Corporations don't eat added costs (or added taxes, or...) - they pass them on.
No, it depends on the shape of the supply and demand curve. Usually both the consumers and companies bear some of the cost. In any case, I'll be happy to pay if it means less pollution.
I don't following your reasoning. In fact, it seems that you've just given the most compelling reason I've seen so far for MS to port Office to Linux - if most of their revenue will be derived from subscriptions, the OS becomes less important.
Then we'll probably be seeing a lot of "buggy" browsers.
It doesn't make sense - what happens if the browser displays the page progressively as it's being downloaded, and towards the end, some closing tag is missing (whether because of bad html, a connection problem, etc)? Should the browser erase everything it's rendered so far and say "Oops, sorry, but we can't let you view this page"?
Second, as to displaying poorly-written HTML 'correctly', I think that statement has no real meaning. A browser should not correct for people's fuckups that deviate from the standard.
Another person who has never heard of the concept of "fault tolerance."
The first "top ten results by price/performance" stuck strictly with MS SQL Server, which we all know doesn't run on Linux. Besides, how do you rate a product in price when it has no price? Postgres can be downloaded and used freely.
um... Not unless your hardware and personnel are free. From http://www.tpc.org/faq_TPCC.html
Q: What do the TPC's price/performance numbers mean?
A: TPC's price/performance numbers (e.g. $550 per tpmC) may not be what you think they are. When first analyzing the TPC price/performance numbers, most people mistakenly believe they are looking at the cost of the computer or host machine. That is just one component, and not always the major component of the TPC's pricing methodology. In general, TPC benchmarks are system-wide benchmarks, encompassing almost all cost dimensions of an entire system environment the user might purchase, including terminals, communications equipment, software (transaction monitors and database software), computer system or host, backup storage, and three years maintenance cost. Therefore, if the total system cost is $859,100 and the throughput is 1562 tpmC, the price/performance is derived by taking the price of the entire system ($859,100) divided by the performance (1562 tpmC), which equals $550 per tpmC.
Several years ago, when I was working as a school librarian, we had this wonderfully arcane computer catalog system that librarians had to use in order to check out books for people.
When I asked a fellow librarian if he had any idea why the system was so painfully designed, he replied "Oh, it's so that librarians will pay more attention when they're using the system and make less mistakes that way." er... sure dude.
While learning fundamentals is good, is there really anything fundamental about hand tweaking configuration files? I don't think so.
It's too easy to confuse matters of fundamental importance with matters that are merely pointlessly difficult - sort of like the old adage: if the medicine isn't bitter, it can't be good for you.
MS makes great software. If you want a share of the marketplace, then compete by producing better software. Stop whining. In the end, consumers benefit from competition. Expecting consumers to choose your inferior product over a superior product to make some kind of political statement is lame and repulsive.
Case in point: The Mozilla project. If it were not for Microsoft, Netscape would have continued sitting on its ass, churning the 4.x line, and releasing noteworthy enhancements like the "shopping button".
By choosing to use IE, I am placing pressure on the Mozilla team to product a better product on time. Browser statistics send a very clear message - they know that they cannot rely on any sense of charity from the marketplace. Compete, deliver, or die.
MS is a monopoly, and IE is a tool used illegally to further its monopoly. True, but this can be dealt with by anti-trust law. Requiring consumers to choose an inferior product to spite MS is like cutting off the nose to spite the face.
Anyway, there's a really good reason why you shouldn't use "Internet Explorer", no matter how absolutively wounderful it is: you're voting with every mouseclick, leaving trails in the logs of every website you visit, getting us all a little closer to a Microsoft dominated world.
You're damn right. I'm voting with every click - voting in support of a superior product.
Don't have too much sympathy for Apple. Apple will be the first in line to sue the next manufacturer to produce a computer with the word "Cube" in it.. just wait and see.
It sounds to me like a case of misunderstanding more than anything else. His claim (which I have no reason to doubt) is that he was following what he believed to be an accepted, or at least common practice and on the second issue mistook the meaning of a job title.
That's complete rubbish. You don't have a Phd until you have a Phd, and Cringley knows this. It's standard practice for Phd candidates to serve as teaching assistants. Being a TA is a long way from being a Stanford professor, which is a formal appointment within the university.
What you say may very well be true, but has absolutely nothing to do with the actual content of the article in question.
The article is saying that the web (or scale-free networks as they call it) is resistant to random failures i.e. fault tolerant, due to the fact that very high connectivity is given to some nodes in the network - the probability that the relatively small number of high connectivity nodes are knocked out by random failure is low, as a simple statistical fact. But the web is vulnerable to systematic attacks, for the same reason.
The biggest value of any form of real time content generation is interactivity. There are many possibilities e.g some sort of interactive movie with viewer participation?
Slashdot editors: single minded devotion to free software. Andover.net doesn't tell them what to write, but the bias exists and is apparent nonetheless. So what makes you think the same doesn't happen at zdnet,etc?
I would have made choice number one. Because interests of the user outweighs convenience for the developer. As a user, I don't care that an application looks the same on 10 different platforms I've never seen. What's important is that it looks and feels the same as other applications on my operating system. Of course, this is a moot point for unix-style operating systems since there's no consistent look and feel to begin with (but this is a whole different story...)
Shell scripts are not reusable components. Reusable components are similar to objects in the OOP sense: they are instantiatable, maintain their own state, are capable of manipulating other objects, and provide a sensible interface which abstracts the implementation. In a well designed component system, using a component is exactly the same as using a class written in whatever programming language you happen to be using. If you understand the virtues of OOP, you will see immediately why this makes sense. The idea of using scripts or command-line utilities as "components" is horrendous.
There's no reason why Xbox won't support OpenGL. Even if it didn't come with opengl support right out of the box, it'd only be a matter of time before someone wrote the necessary drivers.
Slashdot Mirror
No, it still holds even if you could manipulate individuals molecules.
e.g. see Maxwell's demon.
Have you heard of the concept of insurance? Risk management? Probabilistic thinking?
Here is another one:
l er-speed.html#ss5.1
Linux is well over twice as fast as NT.
http://www.eruditum.org/linux/myths/myth-dispel
Corporations don't eat added costs (or added taxes, or ...) - they pass them on.
No, it depends on the shape of the supply and demand curve. Usually both the consumers and companies bear some of the cost. In any case, I'll be happy to pay if it means less pollution.
I don't following your reasoning. In fact, it seems that you've just given the most compelling reason I've seen so far for MS to port Office to Linux - if most of their revenue will be derived from subscriptions, the OS becomes less important.
Then we'll probably be seeing a lot of "buggy" browsers.
It doesn't make sense - what happens if the browser displays the page progressively as it's being downloaded, and towards the end, some closing tag is missing (whether because of bad html, a connection problem, etc)? Should the browser erase everything it's rendered so far and say "Oops, sorry, but we can't let you view this page"?
Second, as to displaying poorly-written HTML 'correctly', I think that statement has no real meaning. A browser should not correct for people's fuckups that deviate from the standard.
Another person who has never heard of the concept of "fault tolerance."
The first "top ten results by price/performance" stuck strictly with MS SQL Server, which we all know doesn't run on Linux. Besides, how do you rate a product in price when it has no price? Postgres can be downloaded and used freely.
um... Not unless your hardware and personnel are free. From http://www.tpc.org/faq_TPCC.html
Q: What do the TPC's price/performance numbers mean?
A: TPC's price/performance numbers (e.g. $550 per tpmC) may not be what you think they are. When first analyzing the TPC price/performance numbers, most people mistakenly believe they are looking at the cost of the computer or host machine. That is just one component, and not always the major component of the TPC's pricing methodology. In general, TPC benchmarks are system-wide benchmarks, encompassing almost all cost dimensions of an entire system environment the user might purchase, including terminals, communications equipment, software (transaction monitors and database software), computer system or host, backup storage, and three years maintenance cost. Therefore, if the total system cost is $859,100 and the throughput is 1562 tpmC, the price/performance is derived by taking the price of the entire system ($859,100) divided by the performance (1562 tpmC), which equals $550 per tpmC.
Several years ago, when I was working as a school librarian, we had this wonderfully arcane computer catalog system that librarians had to use in order to check out books for people.
When I asked a fellow librarian if he had any idea why the system was so painfully designed, he replied "Oh, it's so that librarians will pay more attention when they're using the system and make less mistakes that way." er... sure dude.
So now you know why so much of free software is un-usuable.
Oh,that's slightly more difficult. Some engineering may actually be required.
There's a talk by Dave Ditzel on the Crusoe here./ ee380/000209-ee380-100.asx
htt p://stanford-online.stanford.edu/courses/seminars
Great talk. Learn the facts.
Part of this really is missing fundamentals
While learning fundamentals is good, is there really anything fundamental about hand tweaking configuration files? I don't think so.
It's too easy to confuse matters of fundamental importance with matters that are merely pointlessly difficult - sort of like the old adage: if the medicine isn't bitter, it can't be good for you.
MS makes great software. If you want a share of the marketplace, then compete by producing better software. Stop whining. In the end, consumers benefit from competition. Expecting consumers to choose your inferior product over a superior product to make some kind of political statement is lame and repulsive.
Case in point: The Mozilla project. If it were not for Microsoft, Netscape would have continued sitting on its ass, churning the 4.x line, and releasing noteworthy enhancements like the "shopping button".
By choosing to use IE, I am placing pressure on the Mozilla team to product a better product on time. Browser statistics send a very clear message - they know that they cannot rely on any sense of charity from the marketplace. Compete, deliver, or die.
MS is a monopoly, and IE is a tool used illegally to further its monopoly. True, but this can be dealt with by anti-trust law. Requiring consumers to choose an inferior product to spite MS is like cutting off the nose to spite the face.
Anyway, there's a really good reason why you shouldn't use "Internet Explorer", no matter how absolutively wounderful it is: you're voting with every mouseclick, leaving trails in the logs of every website you visit, getting us all a little closer to a Microsoft dominated world.
You're damn right. I'm voting with every click - voting in support of a superior product.
Get a better logo for the anime category. Surely there're much better choices than what looks like a character from some magic girl show.
"Qube" is not the same word as "Cube".
Don't have too much sympathy for Apple. Apple will be the first in line to sue the next manufacturer to produce a computer with the word "Cube" in it.. just wait and see.
It sounds to me like a case of misunderstanding more than anything else. His claim (which I have no reason to doubt) is that he was following what he believed to be an accepted, or at least common practice and on the second issue mistook the meaning of a job title.
That's complete rubbish. You don't have a Phd until you have a Phd, and Cringley knows this. It's standard practice for Phd candidates to serve as teaching assistants. Being a TA is a long way from being a Stanford professor, which is a formal appointment within the university.
What you say may very well be true, but has absolutely nothing to do with the actual content of the article in question.
The article is saying that the web (or scale-free networks as they call it) is resistant to random failures i.e. fault tolerant, due to the fact that very high connectivity is given to some nodes in the network - the probability that the relatively small number of high connectivity nodes are knocked out by random failure is low, as a simple statistical fact. But the web is vulnerable to systematic attacks, for the same reason.
The biggest value of any form of real time content generation is interactivity. There are many possibilities e.g some sort of interactive movie with viewer participation?
Modern example: object oriented components.
Slashdot editors: single minded devotion to free software. Andover.net doesn't tell them what to write, but the bias exists and is apparent nonetheless. So what makes you think the same doesn't happen at zdnet,etc?
I would have made choice number one. Because interests of the user outweighs convenience for the developer. As a user, I don't care that an application looks the same on 10 different platforms I've never seen. What's important is that it looks and feels the same as other applications on my operating system. Of course, this is a moot point for unix-style operating systems since there's no consistent look and feel to begin with (but this is a whole different story...)
Shell scripts are not reusable components. Reusable components are similar to objects in the OOP sense: they are instantiatable, maintain their own state, are capable of manipulating other objects, and provide a sensible interface which abstracts the implementation. In a well designed component system, using a component is exactly the same as using a class written in whatever programming language you happen to be using. If you understand the virtues of OOP, you will see immediately why this makes sense. The idea of using scripts or command-line utilities as "components" is horrendous.
There's no reason why Xbox won't support OpenGL. Even if it didn't come with opengl support right out of the box, it'd only be a matter of time before someone wrote the necessary drivers.