It should be treated similarly to bankruptcy, except that the first priority should be to those who were harmed by the corporations actions, not to creditors. Obviously, the corporate charter should be revoked and their assets seized. I would say use the money first for cleanups and compensatory awards to those who were harmed so that they can get whatever medical treatment is available, for whatever good it will do them at that point. Second, and only after it is determined exactly how much the cleanup and awards will cost, use whatever money remains to pay off the company's creditors. If there is anything remaining, it should probably go to the government to pay for the costs of dealing with the whole thing, and/or to environmental studies.
Canada will fall in line with everything that the RIAA and other oppressive US corporations and corporate organizations demand. They'll just try to put a happy spin on it.
Come on, Microsoft is commissioning an "independent full-blown cost-analysis comparison", the final results of which are not going to be available until May, yet they already happen to know the results will be a huge boon for their sales team? Talk about a load... The Register got it exactly right saying that MS had commissioned the study by the "'we'll-conclude-anything' whores DH Brown."
The tone seems understandable considering that Valentine's own emails have been leaked in the recent past, not to mention numerous others from inside MS.
Actually, it was the part about them commissioning an "independent analysis" that pissed me off. While we can't really figure out whether the first part of the report has been completed or not, they say the second part, the "full-blown cost analysis" won't be available until May, yet they already seem to know that the results will be a huge boon for them. That doesn't sound like a legitimate independent analysis to me.
Then there's the part about them using their power to audit a company's Windows installations as an excuse for a Linux-use fishing expedition. Sounds like they're stepping outside the bounds of what is included in their EULA and what is backed by law. Of course it's sad that some companies will cave and give them any info they want, but it's a rather slimy tactic to begin with.
Maybe he just subscribes to a higher standard of ethics that tells him that commissioning phony reports to make your product look good is downright slimy. Maybe he feels compelled to reveal this sort of information in the interests of good sportsmanship or some similar reason. Basically he may feel that his job is to sell Windows or whatever, but he doesn't want his team to cheat in order to win. Who knows. At worst, the individual seems ethically neutral to me.
Actually, some good does come of these stories. You get different views on them, some people with better memories can make connections that those of us with not-so-great memories wouldn't have made. We end up getting more and better information and sometimes better ways of conveying that information when we're giving advice or writing those letters you mentioned. So, I don't really think that this is such a waste of time. Sure, some of the stuff here is just pointless flames and trolling, but there is also plenty of good stuff that will help us.
The ACLU will fight to keep porn in and any concept of God out of any part of our society.
His use of porn and God in this context imply that he believes porn is bad (or at least not worthy of defending) and God is good (and therefore deserving of being part of society). He neglects to mention that the ACLU doesn't actually try to keep God out of every part of our society. They just try to keep God out of our government and public institutions, as that is not the proper place for the Christian (or any other) God.
Sure they will fight for free speech for all, except those who disagree with the liberal ideology in which case they are obviously racist right wing fundamentalist anti-choice homophobes!
This happens to just be an outright lie. The ACLU does defend "racist right wing fundamentalist anti-choice homophobes." See their defense of the KKK.
So if he thinks it will be bad next year then I say it will be a banner year for the rest of us normal folks.
By this he is saying that he against what the ACLU stands for, and implies that those who agree with the ACLU are not "normal folks."
What are you talking about? He basically said that porn is bad and Christianity is good, and if you aren't in favor of outlawing porn and mandating Christianity, you are abnormal, and therefore your opinion is irrelevant. How can that not be considered a troll (albeit a hamfisted troll)?
Millions of Americans chose not to accept homosexuality as a healthy lifestyle to be promoting to their children and should have the final say when their dollars, not tax revenues are used to fund an organization, not the courts.
Millions of Americans also find homosexuality to be perfectly fine, regardless of whether it is a natural trait, or a lifestyle choice. That said, I happen to agree with you on the boy scout case. Private organizations discriminate in all sorts of ways. That's their perogative. As long as they aren't getting a nickel of public funding, I couldn't care less.
The ACLU has also been a champion of much more sensible and noble cases. I don't believe that they have a universally negative image. Perhaps among conservatives, but for centrists and (to a lesser degree) leftists, the ACLU is generally a positive force. It helps to keep politicians honest in a way by forcing issues to light that otherwise could be swept under the rug.
And what's worse than that is when someone is so illiterate that they can't comprehend a simple post. He didn't take offense that the guy didn't own a tv. He was annoyed that some people feel the need to flaunt the fact as if it makes them intelligentsia or something.
There will likely also be more competition by then, and each manufacturer will probably be making several more models, much like regular TVs now. There should be something for everyone.
True. However, that still doesn't give the government the right to take it from you without publicly acceptable just cause, correct? Just because it is federal property doesn't mean there aren't limits to what the government can do with the money that you have earned. If there weren't limits, money would be worthless.
I think his point was that now it's a lot more well known since people like he and I (and anyone else that reads the news), that didn't know about it before, know about it now.
I don't think that's what he was saying. I think it was more along the lines of "Nobody should be able to copyright or patent a user interface because it leads to very bad things in the end."
If all they're doing is data entry, then they don't even need to learn a new OS! You stick a link to a data entry application on their desktop and let them get back to work! It's not that tough!
Linux does stick to standards. The various applications don't work the same, but that's a whole different non-issue. The applications don't need to work the same. You simply pick the one you like. OS and UI are two different things, and they should not be forced together. That leads to much ugliness, like Windows. Give Windows to a newbie, and he'll manage to get around in it eventually. He'll make lots of big mistakes still. Probably hose his system a couple times, but Windows will hold his hand enough that he'll be able to use it. Unfortunately, Windows will try to do the same thing for experienced users, which will piss them off to no end. Windows should concentrate on doing things well, and by independent standards (i.e. standards not owned and controlled by a single corporation). Only then will we have harmony among various OSes. When we can all convert back and forth between various formats and communicate over standard protocols, then we'll be able to work together and have our choice of which OS we like to use. Right now we have Microsoft working toward the goal of having everyone use Windows, or be left out in the cold, unable to communicate with those who do use it. This strategy leads them to warp standards and create proprietary methods of doing just about anything. Microsoft thrives on incompatibility. They make network effects work for them, to the detriment of everyone else. That is what the anti-trust settlement should be designed to fix. Too bad it isn't designed for that.
If Open Source software saves your company $100K, then I think it would be quite rational to contribute some cash to aid the efforts of those who produce it. It helps to ensure that your costs remain low for software by helping OS projects stay alive.
With a Microsoft product, all you need is a working phone (and an infinite amount of patience).
And money. Don't forget about the money. RedHat provides tech support for their distro too. So does Mandrake I believe. If you want the support for Linux, it's there. You just pay a bit more.
Slashdot Mirror
It should be treated similarly to bankruptcy, except that the first priority should be to those who were harmed by the corporations actions, not to creditors. Obviously, the corporate charter should be revoked and their assets seized. I would say use the money first for cleanups and compensatory awards to those who were harmed so that they can get whatever medical treatment is available, for whatever good it will do them at that point. Second, and only after it is determined exactly how much the cleanup and awards will cost, use whatever money remains to pay off the company's creditors. If there is anything remaining, it should probably go to the government to pay for the costs of dealing with the whole thing, and/or to environmental studies.
Canada will fall in line with everything that the RIAA and other oppressive US corporations and corporate organizations demand. They'll just try to put a happy spin on it.
Come on, Microsoft is commissioning an "independent full-blown cost-analysis comparison", the final results of which are not going to be available until May, yet they already happen to know the results will be a huge boon for their sales team? Talk about a load... The Register got it exactly right saying that MS had commissioned the study by the "'we'll-conclude-anything' whores DH Brown."
The tone seems understandable considering that Valentine's own emails have been leaked in the recent past, not to mention numerous others from inside MS.
Actually, it was the part about them commissioning an "independent analysis" that pissed me off. While we can't really figure out whether the first part of the report has been completed or not, they say the second part, the "full-blown cost analysis" won't be available until May, yet they already seem to know that the results will be a huge boon for them. That doesn't sound like a legitimate independent analysis to me.
Then there's the part about them using their power to audit a company's Windows installations as an excuse for a Linux-use fishing expedition. Sounds like they're stepping outside the bounds of what is included in their EULA and what is backed by law. Of course it's sad that some companies will cave and give them any info they want, but it's a rather slimy tactic to begin with.
Maybe he just subscribes to a higher standard of ethics that tells him that commissioning phony reports to make your product look good is downright slimy. Maybe he feels compelled to reveal this sort of information in the interests of good sportsmanship or some similar reason. Basically he may feel that his job is to sell Windows or whatever, but he doesn't want his team to cheat in order to win. Who knows. At worst, the individual seems ethically neutral to me.
Actually, some good does come of these stories. You get different views on them, some people with better memories can make connections that those of us with not-so-great memories wouldn't have made. We end up getting more and better information and sometimes better ways of conveying that information when we're giving advice or writing those letters you mentioned. So, I don't really think that this is such a waste of time. Sure, some of the stuff here is just pointless flames and trolling, but there is also plenty of good stuff that will help us.
The ACLU will fight to keep porn in and any concept of God out of any part of our society.
His use of porn and God in this context imply that he believes porn is bad (or at least not worthy of defending) and God is good (and therefore deserving of being part of society). He neglects to mention that the ACLU doesn't actually try to keep God out of every part of our society. They just try to keep God out of our government and public institutions, as that is not the proper place for the Christian (or any other) God.
Sure they will fight for free speech for all, except those who disagree with the liberal ideology in which case they are obviously racist right wing fundamentalist anti-choice homophobes!
This happens to just be an outright lie. The ACLU does defend "racist right wing fundamentalist anti-choice homophobes." See their defense of the KKK.
So if he thinks it will be bad next year then I say it will be a banner year for the rest of us normal folks.
By this he is saying that he against what the ACLU stands for, and implies that those who agree with the ACLU are not "normal folks."
Thank you for your time, idiot.
What are you talking about? He basically said that porn is bad and Christianity is good, and if you aren't in favor of outlawing porn and mandating Christianity, you are abnormal, and therefore your opinion is irrelevant. How can that not be considered a troll (albeit a hamfisted troll)?
Millions of Americans chose not to accept homosexuality as a healthy lifestyle to be promoting to their children and should have the final say when their dollars, not tax revenues are used to fund an organization, not the courts.
Millions of Americans also find homosexuality to be perfectly fine, regardless of whether it is a natural trait, or a lifestyle choice. That said, I happen to agree with you on the boy scout case. Private organizations discriminate in all sorts of ways. That's their perogative. As long as they aren't getting a nickel of public funding, I couldn't care less.
The ACLU has also been a champion of much more sensible and noble cases. I don't believe that they have a universally negative image. Perhaps among conservatives, but for centrists and (to a lesser degree) leftists, the ACLU is generally a positive force. It helps to keep politicians honest in a way by forcing issues to light that otherwise could be swept under the rug.
I didn't say he did. I just said that that was what the other poster was talking about, and it's something that I've seen a lot of on /.
According to the link he provided, the X-Box outputs 16:9.
And what's worse than that is when someone is so illiterate that they can't comprehend a simple post. He didn't take offense that the guy didn't own a tv. He was annoyed that some people feel the need to flaunt the fact as if it makes them intelligentsia or something.
There will likely also be more competition by then, and each manufacturer will probably be making several more models, much like regular TVs now. There should be something for everyone.
True. However, that still doesn't give the government the right to take it from you without publicly acceptable just cause, correct? Just because it is federal property doesn't mean there aren't limits to what the government can do with the money that you have earned. If there weren't limits, money would be worthless.
I think his point was that now it's a lot more well known since people like he and I (and anyone else that reads the news), that didn't know about it before, know about it now.
I think it may just be building a technical infrastructure for trust.
Actually, it would render trust unnecessary.
True... anyone know where we can find a list of the major sites that they polled? Somehow I doubt that they would be popular with *nix users.
Cowboy Bebop was great. Too bad it was so short.
Not on /. it isn't! That's +5 Insightful around here ;)
I don't think that's what he was saying. I think it was more along the lines of "Nobody should be able to copyright or patent a user interface because it leads to very bad things in the end."
If all they're doing is data entry, then they don't even need to learn a new OS! You stick a link to a data entry application on their desktop and let them get back to work! It's not that tough!
Linux does stick to standards. The various applications don't work the same, but that's a whole different non-issue. The applications don't need to work the same. You simply pick the one you like. OS and UI are two different things, and they should not be forced together. That leads to much ugliness, like Windows. Give Windows to a newbie, and he'll manage to get around in it eventually. He'll make lots of big mistakes still. Probably hose his system a couple times, but Windows will hold his hand enough that he'll be able to use it. Unfortunately, Windows will try to do the same thing for experienced users, which will piss them off to no end. Windows should concentrate on doing things well, and by independent standards (i.e. standards not owned and controlled by a single corporation). Only then will we have harmony among various OSes. When we can all convert back and forth between various formats and communicate over standard protocols, then we'll be able to work together and have our choice of which OS we like to use. Right now we have Microsoft working toward the goal of having everyone use Windows, or be left out in the cold, unable to communicate with those who do use it. This strategy leads them to warp standards and create proprietary methods of doing just about anything. Microsoft thrives on incompatibility. They make network effects work for them, to the detriment of everyone else. That is what the anti-trust settlement should be designed to fix. Too bad it isn't designed for that.
If Open Source software saves your company $100K, then I think it would be quite rational to contribute some cash to aid the efforts of those who produce it. It helps to ensure that your costs remain low for software by helping OS projects stay alive.
With a Microsoft product, all you need is a working phone (and an infinite amount of patience).
And money. Don't forget about the money. RedHat provides tech support for their distro too. So does Mandrake I believe. If you want the support for Linux, it's there. You just pay a bit more.