply insert a couple lines of code into the linux and windows bins of q3 that told iD exactly how many of each copy of the software were running on machine(...) and then just include the couple hundred lines of source on the CD too. dont even open source it if you dont want to - just provide the source so everyone whos so paranoid can verify that its doing what it says its doing.
The problem with that is as soon as it hit the street, someone would take that counter code, and put it in a script that hit the server every few seconds pretending to be a different machine.
There would be no way to insure that the numbers are accurate. You'd soon be able to download the "Q3A Counter Booster" from Freshmeat, and fake id (no pun intended) packets would be flowing in from all over the internet.
No, the only way to accurately measure the market is to count it at the point each person forks over the money for the game. And isn't that what they care about? How many people paid for it, not how many are running it?
I've read this thread with some interest, since I used to write medical software. Many of you are talking about imbedded systems, real-time stuff, like pacemakers, heart monitors, bypass machines, etc.
That is not what this article is about. This is about medical informatics, which is mostly database software. You know, patient records, lab reports, patient billing systems, handheld charting systems, radiology image storage/retrieval systems, stuff like that.
You know, like when you've been in the hospital for several days, and each day they put a new report with all the lab tests you've had run so far, trended so with a glance the MD can see if your red blood cell count is dropping, or if you are getting too much of a drug. The system that stores that data and generates the report, thats the kind of software that is being talked about.
Medical devices (which may contain software) are a whole differnent can of beans. Those require FDA testing and approval, and are a heap harder to bring to market.
The name American Medical Informatics Association should have tipped you off to the difference. Info, as in information.
If you want to work on medical software professionally you need serious formal EE or CS degrees to the cieling. (sic)
I hate to burst your bubble, but you don't know of what you speak. I wrote hospital lab software for 3 years at the largest medical software company in the country (the former HBOC, now McKessonHBOC). While I do have a CS degree, I don't have them "to the ceiling", and most of the senior people I worked with didn't even have degrees.
While there are lots of regulations you must know, it isn't nearly as strict as you suggest. Most of the design review involves MDs, RN's, or Phlebotomists, so the coders and designers aren't expected to have mastered all the federal rules. There are design meetings, sanity checks, etc, with field professionals, but that's about it.
Perhaps because it is strictly a vertical market, the code written for these applications varies widely. Also, most hospitals, labs, etc, have simply attrocious security in place. It's frightening how easy it would be for someone to get their fingers on your medical records, or even tamper with them.
For example, many sites use no passwords on their servers, and fully 90% have direct dial in modems which will give you a shell prompt. I know, I had to dial into these sites many times to chase bugs, upload new software, or do maintainence on their system because their budget was so tight that a $10/hr lab tech was assigned responsibility for the system.
So, to put a point on it, just because it's "the medical field" doesn't mean the requirements for entry is so high. The only reason I see open source failing in this market is the need for hospitals to have someone on call 24/7, a way they can demand a fix be made, and someone to sue when someone dies. I'm not willing to be that person for free on an open-source project.
But, don't listen to me, I only worked in the industry.
Ever read The Mythical Man-Month? I didn't think so.
Actually, I have. And while much of what Fredrick Brooks has to say is not only true, but revolutionary for when it was written, it is all too often used as an excuse for programmers who don't want to take the time to document essential elements of a system so someone new can come in and be productive soon, if not immediately.
Where the truth of the book holds is in reigning in pointy hairs with their gant charts and MS Project from delaring "Well, if I make 80 hour work weeks mandatory, and bring in 20 new contractors, we can finish the project in 1/3 the time." I've had managers like that, those that simply do not "get" that software engineering is not a perfectly parrallelizable process.
When you have such a clearly stated request from Richard Braakman for people to take a look at the code, and help, who are we to argue? Richard is a smart person and he seems to think the code needs more eyes. Remember ESR's platitude "All bugs are shallow given enough eyeballs"?
However, even IF the particular case of the boot floppy problems falls under Brooks principles, the rest of what I said holds true. The free software community thrives on people not sitting around complaining, but instead jumping in to help out. Old fashioned barn raisings come to mind.
We have a choice, we can either take the path of the urban centers in the 70's and 80's, and delegate our responsibilities to the community much like cities did with police protection, or we can decide it's up to us to make where we call home a good place to live.
Sheesh, so many people here saying "2.4 will be out before Potato", "Slink was out of date when it came out, and so will be Potato", etc.
My favorite was the one saying Debian needs to speed up their bug resolution process. Don't you folks get it? If you want it to improve, you've got to help. Don't sit there complaining expecting some mysterious software overlord to fix all the little problems and hand you a nice new Debian distribution for Christmas. Get your hands dirty, fix some of the problems in the boot floppies, or shut up and don't complain when they don't get fixed as soon as you would like.
Debian isn't some monolithic software corporation, it's people like you, like me, like everyone else who thinks that Linux is fun, that's it's a priviledge and a responsibility to give back. I know not everyone is a programmer, but each and every one of you can do something. Spend an hour writing a HOW-TO, or updating a man page, or trying to reproduce a bug, something, anything other than complaining on slashdot that Debian is delayed.
Please, re-read the letter. They are asking for your help. So, if you really want Debian to succeed, quit being a consumer in the gift economy, and start being a producer. It doesn't have to be much, but anything is better than whining.
Sorry, rant mode off.
Some guy named Chris
Oracle has the same problems...
on
SGI Releases IDE
·
· Score: 1
I've seen similar on Oracle 8i Enterprise, at $2400 per concurrent user.
One of the best uses for an older Palm with IR capability is to use it as the ultimate universal remote control.
The problem I see with traditional programmable remote controls is that they attempt to conform all the funtionality of many remotes into a bunch of buttons. You have to remember that when the remote is in stereo mode, the channel buttons actually control the track number, or that when in TV mode, the fast forward controls the contrast. This "moded method" of control is nonintuitive.
Thinking about it, something like the Palm Pilots would probably be idea. They have infra-red, and you could have a meta-menu on screen from which you could chose which device to control, and sub-menus which are graphical representations of each device's remote. They wouldn't have to look like the true remote, just have clearly understandable functionality.
In fact, he named his book "Billions and Billions" just that as a joke to the longstanding perception that he used that phrase. In the book he states:
"I never said it. Honest. (...) I said "billion" many times on the Cosmos television series, (...) but I never said "billions and billions". For one thing, it's too imprecise."
He goes on to say that the myth of that saying started with Johnny Carson, who used that phrase when doing an impression of Sagan.
But, Sagan knew he wasn't the most gifted cosmologist technically, but he was a gifted communicator. He explained and abstracted intricately complex concepts so that the general public could understand science. His television shows and books sparked interest in science in many lay-people. And who knows how many children he inspired to become scientists.
So, I suppose Sagan's gift was to make science more accessable to the masses. And I say he did a bang up job of it.
I don't think it's that Microsoft is the only company that can afford to let a commercial OS find it's market. It's more likely reaction to the general development community realization that Java isn't that well suited to interactive user applications.
Java has found a home in servlets, not applications.
Truthfully, there are a few more areas where Linux isn't ready for the enterprise. At least for mission critical applications.
Primarily the missing elements relate to high availability applications, with failover capability.
Things like a journalling file system, and HA clustering (no, Beowulf doesn't do high-availability) are desperately needed. I know there are some early projects in the works to address these issues, but they don't seem to be ready for prime-time just yet.
Now, if I could run Oracle 8i Enterprise for Linux with the parallel server and hot standby database options enabled, I would be happy. But, truthfully, when you get a web license for Oracle (licensed by CPU power, not per concurrent user), the costs of the Oracle licenses are so much higher than hardware/os licensing costs, that buying a couple of Ultras and SunCluster isn't that big of a deal anymore. What's $100,000 worth of hardware/os when the Oracle licenses cost $500,000.
And, if you don't need the high availability features of 8i Enterprise, then you probably don't need the Enterprise version at all. Then, Oracle 8 on Linux is well suited for your needs. At least that's what I've found to be true.
Linux is evolving rapidly, and I do prefer it for ordinary work, but it just isn't in the game yet when it comes to enterprise level, high availability implementations.
Do you recall the announcement that described a palm with a built in wireless network transceiver that could be used in larger cities for browsing web pages, email, etc. I suppose that could have been the Palm V, but I swear I remember something about one with more flexability.
The Palm V's need for a "special" web format sort of grosses me out.
This mixture of features, none of the Palms clearly outshines the others. It's about time the released a killer, expandable, high memory palm with PC card support in that cool metal form factor of the Palm V.
If (a big if) domain names do have some intrinsic value, and are marketable in and of themselves, wouldn't it make sense that a matched set of the big three (.com,.org,.net) would be worth much more than just one? Or more than the seperate value of all three individually?
I just grabbed a domain for myself, and got all three. Not because I plan on selling them, but because I didn't want someone registering the companions to get free publicity if (another huge if) my site becomes popular. Wouldn't that same mindset apply to reselling domain names?
What's interesting about the brain are the relationships between the saved data. Think about it... how a smell can remind you of a specific moment from childhood, or how hearing a song not only recalls that song, but can remind you of an old girlfriend, and the pain of breaking up.
So, yeah, we can probably make hardware that can store more than a brain, but it's really pretty hard to create all those fuzzy links that relate one memory to another. In fact, it's quite likely the very fuzzy nature of those relationships in the brain is what causes imagination an creativity. Our brains recall things, but not as exact reproductions, instead as amalgamations of many internally related memories.
Slashdot Mirror
In this article it was stated that Ballmer and Gates both said that only by having a unified company that was able to deliver across-the-board solutions was the company able to add ``real value.''
Is it just me, or does that statement parse as "Without our monopoly position, we cannot compete"? If they cannot add real value without controlling every aspect of the software market, how can they expect anyone else to compete with them?
I can't help but shake my head at the cluelessness of these guys!
Some guy named Chris
which was watchable, until the "coming back to life" thing they had - Anyone else think the film would have been better if he had just died?
I'm afraid you are missing one of the major points of the movie. Almost all the symbolism was taken from Christianity, with Neo representing a "Christ" figure. One of the essential elements in Christianity is the death and ressurection of Christ. The Wachowski brothers could not eliminate that essential element in order to have their astounding metaphor complete.
There are plenty of other symbols to lead you to this conclusion, such as the name Zion representing the better world, Trinity is the one who effects the resurrection, and Cipher is an obvious Judas character, betraying the messiah.
For a better analysis than mine, go look at this article.
Some guy named Chris
C'mon, it's not a game, it's suicide by
Some guy named Chris
I should have mentioned the fact that webturbotax checks the user_agent in my post. I ran it through a proxy and claimed to be Netscape for Windows. I had no problems, other than having to enable Java, which I normally leave off because it's so flakey.
I do wish they wouldn't make us jump through hoops. Heck, if they would just write for a specific set of browsers, that would be great.
Maybe I don't know enough, but how hard can it be to make a robust, safe application that uses only the features of a specific browser (like Netscape) that are platform independant? It's a web page after all. I've developed several web applications, and forgone some of the more esoteric visuals to make it portable, because functionality was more critical than beauty.
Sorry, I got a little off topic...
Some guy named Chris
Last year I used www.webturbotax.com. It's a web/java based version of TurboTax by Intuit.
Last year it was free if you didn't want to file electronically. You went through the program with your browser, and when you were done, you download a .pdf file with your completed forms already filled out, complete with all the relevant attachments.
I of course filed electronically, which was (I think) $19.95. It was a deal for me.
Some guy named Chris
Amazon, B&N, Borders and the ilk really overcharge for computer books. My guess is that they try to make up for their discounts on other items by gouging the techie sector. After all, we collectively tend to love our books.
Go to bookpool.com and buy your nerd books. They have DEEP discounts. Like I got the boxed set of Knuth's "Art of Programming" for $45.00 less than Amazon charges.
Some guy named Chris
it sure would be great if JC could simply insert a couple lines of code into the linux and windows bins of q3 that told iD exactly how many of each copy of the software were running on machine(...) and then just include the couple hundred lines of source on the CD too. dont even open source it if you dont want to - just provide the source so everyone whos so paranoid can verify that its doing what it says its doing.
The problem with that is as soon as it hit the street, someone would take that counter code, and put it in a script that hit the server every few seconds pretending to be a different machine.
There would be no way to insure that the numbers are accurate. You'd soon be able to download the "Q3A Counter Booster" from Freshmeat, and fake id (no pun intended) packets would be flowing in from all over the internet.
No, the only way to accurately measure the market is to count it at the point each person forks over the money for the game. And isn't that what they care about? How many people paid for it, not how many are running it?
Some guy named Chris
I've read this thread with some interest, since I used to write medical software. Many of you are talking about imbedded systems, real-time stuff, like pacemakers, heart monitors, bypass machines, etc.
That is not what this article is about. This is about medical informatics, which is mostly database software. You know, patient records, lab reports, patient billing systems, handheld charting systems, radiology image storage/retrieval systems, stuff like that.
You know, like when you've been in the hospital for several days, and each day they put a new report with all the lab tests you've had run so far, trended so with a glance the MD can see if your red blood cell count is dropping, or if you are getting too much of a drug. The system that stores that data and generates the report, thats the kind of software that is being talked about.
Medical devices (which may contain software) are a whole differnent can of beans. Those require FDA testing and approval, and are a heap harder to bring to market.
The name American Medical Informatics Association should have tipped you off to the difference. Info, as in information.
Some guy named Chris
If you want to work on medical software professionally you need serious formal EE or CS degrees to the cieling. (sic)
I hate to burst your bubble, but you don't know of what you speak. I wrote hospital lab software for 3 years at the largest medical software company in the country (the former HBOC, now McKessonHBOC). While I do have a CS degree, I don't have them "to the ceiling", and most of the senior people I worked with didn't even have degrees.
While there are lots of regulations you must know, it isn't nearly as strict as you suggest. Most of the design review involves MDs, RN's, or Phlebotomists, so the coders and designers aren't expected to have mastered all the federal rules. There are design meetings, sanity checks, etc, with field professionals, but that's about it.
Perhaps because it is strictly a vertical market, the code written for these applications varies widely. Also, most hospitals, labs, etc, have simply attrocious security in place. It's frightening how easy it would be for someone to get their fingers on your medical records, or even tamper with them.
For example, many sites use no passwords on their servers, and fully 90% have direct dial in modems which will give you a shell prompt. I know, I had to dial into these sites many times to chase bugs, upload new software, or do maintainence on their system because their budget was so tight that a $10/hr lab tech was assigned responsibility for the system.
So, to put a point on it, just because it's "the medical field" doesn't mean the requirements for entry is so high. The only reason I see open source failing in this market is the need for hospitals to have someone on call 24/7, a way they can demand a fix be made, and someone to sue when someone dies. I'm not willing to be that person for free on an open-source project.
But, don't listen to me, I only worked in the industry.
Some guy named Chris
Ever read The Mythical Man-Month? I didn't think so.
Actually, I have. And while much of what Fredrick Brooks has to say is not only true, but revolutionary for when it was written, it is all too often used as an excuse for programmers who don't want to take the time to document essential elements of a system so someone new can come in and be productive soon, if not immediately.
Where the truth of the book holds is in reigning in pointy hairs with their gant charts and MS Project from delaring "Well, if I make 80 hour work weeks mandatory, and bring in 20 new contractors, we can finish the project in 1/3 the time." I've had managers like that, those that simply do not "get" that software engineering is not a perfectly parrallelizable process.
When you have such a clearly stated request from Richard Braakman for people to take a look at the code, and help, who are we to argue? Richard is a smart person and he seems to think the code needs more eyes. Remember ESR's platitude "All bugs are shallow given enough eyeballs"?
However, even IF the particular case of the boot floppy problems falls under Brooks principles, the rest of what I said holds true. The free software community thrives on people not sitting around complaining, but instead jumping in to help out. Old fashioned barn raisings come to mind.
We have a choice, we can either take the path of the urban centers in the 70's and 80's, and delegate our responsibilities to the community much like cities did with police protection, or we can decide it's up to us to make where we call home a good place to live.
Some guy named Chris
Sheesh, so many people here saying "2.4 will be out before Potato", "Slink was out of date when it came out, and so will be Potato", etc.
My favorite was the one saying Debian needs to speed up their bug resolution process. Don't you folks get it? If you want it to improve, you've got to help. Don't sit there complaining expecting some mysterious software overlord to fix all the little problems and hand you a nice new Debian distribution for Christmas. Get your hands dirty, fix some of the problems in the boot floppies, or shut up and don't complain when they don't get fixed as soon as you would like.
Debian isn't some monolithic software corporation, it's people like you, like me, like everyone else who thinks that Linux is fun, that's it's a priviledge and a responsibility to give back. I know not everyone is a programmer, but each and every one of you can do something. Spend an hour writing a HOW-TO, or updating a man page, or trying to reproduce a bug, something, anything other than complaining on slashdot that Debian is delayed.
Please, re-read the letter. They are asking for your help. So, if you really want Debian to succeed, quit being a consumer in the gift economy, and start being a producer. It doesn't have to be much, but anything is better than whining.
Sorry, rant mode off.
Some guy named Chris
#!/bin/sh
setenv PATH
ORACLE_HOME=/oracle/
export ORACLE_HOME
---
FEH! Mix and match your shell!
Chris
The problem I see with traditional programmable remote controls is that they attempt to conform all the funtionality of many remotes into a bunch
of buttons. You have to remember that when the remote is in stereo mode, the channel buttons actually control the track number, or that when in TV mode, the fast forward controls the contrast. This "moded method" of control is nonintuitive.
Thinking about it, something like the Palm Pilots would probably be idea. They have infra-red, and you could have a meta-menu on screen from which
you could chose which device to control, and sub-menus which are graphical representations of each device's remote. They wouldn't have to look like the true remote, just have clearly understandable functionality.
Chris
You are thinking of Arthur C. Clark, of 2001 fame.
In fact, he named his book "Billions and Billions" just that as a joke to the longstanding perception that he used that phrase. In the book he states:
"I never said it. Honest. (...) I said "billion" many times on the Cosmos television series, (...) but I never said "billions and billions". For one thing, it's too imprecise."
He goes on to say that the myth of that saying started with Johnny Carson, who used that phrase when doing an impression of Sagan.
But, Sagan knew he wasn't the most gifted cosmologist technically, but he was a gifted communicator. He explained and abstracted intricately complex concepts so that the general public could understand science. His television shows and books sparked interest in science in many lay-people. And who knows how many children he inspired to become scientists.
So, I suppose Sagan's gift was to make science more accessable to the masses. And I say he did a bang up job of it.
I don't think it's that Microsoft is the only company that can afford to let a commercial OS find it's market. It's more likely reaction to the general development community realization that Java isn't that well suited to interactive user applications.
Java has found a home in servlets, not applications.
Open (93%) as Yoda, Agreeable (10%) as the Emperor, and as neurotic as a Tuskin Raider (85%).
I'm pretty messed up.
But, what do you expect. Cheap monkeys.
"I tried throwing them away but the bin man said the council was not allowed to dispose of charred primates.
I told him I had a wet one."
Truthfully, there are a few more areas where Linux isn't ready for the enterprise. At least for mission critical applications.
Primarily the missing elements relate to high availability applications, with failover capability.
Things like a journalling file system, and HA clustering (no, Beowulf doesn't do high-availability) are desperately needed. I know there are some early projects in the works to address these issues, but they don't seem to be ready for prime-time just yet.
Now, if I could run Oracle 8i Enterprise for Linux with the parallel server and hot standby database options enabled, I would be happy. But, truthfully, when you get a web license for Oracle (licensed by CPU power, not per concurrent user), the costs of the Oracle licenses are so much higher than hardware/os licensing costs, that buying a couple of Ultras and SunCluster isn't that big of a deal anymore. What's $100,000 worth of hardware/os when the Oracle licenses cost $500,000.
And, if you don't need the high availability features of 8i Enterprise, then you probably don't need the Enterprise version at all. Then, Oracle 8 on Linux is well suited for your needs. At least that's what I've found to be true.
Linux is evolving rapidly, and I do prefer it for ordinary work, but it just isn't in the game yet when it comes to enterprise level, high availability implementations.
Do you recall the announcement that described a palm with a built in wireless network transceiver that could be used in larger cities for browsing web pages, email, etc. I suppose that could have been the Palm V, but I swear I remember something about one with more flexability.
The Palm V's need for a "special" web format sort of grosses me out.
This mixture of features, none of the Palms clearly outshines the others. It's about time the released a killer, expandable, high memory palm with PC card support in that cool metal form factor of the Palm V.
It's almost as bad as the processor market.
Awesome book. A must read.
Don't forget the cannibals.
If (a big if) domain names do have some intrinsic value, and are marketable in and of themselves, wouldn't it make sense that a matched set of the big three (.com, .org, .net) would be worth much more than just one? Or more than the seperate value of all three individually?
I just grabbed a domain for myself, and got all three. Not because I plan on selling them, but because I didn't want someone registering the companions to get free publicity if (another huge if) my site becomes popular. Wouldn't that same mindset apply to reselling domain names?
What's interesting about the brain are the relationships between the saved data. Think about it... how a smell can remind you of a specific moment from childhood, or how hearing a song not only recalls that song, but can remind you of an old girlfriend, and the pain of breaking up.
So, yeah, we can probably make hardware that can store more than a brain, but it's really pretty hard to create all those fuzzy links that relate one memory to another. In fact, it's quite likely the very fuzzy nature of those relationships in the brain is what causes imagination an creativity. Our brains recall things, but not as exact reproductions, instead as amalgamations of many internally related memories.
So, I take it from your web page you really like it. What about for languages other than C++ or Java? Like straight C or Perl?