Every human activity obeys the rules of economics; at its core, economics is the study of how human labor and available resources are allocated.
Yes, that is what economics claims as it's terrority. But that does not mean therefore that economics as it is currenly understood, explains market forces. Which economist predicted the tech stock bubble? (The bubble, not the bubble bursting. That even the man in the street knows).
It was claimed by astrologists all over the world before that the movements of planets are absolutely important to predestigation. It turned out to be wrong.
This is not to denigrate economists, it's much better than astrology. But the point remains - a reality check to the student of economics, to take the claims with a grain of salt. Not every piece of human behaviour is `rational' in economic terms. Is space exploration economic? If yes, why don't we do more of it? If not, why do it at all?
If you want the abuse to stop, then DONT USE MICROSOFT PRODUCTS. EVER. PERIOD. END OF STORY.
MS can put anything they want in their software, and can install it any which way they want, with any conditions they want. If you don't like it, don't buy MS products.
I wish it was that simple. I live MS free, but ever so often, university administrators send a Word document my way, asking me to sign something or approve it before it gets printed. So I get second-order coercion effects. Is there anything in your libertarian philosophy that talks about such effects? Or is that concept too complex for such a sophomoric view of the universe?
Who says no one wanted it? Looking at the feature set, I am confident that had I seen BeOS then, I would have picked it up, along with Linux.
It was too bad for BeOS, and for me, that we were not on each other's radar. And why not? Becuase BeOS had a huge barrier to surmount, to get into the market. That all the industry players were into talks with them indicates interest. But they all dropped the ball, indicating that other factors were at work. To all our detriment.
Just think: by 1997, we could all have a multimedia capable OS with a journalling filesystem. But we could not because of the shortsightedness of the OEMs and the greed of Microsoft.
You miss the point. The point is whether Joe Consumer knowingly makes this choice, or does not. Microsoft's history has always been to decrease, minimize and de-emphasize the fact that an active choice in this matter has to be made.
Two roads diverged upon the road, but most people took the well-travelled one, becuase they didn't know that that treacherous looking one was a road and a viable one!
Are you sure exclusive contracts are legal when you are a monopoly? Are you a lawyer? Do you play one on TV?
IBM was going head to head with Microsoft for a while, then they decided not to. So they worked together to write OS/2. But Microsoft played dirty by spreading the propaganda to developers, telling them to write for Windows, because OS/2, when done, would run Windows applications. Guess what? MS broke development halfway through on OS/2, and ran away with the developers who wrote for Windows, thinking it would be supported by the IBM/MS empire.
IBM was left holding an OS with no market, and MS a with a better kernel than Windows. This better kernel eventually became Windows NT, and then W2K.
This is but another example of MS's anticompetitive sleazy behaviour.
You point out a very interesting inequity in Microsoft's relation with the OEMs. If a this licensing is leaked by a disgruntled Microsoft employee, Microsoft could use this fact to punish that OEM unfairly. The OEM would be hard pressed to prove it was innocent.
It would be a great way to hustle people on the street. "Hey ma! Spare some change? Doesn't matter if you don't have the cash - I can take credit cards. Just beam me the number."
You're missing the point: as a site owner I set it up to convey MY message, nothing more.
If someone else links individual words to a search engine, THEIR search engine, they are most likely interfering with MY message.
I don't possibly see how rendering comes into this...
Well see here. I just cut and pasted your paragraph, and removed all your bold formatting and inserted a link. Did I, or did I not change your message?
This is exactly part of the problem. You are using some impoverished implmentation of annotation osftware which is badly implemented, to argue against annotation.
I see you prescribing to users which annotation should be about. It does not have to be like that. For example, a cross-indexed work of Shakespeare sould have links across his entire body of work that use the imagery of "life as a stage". While viewing Macbeth, you would have a link at that verse, which you can click to acess other references to this metaphor.
Or say a scientific paper which makes use of a term used could be tagged, and you can check when this was used elsewhere in the body of literature. This distinction which you have of "one text" can be quite artificiel, in the ideal hypertext network.
These people don't seem to get what the web it. The whole point of the web is that the web client gets to control where he wants to go, what resources he chooses to download. If I want to write my own browser that creates a link out of every other word, that should be my perogative. If the resulting website looks slanderous/twisted or whatever, it would only look like that to me, nobody else.
This is not to say that the technology is well thought out. Many of the complaints are valid. It is not a good idea to mark commonly used, generic words to be sent to a specific site. It is not a good idea to spread or propagate those links to people who do not want them, or sell to the highest bidder. IMHO, only end-users (or businesses running a company wide intranet) should be able to control exactly which links where.
And this is done because only they know what kind of links satisfy their needs
Face it - the idea behind this is as old as the annotated work. This is just the problem of indexing all over again - which words do you want to put in the index, and which ones not to? The engine that enables one to do this should be lauded, but one should realize that the choice of words to highlight is dependent highly upon one's judgement. Those who think that this judgement can be pushed onto a machine just have not thought hard about what it is that they are automating. Employing such potentially useful functionality for advertising, and the criticism of that as "taking away the hits" seems so banal, so idiotically lacking in perspective.
Metropolis is the update procedure, and simulated annealing refers not just to one algorithm, but a whole class of algorithms which attempt to perform optimization by simulating how spin glass cools.
While I don't disagree with what you are saying overall, I have to question your claim about being "realistic". If one really understands business, shouldn't one be able to udnerstand why VA's stock is still not yet 10cents/share?
There may yet remain factors beyond the consideration of business.
You make some good points, but you dress it up as a rant against the "scientific elites". And then you complain about these "elites" and their "agenda". Sorry, but to me, it is clear who has the agenda or not.
There is a difference between people who live simply, and the simple minded.
Sorry, but I use CDR primarily for data storage
on
RIAA To Target CD-R
·
· Score: 2
Yes, that is right. I make backups of my harddisks by burning the data monthly to disk. I don't see how the RIAA is going to get away with calling all CDR users pirates. If you want a tax, then please tax Music CDRs and leave me alone, okay?
(Of course, we all know what exactly the difference between a Music CDR and Data CDR is).
Aren't you just confusing the messsanger and the message. It is obvbious lots of people don't like RMS. But what he says is true, a huge part of Linux distributions use GNU software, which was written by many people other than the FSF. So use GNU and ignore that guy with the long beard and angry eyes!
That is true, which is exactly how the guy who makes the decision should rationalize away the pressure he feels, NOT pick a fight with someone else.
Nobody claimed democracy was the way to develop quality software. But the decision maker should know when a decision is made based upon technical reasons and when it is for political reasons. If there are no technical considerations for a particular action, why pick a POLITICAL FIGHT?
No problem with that. When I am conscious of it, I can try for "GNU/Linux", but when we are writing stream of consciousness text, it's "Linux". I think that's what respect means - if you are conscious of it, make the effort, but if not, just demand some forgiveness.
Think carefully. You say software A has is distributed under the terms of license G version 2.0 or later.
This means that if someone want to use G version 3.0, he could. But you'll still have the portections afforded by license G version 2.0! Do you think the FSF would undermine themselves by revising version 2.0 to something totally different?
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, that is what economics claims as it's terrority. But that does not mean therefore that economics as it is currenly understood, explains market forces. Which economist predicted the tech stock bubble? (The bubble, not the bubble bursting. That even the man in the street knows).
It was claimed by astrologists all over the world before that the movements of planets are absolutely important to predestigation. It turned out to be wrong.
This is not to denigrate economists, it's much better than astrology. But the point remains - a reality check to the student of economics, to take the claims with a grain of salt. Not every piece of human behaviour is `rational' in economic terms. Is space exploration economic? If yes, why don't we do more of it? If not, why do it at all?
I wish it was that simple. I live MS free, but ever so often, university administrators send a Word document my way, asking me to sign something or approve it before it gets printed. So I get second-order coercion effects. Is there anything in your libertarian philosophy that talks about such effects? Or is that concept too complex for such a sophomoric view of the universe?
It was too bad for BeOS, and for me, that we were not on each other's radar. And why not? Becuase BeOS had a huge barrier to surmount, to get into the market. That all the industry players were into talks with them indicates interest. But they all dropped the ball, indicating that other factors were at work. To all our detriment.
Just think: by 1997, we could all have a multimedia capable OS with a journalling filesystem. But we could not because of the shortsightedness of the OEMs and the greed of Microsoft.
Two roads diverged upon the road, but most people took the well-travelled one, becuase they didn't know that that treacherous looking one was a road and a viable one!
IBM was going head to head with Microsoft for a while, then they decided not to. So they worked together to write OS/2. But Microsoft played dirty by spreading the propaganda to developers, telling them to write for Windows, because OS/2, when done, would run Windows applications. Guess what? MS broke development halfway through on OS/2, and ran away with the developers who wrote for Windows, thinking it would be supported by the IBM/MS empire.
IBM was left holding an OS with no market, and MS a with a better kernel than Windows. This better kernel eventually became Windows NT, and then W2K.
This is but another example of MS's anticompetitive sleazy behaviour.
You point out a very interesting inequity in Microsoft's relation with the OEMs. If a this licensing is leaked by a disgruntled Microsoft employee, Microsoft could use this fact to punish that OEM unfairly. The OEM would be hard pressed to prove it was innocent.
It would be a great way to hustle people on the street. "Hey ma! Spare some change? Doesn't matter if you don't have the cash - I can take credit cards. Just beam me the number."
Well see here. I just cut and pasted your paragraph, and removed all your bold formatting and inserted a link. Did I, or did I not change your message?
I see you prescribing to users which annotation should be about. It does not have to be like that. For example, a cross-indexed work of Shakespeare sould have links across his entire body of work that use the imagery of "life as a stage". While viewing Macbeth, you would have a link at that verse, which you can click to acess other references to this metaphor.
Or say a scientific paper which makes use of a term used could be tagged, and you can check when this was used elsewhere in the body of literature. This distinction which you have of "one text" can be quite artificiel, in the ideal hypertext network.
This is not to say that the technology is well thought out. Many of the complaints are valid. It is not a good idea to mark commonly used, generic words to be sent to a specific site. It is not a good idea to spread or propagate those links to people who do not want them, or sell to the highest bidder. IMHO, only end-users (or businesses running a company wide intranet) should be able to control exactly which links where. And this is done because only they know what kind of links satisfy their needs
Face it - the idea behind this is as old as the annotated work. This is just the problem of indexing all over again - which words do you want to put in the index, and which ones not to? The engine that enables one to do this should be lauded, but one should realize that the choice of words to highlight is dependent highly upon one's judgement. Those who think that this judgement can be pushed onto a machine just have not thought hard about what it is that they are automating. Employing such potentially useful functionality for advertising, and the criticism of that as "taking away the hits" seems so banal, so idiotically lacking in perspective.
Metropolis is the update procedure, and simulated annealing refers not just to one algorithm, but a whole class of algorithms which attempt to perform optimization by simulating how spin glass cools.
Money for the loss of freedom - that's a good trade there.
There may yet remain factors beyond the consideration of business.
You make some good points, but you dress it up as a rant against the "scientific elites". And then you complain about these "elites" and their "agenda". Sorry, but to me, it is clear who has the agenda or not.
There is a difference between people who live simply, and the simple minded.
(Of course, we all know what exactly the difference between a Music CDR and Data CDR is).
That said, it good to hear a libertarian recognize the role of Governement, rather than merely dissing it.
Because if you did, you'd have realized that it was sarcasm.
Hey read the article. CmdrTaco was trying to be sarcastic by using those exact same words as in those astroturfing letters.
Aren't you just confusing the messsanger and the message. It is obvbious lots of people don't like RMS. But what he says is true, a huge part of Linux distributions use GNU software, which was written by many people other than the FSF. So use GNU and ignore that guy with the long beard and angry eyes!
Nobody claimed democracy was the way to develop quality software. But the decision maker should know when a decision is made based upon technical reasons and when it is for political reasons. If there are no technical considerations for a particular action, why pick a POLITICAL FIGHT?
No problem with that. When I am conscious of it, I can try for "GNU/Linux", but when we are writing stream of consciousness text, it's "Linux". I think that's what respect means - if you are conscious of it, make the effort, but if not, just demand some forgiveness.
Well, GNU is largely unpronounceable anyway, so why don't we type GNU/Linux, but say "Lih-nooks"?
This means that if someone want to use G version 3.0, he could. But you'll still have the portections afforded by license G version 2.0! Do you think the FSF would undermine themselves by revising version 2.0 to something totally different?
Then you will find that particular subset to comprise the compile toolchain - GCC, make, etc is dominated by GNU software.