I agree, Safari is elegant in its simplicity, yet offers key features that windows could definitely use (tabbed browsing, anyone.) Fact is, there is Mozilla for Windows and that runs and renders pretty nicely.
I used to be of the school to say that I'd simply like a whole damn OS port of OS X to the Intel platform, from Apple, without having to mess with Darwin. However, having gone out, given in and purchased an iBook with OS X, I've used it and constantly find myself gravitating back to Windows. Maybe I've just become too Windows-adept (inept?) but I seem to find the Windows option with some open source trappings (Mozilla, OO 1.1) to be the more user-friendly choice.
Trust me, I'm as suprised as anyone to be saying this...
It would be so nice to be able to opt to support such a leader in the fight against the RIAA (spare the the "it's still a giant coporation" soapbax, please, for the skae of argument) however, wehere I live, there's no option except to choose Comcast, who has readily been turning over names of their subscribers, from all I can tell.
I always hope that this is something that will change over time, as I know in past residences I've actually had a choice (hence my other reasons for not wanting to have to use Comcast) but that is not the case in Medford, MA, where I am now.
IANL, and, I have not really done all too much research on this, but itsn't this the type of situation de-regulation was supposed to quash?
Perhaps... but, to your point, there is definitely a lot more bang for buck in what you're getting these days on a DVD than what you're getting on a CD. I thought that a really well thought-out argument on this was presented in this piece which was posted here a little while back.
I think that making the "they're paid too much and that's why I hate them and their high prices" argument is slightly more nebulous here than, say, on the RIAA side of the house. Also, in the RIAA example, you're still talking about bloated overhead and other out-of-control costs as the root evil.
Of course, this is all IMO, but you knew that 'cause this is Slashdot;)
Was Yahoo not one of the founding members of the IMUnified group, whose sole purpose was to unify with goliaths such as MSFT to fight the tyranny of AOL? Aforementioned tyranny being comprised of AOL blocking outise clients from accessing their users.
What goes around comes around. Out of protest I am planning to use my AOL IM exclusively indefinitely unitil this is solved.
Starting with a work-related mandate to use Yahoo's IM service, I've since become quite a "Sticky" Yahoo visitor. My calendar is linked with their service, I forward a number of mail addresses there - I generate them money!
How, you ask? I am given, at the least (counting calendar, email, and news) three opportunities per visit to interact with Yahoo's advertisers and sponsors. This is a direct result of being a Yahoo IM user, and discovering how their other services integrated with their messaging client. While I cannot comment on MSN, and I don't dream of endorsing AOL for myriad reasons, I feel that Yahoo's services were robust enough to keep a technically demanding user such as myself attracted to the brand. In interacting with memebers of Yahoo's chat community, it seems to be the case that moderate to heavy users of it's chat/IM service also quickly adopt other Yahoo services. This equates to more unique pageviews per day from IM/chat users than off-the-street users and perusers. Yahoo IM users, on average, tend to be loyal out of necessity - not necessity becasue they are in any way indentured to format, design or interoperability to Yahoo, but becasue things "just work."
This move, to isolate IM users who may be using a different client (is it even reasonable to assume users will be happy with just one?) services is tragic. Yahoo has clearly missed the point that IM users are not IM users alone, but rather comprise some of the best audiences for exposure to their ads, and therefore, a direct path to revenues.
This move, to block users who've already made a conscious choice to use other Yahoo services is a faux pas, to say the least.
Would'nt one assume *ducking tomatoes and other assorted SlashTossings* that to advance to relatively input-drive position in NASA's space operations, one would indeed need to be an engineer in the first place?
no, no, not "terrorists" "opposing forces..." I know, looking at pcitures of "Dubya" just fills the mind with rhetoric, just let's not let him re-write the common parlance, eh?
Perhaps "less spam-like" was not the right phrase, however, I consider receiving a certain amount of mail that I ultimately delete a hazard of sharing my email address for everyday communication. I see it as akin to walking a city street and having to deal with people passing out flyers that I must, in turn, dodge.
The emails I truly loathe and wish to stomp out completely, however, are those the content of which may violate an acceptable use policy at work, are truly unsavory in their nature or the goods being hocked or, are blatant scams. Those are the emails I consider the most eggregious in the pyramid of spam-ness.
I mean really, who needs the "penis enlargement" or "free viagra NO PRESCRIPTION" emails? I mean unless, well, you know....
I'll second that. It seems, given that the experiments work and the proper variables are defined beforehand, this is the type of thing that makes said "Spam" less spam-like!
I, personally can't imagine an inbound email campaign, however scientifically targeted, actually pitching me something I need, and want to purchase, but there's a first time for everything.
It seems that this type of science, properly applied, would actually reduce the volume of Spam that people are receiving. The flip side of this coin being, of course, that someone, somewhere has to receive all the unsolicited email that the rest of us are not getting, right?
Can there be a new class of negative moderation like (-4 DMCA-Sympathetic Rhetoric)? That would make me smile, almost as much as being able to moderate these comment into obscurity.
Man, that's a classic one, but I'll take mine politically and environmentally correct and fully capable of attaining the Big O. Just like my, errr, satisfied women...
I recently started work for a small comany that has a pretty solid core staff of people that have an average tenure of about 5 years. As part of my interviewing process, I was introduced to a standardized test that one of the executives had recently learned about, taken, and felt was an excellent measure of an individual's professional and personal fit in the organization.
While I don't tend to put much stock in most standardlized testing, I am currently sitting at my desk at said employer and must, therefore, acknowledge that the process played some part in my receiving an offer.
The push now is to apply the test to everyone in the organization, to pick out common themes of people who've been part of this company for some time.
While I'm not sure this would have any bearing on assessing someone's performance in a technical role (there are some reasoning aspects to the test) it will help to ensure that there is a sanity check as to who is a good fit moving forward.
Perhaps this is one way to address the issue, as someone who gets along with peers and can relate to them, is more likely and willing to mold into the culture of the organization.
This, then, will be the time for the rest of the world to set the example that the US is supposedly meant to follow:
In the spirit of your comments, the US would be the recipient of aid, monetary and human-capital-wise, in the wake of this tragedy. Is this not what our allies, other parties to said "global problem" would do to live by example?
I have still, however, seen only statements of support, condolence and sorrow from other nations. These sentiments, while appreciated and touching, weaken any argument that the US has not played an active role as an ally against global terrorism. I see the words, in lieu of action, from our global neighbors to be quid pro quo for the past behavior the US is being criticized for here.
Hey, now... I agree with the diff. progs for diff. things. I use IRC all the time, but at work, or when I need to quickly poke my head into someones proverbial office, I send an IM, usually using Yahoo Messenger (which, I'm surprised wasn't mentioned.)
There is def. something to be said for the small footprint, one-click-startup-and-sign-on features of the progs. that are out there. I don't think it's a matter of 1337-nees, it's just convenience... and I didn't even need to condescend to anyone.
On top of the fact that there are a number of ways to customize the R/3 offerings from SAP, they are knee deep in pushing their software as a service via the MySAP offerings. It is an interesting strategy, almost a Internet-age continuation of the services-not-software marketing that they pursued with R/2 and R/3. See, they are marketing the services and capabilites that the software offers, and, therefore, the actual software is increasingly less of the issue than what people can do with it.
If you go into MySAP, it's main, "dashboard" area is able to integrate a number of different applications to be at the user's fingertips. Applications like email, web browsing and messaging are often external apps that are integrated into MySAP from other sources. Further evidence that the actual vendro's software is taking a backseat. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I wonder how far and wide this type of reaction has or could spread. It'd be nice to see that this type of thing were happening here and there, and maybe then, BoA might realize that placating their customers is more important that stomping out a small site that maybe-kinda-sorta dilutes their brand. Alas, as is the case with many large banks, they lose money on all but the largest accounts they hold, and, as a result, are happy to see most of us "Average Joes" leave. Ahh capitalism.... ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~
Your personification of our country's currnet walking-on-eggshells culture, IMHO, creates a more hostile environment than that in which people can *gasp* speak their minds. In all truth, the more reactionary people become, the less our society feels it is able to think, and therefore say. Isn't this mass-repression just as bad as supressing the thoughts and voices of one or a handful of groups? ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The first time I got a good feel for Aqua and what all the "lickable design" brouhaha was about was when I got an Aqua-esque skin for my OS, I think it is a good way to promote the OS's new look and familiarize people with it. It's free advertising, granted the logo is protected by copyright, but I find it hard to beleive that this establshes precedent or moves them closer to having the copyright become a colloquilaism, much like "kleenex" or "Xerox." All in all, Apple has long been far too controling of their specs and designs and therefore have locked themselves into a narrow audience.
I can't say I'm surprised to see that once again, people are posting replies as if they were the damn holders of a trademark themselves. It always amazes me how quickly people will rally behind a corporation (ok, even thogh it's Apple) when it is in the interest of self righteous condescention to other posters.
As a follow on to this, but not necessarily pointing a finger at anyone's opinion as "right" or "wrong," I think that it is great that Ford is excercising its ridiculous ammount of welath (somewhere in the billions in cash reserves alone!) to help better their employees, but there is one question that stands out in my mind: Who are they helping, themesleves or the employees? Really, I mean, it is nice to think that Ford is doing this as some sort of service to help out employees and give them something that they might not have access to otherwise, but, in the end, the collaboration, increases in productivity and better means of communication only help to serve Ford.
My company gives me a laptop, it's nice, I like to use it and I'm sure they know that. In fact, they will be happy to keep me updated with the latest technology since they know it'll keep me using it, and, ultimately, putting in more time than I might if I had some crappy desktop that I couldn't wait to shut off at the end of every day. Of course this isn't the case with all people, and, as I sit here posting on Slashdot from home, well, my productivity speaks for itself. But in the case of Ford, by giving the machines paired with access, itsn't it reasonable to assume that with their new found Online capabilities, Ford employees are going to start going home at night and going online only to chat with some other newly wired Ford emplyoees about work? What they are really doing is working, collaborating, exchanging ideas, on their own time!
Perhaps the benefits outweigh the "greedy corporate gains" that Ford gets out of the deal, but it is something ot think about.
On the whole it is refreshing to see that a company as large as Ford realizes the value of familiarizing their employees with technology, if not only to make them more productive on the job. My father works at a local community college where they have been promising all faculty and staff computers and Internet access for the past three years. It seems ironic that secrataries in the smae institution have computers, on which they are known to play games during the workday, and professors, like my father, are forced to communicate with students via an AOL address that they are paying for.
I went to a state university in Massachusetts, the same state that has been promising my father's school technology that never materializes. I worked in the IT department for the four years I was there and it was not uncommon for us to recieve the newest technology as soon as it came out so that we could test software and bugfixes. So, here we are, the student helpdesk with the latest and greatest while the educators, the ones that are supposedly the "core asset" of the whole system, are not even given an old 486, for crying out loud.
I think there is an enormous ammountof inequity in terms of the dispersement of technology, if the example I have provided, of a higher education system that can't even get it right, I can only imagine what it will take to have total technological equality.
On a parting note, there are some encouraging developments, however. I do disagree with the statement of Mr. Katz that there is a rather cavalier and apathetic attitude toward social matters in the tech community. I think that it is just the opposite. There has long been a committment, however mercenary, from the tech community to provide for the less fortunate and to advance educational uses of technology. Think back to the departure of Steve Wozniak from Apple to go off and help the world with technology, or the poorer, less fortunate part thereof. More recently, the Bill and Melinda Gates Charitable Trust bequeathed $1 Billion to be used for inner-city technolgy projects over the next few years. The current "tech" culture is strognly linked to its academic past, and, as such, I beleive it has a certain social conscience not seen in other big industries. So, it may not be perfect, but I think the tech companies out there do a lot more for the world than most other industries.
I do a lot of work with these up and coming ecommerce companies, all of whom say they "do" XML. It is the most popular interface, in the products they are developing, to have what I commonly refer to as a "repository model" where systems spit data into your XML-enabled system in whatever format you want (EDI proprietary formats, regular HTTP, ACSII etc) and you play around with it in XML (a lot better for data manipulation and content mangement purposes) and then spit it back into whatever flavor your suppliers/customers want it in. This is what I am getting a sense for in the IBM model. This is not so much a "new" way of doing things but increasingly the standard.
Fact is, XML is great for data interchange, plugging large ammounts of standard infomration into standard forms (PO's, RFQs and other business docs) as well as putting some muscle into search engines via context based searching (via XML metadata) but there are way too many standards out there.
- BizTalk - This is the standard, open nonetheless, that MSFT is developing to standardize XML. It is an open standard, but the obvious benefit to MSFT is that they can plug Biztalk functionality right into all of their product lines for interoperability across a platform.
- OASIS's XML.org - OASIS, a non-affiliated standards body, much like W3C, set out to develop a standardized set of XML schemas and DTDs (document type definitions) however, MSFT beat them to the punch by launching their BizTalk site a day before OASIS, ahhh Microsoft, finds a way to compete even in open standards.
- RosettaNet - These guys set out to "map" all common business processes and to make an open standard for XML in the business world, but, alas, mapping entire processes takes a long time, a lot of notaeriety here, not as much substance.
These are just a few examples, there are others, but, my guess is that you'll hear the most about these folks. To make things even more complicated although these guys seem to be "competing" they are almost all members of each others' groups, in a sort of "coopition" model. So, overall, it is no wonder why the big push is for standards repositories, and related transaltion to an from various formats.
Agreed, that is one of the big issues surrounding this whole thing, the idea that whatever gets designed as a safeguard will be overcome by a new innovation by the "black market." Until this cylce stops, RIAA and their affiliate are going to be pouring money into the bottomless pit that is copyright protection for media.
I grew up and went through college predominantly in the pre-ethernet stage of the evolution of Internet on campus. My freshman year was the first year that the University I attended had a "help desk" to speak of, prior to this, it had been a couple of guys who "knew their stuff" taking calls in the basement of an old building on campus. The first time I heard of Netscape was when a kid who ran bets in my hall wanted some up-to-date sports scores, at the time I did not know that the 9600 connections and klugey Trumpet Winsock TCP/IP were available to me. When I did find out what the "'Net" was, and that I could have access, I got it, I suffered through hours of trying to get online and configure and install and reconfigure and reboot a few thousand times, it was worth it to me, but not to a lot of other people. In the end I was a little better for the wear, I had learned TCP/IP networking, and basic computer "stuff" along the way and got a job as a tech on campus - I still work in technology, but not doing support, I like my sanity. So, as my experience led me to actually better myself, the new found medium with which I was enthralled became decreasingly fun as nobody else I knew had the patience to go through the setup to get online. I think with the new trend of universities giving Internet access, not to mention high speed internet access, as part of the "package" is great. It is really interesting to note how many people, especially those who are not complete tech-heads, are really getting into the Internet and all of the stuff that is out there. It's the perfect vehicle to get people into using PCs (not to the exclusion of Macs) and familiarizing themselves with technology. I think the overall effect of having all of this bandwidth to "play with" in schools will result in a far more resourceful and tech-friendly generation, which is great for the economy.
Apparently people are a little on edge around here lately.... Legality issues aside, there are a growing number of search sites that are "endorsing" pirated music by way of having huge indexes of MP3s, many of which, undoubtedly are pirated. One that sticks out in my mind is the MP3 search on Lycos, powered by Fast Search and Transfer ASA, the same people that brought us AllTheWeb. Then there is Napster, an MP3 lovers dream (sorry to keep referencing this ad nauseam.) There was much publicity, at least among the/. Community about the suit filed against our buddies over at Napster, no doubt it'll get thrown out (it may have already, I'm not sure) because there is the concept that Napster is simply providing a vehicle for search, location and subsequent download of MP3s, and never takes physical, or even legal possession of the data. Basically, they, and other such sites, services and software, are conduits and, in acting as such, are not violating any law. I think there is a distinct possibility that we might begin to see the tides turn on these types of issues. After all, how many times in the past year or two have we been hearing about class action suits against other types of "conduits" for other activities. Gun manufacturers, tobacco companies, automobile manufacturers. Although there is a substantial difference between manufacturing a weapon used in a deadly crime and providing an avenue to procure a music track that you do not own and possibly do not intend to pay for, where is the line drawn. I am not predicting that there will be huge class action suits by large numbers of music artists or record concerns, but noting a potential for some legal actions to at least by subject to closer scrutiny by the judicial system. Until then, there is going to be a lot of back and forth on issues such as encryption technology, legal liability for sites linking to and referencing certain MP3s and other media files, and there's going to be a lot of money to be made as an intellectual property and copyright attorney. The industry is too new for self regulation, whether this means that the government will step up its battle or technological advances on protection technology will speed up to stop the gap remains to be seen. All of this of course, IMHO
Well, I do apologize for the spelling errors, I will try and include more grammatical safeguards in the future. I will keep this brief as I feel replying to a comment simply to rant is rather pointless, nevertheless, I have brought myself to your level and thus will attempt to eloquently address your attempt to impugn my opinion. First, I apologize for being hypocritical in referencing history, however, you will notice that I did not go into as much detail as the original post that spurred my reply. On being hypocritical, I see that you are not a fan of insulting intelligence, therefore, I ask that you not insult mine, your pithy comments, though well taken as criticism, are frivolous and as dilatory in nature as any that take dicussion threads off subject. Additionally, my comment on the declining quality of Slashdot, well, thank you for helping me prove my point Chicken Little. As for the karma, I can see that you don't believe in it, you are a far more practical person, one that worries about things that might affect you in a more tangible way, hence your reluctance to include an identity with your wonderful comments. Oh, and I apologize for not numbering mine, be assured it was a great help in reading yours. Keep those cards and letters coming!
I heave read all of the myriad opinions, agreeing with some, disagreeing with others and becoming plain outraged at some of the evangelical tones some took in asserting a plainly unoriginal point of view. I think that the overall "answer" that has been reached is that there are so many issues that come up when discussing such a topic, that it is impossilbe to simply side with the "goood guys" or "bad guys." It'll be a long time until there are outlets for media distribution
Slashdot Mirror
I agree, Safari is elegant in its simplicity, yet offers key features that windows could definitely use (tabbed browsing, anyone.) Fact is, there is Mozilla for Windows and that runs and renders pretty nicely.
I used to be of the school to say that I'd simply like a whole damn OS port of OS X to the Intel platform, from Apple, without having to mess with Darwin. However, having gone out, given in and purchased an iBook with OS X, I've used it and constantly find myself gravitating back to Windows. Maybe I've just become too Windows-adept (inept?) but I seem to find the Windows option with some open source trappings (Mozilla, OO 1.1) to be the more user-friendly choice.
Trust me, I'm as suprised as anyone to be saying this...
It would be so nice to be able to opt to support such a leader in the fight against the RIAA (spare the the "it's still a giant coporation" soapbax, please, for the skae of argument) however, wehere I live, there's no option except to choose Comcast, who has readily been turning over names of their subscribers, from all I can tell.
I always hope that this is something that will change over time, as I know in past residences I've actually had a choice (hence my other reasons for not wanting to have to use Comcast) but that is not the case in Medford, MA, where I am now.
IANL, and, I have not really done all too much research on this, but itsn't this the type of situation de-regulation was supposed to quash?
Perhaps... but, to your point, there is definitely a lot more bang for buck in what you're getting these days on a DVD than what you're getting on a CD. I thought that a really well thought-out argument on this was presented in this piece which was posted here a little while back.
;)
I think that making the "they're paid too much and that's why I hate them and their high prices" argument is slightly more nebulous here than, say, on the RIAA side of the house. Also, in the RIAA example, you're still talking about bloated overhead and other out-of-control costs as the root evil.
Of course, this is all IMO, but you knew that 'cause this is Slashdot
Was Yahoo not one of the founding members of the IMUnified group, whose sole purpose was to unify with goliaths such as MSFT to fight the tyranny of AOL? Aforementioned tyranny being comprised of AOL blocking outise clients from accessing their users.
What goes around comes around. Out of protest I am planning to use my AOL IM exclusively indefinitely unitil this is solved.
Starting with a work-related mandate to use Yahoo's IM service, I've since become quite a "Sticky" Yahoo visitor. My calendar is linked with their service, I forward a number of mail addresses there - I generate them money!
How, you ask? I am given, at the least (counting calendar, email, and news) three opportunities per visit to interact with Yahoo's advertisers and sponsors. This is a direct result of being a Yahoo IM user, and discovering how their other services integrated with their messaging client. While I cannot comment on MSN, and I don't dream of endorsing AOL for myriad reasons, I feel that Yahoo's services were robust enough to keep a technically demanding user such as myself attracted to the brand. In interacting with memebers of Yahoo's chat community, it seems to be the case that moderate to heavy users of it's chat/IM service also quickly adopt other Yahoo services. This equates to more unique pageviews per day from IM/chat users than off-the-street users and perusers. Yahoo IM users, on average, tend to be loyal out of necessity - not necessity becasue they are in any way indentured to format, design or interoperability to Yahoo, but becasue things "just work."
This move, to isolate IM users who may be using a different client (is it even reasonable to assume users will be happy with just one?) services is tragic. Yahoo has clearly missed the point that IM users are not IM users alone, but rather comprise some of the best audiences for exposure to their ads, and therefore, a direct path to revenues.
This move, to block users who've already made a conscious choice to use other Yahoo services is a faux pas, to say the least.
Would'nt one assume *ducking tomatoes and other assorted SlashTossings* that to advance to relatively input-drive position in NASA's space operations, one would indeed need to be an engineer in the first place?
no, no, not "terrorists" "opposing forces..." I know, looking at pcitures of "Dubya" just fills the mind with rhetoric, just let's not let him re-write the common parlance, eh?
At least use "evildoers" for the haha value...
Perhaps "less spam-like" was not the right phrase, however, I consider receiving a certain amount of mail that I ultimately delete a hazard of sharing my email address for everyday communication. I see it as akin to walking a city street and having to deal with people passing out flyers that I must, in turn, dodge.
The emails I truly loathe and wish to stomp out completely, however, are those the content of which may violate an acceptable use policy at work, are truly unsavory in their nature or the goods being hocked or, are blatant scams. Those are the emails I consider the most eggregious in the pyramid of spam-ness.
I mean really, who needs the "penis enlargement" or "free viagra NO PRESCRIPTION" emails? I mean unless, well, you know....
I'll second that. It seems, given that the experiments work and the proper variables are defined beforehand, this is the type of thing that makes said "Spam" less spam-like!
I, personally can't imagine an inbound email campaign, however scientifically targeted, actually pitching me something I need, and want to purchase, but there's a first time for everything.
It seems that this type of science, properly applied, would actually reduce the volume of Spam that people are receiving. The flip side of this coin being, of course, that someone, somewhere has to receive all the unsolicited email that the rest of us are not getting, right?
Can there be a new class of negative moderation like (-4 DMCA-Sympathetic Rhetoric)? That would make me smile, almost as much as being able to moderate these comment into obscurity.
Man, that's a classic one, but I'll take mine politically and environmentally correct and fully capable of attaining the Big O. Just like my, errr, satisfied women...
I recently started work for a small comany that has a pretty solid core staff of people that have an average tenure of about 5 years. As part of my interviewing process, I was introduced to a standardized test that one of the executives had recently learned about, taken, and felt was an excellent measure of an individual's professional and personal fit in the organization.
While I don't tend to put much stock in most standardlized testing, I am currently sitting at my desk at said employer and must, therefore, acknowledge that the process played some part in my receiving an offer.
The push now is to apply the test to everyone in the organization, to pick out common themes of people who've been part of this company for some time.
While I'm not sure this would have any bearing on assessing someone's performance in a technical role (there are some reasoning aspects to the test) it will help to ensure that there is a sanity check as to who is a good fit moving forward.
Perhaps this is one way to address the issue, as someone who gets along with peers and can relate to them, is more likely and willing to mold into the culture of the organization.
This, then, will be the time for the rest of the world to set the example that the US is supposedly meant to follow:
In the spirit of your comments, the US would be the recipient of aid, monetary and human-capital-wise, in the wake of this tragedy. Is this not what our allies, other parties to said "global problem" would do to live by example?
I have still, however, seen only statements of support, condolence and sorrow from other nations. These sentiments, while appreciated and touching, weaken any argument that the US has not played an active role as an ally against global terrorism. I see the words, in lieu of action, from our global neighbors to be quid pro quo for the past behavior the US is being criticized for here.
People in glass houses...
Hey, now... I agree with the diff. progs for diff. things. I use IRC all the time, but at work, or when I need to quickly poke my head into someones proverbial office, I send an IM, usually using Yahoo Messenger (which, I'm surprised wasn't mentioned.)
There is def. something to be said for the small footprint, one-click-startup-and-sign-on features of the progs. that are out there. I don't think it's a matter of 1337-nees, it's just convenience... and I didn't even need to condescend to anyone.
On top of the fact that there are a number of ways to customize the R/3 offerings from SAP, they are knee deep in pushing their software as a service via the MySAP offerings. It is an interesting strategy, almost a Internet-age continuation of the services-not-software marketing that they pursued with R/2 and R/3. See, they are marketing the services and capabilites that the software offers, and, therefore, the actual software is increasingly less of the issue than what people can do with it.
If you go into MySAP, it's main, "dashboard" area is able to integrate a number of different applications to be at the user's fingertips. Applications like email, web browsing and messaging are often external apps that are integrated into MySAP from other sources. Further evidence that the actual vendro's software is taking a backseat.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I wonder how far and wide this type of reaction has or could spread. It'd be nice to see that this type of thing were happening here and there, and maybe then, BoA might realize that placating their customers is more important that stomping out a small site that maybe-kinda-sorta dilutes their brand. Alas, as is the case with many large banks, they lose money on all but the largest accounts they hold, and, as a result, are happy to see most of us "Average Joes" leave. Ahh capitalism....~ ~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Your personification of our country's currnet walking-on-eggshells culture, IMHO, creates a more hostile environment than that in which people can *gasp* speak their minds. In all truth, the more reactionary people become, the less our society feels it is able to think, and therefore say. Isn't this mass-repression just as bad as supressing the thoughts and voices of one or a handful of groups?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The first time I got a good feel for Aqua and what all the "lickable design" brouhaha was about was when I got an Aqua-esque skin for my OS, I think it is a good way to promote the OS's new look and familiarize people with it. It's free advertising, granted the logo is protected by copyright, but I find it hard to beleive that this establshes precedent or moves them closer to having the copyright become a colloquilaism, much like "kleenex" or "Xerox." All in all, Apple has long been far too controling of their specs and designs and therefore have locked themselves into a narrow audience.
I can't say I'm surprised to see that once again, people are posting replies as if they were the damn holders of a trademark themselves. It always amazes me how quickly people will rally behind a corporation (ok, even thogh it's Apple) when it is in the interest of self righteous condescention to other posters.
As a follow on to this, but not necessarily pointing a finger at anyone's opinion as "right" or "wrong," I think that it is great that Ford is excercising its ridiculous ammount of welath (somewhere in the billions in cash reserves alone!) to help better their employees, but there is one question that stands out in my mind:
Who are they helping, themesleves or the employees?
Really, I mean, it is nice to think that Ford is doing this as some sort of service to help out employees and give them something that they might not have access to otherwise, but, in the end, the collaboration, increases in productivity and better means of communication only help to serve Ford.
My company gives me a laptop, it's nice, I like to use it and I'm sure they know that. In fact, they will be happy to keep me updated with the latest technology since they know it'll keep me using it, and, ultimately, putting in more time than I might if I had some crappy desktop that I couldn't wait to shut off at the end of every day. Of course this isn't the case with all people, and, as I sit here posting on Slashdot from home, well, my productivity speaks for itself. But in the case of Ford, by giving the machines paired with access, itsn't it reasonable to assume that with their new found Online capabilities, Ford employees are going to start going home at night and going online only to chat with some other newly wired Ford emplyoees about work? What they are really doing is working, collaborating, exchanging ideas, on their own time!
Perhaps the benefits outweigh the "greedy corporate gains" that Ford gets out of the deal, but it is something ot think about.
On the whole it is refreshing to see that a company as large as Ford realizes the value of familiarizing their employees with technology, if not only to make them more productive on the job. My father works at a local community college where they have been promising all faculty and staff computers and Internet access for the past three years. It seems ironic that secrataries in the smae institution have computers, on which they are known to play games during the workday, and professors, like my father, are forced to communicate with students via an AOL address that they are paying for.
I went to a state university in Massachusetts, the same state that has been promising my father's school technology that never materializes. I worked in the IT department for the four years I was there and it was not uncommon for us to recieve the newest technology as soon as it came out so that we could test software and bugfixes. So, here we are, the student helpdesk with the latest and greatest while the educators, the ones that are supposedly the "core asset" of the whole system, are not even given an old 486, for crying out loud.
I think there is an enormous ammountof inequity in terms of the dispersement of technology, if the example I have provided, of a higher education system that can't even get it right, I can only imagine what it will take to have total technological equality.
On a parting note, there are some encouraging developments, however. I do disagree with the statement of Mr. Katz that there is a rather cavalier and apathetic attitude toward social matters in the tech community. I think that it is just the opposite. There has long been a committment, however mercenary, from the tech community to provide for the less fortunate and to advance educational uses of technology. Think back to the departure of Steve Wozniak from Apple to go off and help the world with technology, or the poorer, less fortunate part thereof. More recently, the Bill and Melinda Gates Charitable Trust bequeathed $1 Billion to be used for inner-city technolgy projects over the next few years. The current "tech" culture is strognly linked to its academic past, and, as such, I beleive it has a certain social conscience not seen in other big industries. So, it may not be perfect, but I think the tech companies out there do a lot more for the world than most other industries.
I do a lot of work with these up and coming ecommerce companies, all of whom say they "do" XML. It is the most popular interface, in the products they are developing, to have what I commonly refer to as a "repository model" where systems spit data into your XML-enabled system in whatever format you want (EDI proprietary formats, regular HTTP, ACSII etc) and you play around with it in XML (a lot better for data manipulation and content mangement purposes) and then spit it back into whatever flavor your suppliers/customers want it in. This is what I am getting a sense for in the IBM model. This is not so much a "new" way of doing things but increasingly the standard.
Fact is, XML is great for data interchange, plugging large ammounts of standard infomration into standard forms (PO's, RFQs and other business docs) as well as putting some muscle into search engines via context based searching (via XML metadata) but there are way too many standards out there.
- BizTalk - This is the standard, open nonetheless, that MSFT is developing to standardize XML. It is an open standard, but the obvious benefit to MSFT is that they can plug Biztalk functionality right into all of their product lines for interoperability across a platform.
- OASIS's XML.org - OASIS, a non-affiliated standards body, much like W3C, set out to develop a standardized set of XML schemas and DTDs (document type definitions) however, MSFT beat them to the punch by launching their BizTalk site a day before OASIS, ahhh Microsoft, finds a way to compete even in open standards.
- RosettaNet - These guys set out to "map" all common business processes and to make an open standard for XML in the business world, but, alas, mapping entire processes takes a long time, a lot of notaeriety here, not as much substance.
These are just a few examples, there are others, but, my guess is that you'll hear the most about these folks. To make things even more complicated although these guys seem to be "competing" they are almost all members of each others' groups, in a sort of "coopition" model. So, overall, it is no wonder why the big push is for standards repositories, and related transaltion to an from various formats.
That's my $.02
Agreed, that is one of the big issues surrounding this whole thing, the idea that whatever gets designed as a safeguard will be overcome by a new innovation by the "black market." Until this cylce stops, RIAA and their affiliate are going to be pouring money into the bottomless pit that is copyright protection for media.
I grew up and went through college predominantly in the pre-ethernet stage of the evolution of Internet on campus.
My freshman year was the first year that the University I attended had a "help desk" to speak of, prior to this, it had been a couple of guys who "knew their stuff" taking calls in the basement of an old building on campus.
The first time I heard of Netscape was when a kid who ran bets in my hall wanted some up-to-date sports scores, at the time I did not know that the 9600 connections and klugey Trumpet Winsock TCP/IP were available to me. When I did find out what the "'Net" was, and that I could have access, I got it, I suffered through hours of trying to get online and configure and install and reconfigure and reboot a few thousand times, it was worth it to me, but not to a lot of other people. In the end I was a little better for the wear, I had learned TCP/IP networking, and basic computer "stuff" along the way and got a job as a tech on campus - I still work in technology, but not doing support, I like my sanity.
So, as my experience led me to actually better myself, the new found medium with which I was enthralled became decreasingly fun as nobody else I knew had the patience to go through the setup to get online.
I think with the new trend of universities giving Internet access, not to mention high speed internet access, as part of the "package" is great. It is really interesting to note how many people, especially those who are not complete tech-heads, are really getting into the Internet and all of the stuff that is out there. It's the perfect vehicle to get people into using PCs (not to the exclusion of Macs) and familiarizing themselves with technology. I think the overall effect of having all of this bandwidth to "play with" in schools will result in a far more resourceful and tech-friendly generation, which is great for the economy.
Apparently people are a little on edge around here lately.... Legality issues aside, there are a growing number of search sites that are "endorsing" pirated music by way of having huge indexes of MP3s, many of which, undoubtedly are pirated. One that sticks out in my mind is the MP3 search on Lycos, powered by Fast Search and Transfer ASA, the same people that brought us AllTheWeb. Then there is Napster, an MP3 lovers dream (sorry to keep referencing this ad nauseam.) There was much publicity, at least among the /. Community about the suit filed against our buddies over at Napster, no doubt it'll get thrown out (it may have already, I'm not sure) because there is the concept that Napster is simply providing a vehicle for search, location and subsequent download of MP3s, and never takes physical, or even legal possession of the data. Basically, they, and other such sites, services and software, are conduits and, in acting as such, are not violating any law. I think there is a distinct possibility that we might begin to see the tides turn on these types of issues. After all, how many times in the past year or two have we been hearing about class action suits against other types of "conduits" for other activities. Gun manufacturers, tobacco companies, automobile manufacturers. Although there is a substantial difference between manufacturing a weapon used in a deadly crime and providing an avenue to procure a music track that you do not own and possibly do not intend to pay for, where is the line drawn. I am not predicting that there will be huge class action suits by large numbers of music artists or record concerns, but noting a potential for some legal actions to at least by subject to closer scrutiny by the judicial system. Until then, there is going to be a lot of back and forth on issues such as encryption technology, legal liability for sites linking to and referencing certain MP3s and other media files, and there's going to be a lot of money to be made as an intellectual property and copyright attorney. The industry is too new for self regulation, whether this means that the government will step up its battle or technological advances on protection technology will speed up to stop the gap remains to be seen. All of this of course, IMHO
Well, I do apologize for the spelling errors, I will try and include more grammatical safeguards in the future. I will keep this brief as I feel replying to a comment simply to rant is rather pointless, nevertheless, I have brought myself to your level and thus will attempt to eloquently address your attempt to impugn my opinion. First, I apologize for being hypocritical in referencing history, however, you will notice that I did not go into as much detail as the original post that spurred my reply. On being hypocritical, I see that you are not a fan of insulting intelligence, therefore, I ask that you not insult mine, your pithy comments, though well taken as criticism, are frivolous and as dilatory in nature as any that take dicussion threads off subject. Additionally, my comment on the declining quality of Slashdot, well, thank you for helping me prove my point Chicken Little. As for the karma, I can see that you don't believe in it, you are a far more practical person, one that worries about things that might affect you in a more tangible way, hence your reluctance to include an identity with your wonderful comments. Oh, and I apologize for not numbering mine, be assured it was a great help in reading yours. Keep those cards and letters coming!
... that address the needs of the vendors as well as the users (oops - that's embarassing...)
I heave read all of the myriad opinions, agreeing with some, disagreeing with others and becoming plain outraged at some of the evangelical tones some took in asserting a plainly unoriginal point of view. I think that the overall "answer" that has been reached is that there are so many issues that come up when discussing such a topic, that it is impossilbe to simply side with the "goood guys" or "bad guys." It'll be a long time until there are outlets for media distribution