This, once again, makes the question of what Oracle was trying to accomplish when they took the actions that lead to the fork. There are as far as I can see three possibilities.
1.) Greater control over the development of OO.o
2.) Gradually convert OO.o into a fully propietary prject
3.) Kill off OO.o without being obvious about it
If the first two were their goal, this release means that for all intents and purposes they have failed. If the third was their goal, they have succeeded; OO.o is dead. If they wanted to kill it to get rid of a successful OSS office suite that is a failure. However, if they wanted to kill it because they didn't want to be running an OSS Office sute project, then they got what they wanted.
You got that right, although it isn't always HR. I have a friend who was hired by another friend from high school who was the son of the owner of a small company (and whose father had been a friend of my friend's father for years). They promoted him to run one of their divisions. After about five years they decided to get rid of the division that my friend was running to concentrate on their core business (mostly as a result of much larger companies expanding into their region in the industry that division was in). My friend talked to another company in the area that was looking for someone to head up a similar division. They were talking salary when they found out he didn't have a college degree. They decided not to hire him based on that, even though they had no other candidates at the time and the position was open and needed filling.
You are not far off. Let both sides fight it out with anybody else who wants to play allowed to join in. When one side gives up, whatever the borders are at that moment, those are the borders. The only way there will be peace in the Middle East is if they have a full blown war that ends when one side is completely worn out. If that side is Israel, there will be no more Jews in the Middle East. If that side is the Arabs (because this is not just about the Palestinians--there were no "Palestinians" when this started), Israel will control all of the land between the Mediterranean and the Jordan River plus a chunk of what is now Lebanon and Syria. It would be interesting to see how it played out if both sides were allowed to take the gloves off completely. I think Israel might nuke Mecca at some point.
Which is the problem. The Palestinian Authority also has the right to exist, assuming that it can do so peaceably. The view by zealots on both sides that anything other than a 2 state solution or one in which both groups share the same nation is possible is just plain fantasy.
They lived like that for a long time until the balance was upset by outsiders.
When exactly was that? When the area (which at the time included what is now Jordan) was occupied by the British? or before that when it was occupied by the Ottomans? Palestine/Israel has not been a nation since before the Roman Empire occupied the land, and they didn't have a modern understanding of what a nation was then.
Last year, when the FCC tried to fine Comcast for breaking net neurality, Comcast took it to court. The judge asked the FCC what law authorized them to regulate ISPs in this manner. The FCC did not give the judge an answer.
In other words, while the FCC has been granted some authority by laws passed by Congress, those laws do not give it the authority to regulate whatever it wants. The question is what law gives the FCC the authority to implement this regulation?
I was under the impression that the FCC chose to not reclassify ISPs, that thye made this particular set of regulations in lieu of changing the classification of ISPs. If that is incorrect and the FCC did indeed recalssify ISPs, yours would be the first response that actually addressd my question. Of course, then it would be up to the court to decide if it is appropriate for the FCC to reclassify them, but that at least presents a case that is less than obvious before it begins.
Personally, I would prefer if the Congress were to pass a law giving the FCC specific authority rather than the FCC decide to reinterpret existing laws in order to gain authority. The latter makes it too easy for laws to apply differently to different people and companies (not that there isn't a lot of that anyway).
Apparently it was in the case against Comcast last year where the judge threw the case out because the FCC failed to cite a law that gave them the authority to fine Comcast.
Maybe you should go look it up. My question was where does the Executive Branch get the authority to make this kind of rule? You responded by noting the clause in the Constitution that gives Congress the authority to regulate Insterstate Commerce. Maybe you are unaware that Congress is the Legislative branch?
Some would argue that the Interstate Commerce clause does not give the Federal government the authority to do this, that is not my argument. I am arguing that while the Interstate Commerce clause can certainly be interpreted to give Congress the authority to do this, I am unaware of any law where they have delegated this authority to the FCC. Additionally, when the judge in the Comcast case asked the FCC to name what law gave them the authority, they were unable to provide an answer.
I was unaware that the Interstate Commerce clause gave any authority to the Executive Branch. The Interstate Commerce clause says that Congress shall have the power to regulate commerce among the several states. In what law did Congress give the FCC the power to regulate ISPs in this manner
Sorry, nowhere in the Constitution is the Executive Branch given authority to make this kind of rule. So, the question is, what law did Congress pass giving this authority to the FCC?
Laws of the land are created by the government based upon the constitution, corporations regardless of their psychopathic greed are bound by those laws.
Except the FCC is not a law making body. In the U.S., only Congress may make a law. The question is, what law gives the FCC the authority to do this? When the judge in the Comcast case asked them that question, the FCC did not have an answer.
What law says that? When the judge asked the FCC that question in the Comcast case, they didn't have an answer. Unless there is a law giving them that authority they don't have it. Just because you can make an argument as to why the FCC could have authority to order the cable companies to do something does not mean that Congress has passed a law giving them authority over to order the cable companies to do that.
How much, if any, of that "public land" is federal land? The Federal government does not have any more authority over land owned by the local township (or by one of the states) than it does over land owned by the local barber.
Small players are often able to make great strides when market conditions are volatile. Small players are generally able to adapt to changing market demands more rapidly than large players. If you want to understand this compare these two lists of the top 100 companies on the Fortune 500 list in 1960. and Fortune 500 list in 2010.. Notice how many of the companies on the first list are not on the second list.
No, my point is that "carbon trading" is custom made for companies like Enron whose business model was based on making transactions that extract value from the system, rather than adding value to the system.
Enron entered a market that was designed to facilitate transactions between energy companies in a way that added value to what was going on. Enron figured out how to extract value from that market rather than add value. What happened to Enron is what happens whenever someone tries to make money by extracting value from a market rather than from adding value to the market.
As to the idea that regs cut both ways, when have regs ever not favored the big player over the small player in a given market?
You make a very good point. The term I have seen used to describe what you are talking about is "rule of law". The laws are known, they are understandable, they apply the same to everyone and they change infrequently with substantial advance warning. The closer a political unit is to true rule of law, the better it does economically. The longer a political unit functions according to something that closely approximates the rule of law, the more likely it is to have some variation of a truly democratic government.
Real open source would be making it a right to work state and getting rid of union control. Real open source would be to get rid of the government control and let people figure things out. What he seems to be proposing is nothing more than leveraging best practices.
There is not enough information in the article to know what all he means by the phrase. However, do not be so sure that he will not attempt to make Michigan a right to work state.
At this point it would be impossible to tell if the term "open source" is being abused here, there just isn't enough information in this article to know what he means by it (or if it is just a phrase calculated to push the right buttons with people). However, by using it in this context, Governor Snyder increases the public perception of "open source" as a good thing.
It is an idea thought up by those paragons of business ethics at Enron. Ok, maybe they didn't think up the idea, but they were early promoters of the idea. Enron quickly saw the promise in such a scheme. It fit right in with their business model.
Slashdot Mirror
If the first two were their goal, this release means that for all intents and purposes they have failed. If the third was their goal, they have succeeded; OO.o is dead. If they wanted to kill it to get rid of a successful OSS office suite that is a failure. However, if they wanted to kill it because they didn't want to be running an OSS Office sute project, then they got what they wanted.
You got that right, although it isn't always HR. I have a friend who was hired by another friend from high school who was the son of the owner of a small company (and whose father had been a friend of my friend's father for years). They promoted him to run one of their divisions. After about five years they decided to get rid of the division that my friend was running to concentrate on their core business (mostly as a result of much larger companies expanding into their region in the industry that division was in). My friend talked to another company in the area that was looking for someone to head up a similar division. They were talking salary when they found out he didn't have a college degree. They decided not to hire him based on that, even though they had no other candidates at the time and the position was open and needed filling.
What people sometimes forget about is that such a cycle can be theoretically 100% efficient:
The Second Law of Thermodynamics begs to differ.
Didn't they undergo a massive cave-in to special interests?
No, to call it a cave-in would imply that they were going to do something different before pressure was brought to bear.
You are not far off. Let both sides fight it out with anybody else who wants to play allowed to join in. When one side gives up, whatever the borders are at that moment, those are the borders. The only way there will be peace in the Middle East is if they have a full blown war that ends when one side is completely worn out. If that side is Israel, there will be no more Jews in the Middle East. If that side is the Arabs (because this is not just about the Palestinians--there were no "Palestinians" when this started), Israel will control all of the land between the Mediterranean and the Jordan River plus a chunk of what is now Lebanon and Syria. It would be interesting to see how it played out if both sides were allowed to take the gloves off completely. I think Israel might nuke Mecca at some point.
Which is the problem. The Palestinian Authority also has the right to exist, assuming that it can do so peaceably. The view by zealots on both sides that anything other than a 2 state solution or one in which both groups share the same nation is possible is just plain fantasy. They lived like that for a long time until the balance was upset by outsiders.
When exactly was that? When the area (which at the time included what is now Jordan) was occupied by the British? or before that when it was occupied by the Ottomans? Palestine/Israel has not been a nation since before the Roman Empire occupied the land, and they didn't have a modern understanding of what a nation was then.
Last year, when the FCC tried to fine Comcast for breaking net neurality, Comcast took it to court. The judge asked the FCC what law authorized them to regulate ISPs in this manner. The FCC did not give the judge an answer.
In other words, while the FCC has been granted some authority by laws passed by Congress, those laws do not give it the authority to regulate whatever it wants. The question is what law gives the FCC the authority to implement this regulation?
At least in theory, all of the regulations in the CFR are spelling out the details of how to apply the laws that Congress has written.
I like that.
I was under the impression that the FCC chose to not reclassify ISPs, that thye made this particular set of regulations in lieu of changing the classification of ISPs. If that is incorrect and the FCC did indeed recalssify ISPs, yours would be the first response that actually addressd my question. Of course, then it would be up to the court to decide if it is appropriate for the FCC to reclassify them, but that at least presents a case that is less than obvious before it begins.
Personally, I would prefer if the Congress were to pass a law giving the FCC specific authority rather than the FCC decide to reinterpret existing laws in order to gain authority. The latter makes it too easy for laws to apply differently to different people and companies (not that there isn't a lot of that anyway).
If those laws apply now, why didn't the FCC cite them in the Comcast case last year?
Apparently it was in the case against Comcast last year where the judge threw the case out because the FCC failed to cite a law that gave them the authority to fine Comcast.
My recollection of the reports I saw at the time is that they said that the judge said that the FCC did not provide an answer.
Then why did the FCC not list those acts when the judge in the Comcast case asked them where they got the authority for that action?
Maybe you should go look it up. My question was where does the Executive Branch get the authority to make this kind of rule? You responded by noting the clause in the Constitution that gives Congress the authority to regulate Insterstate Commerce. Maybe you are unaware that Congress is the Legislative branch?
Some would argue that the Interstate Commerce clause does not give the Federal government the authority to do this, that is not my argument. I am arguing that while the Interstate Commerce clause can certainly be interpreted to give Congress the authority to do this, I am unaware of any law where they have delegated this authority to the FCC. Additionally, when the judge in the Comcast case asked the FCC to name what law gave them the authority, they were unable to provide an answer.
I was unaware that the Interstate Commerce clause gave any authority to the Executive Branch. The Interstate Commerce clause says that Congress shall have the power to regulate commerce among the several states. In what law did Congress give the FCC the power to regulate ISPs in this manner
Sorry, nowhere in the Constitution is the Executive Branch given authority to make this kind of rule. So, the question is, what law did Congress pass giving this authority to the FCC?
Laws of the land are created by the government based upon the constitution, corporations regardless of their psychopathic greed are bound by those laws.
Except the FCC is not a law making body. In the U.S., only Congress may make a law. The question is, what law gives the FCC the authority to do this? When the judge in the Comcast case asked them that question, the FCC did not have an answer.
What law says that? When the judge asked the FCC that question in the Comcast case, they didn't have an answer. Unless there is a law giving them that authority they don't have it. Just because you can make an argument as to why the FCC could have authority to order the cable companies to do something does not mean that Congress has passed a law giving them authority over to order the cable companies to do that.
How much, if any, of that "public land" is federal land? The Federal government does not have any more authority over land owned by the local township (or by one of the states) than it does over land owned by the local barber.
Small players are often able to make great strides when market conditions are volatile. Small players are generally able to adapt to changing market demands more rapidly than large players. If you want to understand this compare these two lists of the top 100 companies on the Fortune 500 list in 1960 . and Fortune 500 list in 2010 .. Notice how many of the companies on the first list are not on the second list.
No, my point is that "carbon trading" is custom made for companies like Enron whose business model was based on making transactions that extract value from the system, rather than adding value to the system.
Enron entered a market that was designed to facilitate transactions between energy companies in a way that added value to what was going on. Enron figured out how to extract value from that market rather than add value. What happened to Enron is what happens whenever someone tries to make money by extracting value from a market rather than from adding value to the market.
As to the idea that regs cut both ways, when have regs ever not favored the big player over the small player in a given market?
You make a very good point. The term I have seen used to describe what you are talking about is "rule of law". The laws are known, they are understandable, they apply the same to everyone and they change infrequently with substantial advance warning. The closer a political unit is to true rule of law, the better it does economically. The longer a political unit functions according to something that closely approximates the rule of law, the more likely it is to have some variation of a truly democratic government.
Real open source would be making it a right to work state and getting rid of union control. Real open source would be to get rid of the government control and let people figure things out. What he seems to be proposing is nothing more than leveraging best practices.
There is not enough information in the article to know what all he means by the phrase. However, do not be so sure that he will not attempt to make Michigan a right to work state.
At this point it would be impossible to tell if the term "open source" is being abused here, there just isn't enough information in this article to know what he means by it (or if it is just a phrase calculated to push the right buttons with people). However, by using it in this context, Governor Snyder increases the public perception of "open source" as a good thing.
It is an idea thought up by those paragons of business ethics at Enron. Ok, maybe they didn't think up the idea, but they were early promoters of the idea. Enron quickly saw the promise in such a scheme. It fit right in with their business model.