Slashdot Mirror

For those who religiously believe in freedom of speech as some kind of Platonic Ideal, they should remember that fascists oppose it once they gain power. Personally, I am highly suspect of anyone who rigidly follows any kind of absolute ideological position to the bitter end, regardless of what it may be.

http://allaboutfrogs.org/stories/scorpion.html

Is to remind people that we're ALL Boiled Frogs.

There's MAny (many many) quotes about the slow erosion of freedoms but the following is one of my favorites.

First they came for the communists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a communist.

Then they came for the trade unionists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a trade unionist.

Then they came for the Jews,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a Jew.

Then they came for me
and there was no one left to speak out for me.

Just as the Zune was an inferior rip-off of the iPod with key features disabled, so this is an inferior ripoff of the Apple Genius concept. Why does Microsoft continually cripple their own efforts? Do they actually hate themselves that much? It's like the parable of the scorpion and the frog. Just as the scorpion can't keep from killing himself by stinnging the frog, so Microsoft can't help making their ripoffs inferior to the Apple original; it's just their nature.

For anyone to 'work with MS' is just too much like the frog and the scorpion except MS typically has little to lose in any given arrangement.

I know that the business practices and code quality espoused by Microsoft have, in the past, been highly dubious, but let's just give them a moment to demonstrate that they have indeed seen the light and realised that being decent citizens is a better plan for the continued existence of their business.

Worryingly, this demonstration of the hopelessly naïve, enabling attitude that Microsoft rely on was missing the correct sarcasm indicator.

Or just maybe you are genuinely volunteering as the frog?

Actually, I believe any attorney will tell you the phrasing is too broad to apply to anything. Likewise, it's purposely broad to allow Microsoft to slap anyone that doesn't play their game. A "technical limitation" can mean absolutely anything; which is why I believe any reasonable judge would slap it down. Very, strictly interpretted, he clearly did not work around any technical limitation if he used publically available APIs. To truly be "technically limited", Microsoft must prove that they specifically worked to limit access to those APIs, or that he used unpublished APIs; which doesn't seem possible since they specifically bundled them with the product and publically push the API.

Long story short, MS is obviously wrong...but how many thousands of dollars does he want to throw at the situation to prove once again, only an idiot gets in bed with Microsoft?

In the final analysis, I'm forced to think of The Scorpion and the Frog parable.

not to take away from your point, but I believe it was a FROG, not a dog.

I remember reading about Steve Jobs complaining about the RIAA and the prices they want to charge (while he tried to keep it at $0.99 per song, regardless of song) and the RIAA complaining back that iTunes was too powerful and whatnot and was steamrolling them.

Now Microsoft was fairly nice to the RIAA and even paid them a royalty per MP3 player and now the Zune's most vaunted feature, their crippled wireless, can't even be utilized correctly. If the Zune had any steam amoung any geek circles (not that I think it did), this will surely kill it because it had few other advantages. It seems the RIAA and its member companies have royally screwed Microsoft.

I guess this shows how business truly gets conducted and how the RIAA should be dealt with when it is whining.

A present to Microsoft:
http://allaboutfrogs.org/stories/scorpion.html

"You made one fatal mistake, you trusted us." is the old parable of the scorpion and the frog.

[ Halfway across the river...]

Frog: Why did you sting me, for now we both shall die.
Scorpion: I couldn't help myself. It's my nature.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0104036/quotes
http://allaboutfrogs.org/stories/scorpion.html

Novell has made the life or death decision to carry the scorpion (Ballmer). Let's see how it turns out halfway into this deal.
Hint: There's no one more trustworthy than Steve Ballmer. In the scorpion department.

Monopoly abuse to be sure, but it has worked for them in the past....

The only way they can do that in this case would be to destroy access to the toolchain...because without the toolchain, nobody can create new distributions.

This is where, as much as it pains me to admit it, with the GNU/Linux stuff, in a way RMS is right. The GNU project is very much the centre of gravity where Linux is concerned, because it is how Linux propogates itself.

Microsoft *could* sink Linux if it took out the FSF...but the good news there is that the FSF is very well protected by public opinion. If there is one thing Stallman genuinely *is* extremely good at, it's at least developing the appearance of holding the moral high ground. ESR was right when he wrote that Stallman has a thirst for martyrdom...Stallman recognises the power that martyrdom contains. He uses Gandhi's scorpionic tactics extremely well.

The Scorpion and the Frog

One day, a scorpion looked around at the mountain where he lived and decided that he wanted a change. So he set out on a journey through the forests and hills. He climbed over rocks and under vines and kept going until he reached a river.

The river was wide and swift, and the scorpion stopped to reconsider the situation. He couldn't see any way across. So he ran upriver and then checked downriver, all the while thinking that he might have to turn back.

Suddenly, he saw a frog sitting in the rushes by the bank of the stream on the other side of the river. He decided to ask the frog for help getting across the stream.

"Hellooo Mr. Frog!" called the scorpion across the water, "Would you be so kind as to give me a ride on your back across the river?"

"Well now, Mr. Scorpion! How do I know that if I try to help you, you wont try to kill me?" asked the frog hesitantly.

"Because," the scorpion replied, "If I try to kill you, then I would die too, for you see I cannot swim!"

Now this seemed to make sense to the frog. But he asked. "What about when I get close to the bank? You could still try to kill me and get back to the shore!"

"This is true," agreed the scorpion, "But then I wouldn't be able to get to the other side of the river!"

"Alright then...how do I know you wont just wait till we get to the other side and THEN kill me?" said the frog.

"Ahh...," crooned the scorpion, "Because you see, once you've taken me to the other side of this river, I will be so grateful for your help, that it would hardly be fair to reward you with death, now would it?!"

So the frog agreed to take the scorpion across the river. He swam over to the bank and settled himself near the mud to pick up his passenger. The scorpion crawled onto the frog's back, his sharp claws prickling into the frog's soft hide, and the frog slid into the river. The muddy water swirled around them, but the frog stayed near the surface so the scorpion would not drown. He kicked strongly through the first half of the stream, his flippers paddling wildly against the current.

Halfway across the river, the frog suddenly felt a sharp sting in his back and, out of the corner of his eye, saw the scorpion remove his stinger from the frog's back. A deadening numbness began to creep into his limbs.

"You fool!" croaked the frog, "Now we shall both die! Why on earth did you do that?"

The scorpion shrugged, and did a little jig on the drownings frog's back.

"I could not help myself. It is my nature."

http://allaboutfrogs.org/stories/scorpion.html

some do!

MySQL ported to OpenServer long ago. Not a problem.

MySQL have now partnered with SCOX, as a frog partners with a scorpion. Knotty problem.

Faith is an essential means to remain optimistic in an uncertain world. Faith is belief in the face of doubt / the absurd. Faith is arguably very important to scientific discovery, lest one doubt their hypotheses.

Faith however, is not essential and I would argue it's not particularly desirable. I prefer to practice realism (to the best of my ability) than delude myself with a reality distortion field built on expectations that are by definition unrealistic and founded on false premises.

You can still be a kind, generous, altruistic and forgiving person and not have faith, but because you believe it's an appropriate way to behave and has net benefits (in that it can be beneficial to you, and to society as a whole because it encourages reciprocal behaviour, as indeed it does).

Those pushing religion tend not to be keen on that idea though, they prefer to push the notion that you need to latch on to a specific 'faith' system to support you lest you fall of the wagon. I believe that approach is misguided and potentially dangerous.

'Faith' as a solution is at best a kludge and at worst a red herring, that can lead down a dark path with disastrous repercussions on a global scale. Addressing root causes such as inequality, injustice, and persecution are more effective approaches at dealing with the things that drive people to 'faith' based groups in the first place.

I do not believe the world can ever be 'a perfect place' - history and logical deduction seem to suggests otherwise, as any social environment that relies on co-operation also leaves open the opportunity for another to profit by shafting others in the group, meaning there will always be an incentive not to co-operate (The Scorpion and the Frog) - and that's to say nothing of human nature, chemical imbalances and behaviour in exception circumstances.

There is clearly room for significant improvement in the way we interact with each other, particularly on a global scale however I do not believe faith based systems are an effective means of progression to that point. The acceptance of an unfavourable circumstance and a logical extrapolation of the most effective way to resolve an issue are more helpful than any system based on sheer optimism.

With specific regard to:

Faith is arguably very important to scientific discovery, lest one doubt their hypotheses

I think if you don't have any doubt about your hypotheses there is something seriously wrong with your approach. Even if your right you ought to have doubts about it and set out to prove yourself wrong until you are certain you are right, that's how hypotheses progress to being regarded as 'proven'.

"Why would a company like Microsoft do this?" asked Richard Lang, who is Burst's CEO and half the company workforce. "We were a little company. Microsoft could have had our technology for almost nothing, but instead they stole it. We called them on it, and they could have settled at any time, but they didn't. They stuck their heels in and won't give an inch even now. The only way I can make sense of this behavior is that they need to win no matter what the cost." -- Stupid Microsoft Tricks: Why the Richest Company on Earth Feels it Needs to Cheat

This is all well known enough for there to be this bit on The Simpsons

Homer: I reluctantly accept your proposal!

Bill Gates: Well everyone always does. Buy 'em out, boys!
[Gates' lackeys trash the room.]

Homer: Hey, what the hell's going on!

Bill Gates: Oh, I didn't get rich by writing a lot of checks!
[insane laughter] -- SNPP:5F11

While it may be nice to think these conspiracy theories that we purposefully put in vulnerabilities, the fact is that at least since 2003 MS has kicked itself into shape and now has security as the top priority.

That's fine, but the fact remains that Microsoft is adding new attack vectors just as they are incorporating new technologies to deal with security holes (which themselves qualify as potential vulnerabilities). It may be a stereotype, but the culture of "Uncle Bill" really holds sway here, that Microsoft sets itself up as both the cause and solution to security problems and extending RSS to include executable binary code is just as smart as ActiveX in the browser. That is, "not very," for the majority of users, and "definitely not" for the wild-and-wooly Internet environment.

Keep in mind Hanlon's law here. It's not enough to say that Microsoft is feeding a conspiracy by making shady business decisions because I don't think they are. They just can't help making dumb ones. Refer to the allegory of the scorpion and the frog for further illustration.

...but they do http://allaboutfrogs.org/weird/general/raining.htm l

I guess these skeptics have never heard of cryopreservative solutions (sophicsticated antifreezes).

Glucose is nature's cryopreservative.

That's how Wood Frogs can freeze solid without massive tissue damage.

LK

I'm writing politely, because I don't know you personally, but from the heart, because I believe what I'm writing. If you don't like it, you're free to disagree or ignore it, but I'll stick to the style, especially for the benefit of anyone else reading who might be interested in how I connect the issues.

I'm not asking anyone to supress jokes that any adult can handle, even at their own expense, without being hurt. I'm asking people to consider that racism is clan rivalry writ large, and, conversely, clan rivalry is racism writ small. You might be too preoccupied with the more important and damaging "big" bigotry to care about its smaller versions. But I have attention enough to notice even the small, daily versions that infiltrate even sophisticated discussions.

I thought that I understood racism, and its perpetuation, after living in NYC and California. It wasn't until I lived in Louisiana that I really understood more of the whole cloth of that divisive, counterproductive competition. Racism and family competition feed off one another. Most Americans' numbness to racial issues comes from the limited, immediate benefits that racism gives them, like white privilege and lowered nonwhite expectations, and the broader, longer term benefits that their community leaders perpetuate by division and intimidation.

The notion of "Political Corretness" is a pernicious undermining of the gains in equity for all that have been produced through the political process, and are becoming normal mores across all American communities. Dividers and petty leaders are propagandizing these unifying developments into reflexive ridicule, before they lose the leverage from which they derive their power. Sensitivity and responsibility for one's actions, regardless of scale, are civilized traits we're busy working on together, and dropping out of that because one is scared to be correct, because that ethical measure was derived politically, undermines civilization.

That's all a lot to make out of a lame joke, playing on similarities in a family name. Too much, really. But the larger issue is real, and important. Our mutual disagreement over its existence, and its relevance to the original "controversial" post, might keep us from relating to one another's viewpoint. But I'm not crying "wolf" when there's nothing to fear. I'm whispering "snake", when everyone is fixated on alligators, but the snakes are there in the grass. You might be interested in the analogy of the boiling frog. It's just as fictional as Aesop's wolfboy, but also an illustrative parable.

She would know that her own sacrifice would mean handing a major victory to the opposition in a vicious war, while her grandchildrens' sacrifice, while mourned, would be honored.

She would also understand that she would have no way to enforce the terrorists' promises, and that more likely, since it worked the first time, they would then call her granchildrens father to do then next deed, then their mom, and uncle, and ad infinitum until they were no longer of any use and could be killed.

MY grandma understands that those terrorist that called her are scorpions and that they cannot be trusted to act rationally.

None of this has anything to do with whether or not the national origin of recent immigrants should be used as criteria in airport screening, but maybe that's just one of those things that we are not allowed to talk about.

LOL...

how many times do you have to be kicked in the nuts from Microsoft before you're willing to accept facts.

You're in denial about things which are commonly accepted facts, supported time and time again by history. For every person which has stepped forward with such statements on their tongue, Microsoft got a free kick between their legs. Meanwhile, everyone else is laughing and pointing because it was so obvious and well earned.

Perhaps a simple life lesson is what common sense has ordered for you today. Enjoy this neat story here.

Just how long will it be before Microsoft releases a Word Document ML Plus format that is not so open?

Let's face it, Microsoft loves proprietary technology that it owns and that it controls. There's no long-term advantage to it whatsoever in creating a truly open file format - the biggest reason why Microsoft Office applications are so ubiquitous is because people need to read Word, Excel, PowerPoint and Access documents they've been sent, not necessarily because those are the best tools for everybody.

Word Document ML is a PR exercise. It's Microsoft saying "See, we're nice and friendly and open, too", at a time when its revenues are beginning (perhaps not significantly yet) to be threatened by open source alternatives. Long-term though, Microsoft will shut up shop again and bring users back to the fold with a proprietary version that's "improved", "enhanced" or "more secure" in some way.

Want proof? Just look at Hotmail. When Microsoft bought it, it promised that the Hotmail service wouldn't be compromised in any way, and that it would continue to remain free. Well, the basic service might still be free but it's been crippled in so many ways - mail filtering that says it will delete junk mail in 24 hours but doesn't, incredibly bad junk mail filtering in the first place, even fewer mail sorting rules allowed now than were allowed a few years ago, a very limited number of addresses and domains that can be blocked, etc. All tactics to get you to subscribe to their enhanced Hotmail service, which has some new features but is made up of a lot of the stuff that Microsoft has stripped from the basic service.

Will people use Word Document ML format? If it becomes standard in Microsoft Word then of course they will. They'll have no choice - Microsoft has a practical monopoly when it comes to everyday file formats. Will Microsoft eventually hijack Word Document ML format by making a future iteration proprietary once more and hence shut out any competing product when it releases them via a patch or whatever? Of course it will.

Why am I so sure of this? Because Microsoft is just like the scorpion in the tale of the scorpion and the frog. It's in its nature.

the U.S. will be running Microsoft software, and the rest of the world will not

So the new FOSS evangelism tactic is:

Leader of the pack, or Johnny-come-lately?
Will your country be the last to adopt Open Source?

Your alternative proposal is not realistic. Naturally.