I'll agree that AOL should have forseen this. If I were an AOLawyer, I would have been all over them about it I think. On the other hand, what right does Microsoft have to complain about non-open standards when they keep most of theirs secret as well? AOL should have tacked some kind of provision on to the source license that makes it illegal to use it for the purposes of advertising. Then we might not have this problem. I still have to side with AOL on this though. Microsoft has absolutely no right to complain about this.
Microsoft should be able to write a client. They just shouldn't be allowed to exploit AOL's servers for commercial gain by using the client for advertising purposes. If Microsoft would just open their protocols then they would have no problem getting people to back them up when they call for others to open their protocols. In this case, they look like complete hypocrites and don't deserve any backing.
Quit being so indignant and acting like they're doing something wrong. It's called business, and they just happen to be better at it then most.
Are you saying you must be a hypocrite to the nth degree in order to really good at business? So AOL is actually doing well at something that Microsoft has not done very well at. Microsoft has been saying all along that they aren't invincible and that they can't control everything. But as soon as they find something they haven't been able to control, they whine and moan about how unfair it is. They aren't businessmen... they're a bunch of spoiled brats.
I think you're right. There is a difference here. Releasing specs to the open source community in order for them to write clients in order to allow Linux/*nix users to communicate with the AIM community is not the same thing as allowing Microsoft or some other commercial entity to write a client. The difference is the advertising space. AOL doesn't mind the OS community using AIM to communicate because we aren't exploiting it to sell ads. They do mind being exploited by a competitor though. Microsoft has it's own online service and community (even if it is a fraction of the size of AOL's), and that makes them a direct competitor.
This makes me ill. If Microsoft wants open standards, then they should lead by example instead of whining and complaining when someone else is actually doing better than they are in something. I don't see Microsoft opening their protocols to allow for open access and standards. When they do that, then I'll back them up completely when they want someone else to do it. Until that day comes, they need to quit complaining about getting some of their own medicine.
I'm still not sure myself if I'd rather have a moron with his heart in the right place or a genius in it for the money running my country. Who's going to hurt you more?
It wouldn't necessarily have to be a moron either. We actually need many types in Congress. Not just one type of person. No one type of person could deal with everything. We need people who understand economics. People who understand business. People with imaginations. People who know their history (so maybe we can quit making the same mistakes), etc.
One of the main problems I have with the way the government functions is the fact that these people make a career out of being a member of Congress. Some of them have been in there for over 40 years, continuously! I think there should be a limit to the number of consecutive terms. Maybe serve 2 or 3 and then sit out the same number. I don't like the networks and partnerships that form in there. I know it does help them get some things done, but if these people weren't spending their time ensuring that they get reelected and trying to make themselves and their party look better than the other one, maybe we could have a bit more honesty and a get some more real work done.
If that's the case, then I'd have to agree with you. I hadn't heard of this happening. It's ridiculous if it is happening. If kids want to pray on their own time, and aren't causing a disruption or anything, that's their business and the school has no business interfering.
They weren't public property elsewhere. We had to pay for them. He just saved a lot of people a lot of money. Now those people don't have to pay for a proprietary OS to do what they want to do.
Additionally, many many other things have come out of the space program. As someone else pointed out, the mission to the moon paid for itself when you consider how many new technologies were made available to the private sector, which in turn used them to generate the revenue that fueled the economy.
Wow. I just did a little research over at C-Span.org. It's worse than I thought.
Members of Congress earn $136,673 annually. Members may also earn 15% of their salary from outside income sources. Book royalties are excluded from this outside earnings cap. The congressional salary was increased in January, 1998 when a 2.3% cost-of-living (COLA) increase kicked in. Although entitled by law to an annual automatic COLA, this was the first time in five years that Congress has accepted it. Since 1992, Congress had voted to decline the COLA increase.
Members also receive retirement, health, and other benefits. Their entire compensation package is described in a report by the Congressional Research Service, available upon request from your Senator or Representative's office. The CRS report is entitled "Salaries and Allowances: The Congress" by Paul Dwyer.
There you have it. The national average income is ~$25,000. Senators make over 5 times that amount not even including outside income or other benefits. So much for them not getting a pay raise since the sixties or seventies. You might want to actually look it up next time. So much for being a public servant.
How much does a member of Congress make? They aren't supposed to be living in the lap of luxury. They are supposed to be serving the country. If you're there for the money, you're there for the wrong reason.
In case anyone is interested in why there are so many knee-jerk reactionists around and why they are able to influence others to come around to their thinking, it's easy... ignorance.
I don't mean that they are uneducated necessarily. What I mean is that nobody understands what our government does anymore. Nobody gets the whole story, not even Congress or the President. Between closed-door sessions, backroom deals, and secret projects and agencies, we don't have any idea where all the money goes. Where does one go to get a complete and throrough breakdown of what money went where and for what purpose? Something like this:
Amount____________Agency_____________Purpose
$50,000,000................Secret Agency A...........Head-mounted lasers for sharks
$500............................Dept. Of Trans..............Pot Hole Repair
You get the picture. I wouldn't trust congress to balance my checkbook (I'd prolly end up with a debt nearly that of the National one), let alone the national budget. Until we have a very large measure of disclosure (and a way to verify the information), we won't be able to understand where our money goes or why.
I may be off-base about this, but it's the way I see it. I haven't ever seen any kind of real breakdown of where our taxes go. Only those that are done in the broadest terms. If anyone can point me to something more helpful, I'd be both amazed and grateful.
It wasn't a bunch of "right minded" people complaining to theater owners. It was a bunch of "right minded" people blaiming movies, tv, and video games for the recent school violence that got the attention of the government. Rather than risk being yelled at by these people, they decided to do something to make it seem like they were taking a tough stance to keep these things from happening again. So, they crack down on theaters and threaten to regulate them if they don't start strictly enforcing the ratings system. Naturally, the theaters caved and began going above and beyond the call of duty to keep themselves from being regulated. Blame it on the idiots in the government.
I'm not sure what kind of sexual education class you had, but I had one too. We were taught about what sex is, what the risks are, what can be done to reduce risks, what sexual harrassment or rape is, what breast and testicular cancer are and how to check for them, etc. I didn't find anything objectionable in the class. It was all just the facts as we understand them today. I don't have a problem with kids learning about these things since they are important to understand, whether you are sexually active or not. The only part I have heard another reasonable person object to is the part about sexual harrassment/rape. I can understand why people would be uncomfortable talking about these things, but it doesn't change the fact that they should be understood by all since they happen to be a problem and they are against the law. Maybe it will wake up a few kids to realize that they can't just say and do whatever they like before they get themselves in real trouble.
Perhaps you had a different class though. I don't expect them all to be alike really, so it could very well be. BTW, I was 17 when I took that class. Parents should definitely have already discussed some of these things with their children by this time, especially if they go to a public school.
I also share your disdain for public schools. Don't get me wrong on that one. The education system in this country is in a sad state.
It would be great if everyone else thought just like this. Then perhaps we could all just leave each other alone instead of lobbying the government to try to get everyone to conform to our beliefs.
Unfortunately, (or maybe fortunately, I'm not real sure about this one) only the Christians have a big enough majority in this country to actually get such legislation passed. I'm thinking that if other religions were on a more equal ground, Christians might just count themselves lucky that they are allowed to practice their religion in peace like everyone else and not go around trying to turn their morals into law.
Yep, there it is in the UN Declaration of Human Rights: The right to dump your kids at some crappy movie.
Should I assume that your view would be different if it was a movie that you considered to be a compelling and well-written piece of art?
So as not to invalidate my argument, I won't make that assumption, I was just wondering.
Please. Denial of "basic rights"? If seeing the South Park movie is so important to the development of her children, that parent could bring them back another day when she had the time to watch it with them.
So now you or the government gets to decide when she can let her kids see the movie? Why shouldn't they get to see it. They had the time. She had something else to do, but would be back in time to pick them up. Who are you to say that she can't do that?
Nobody is denying anybody access to information in this situation.
Excuse me? They are denying just that. Perhaps it is not a complete denial of access for all time, but they are denying her the right to decide what her children should watch and when they should be allowed to watch it. Why should the government be telling parents what's ok for their children to see and when they can see it?
Frankly, the American obsession with individual rights, taken to this extent (dellusions about what actually constitutes a basic right), is the basic cause of so many of the troubles that make you, the most economically successful nation on earth, the laughing stock of the rest of the industrialized world.
Really? Is that what it is? I always thought it was our preoccupation with legislating morality.
Children can pray all they want in school. They simply aren't allowed to disrupt the class with it any more than any other child is allowed to. The teachers and administration are not allowed to lead a class or school prayer because that would be taking time from other children who do not believe in that particular religion. Children should be taught religion at home and in church. It's their business and their parent's business. It's not the business of the schools or the other students. Nor should it be.
I say that Christ died for the sins of men, and it means everything to everything. There is no facet of history, of science, or even of mathematics that can hide from the presence of God. I live in the pursuit of truth, and God is not simply a _part_ of that, He is the author of it.
As a citizen of the U.S., you have every right to believe this. You simply don't have the right to have it taught to everyone's children. I don't care what you believe. That's your business and your family's. Why should other people's children be taught something simply because you and members of your faith believe it to be so? You're not the only people on this planet and you don't have a monopoly on morals or faith. Let parents teach their children. Let children pray quietly to themselves when they feel they must. It works well for the other religions in this country. Why is it always the Christians that are demanding to make a public spectacle of their faith?
Now I'm not sure if you're saying that Christianity "blows," or if you're saying that new sects are ok. The first would make more sense. The second doesn't say much for new sects except that they can become large and kill lots of people.
I have no issue with movie owners coming up with absurd policies, so long as they are not compelled to, there is no illegality, and there is no collusion: as long as J. Random Entrepreneur can operate a theatre with disregard for the guidelines of others, fine.
Unfortunately they can't do that. Not with our government threatening to regulate them if they do. Additionally, it's fine for Christians to speak all they want. It's only a problem when they start legislating. I wonder how many members of Congress DO NOT claim to be Christians? Yeah.. I'm sure the Christians are opressed as the original poster seems to think.
I was very heartened by the [march of apology] to those wronged by the Crusaders and the like.
Yeah. I heard about that. I found it rather interesting. What I found disheartening was the fact that the Vatican was still unsure of whether it would offer an official apology or not. How can they actually have to think about whether or not to apologize for killing thousands of people simply because they didn't agree with their religion? I don't think I'll ever be able to make any sense out of the things people do for their religions...
There would be no moral war taking place at the theaters if there were no teenaged ticket-taking soldiers poised at attention on the popcorn-butter stained battlegrounds.
They didn't want to be policing the theaters like this. Clinton pretty much told them to do it or he was going to have to start regulating them. Government regulation in most cases is something that businesses will go well out of their way to avoid, as was the case in this situation. If you want to point fingers, point them at our fearless leader.
I tend to think if I keep the garbage Jon writes out of my head, I will be less prone to let the same kind of garbage spread from me to the rest of the world.
I won't argue that it's your choice whether or not to read Jon's columns. It just sounds to me that you're doing it for the wrong reasons. If you believe that what he says is wrong, then you should, in your own mind at least, know why you think they are wrong. If you lack faith in your convictions or in your reasons for believing what you do, yet wish to continue to think that way, then by all means, block his columns. Sometimes people simply believe what they do because of faith. It can't be explained. It's just the path you chose, for reasons that are probably personal.
However, by labeling his writings as garbage, you are generalizing and limiting your ability to truly act and think as an individual. It's good to constantly test your beliefs. It keeps you aware of who you are and why. Otherwise, you simply look to those who think the same as you and ignore anyone else. Bad things happen when people do that. I tend to have a feeling that we are heading for another age that will be reminiscent of the Bad Old Days (hmm.. which never quite ended in many places) when people couldn't tolerate those who had different views from them and would get whipped into a frenzy and attack those other groups. Whether it's done physically or legislatively through lobbying and whatnot, it's still an attack on others simply because they don't agree with you. Just keep it in mind when you make decisions that will affect your view of the world and the people around you.
Slashdot Mirror
I'll agree that AOL should have forseen this. If I were an AOLawyer, I would have been all over them about it I think. On the other hand, what right does Microsoft have to complain about non-open standards when they keep most of theirs secret as well? AOL should have tacked some kind of provision on to the source license that makes it illegal to use it for the purposes of advertising. Then we might not have this problem. I still have to side with AOL on this though. Microsoft has absolutely no right to complain about this.
Microsoft should be able to write a client. They just shouldn't be allowed to exploit AOL's servers for commercial gain by using the client for advertising purposes. If Microsoft would just open their protocols then they would have no problem getting people to back them up when they call for others to open their protocols. In this case, they look like complete hypocrites and don't deserve any backing.
Quit being so indignant and acting like they're doing something wrong. It's called business, and they just happen to be better at it then most.
Are you saying you must be a hypocrite to the nth degree in order to really good at business? So AOL is actually doing well at something that Microsoft has not done very well at. Microsoft has been saying all along that they aren't invincible and that they can't control everything. But as soon as they find something they haven't been able to control, they whine and moan about how unfair it is. They aren't businessmen... they're a bunch of spoiled brats.
I think you're right. There is a difference here. Releasing specs to the open source community in order for them to write clients in order to allow Linux/*nix users to communicate with the AIM community is not the same thing as allowing Microsoft or some other commercial entity to write a client. The difference is the advertising space. AOL doesn't mind the OS community using AIM to communicate because we aren't exploiting it to sell ads. They do mind being exploited by a competitor though. Microsoft has it's own online service and community (even if it is a fraction of the size of AOL's), and that makes them a direct competitor.
This makes me ill. If Microsoft wants open standards, then they should lead by example instead of whining and complaining when someone else is actually doing better than they are in something. I don't see Microsoft opening their protocols to allow for open access and standards. When they do that, then I'll back them up completely when they want someone else to do it. Until that day comes, they need to quit complaining about getting some of their own medicine.
I'm still not sure myself if I'd rather have a moron with his heart in the right place or a genius in it for the money running my country. Who's going to hurt you more?
It wouldn't necessarily have to be a moron either. We actually need many types in Congress. Not just one type of person. No one type of person could deal with everything. We need people who understand economics. People who understand business. People with imaginations. People who know their history (so maybe we can quit making the same mistakes), etc.
One of the main problems I have with the way the government functions is the fact that these people make a career out of being a member of Congress. Some of them have been in there for over 40 years, continuously! I think there should be a limit to the number of consecutive terms. Maybe serve 2 or 3 and then sit out the same number. I don't like the networks and partnerships that form in there. I know it does help them get some things done, but if these people weren't spending their time ensuring that they get reelected and trying to make themselves and their party look better than the other one, maybe we could have a bit more honesty and a get some more real work done.
If that's the case, then I'd have to agree with you. I hadn't heard of this happening. It's ridiculous if it is happening. If kids want to pray on their own time, and aren't causing a disruption or anything, that's their business and the school has no business interfering.
They weren't public property elsewhere. We had to pay for them. He just saved a lot of people a lot of money. Now those people don't have to pay for a proprietary OS to do what they want to do.
Additionally, many many other things have come out of the space program. As someone else pointed out, the mission to the moon paid for itself when you consider how many new technologies were made available to the private sector, which in turn used them to generate the revenue that fueled the economy.
They'll prolly just hit someone's embassy.
Wow. I just did a little research over at C-Span.org. It's worse than I thought.
Members of Congress earn $136,673 annually. Members may also earn 15% of their salary from outside income sources. Book royalties are excluded from this outside earnings cap. The congressional salary was increased in January, 1998 when a 2.3% cost-of-living (COLA) increase kicked in. Although entitled by law to an annual automatic COLA, this was the first time in five years that Congress has accepted it. Since 1992, Congress had voted to decline the COLA increase.
Members also receive retirement, health, and other benefits. Their entire compensation package is described in a report by the Congressional Research Service, available upon request from your Senator or Representative's office. The CRS report is entitled "Salaries and Allowances: The Congress" by Paul Dwyer.
There you have it. The national average income is ~$25,000. Senators make over 5 times that amount not even including outside income or other benefits. So much for them not getting a pay raise since the sixties or seventies. You might want to actually look it up next time. So much for being a public servant.
How much does a member of Congress make? They aren't supposed to be living in the lap of luxury. They are supposed to be serving the country. If you're there for the money, you're there for the wrong reason.
In case anyone is interested in why there are so many knee-jerk reactionists around and why they are able to influence others to come around to their thinking, it's easy... ignorance.
I don't mean that they are uneducated necessarily. What I mean is that nobody understands what our government does anymore. Nobody gets the whole story, not even Congress or the President. Between closed-door sessions, backroom deals, and secret projects and agencies, we don't have any idea where all the money goes. Where does one go to get a complete and throrough breakdown of what money went where and for what purpose? Something like this:
Amount____________Agency_____________Purpose
$50,000,000................Secret Agency A...........Head-mounted lasers for sharks
$100,000,000..............White House.................Cat Food
$500............................Dept. Of Trans..............Pot Hole Repair
You get the picture. I wouldn't trust congress to balance my checkbook (I'd prolly end up with a debt nearly that of the National one), let alone the national budget. Until we have a very large measure of disclosure (and a way to verify the information), we won't be able to understand where our money goes or why.
I may be off-base about this, but it's the way I see it. I haven't ever seen any kind of real breakdown of where our taxes go. Only those that are done in the broadest terms. If anyone can point me to something more helpful, I'd be both amazed and grateful.
It wasn't a bunch of "right minded" people complaining to theater owners. It was a bunch of "right minded" people blaiming movies, tv, and video games for the recent school violence that got the attention of the government. Rather than risk being yelled at by these people, they decided to do something to make it seem like they were taking a tough stance to keep these things from happening again. So, they crack down on theaters and threaten to regulate them if they don't start strictly enforcing the ratings system. Naturally, the theaters caved and began going above and beyond the call of duty to keep themselves from being regulated. Blame it on the idiots in the government.
After looking up "craven", I found that it means adj. "very cowardly" or n. "a thorough coward". That's how I've always seen it used too.
The female body is beautiful, soft and silky while the male body is big, lumpy and hairy and shouldn't be seen by the light of day. ;)
Umm.. there are men and women that fit both of those descriptions. One shouldn't generalize such things.
I'm not sure what kind of sexual education class you had, but I had one too. We were taught about what sex is, what the risks are, what can be done to reduce risks, what sexual harrassment or rape is, what breast and testicular cancer are and how to check for them, etc. I didn't find anything objectionable in the class. It was all just the facts as we understand them today. I don't have a problem with kids learning about these things since they are important to understand, whether you are sexually active or not. The only part I have heard another reasonable person object to is the part about sexual harrassment/rape. I can understand why people would be uncomfortable talking about these things, but it doesn't change the fact that they should be understood by all since they happen to be a problem and they are against the law. Maybe it will wake up a few kids to realize that they can't just say and do whatever they like before they get themselves in real trouble.
Perhaps you had a different class though. I don't expect them all to be alike really, so it could very well be. BTW, I was 17 when I took that class. Parents should definitely have already discussed some of these things with their children by this time, especially if they go to a public school.
I also share your disdain for public schools. Don't get me wrong on that one. The education system in this country is in a sad state.
I have a friend whose dad was stationed in Germany for several years. I believe the legal age was 16.
It would be great if everyone else thought just like this. Then perhaps we could all just leave each other alone instead of lobbying the government to try to get everyone to conform to our beliefs.
Unfortunately, (or maybe fortunately, I'm not real sure about this one) only the Christians have a big enough majority in this country to actually get such legislation passed. I'm thinking that if other religions were on a more equal ground, Christians might just count themselves lucky that they are allowed to practice their religion in peace like everyone else and not go around trying to turn their morals into law.
Yep, there it is in the UN Declaration of Human Rights: The right to dump your kids at some crappy movie.
Should I assume that your view would be different if it was a movie that you considered to be a compelling and well-written piece of art?
So as not to invalidate my argument, I won't make that assumption, I was just wondering.
Please. Denial of "basic rights"? If seeing the South Park movie is so important to the development of her children, that parent could bring them back another day when she had the time to watch it with them.
So now you or the government gets to decide when she can let her kids see the movie? Why shouldn't they get to see it. They had the time. She had something else to do, but would be back in time to pick them up. Who are you to say that she can't do that?
Nobody is denying anybody access to information in this situation.
Excuse me? They are denying just that. Perhaps it is not a complete denial of access for all time, but they are denying her the right to decide what her children should watch and when they should be allowed to watch it. Why should the government be telling parents what's ok for their children to see and when they can see it?
Frankly, the American obsession with individual rights, taken to this extent (dellusions about what actually constitutes a basic right), is the basic cause of so many of the troubles that make you, the most economically successful nation on earth, the laughing stock of the rest of the industrialized world.
Really? Is that what it is? I always thought it was our preoccupation with legislating morality.
Children can pray all they want in school. They simply aren't allowed to disrupt the class with it any more than any other child is allowed to. The teachers and administration are not allowed to lead a class or school prayer because that would be taking time from other children who do not believe in that particular religion. Children should be taught religion at home and in church. It's their business and their parent's business. It's not the business of the schools or the other students. Nor should it be.
I say that Christ died for the sins of men, and it means everything to everything. There is no facet of history, of science, or even of mathematics that can hide from the presence of God. I live in the pursuit of truth, and God is not simply a _part_ of that, He is the author of it.
As a citizen of the U.S., you have every right to believe this. You simply don't have the right to have it taught to everyone's children. I don't care what you believe. That's your business and your family's. Why should other people's children be taught something simply because you and members of your faith believe it to be so? You're not the only people on this planet and you don't have a monopoly on morals or faith. Let parents teach their children. Let children pray quietly to themselves when they feel they must. It works well for the other religions in this country. Why is it always the Christians that are demanding to make a public spectacle of their faith?
Now I'm not sure if you're saying that Christianity "blows," or if you're saying that new sects are ok. The first would make more sense. The second doesn't say much for new sects except that they can become large and kill lots of people.
I have no issue with movie owners coming up with absurd policies, so long as they are not compelled to, there is no illegality, and there is no collusion: as long as J. Random Entrepreneur can operate a theatre with disregard for the guidelines of others, fine.
Unfortunately they can't do that. Not with our government threatening to regulate them if they do. Additionally, it's fine for Christians to speak all they want. It's only a problem when they start legislating. I wonder how many members of Congress DO NOT claim to be Christians? Yeah.. I'm sure the Christians are opressed as the original poster seems to think.
I was very heartened by the [march of apology] to those wronged by the Crusaders and the like.
Yeah. I heard about that. I found it rather interesting. What I found disheartening was the fact that the Vatican was still unsure of whether it would offer an official apology or not. How can they actually have to think about whether or not to apologize for killing thousands of people simply because they didn't agree with their religion? I don't think I'll ever be able to make any sense out of the things people do for their religions...
There would be no moral war taking place at the theaters if there were no teenaged ticket-taking soldiers poised at attention on the popcorn-butter stained battlegrounds.
They didn't want to be policing the theaters like this. Clinton pretty much told them to do it or he was going to have to start regulating them. Government regulation in most cases is something that businesses will go well out of their way to avoid, as was the case in this situation. If you want to point fingers, point them at our fearless leader.
I tend to think if I keep the garbage Jon writes out of my head, I will be less prone to let the same kind of garbage spread from me to the rest of the world.
I won't argue that it's your choice whether or not to read Jon's columns. It just sounds to me that you're doing it for the wrong reasons. If you believe that what he says is wrong, then you should, in your own mind at least, know why you think they are wrong. If you lack faith in your convictions or in your reasons for believing what you do, yet wish to continue to think that way, then by all means, block his columns. Sometimes people simply believe what they do because of faith. It can't be explained. It's just the path you chose, for reasons that are probably personal.
However, by labeling his writings as garbage, you are generalizing and limiting your ability to truly act and think as an individual. It's good to constantly test your beliefs. It keeps you aware of who you are and why. Otherwise, you simply look to those who think the same as you and ignore anyone else. Bad things happen when people do that. I tend to have a feeling that we are heading for another age that will be reminiscent of the Bad Old Days (hmm.. which never quite ended in many places) when people couldn't tolerate those who had different views from them and would get whipped into a frenzy and attack those other groups. Whether it's done physically or legislatively through lobbying and whatnot, it's still an attack on others simply because they don't agree with you. Just keep it in mind when you make decisions that will affect your view of the world and the people around you.