I agree with you 100%. You're not arguing against any perceived point in my post, are you? Just wondering why you made it a reply to my post rather than posting it at the top level.
What I found interesting is that a guy who was burned in 1600 "was a sensational figure as the 17th century drew to a close..."
=)
Just a little math problem, no big deal. =)
Anyway, he sounds like a good guy, but I'm not sure if he'd make it today or not. In this age of television and photographs and instant transmission of text, you have to be pretty charismatic to succeed (with few exceptions). It takes a particular personality. Maybe Bruno had it, maybe not, but clearly thought-out, potentially radical ideas are no guarantee of anything.
Ben Franklin was a good example too. He had a lot of cool ideas, but his character has been called into question in the past. You just now that in today's world, any indiscretions would be immediately pounced upon, and no one would pay attention to poor Ben's virtues.
Now, imagine them sitting with their grandkids, looking through the old wedding 'screenshots.' ^_^
Yeah, and instead of laughing at the hairdos and fashion like we always have, they can laugh at the primitive SVGA resolutions and 2-dimensional images. =)
Apparently that just takes a while. =) My original post (to start this thread) was modded up to 3 pretty quickly. It's totals now are +5 Insightful, +2 Interesting, and -6 Overrated. Go figure. =)
Well hey, at least I don't resort to baseless and unimaginative insults against those I don't know. Your point would have been much better if 1) it hadn't been made before and 2) you had actually tried to stick to the issues.
That said, I agree that polls can be notoriously inaccurate. You'll notice that my original post makes no claims as to the veracity of the poll results.
My point was that many of us here on Slashdot need to step back sometimes and stop pouncing on every little tidbit that may or may not point to even the most insignificant wrongdoing by Microsoft.
I'm afraid I also have to comment on your suggestion that I go form my own non-MS-bashing version of Slashdot. I should point out that the snowball effect could quickly result in thousands of mini-slashdots, which would defeat the whole purpose. The point is the interaction, and you can't interact if you're segregated.
Yep, I'm sure there's no possible way that these results could be arrived at unless they were somehow biased, huh?
It's time for some of us to wake up and realize that the rest of the world does not always think the same way the Slashdot community does.
If the results had come from a Linux company and indicated that 75% of Americans wanted Microsoft to be broken up into Baby Bills, would anyone be spouting claims of bias?
I do recall hearing about this a few months ago. As it turns out, Cruithne is not a moon in the general sense of the word -- it does not orbit Earth. A Trojan asteroid actually shares a solar orbit with its companion planet. Cruithne's orbit is highly inclined -- actually passing underneath Earth at some points -- and is quite mind-boggling to conceive.
The orbit is a series of spiraling loops that form an overlapping horseshoe, with the Earth in the overlap. This orbital pattern therefore revolves around Sol along with Earth. Very strange, and pretty unusual (actual rarity is difficult to establish).
The distinction between the two professions is becoiming clearer to me now. However, as a Computer Science graduate myself, I can say that I don't feel it left me totally unprepared for working as a programmer. At my alma mater, the Software Engineering and Computer Science curricula are nearly identical until the third year (differences: SE majors must take one year of Physics and must take Software Engineering II; both are optional for CS majors).
The one thing I haven't figured out yet is, if Computer Science (strictly) isn't really for software development, what is it for? I thought it was very useful to get some training in algorithms and grammars, etc. (the Science of Computer Science), but I sure as heck wouldn't want to do it for the rest of my life!
Fortunately, my school's CS curriculum mixes in plenty of programming and software engineering-type coursework, so I still feel I was left with a good foundation.
Okay, everyone laugh at 20-something Bill Gates. Ready, on three. One, two, three. HA HA HA.
Right, now that that's over with, can we actually have an intelligent discussion of the issues without letting anti-MS and anti-BG biases show through?
No?
I see.
Well, I'll try anyway. I think he made some good points in this interview. Sure, he came across as somewhat agressive -- but you don't get to be a multi-billionare by being passive. The interviewer was a little on the agressive side too.
His points on copyrights are often forgotten nowadays... if I write a piece of software, that software belongs to me (assuming I didn't give the rights to it away to my employer or someone else). I can do whatever I want with it. *I* own it; *I* am responsible and in charge of its distribution. If I want it distributed freely, fine. If I want people to pay for it, fine. The point is that the choice is *mine* to make.
Bill Gates' points about copyright law and how they apply (or applied then) to software were quite good, if you can get past the "what an idiot he is," stage of thinking.
For the record, Disney will no longer be doing this. All but ten of their animated features will be available permanently from now on; the other 10 are part of their platinum collection and will be available for one year each on a ten-year cycle.
Of course you could... it'd take about 250 years on a 386 to fully render 24 frames per second of Jar Jar Binks for however long he was on screen, but hey, the point is you *could*. Sheesh. Grow up.
I can get to my user info page by clicking on "Powers" up above the first article where it says "This page generated by a _____ of _____ _____s for Powers." One click only. =) And yes, I check it often to see if anyone has responded to my posts. The only disadvantage is that you have to remember how many replies there were the last time you looked. =)
I knew there were a lot of libertarians on Slashdot, but I had no idea how extreme they were in their views.
I'm no authoritarianist, but it seems to me that the level of paranoia exhibited and liberty desired amongst those who responded to my post is only a step or two removed from full-fledged anarchy!
Maybe I'm at the wrong website. I'd heard Slashdot was a good forum for geeks to get their news and discuss issues, but what I'm seeing is more of a place for Open Source advocates and libertarians to pat each other on the back and have their beliefs validated...
Uhh, last time I checked, the government had to compensate private citizens for confiscation of property, such as land taken to build highways.
Are you saying that the government shouldn't have the right/responsibility to make use of land just because a private citizen owns it? I also see nothing wrong with allowing police to confiscate cars when needed to perform their duties, as long as the owner is compensated for the loss. Sure, I'd be ticked if they did it to me, but it's just one of those things that you have to deal with in the interest of the greater good.
Weird stuff... although you have to admit that the owner's description of events is necessarily one-sided. I'm not saying it's wrong, but it's good to have both sides of any story (I know, that's what the interview is for -- but he didn't discuss the specific event in much detail).
If Slashdot is so concerned about what this might mean for the tinkering geek, why didn't they ask the interviewee specifically about that?
Finally, I find it odd that I heard nothing about this in the local media (I live in Rochester). No letters to the editor, no articles in the paper, nothing. Might have been something on TV news, but I doubt it (since there was nothing in the newspaper).
Yeah, Uri Geller's a fake. His lawyers had a bit of a row with Cecil Adams back when they thought he was criticized in one of the Straight Dope books. Well, I suppose he actually was criticized -- Cecil does that to most anyone, particularly frauds -- but it wasn't anything they could sue over.
Anyway, as much as I hate to say it, Uri Geller clearly has a case here, and he ought to win, but $97 is far too much. Yes, Pokemon has been a huge moneymaker, but how much of that can be attributed to that one, single Pokemon? If it was Pikachu, maybe, but Un Geller? No way.
Darn you... you stole my idea for a post! =) I mean seriously, let's try a bit of truth in advertising. Sure, Slashdot posts news items of general interest to geeks, but probably 30%-50% of the stories are open source, and these awards are almost exclusively so. I'd really like to see a scaling back of the Open Source rhetoric/hysteria/oversaturation.
Don't hold your breath about it getting produced, unless you can send Mike some good ideas for actual show segments. The key is for him to be able to turn the situation into a good segment, and his in-your-face style would be hard to implement against an Internet-only company.
On the other hand, I suppose it can't hurt to keep trying. It is a good idea, and if anyone can give eToys the satirical dressing-down it needs, it's Michael Moore.
I dunno... Dubya is quickly losing respect, based on what I've read in the press. Okay, so the press is historically rather liberal, but still...
Everyone who's taken issue with my concept of moderatism is missing my point. Obviously, while the candidates do drift center-ward when national elections come 'round, they're still on opposite sides of center. The difference may not be extreme, but it's there. Otherwise, there'd be no difference between the candidates' platforms, and we all know that isn't true.
Just read Harry Browne's platform as reported on selectsmart.com. Now that's scary...
Well, here's the deal. All presidents tend to moderate their positions once they take office (a gross generalization, but mostly true), particularly when the other party has a majority in Congress. They have to in order to avoid completely alienating most of the Congress.
But Clinton is no moderate anyway. He may moderate his views a bit based partially on public opinion, but we did elect him to represent us, so it's good that he tries to get a handle on what we, as a group, want. His political positions, though, remain pretty liberal.
Personally, I'm pretty moderate (slightly left-leaning), but moderates don't win elections. You have to have some issue on which you take a stand. Unfortunately, us moderates have to decide upon which issues we least mind a candidate taking a stand.
The top choice selected for me by the Presidential Selector was the Socialist party candidate. Yeah right. We may agree on a few selected issues, but there's this whole thing called "fundamental system of government." A socialist president just would not work under our current Constitution. The premise is actually kind of silly.
The next choice on the list was somewhere around 20 percentage points lower, and was a virtual tie between Bradley and Gore, I think. The more I hear about Bradley, the more I like him, but I fear he may not have much chance against the VP. And as I live in New York State, I can't vote in the Democratic Primary to help choose between them (only members of a party can vote in their primaries here).
Oh well. I figure it's kind of silly to start making choices when I don't even know who'll be the final candidates!
The author said "Maybe" in regards to the Y2K bug in 2000. He's missing the point. Whether or not the bug results in disruptions in service anywhere in the world, the process of fixing the bug and guaranteeing compliance has cost the world economy billions of dollars.
Granted, some of that money goes to employees, who then recycle it back into the economy, but most of it is in the form of lost productivity and revenue, which isn't recoverable. The Y2K bug has already taken its toll, and definitely should have been on the list (under "1970s", perhaps?).
Slashdot Mirror
=)
Just a little math problem, no big deal. =)
Anyway, he sounds like a good guy, but I'm not sure if he'd make it today or not. In this age of television and photographs and instant transmission of text, you have to be pretty charismatic to succeed (with few exceptions). It takes a particular personality. Maybe Bruno had it, maybe not, but clearly thought-out, potentially radical ideas are no guarantee of anything.
Ben Franklin was a good example too. He had a lot of cool ideas, but his character has been called into question in the past. You just now that in today's world, any indiscretions would be immediately pounced upon, and no one would pay attention to poor Ben's virtues.
Ah well, such is life.
Yeah, and instead of laughing at the hairdos and fashion like we always have, they can laugh at the primitive SVGA resolutions and 2-dimensional images. =)
That said, I agree that polls can be notoriously inaccurate. You'll notice that my original post makes no claims as to the veracity of the poll results.
My point was that many of us here on Slashdot need to step back sometimes and stop pouncing on every little tidbit that may or may not point to even the most insignificant wrongdoing by Microsoft.
I'm afraid I also have to comment on your suggestion that I go form my own non-MS-bashing version of Slashdot. I should point out that the snowball effect could quickly result in thousands of mini-slashdots, which would defeat the whole purpose. The point is the interaction, and you can't interact if you're segregated.
It's time for some of us to wake up and realize that the rest of the world does not always think the same way the Slashdot community does.
If the results had come from a Linux company and indicated that 75% of Americans wanted Microsoft to be broken up into Baby Bills, would anyone be spouting claims of bias?
The orbit is a series of spiraling loops that form an overlapping horseshoe, with the Earth in the overlap. This orbital pattern therefore revolves around Sol along with Earth. Very strange, and pretty unusual (actual rarity is difficult to establish).
Here are some decent drawings and explanations of the phenomenon.
The one thing I haven't figured out yet is, if Computer Science (strictly) isn't really for software development, what is it for? I thought it was very useful to get some training in algorithms and grammars, etc. (the Science of Computer Science), but I sure as heck wouldn't want to do it for the rest of my life!
Fortunately, my school's CS curriculum mixes in plenty of programming and software engineering-type coursework, so I still feel I was left with a good foundation.
Right, now that that's over with, can we actually have an intelligent discussion of the issues without letting anti-MS and anti-BG biases show through?
No?
I see.
Well, I'll try anyway. I think he made some good points in this interview. Sure, he came across as somewhat agressive -- but you don't get to be a multi-billionare by being passive. The interviewer was a little on the agressive side too.
His points on copyrights are often forgotten nowadays... if I write a piece of software, that software belongs to me (assuming I didn't give the rights to it away to my employer or someone else). I can do whatever I want with it. *I* own it; *I* am responsible and in charge of its distribution. If I want it distributed freely, fine. If I want people to pay for it, fine. The point is that the choice is *mine* to make.
Bill Gates' points about copyright law and how they apply (or applied then) to software were quite good, if you can get past the "what an idiot he is," stage of thinking.
I knew there were a lot of libertarians on Slashdot, but I had no idea how extreme they were in their views.
I'm no authoritarianist, but it seems to me that the level of paranoia exhibited and liberty desired amongst those who responded to my post is only a step or two removed from full-fledged anarchy!
Maybe I'm at the wrong website. I'd heard Slashdot was a good forum for geeks to get their news and discuss issues, but what I'm seeing is more of a place for Open Source advocates and libertarians to pat each other on the back and have their beliefs validated...
Are you saying that the government shouldn't have the right/responsibility to make use of land just because a private citizen owns it? I also see nothing wrong with allowing police to confiscate cars when needed to perform their duties, as long as the owner is compensated for the loss. Sure, I'd be ticked if they did it to me, but it's just one of those things that you have to deal with in the interest of the greater good.
If Slashdot is so concerned about what this might mean for the tinkering geek, why didn't they ask the interviewee specifically about that?
Finally, I find it odd that I heard nothing about this in the local media (I live in Rochester). No letters to the editor, no articles in the paper, nothing. Might have been something on TV news, but I doubt it (since there was nothing in the newspaper).
Very odd indeed...
Anyway, as much as I hate to say it, Uri Geller clearly has a case here, and he ought to win, but $97 is far too much. Yes, Pokemon has been a huge moneymaker, but how much of that can be attributed to that one, single Pokemon? If it was Pikachu, maybe, but Un Geller? No way.
On the other hand, I suppose it can't hurt to keep trying. It is a good idea, and if anyone can give eToys the satirical dressing-down it needs, it's Michael Moore.
Everyone who's taken issue with my concept of moderatism is missing my point. Obviously, while the candidates do drift center-ward when national elections come 'round, they're still on opposite sides of center. The difference may not be extreme, but it's there. Otherwise, there'd be no difference between the candidates' platforms, and we all know that isn't true.
Just read Harry Browne's platform as reported on selectsmart.com. Now that's scary...
But Clinton is no moderate anyway. He may moderate his views a bit based partially on public opinion, but we did elect him to represent us, so it's good that he tries to get a handle on what we, as a group, want. His political positions, though, remain pretty liberal.
The top choice selected for me by the Presidential Selector was the Socialist party candidate. Yeah right. We may agree on a few selected issues, but there's this whole thing called "fundamental system of government." A socialist president just would not work under our current Constitution. The premise is actually kind of silly.
The next choice on the list was somewhere around 20 percentage points lower, and was a virtual tie between Bradley and Gore, I think. The more I hear about Bradley, the more I like him, but I fear he may not have much chance against the VP. And as I live in New York State, I can't vote in the Democratic Primary to help choose between them (only members of a party can vote in their primaries here).
Oh well. I figure it's kind of silly to start making choices when I don't even know who'll be the final candidates!
Granted, some of that money goes to employees, who then recycle it back into the economy, but most of it is in the form of lost productivity and revenue, which isn't recoverable. The Y2K bug has already taken its toll, and definitely should have been on the list (under "1970s", perhaps?).