1795 posts • joined 19 Dec 2010
Sure, I can see the advantages of the whole approach but I can also see the dangers. Because the main problem with relying on computer models is that you're not so much relying on a computer which can't make mistakes (a very commonly used argument to promote stuff like this) but a computer program made by a human who can make mistakes.
Mistakes which can happen in both the programming as well as the underlying logic which has been applied.
This is not saying their efforts aren't impressive. But I honestly think that in some cases the use of computers is also dumbing us down. For example; scientists before us who had no computers or anything of the sort were still able to calculate the orbits of the planets around us such as the moon as well as harder to spot ones like Jupiter, Saturn and Mars.
Something tells me that scientists today are no longer capable of doing so without a computer being present. Which doesn't have to be a bad thing perse, but it does make me wonder about the growing dependency.
A dependency which is easily excused yet while often forgetting or ignoring that computers, or better put: their programmers, aren't immune to making mistakes.
In science something becomes scientific when several scientists have taken notice of a piece of work and have agreed with it. So what about scientific computer models?
But why must their be growth?
It seems to be a general believe within some (usually US) companies that companies need to grow in order to prosper. Something which I've always considered utter nonsense. Because what's the matter with being able to maintain a status quo in which the company can continue doing what it does yet without expansion?
The only thing which will hurt a company is the need to shrink. But that's something completely different from not expanding.
It's a nice gesture but I can't help think that commercial interests are the main drive here. Trying to put their latest and most ignored products better into the spotlight.
If they really care for people's interest in their line of products, especially the people which matter, then they should reverse their braindead decision to whack TechNet. Because that was a real valuable source of information.
If you really want to know about Microsoft products then nothing beats hands on experience combined with the vast amounts of information provided by the TechNet libraries.
Stallman's GNU at 30: The hippie OS that foresaw the rise of Apple - and is now trying to take it on
I think the only stupidity here is calling his efforts stupid.
Sure, you may not agree with his opinion or his preferences (for example see my ideas about the GPL vs. for example the CDDL) but that doesn't make them stupid. At the very end he and his associates can say that they truly know how an Android environment works and operates, and that's something not many people can say.
Who cares if they re-invented the wheel by doing so? That's pure geekdom for you (IMO): you do it because you can. Who cares about the rest?
Heck; even if this project does fail it's still not stupid. At the very end it's a valiant effort.
Nothing personal here; but you do realize that if people took your approach when Stallman started sharing his visions about a free Unix environment we'd never have come this far?
Very impressive, but not as free as I like
Before I continue with my somewhat more critical approach I do want to express my admiration for the whole project. Because there is no denying -what so ever- that the project as is is utterly impressive.
Heck, I've lived the day where you had to pay Sun a lot of money in order to get a hold of a C compiler in order to build software on Solaris. An operating system you also had to license before you could use it. In all fairness: the same applies of course for Windows, Visual Studio also wasn't as easily obtained as it is now.
And here came GCC along the road... Even usable on Solaris!
Still, I also think that the GPL isn't providing the amount of freedom which it could have. Here's not saying it's not providing any kind of freedom, surely not, but it still tells the user what they can and cannot do with the code. For example using bits and pieces of a program and then using that in another program but using a different license, that's a no no.
Personally I'm more in favour of the CDDL which also sees to it that the original author retains his rights to his work, but also provides others with the right to use that work to make something of their own, even re-license it if they want to. As long as the original work remains licensed under the CDDL.
When I give something away for free then all I care about is being credited for my work, but I don't feel comfortable at all by telling the users what they can or cannot do with my software. Because I simply don't see the real freedom in that.
Was hoping for more...
It looks impressive allright, but also limited at the same time. It seems to me that as soon as the blocks are closely together all that's steering them are their magnets. The movement itself seems more or less randomized.
Which brings me to another aspect; I was a bit disappointed that they didn't show any footage of two of them working together. For example two blocks which were linked to each other and then tried to perform a flip or movement while staying synchronized.
"People go to work to earn money, not to idiolise or dedicate their lives others."
Careful there. Under normal circumstances you're absolutely right, but do keep in mind that there are plenty of geeks out there to whom working at a high-end tech firm like Apple, Microsoft, or even a big service provider like Amazon will easily be bordering the classic "way of life" approach.
Next time I'll get caught I know exactly what to say:
The articles fail to make clear that my interest in online banking services and other online financial networking tools is based on the undeniable fact that these are the tools my adversaries use to communicate and coordinate money withdraws from my bank account and those of my allies.
I am only interested in information related to valid foreign bank transfers and bank accounts and that I operate within a strict legal framework that prohibits transferring money related to the innocent online bank accounts of EU citizens.
In the modern telecommunications era, my adversaries have the ability to hide their bank accounts and money transfers among those of innocent people around the world. They use the very same online banking sites, money transfers and other security features that protect our daily online banking activities.
My family depends on me to make some money, and pay the rent.
So in other words; if the NSA can hack the planet then surely I should be allowed to hack into their banks website? ;-)
All the Microsoft executives bought one for "marketing and economical purposes" after being persuaded to do so by upper management. It's what's best for business, and surely that's what they want?
And bing; sold out in no time!
I bet the aliens got startled by discovering something that started to look at their actions. So much for sneaking up on the MRO :)
For Tesla to continue their streak and start sueing the manufacturers of "large metal objects" because obviously they were out to damage their very good and honest reputation <cough, cough>.
"or you could call a taxi on the phone and select skip journey to be at the airfield in 5 seconds or so."
Which costs you extra money. And since most jobs and heists don't get you any payment it's not a liable option for me. I'd rather use that money to buy ammunition and armour.
Designed for online?
When looking at the single player campaign I think R* has taken quite a step backwards. Quite frankly I think that the major reason why the map is so big is to fit all online gameplay stuff. Because in story mode the map more than often works against you.
One of the most heard complaints of GTA IV was the excessive driving. I wasn't really bothered by it, but if you failed a mission then it could get awkward pretty quickly.
So now we have Trevor, the number one pick when it comes to flying because his skills are nearly maxed out right from the start of the game. Once the game is fully under way then Trevor usually hangs out in the city and can hardly be found on Sandy Shores. Just too bad that Trevor can't buy a hangar in the city for some reason; his only hangar resides in... Sandy Shores. So if you want to fly a plane without all the hassle of escaping the police you'll just have to drive up there for 5 or so minutes.
And once you're up there.. In the event that you find a cool car or such to keep then you're out of luck again. Because Trevors personal garage is not in Sandy Shores; that one has been placed in the city (probably to avoid the need for excessive driving, yeah right...).
Don't get me wrong; the game was quite enjoyable. But I'm quite disappointed with the way they handled the story mode. At the very least give me an option to have more gunfights between and after missions; getting chased by the police all the time really starts to bore me to no end.
""Always"? It's the 2nd time. Unless GTA 2 was in LA then no."
Well, if you count LA Noire too it would actually make the count 3 ;)
Which IMO isn't that far fetched because it seems to me as if the new GTA engine has borrowed quite a lot from LA Noire. Including the sometimes annoying metallic clash sounds.
"You'll just have to wait till the "Proper Job" add-on comes out. Apparently, you can play as a stockbroker or an IT tech support guy."
Yeah, but both aren't really good enough options for me.
The stocks work fine if you have money to spend, which you don't. Not that much that is. Worse; it seems Franklin is the only guy capable of using direct stock tips because you get those in-mission, and that means you can't switch to the other characters (who got more money) and get them to invest too.
As to the add ons.. I think they'll bet heavier on online gaming than offline.
I think the reviewer is on the mark
GTA is an awesome and extremely extensive game, but not as perfect as some people claim it to be. To be honest I think at some point in the game it becomes frustrating and that moves to a slight sense of annoyance.
Because; money has become more important. Heck; even for full body armour you have to cough up $2500,-. But despite that you do mission after mission, heist after heist and you don't get any payment for it. Zilch! And the one time you do hit on something bigger and get more it's mostly taken away and you're left with breadcrumbs again. Just enough to cover your in game expenses for weapons and ammo, but hardly enough for more (like buying businesses).
That became a huge frustration for me while playing GTA. You end up wondering why the heck you should bother any longer; because you most obviously won't get paid anyway.
I'm currently preparing for "the big one", but am hardly motivated any more because I get a feeling you'll probably lose most of your money again.
Here's really hoping GTA online will be better than this. I love the heists, the planning aspect is simply brilliant, but I want to get something from it, not spending most of my time marvelling the graphics and cursing a lack of income.
"They *can't* put a back door in, because it would be quickly spotted by everyone who audits the kernel source (and the rest of the source that makes up a Linux operating system -- yes, we call that Linux too, not silly names like GNU)."
So what would happen if someone did spot something out of place in the kernel source?
Wouldn't it be fair to say that if that person starts asking on the kernel mailing list they'll just get ridiculed and optionally insulted for not understanding the module they're commenting on?
I get the feeling that the only reason for including this one is to gain popularity (or more attention), but quite frankly I don't see this easily working out. In my opinion ZFS is "superior by design" but even so; it is very demanding on your resources, especially memory. So I can't help wonder if working within a 512Mb limit is going to suffice here...
Still, I maybe cynical but I do hope they'll succeed nonetheless. Because if they can manage to lower the resource demands without compromising features then this could be good news for everyone using ZFS.
"Looks like the takeover has turned out to be a very good thing for (F(L))OSS."
In my opinion the takeover has done no such thing. Nothing good has come from it.
It's not the takeover which pushed these products into the open source environment, that was basically the "obsession" with open source software living within Sun Microsystems. Don't forget that FreeBSD gained ZFS support by porting the code from Solaris, and all at a time where Sun was still a separate company.
"Don't know about Australia but the main on beer in the UK is fairly slim when you consider the taxes"
A possibly false assumption: you seem to assume that the cafe needs to charge tax over all the bitcoin purchases, and that remains to be seen. After all, according to El Reg themselves it was Germany which was the first land to recognize and tax bitcoin as an official currency.
Sometimes you don't have to charge taxes if you get payment in foreign values. But of course that most likely heavily depends on the country you're in.
True enterprise marketing
Sorry, I know it's getting a bit old (I've used this more often) but I can't help it ;)
- Buy second hand iPads from Apple users.
True geniuses at work here. I wonder if Microsoft has ever considered to go into the laundry business :)
"When they see how few people take them up on this offer?"
That is not true, and you know it ;)
According to Microsoft hundred thousands of people have already responded. The main problem is simply that the resellers don't inform the public as it should so many customers don't understand this promotional activity, and sometimes chose not to use the promotion but buy a new Surface instead.
It's the resellers fault :)
It's all in the interpretation, as you mentioned yourself. So since you already have 2 arms I guess the TSA has determined that you simply don't need any more.
Re: One thing the FSF seems to be overlooking...
"I think the point is more along the lines that since it is Open Source there is quite likely to be someone, somewhere in the world, that does understand it and is quite likely to blow the whistle on anything dodgy that appears in there."
Assuming that he person will be believed and actually gets a platform.
A very far fetched theory: what if some agency got to Torvalds, offered him a shitload of money and then got their fingers inside the Linux kernel?
I don't think it would be easy for anyone to find out. And if someone does find something weird and asks about it on the mailing list wouldn't it be predictable that they'd simply get scolded for not understanding the module in question after which no one will pay it any further mind?
One thing the FSF seems to be overlooking...
The general comment is always that open source is good/better/preferred to closed source (or closed hardware) because you can see for yourself what the thing is doing and as such it is more secure (in the sense that it can't do things which you couldn't have known about).
But fact of the matter is that this argument is slightly flawed. A lot of open source projects have grown to such proportions that simply "looking into the source" isn't quite possible. At least not with actually studying the setup of the program first. Which introduces another problem; bigger projects usually have a lot of different programmers who usually also have different coding styles. Of course you can't expect code to be commented either for example.
And what if you're not a programmer at all?
I think that for non-programmers there is basically no difference between open source and closed source, except maybe for the price. In both cases they'll simply have to believe the stuff which people tell them, with the strict exception that if you buy something you'll get some "guarantees" (for whatever that's worth; most have been waved away with acceptance policies anyway) whereas you take open source "as is without warranties".
This isn't a black / white issue any longer I think. In some cases open source projects suffer from the exact same issues as closed source; the shroud of mystery. With, of course, the specific exception that with open source you have all the tools available to take that shroud down. For free. But would an ordinary end user go all the way for that?
Its only taken other forms...
"We stopped natural selection as soon as we started being able to rear 95-99 per cent of our babies that are born. We are the only species to have put a halt to natural selection – of its own free will, as it were."
But natural selection doesn't merely stop at birth. How many of those babies who got born mainly thanks to modern medical science have actually managed to live up to a commonly normal age? Not many.
Which is another aspect of natural selection; weeding out the weak. And although I most certainly agree that this process seems to have been slowed down, I don't think we stopped it. Not by far; one can't ignore that people continue to die long before their full lifespan.
Now, this may not be a very popular comment to make, I don't mean any disrespect to the families who may have had to suffer from situations like these, but what about people who manage to kill themselves in traffic, for example through use of excessive speed, crossing the railway when "nothing is coming", or other means? I think there's much more to this issue than merely looking at babies. Because if we have evolved, then why couldn't the process of natural selection have evolved with us by taking other forms which are just as ruthless?
And that's not even taking a more common aspect such as natural disasters into account.
Which is another eery thing to consider: what if we only have managed to stall things? Meaning; for all we know a disaster could happen tomorrow claiming a huge number of lives. Freak accident? Natural disaster? Or a new form of natural selection?
I don't think one can really make claims such as these. We didn't stop anything in my opinion.
I think Torvalds is losing it
In this case I simply don't know if he's right or wrong, and quite frankly I also don't quite care any more.
But I do think Torvalds is really losing it. Some websites even seem to start recollections of Torvalds' outbursts and the one I came across on Paritynews also mentioned another recent outburst regarding ARM/Soc developers:
"Ok. I still really despise the absolute incredible sh*t that is
non-discoverable buses, and I hope that ARM SoC hardware designers all
die in some incredibly painful accident. DT only does so much.
So if you see any, send them my love, and possibly puncture the
brake-lines on their car and put a little surprise in their coffee,
At first I thought this comment to be fake(d). The article I mentioned above linked to this entry on the Indiana LKML archive and being unfamiliar with all the LKML archives I started digging on lkml.org. And sure enough; the same message is present.
I think comments like these are crossing borders, not to mention being dangerous.
One of the reasons Torvalds bursts out in the way he does is because he feels there's no other way to get his point across. Apparently, according to him, there are a bunch of "stupid people" subscribed to the mailing list and the only way to get his point across is to be blunt and direct.
I can see that, I don't agree, but each to his own.
But if people are so "stupid" that you have to yell and rant to get your point across, then why can you trust them to understand that what is being said here is just "an opinion" or maybe even a "joke"?
That doesn't quite add up for me. Now all of a sudden people are smart enough to understand the "subtleties"?
As said at the top I don't really care that much any more, but I have to wonder how long before this is really getting out of control. I hope for Torvald's sake that no ARM/Soc developer gets himself in a car accident.
"MSVS 2013 requires Win 8.1?
Only if you're going to program for their app store, otherwise it will be perfectly usable on Windows 7 as well. It's basically the same issue with VS2012; it works just fine on Windows 7 (that's how I use it) but you can't program anything for TIFKAM unless you use a Windows 8 host.
Here you'll find the official system requirements for Visual Studio 2013.
To me it seems that there are a lot of beancounters active (the school board or council?) who are completely unaware of how things work in the real world and are only concerned about their companies so called good reputation. And every risk of getting a somewhat negative comment about the things they do needs to be suppressed or silenced best as possible.
They may not like what Zaloom wrote, and I agee that one could argue that Zaloom could have used different wording, but that's really not what this is all about. In fact, the so called reasoning behind it is laughable:
"Szemalikowski told the Camden New Journal he decided to try to destroy Zaloom's chances of attending a good university because he was worried the potty-mouth blogger "could be developing into an anarchist”."
Sure. But if he's so afraid of a possible threat then wouldn't it be much safer if you could keep an eye out on the things Zaloom says or does instead of forcing him to go "underground"? Cutting his ties with the society or community that he was familiar with could risk exactly that. Sorry, but I only see a cheap excuse here to get rid of a source of negative commentary. Nothing more, nothing less.
Schools aren't run by a headmaster or some form of "school democracy" any longer. There are powers at work (the school council for example) who approach the whole environment strictly from a business point of view. And they have absolutely no interest what so ever in the human side of things.
Heck; have we already forgotten how a school council (with an all too willing headmaster in my opinion) were having no problems with expelling a 9 year old girl and only because she liked taking pictures of the school food and blog about them? Not even in a negative manner perse, merely giving her opinion on the food she got that day.
Who knows; maybe she'll become a new top chef some day. But no; the school council didn't care, all they cared about is silencing people who might talk negative about their organization, even if it's merely constructive criticism.
How many people realize that SE Linux (secured Linux) is in fact: NSA SE Linux?
For good or bad; I don't know. But it sure got a very weird ring to it as of late.
I most certainly hope not, but I guess Microsoft are crazy enough to do just that. It would most certainly do them a lot more bad that good in my opinion.
Personally I actually like the Windows Phone (I own a WP7.5 device) but I never liked the weird looks of the Nokia devices. So I ended up with my favourite brand when it comes to cellphones: Samsung.
But if they would stop allowing others to make Windows Phones too then I'll most certainly won't be buying one anymore.
I think that's a very cheap way to make a donation. Because let's not forget that this guy doesn't promise them 1 million perse, he only promised to go as far as 1 million when doubling whatever funds they can get their hands on.
So how likely is it that TNMOC can lay their hands on a million? This seems like damage control to me.
If that guy really wants to do something for this museum then he should simply donate an amount of money which they can then spend instead of using tricks like these.
Still, maybe that's the plan all along; getting geeks a bit worked up so that they'll donate too in order to make sure that he'll have to go all the way with his one million pound.
Do I spot a tendency here?
From the article: "As technology changes so do Microsoft certifications and as such, we are continuing to evolve the Microsoft certification program."
When they slashed TechNet: "As IT trends and business dynamics have evolved, so has Microsoft's set of offerings for IT professionals who are looking to learn, evaluate and deploy Microsoft technologies and services."
"evolved, changed..." it's never their doing it seems; always something else which is to blame. Yet the funny thing is that the people who are actually deeply involved with the subject at hand which allegedly "evolved" or "changed" apparently didn't got the message; most of them didn't see it coming at all, and aren't too happy about it either.
So what's next? Well, I have an idea..
"Since we're running out of excuses we're now simply telling you that you can no longer be part of our Partner network (required to be eligible to (re)sell Microsoft products) without paying us an annual fee of $ 750,- / year. Times are changing, and so is our partner network.".
And before anyone comments: Yes, at this time I honestly consider Microsoft stupid enough to demand that resellers start paying them a fee before they can sell their products. (At this time you can apply for a membership with their Partner network when you represent a registered company.)
Suicide you say? In my opinion they already started that process when they decided to slash TechNet.
And for the record; I'm not happy with these developments at all.
I'm going to get slack for this, I'm sure, but when reading the other comments I can't help myself..
"All in all a self made situation is not a real situation. Real sexism is bad. This is complaining because you want to".
I'd agree with you at first impression too. But if there's one thing which dating and spending quality time with my gf has taught me is that women, in general (yes, I am generalizing), often tend to be.. how do I put this; influenced by their emotions. I'm not saying this is a bad thing, I'm also not trying to stereotype here.
But I also can't help mentioning that this is exactly what went through my mind. I've seen this before. And if you don't believe me; read up my own previous comment where I also clearly mentioned "you're writing this from your own perspective" (or something close enough).
The author isn't bitchy IMO, she's simply writing it up from her point of view. And although I don't agree perse I can understand that when looking back (in perspective of her current situation) she might not agree with the whole ordeal.That's what you're reading here I think.
Thing is; you're talking sexism but when reading her story that never popped into my mind to be honest. Could be because of a general feminine conspiracy and they already managed to get to me with their, well, let's keep it civil ;) (also because I have a hunch someone I know could be reading this).
But I also think that sex difference is at the bottom here. Which is why I went for "have you ever spoken to those guys again" in my comment up there.
Ok: you're an unmarried manager. You have a female employee in your team and she's just about the first woman you came across in your field of work. AND you noticed she stands out from the crowd.
How exactly would YOU tell her to dress differently (while you also honestly mean the stuff you say; you could also have asked her to come around in a bikini which would really score high (in the wrong way) but you really meant for her to succeed)?
I can well imagine that the manager had in mind that 'casual' could be different for men and women. So to make sure to get his point across he started mentioning that which he knew best; men's wear. Yet I have to agree that I also have a hard time believing that the stuff would go as far as her hair style.
Alas; my 2 cents on the matter.
But what does a woman dress like?
"We talked about keeping my hair pulled back and wearing more neutral attire like the rest of the guys on the team. I took his advice: I traded my heels and Ann Taylor outfits for Gap khakis, button-down shirts and comfy Clarks."
And this basically tells us (us men anyway) absolutely nothing. It makes me wonder if the way you dressed was the problem factor and not so much the fact you wore womens clothing.
The reason I'm wondering is because when I look up 'Ann Taylor' or 'Ann Taylor outfits' I see a lot of outfits which I would describe as evening or party outfits and not so much outfits which are suited to wear when visiting clients who got regular IT problems. And with that I'm not focussing on the mini skirts and cleavages perse (but its something I do take into consideration), but simply the appearance itself.
I'm tempted to compare this with working at a department where everyone is casually dressed while I continuously show up wearing suits or similar which simply make me stand out from the rest. If you visit a client like that you'll get the same reactions, especially since they expected a regular IT guy to come over and fix their problems. Not some IT-manager-would-be, that might even give some people the impression that you're dressed like that in order to hide other things.
Which brings me to another issue; I don't know what kind of problems you and your team solved (you simply mention "regular problems") which is another issue. In more than one cases I had to crawl into places where the cleaners obviously never heard of in order to reach someone's computer, especially when the issues appeared to be hardware related.
I don't see people easily do that while wearing a suit, but I can also see women getting a huge problem with that when wearing something like a mini skirt.
Now, I'm not trying to argue that what happened to you isn't true or anything. The main problem with your story is that you wrote it with your own situation fully in mind. Resulting in several descriptions which tell the readers who weren't there absolutely nothing. When you say you wore "Ann Taylor outfits" then that doesn't tell me anything, and worse, perhaps my Google/Bing 'ing even gave me the wrong impression (as I mostly see women with mini skirts and often cleavages there).
But the thing is; I can easily see your story happening to a man as well.
It's not fully related, but when I switched jobs (years ago) from a consultancy firm (where wearing a suit was simply second nature (I always wore suits; in the office, at clients, it was an unwritten company policy)) to a regular service desk where everyone dressed casual I also started wearing suits, but after 2 days immediately realized that it might be a better idea to change my attire. Both the issue of standing out, but also from a team perspective; you don't want to give the first impression either that you feel to be better than the rest.
So I simply can't help wonder if something like that hasn't been going on here as well. Have you ever asked your co-workers or former manager about this? Because then you'd have the complete story, not one which is only based on personal impressions.
In many ways...
Sun was quite ahead of its time. The only sad part is that they didn't seem capable of selling all that, and that's not a healthy situation for a company.
I still recall seeing one of their "black boxes" ("portable" datacentre unit / container) at CeBIT up close a few years back. It was both amazing and impressive. Just get a crane to drop it; hook up electricity, water vents (for cooling) and a network cable and you're ready to go.
How's this for analogue...
When 'Return of the Jedi' got released it became clear that it was big. Almost every (Dutch) TV show I watched had to mention this one way or the other, sometimes going even into the regions of the absurd. A show called "Word Vervolgt" ("To be continued") showed at least 5 - 10 minutes of footage (the entire Jabba fight scene and the death star firing at the rebels). For no appearant reason then: "we may also see a lot of comic books appear".
So I ended up doing what any sensible teen would do. Scrape up all my money and eventually got me the super-duper VHS Star Wars collection. All 3 movies in one cool box, how's that for thrills?
Now, for today's standard the image quality is more than hopeless. 4:3 format, not even getting close to be called "standard definition" (vs. "high definition") and it's also a bit awkward to skip scenes.
And yet this is my favourite either way... No Jabba nonsense in Ep3 (we can use our own imagination, thanks), no lame "only shoot in retaliation, even if your life is on the line", no extended Mos Eisley scenes with a so called "funny intermezzo" (Obi Wan says it's a dangerous place and the people act like clowns?) and most of all: no dumb rings while the Death Star(s) explode.
Don't get me wrong: I also enjoy watching the DVDs from time to time, and it's not as if I'm foaming every time I see Han's head move in a rather unnatural way.
Even so; if you want analogue then I think it can't get any better than this :-)
Nice article, but I'll have to admit that just with the first part I got lost somewhere in between. Even so; I think it's a very nice gesture considering that MIDI has got to be one of the most impressive protocols out there.
With that I'm referring to the fact that it's one of those few standards where people and organisations actually comply to and follow said standard, while still trying to come up with improvements. For example; modern MIDI controllers and synthesizers also utilize USB these days. My electronic keyboard (no synth, that's the task for my computer) as well as my MPD24 MIDI drumpad are both connected through USB. Where my MPD24 can even be used as some kind of bridge since it also provides 2 regular MIDI connectors.
So basically a 30 year old protocol which has adapted to modern times, while still making very sure not to 'abuse' the protocol itself. I think that's pretty impressive.
War of the Worlds...
Jeff Wayne already told us, but we wouldn't listen.. "The chances of this coming from Mars are a billion to one they said, but still it comes..."
We know what's up ;-)
Awesome piece of music by the way.
Wouldn't it be great if the next brilliant leader decided to allow some of MS's products to interoperate with other systems - like Office for LInux, or Office for Chromebook?
Eventually, yes, but right now I think he has much bigger fish to fry.
Linux is nice, but for Microsoft its still somewhat of a niche market, especially when looking at the desktop.
Quite frankly I think the new CEO should start by reversing some of the recent braindead decisions which have really managed to piss people off. Like, for example, ditching TechNet. Or, ironically enough after that "developers" rant, seeing thousands of developers get plain out ignored when they criticized the latest Visual Studio. Not merely bashing; also making it very clear why they wouldn't upgrade as well as sharing what they thought needed to be changed.
For starters they need to start focussing on their customers and what these people really want. Because that's where the money is coming from!
Microsoft are fucked and this just proves it.
Well, I partially agree with you.
IMO this just proves that Ballmer lacks any vision what so ever and, as you said, is now bailing ship. But apart from that this doesn't prove anything. Let's also not forget that Ballmer was convinced that Windows Phone 7 and Windows 8 would be huge successes for Microsoft; and look where that got us.
So, although I do share some of your criticism, let's also not forget on which "brilliant" ideas his decision to quit is based on.
I am convinced that if they get a CEO who has a good feeling with the tech that is Microsoft, who knows what's living amongst people (end users, hobbyists, fans and professionals alike) regarding their products and who also dares listening to all those people who take time and effort to share their opinion with a company like Microsoft hoping that it might matter...
If they can get someone like that onboard then I honestly think we might see a huge comeback. They do totally crazy stuff, they're not at all competitive right now, but if there's one thing Microsoft does have it's potential.
Just when you thought it couldn't get any worse..
Whether the story is true or not doesn't even matter any longer. One way or the other; it's another nail into the coffin that is Windows 8.
How much more will follow? More importantly: when will Microsoft finally wake up and start working their way out of this mess?
I always felt that the Electron was aiming at the wrong market. Because although it could be used as a game computer the games and multimedia capabilities which it had were actually hardly impressive. That is; impressive enough, but in comparison to the Commodore 64 not that great.
But one of it's real strengths was absolutely it's language. BBC Basic for example. At that time and age this critter even allowed me to use inline assembly straight within my basic program. Not even my C64 could pull stunts like that off!
So to me the Electron always felt more professional than the C64, even though the C64 appealed more to me because of it's multimedia capabilities. But this one was a classic.
Obviously a car which doesn't run anymore also won't be able to cause much casualties.
Well, either that or I have been watching Top Gear a little too much ;)
Should be obvious...
When looking at "cloud" there's little you can do when it comes down (take Google (though not directly comparable), take the recent Amazon or Microsoft outages...). Perhaps apart from looking up their own error reports (if they actually share anything) or social media.
And no matter how hard you scream, threaten (or actually start) with throwing chairs or start crying over vaporated clouds; it won't make the outage magically go away.
Yet when that local server comes down and you have a qualified IT team or department then at least you can start yelling at those guys ;-) It might even help motivate them to fix the issue a bit quicker (depending on the issue(s) at hand obviously).
Keep things in-house and you gain more control. Go into the cloud all you want, but don't be surprised if you find lots of fog along the way.
Amen to that; where server and client basically used the same engine. I recall that with adding one bmp file (the server logo) and changing a single registry key you'd immediately get your client to act and fully behave like a server. Including all configuration options which were server specific (not that there were as many as today, but even so...).
Of course the server version was a lot more expensive. It's a server afterall..
Does MS actually know how to make money?
It's usually done by providing that which your customers want.
So if there are still so many XP users out there, why not come up with a subscription plan to keep XP maintained with security updates for a year or so? When you got a lot of people paying for that then you might actually make some money out of it..
Yet it seems MS is very good at completely ignoring the obvious.
I think it's more likely that they're being forced to do the right thing instead. If they don't comply to the gamers wishes then they can look at yet another major loss in sales, and something tells me that Microsoft is slowly reaching a point where they can't afford losses like that any longer.
If there's one thing Microsoft is good at...
It's turning something totally bug ridden into a decent or maybe even high-quality product. Just look at some of their software products and their history.
The main problem here, especially in a market where you actually need to compete, is that by the time you actually fixed all the mess it remains to be seen if you also managed to undo yourself of the (negative) legacy opinions which the product has gained so far.
- Opportunity selfie: Martian winds have given the spunky ol' rover a spring cleaning
- Spanish village called 'Kill the Jews' mulls rebranding exercise
- NASA finds first Earth-sized planet in a habitable zone around star
- New Facebook phone app allows you to stalk your mates
- Reddit users discover iOS malware threat