That's just it, isn't it? Your CUSTOMERS. Shouldn't it be up to the customers, not you, what they want to do with the software running on their computer?
The other big problem is that whoever wrote the article obvious did not bother reading the source, because he's missing the historical context (XP's was 12-14%, the source states). Seeing as how the "article" is just something on some blog (and was submitted to
It is. XP's first-year adoption was 12-14% (it looks like TFA did not read TFS; S == source).
First, "no plans" does not mean "won't". It just means that they're not ready yet, or haven't thought about it, or haven't started making preparations for it, etc.
Second, 40% who are planning to deploy it is HUGE. As the survey points out, the first-year adoption rate for XP was 12-14%. The survey itself said "This is actually a strong adoption rate" and "a high acceptance of Windows 7".
This is a case where the TFA (Good Gear Guide, WTF is this?) clearly did not even bother to read the source that they are quoting from.
Whenever I redesign my site, I try hard to avoid changing and URLs. But if I do have to change a URL, I always make sure that there is a redirect (preferably a HTTP/301 permanent redirect) that points from the old URL to the new URL. Updating links is not enough, because you will always have links that come from external sites that you don't control, user bookmarks, links found in "Hey, check this article out" e-mails, etc.
This is one of those basic principles of the web that the W3C (and for those who don't pay attention to them, you can substitute that with "plain old common sense" here) strongly recommends.
It means that users can always find and view content. It means that you still retain your ad revenue. It means that you still keep your PageRank for external sites that link. It means less bitrot and a more useful web...
So what ever happened to Google promoting itself through word of mouth? What happened to the Google that prided itself on having grown entirely without needing to advertise?
For me, the problem with Chrome is that it is too minimal. It certainly doesn't help that for the things that it is supposed to do well (multiprocess to mitigate stability memory leaks), it doesn't actually do all that well (because it reuses processes and often groups multiple tabs), and I end up getting stability problems and memory leaks worse than other browsers.
Chrome has so far been a dud. Sure, some people love it, but overall, it looks like it's failed to gain traction, and I suspect that this is mostly because of Firefox. So if you can't compete, what do you do? You advertise. That didn't used to be the Google way. Say hello to the new Google.
So... why Jeopardy? IBM is trying to demonstrate software that can parse text for meaning. That's great. But there are plenty of other places/formats/etc. that you can demonstrate this technology. There are certainly far more useful applications of this sort of technology.
I'm guessing that they they are going after J! because...
1) The warm spotlight of a well-known TV show
2) There is still a lot of structure and form on J! that it's easier to achieve "success" than if they had the machine do something more free-form... e.g., read a novel and generate a plot summary or, heavens forbid, actually understand real human conversation
3) The computer could have other advantages, like impeccable buzzer timing (which is sometimes more important than actual knowledge, especially in the Tournament of Champions) and having memorized the material beforehand (the NYT indicates that it would have "read" study materials before the match), which also helps increase the likelihood of "success"
And to pile on the criticism of grandstanding, the machine will be fed electronic text. So no video camera to perform text recognition? No speech recognition (IBM afraid of the "wreck a nice beach" vs. "recognize speech" problem tripping up their theatrics?). And what use would this be? At least the AI text research done at Google is being put to good use, like improving their machine translation services. Aside from getting IBM's name plastered in the media, what exactly is this going to do?
And me without my mod points!
Yea, that's one of the great challenges, and if you ever watch a high-caliber contest (like the recent Tournament of Champions), you'll notice that the buzzer timing often plays a MORE important role than the actual knowledge.
But this whole IBM thing is just theatrics anyway. The computer has impeccable timing and a limitless database of knowledge. All they are proving is that it can recognize and parse human speech. But they don't need Jeopardy! for that. They could demonstrate that anywhere using any medium that they want. It just so happens that they think that they'll get a bigger spotlight if they do J! (plus, the structure and format of the show will probably make it easier to achieve "success", whereas having the machine recognize day-to-day conversation would be far more difficult).
Uh, $87 for 100/100 is still extremely cheap compared to US prices. And you can't even get 24/1 ADSL in the US...
In the NPR piece about this, one TW representative compared the current scheme to someone buying a salad and someone else buying an expensive lobster dinner, and the two of them splitting the cost 50-50. In other words, the heavy user is subsidized by the light user. But if this is their rationale, then making the heavy user pay for his/her fair share would mean that the light users would no longer have to subsidize the heavy users and that the light users should see lower prices.
But that was nowhere in TW's plan, which is why this all seemed disingenuous. I, for one, think it's fair for people who use more to pay more. But not when that is used as an excuse for price gouging. It seems much more likely that TW is just trying to protect their content delivery services from people getting movies digital competitors like Netflix's download service, which would been an abuse of market powers.
Mod parent up!
The more we keep our heads in the sand (and skewing article quotes like this certainly doesn't help), the less likely Linux has a chance to succeed.
It's so much easier to blame someone else than to look within and see one's own flaws. Linux's lack of a supporting ecosystem is partly the fault of a small market share, but that doesn't mean that Linux supporters should neglect that they aren't good tenders of their ecosystem. There are some apps from 2 decades ago that are binary-compatible and can run on a modern Windows box. Can the same be said for Linux or Mac? Linux can't win on the desktop until it starts realizing that there's more to Microsoft's monopoly than Evil Tactics.
One of the problems that I see in the Linux world is that many of us are quick to cry "monopoly" and blame it on unfair practices.
So if it's because of Microsoft's dominant market share, why does Apple do so well in the markets that it is in (at least in terms of return rates)?
Blaming it on Microsoft is a cop-out because it lets people avoid the harsh reality that the fault really lies with Linux. Linux is far, far from passing the Aunt Tillie test. Ubuntu is nice in that it's trying to be more consumer-oriented, but so far, most of its changes are superficial.
And finally, one person's "superior" is another person's design flaw. Apple is "superior" and "innovative" (that's debatable) mostly because Apple doesn't give a damn about its ecosystem. Microsoft does. It bends over backwards and even consciously duplicates buggy behavior, all in the name of backwards compatibility (given the HUGE diversity of software and hardware in the Windows ecosystem, the (relatively small) amount of breakage between each version of Windows is actually a testament to Microsoft's ecosystem cultivation). Is this technically superior? Probably not from an orthodox perspective. Does it make sense? I think so. THIS is why Microsoft has its monopoly. Until Linux can start cultivating such an ecosystem (no, telling someone that they can just download the source and compile it for their system does not cut it), it will always remain on the sidelines. Period.