I agree with the sentiment. Unfortunately, as an Engineer myself, I can recognize a purposefully obfuscated API when I see one. Not to bring in a little Microsoft bashing in a completely unrelated topic, but this is exactly why the ODF vs OOXML debate is so clearly seen for what it is - rigged to benefit some at the expense of others.
Whether it's a multi-thousand page open specification for what should be a simple doc format, or an even larger and more confusing tax code that only specialized lawyers can understand is not the point. Instead, it is just one more case of the already wealthy, advantaged, and powere advantaging off an uneven playing field. Not uncommon at all in the modern US.
If anything, legacy code will be Microsofts downfall...
Agreed. Microsoft's biggest hurdle is a revenue model based on keeping the user tied to legacy APIs. Unfortunately, the minute they create an elegant module-based kernel that allows plugging in multiple VMs, Pandora's box opens up.
When any versionX of MS Office can run on top of any version of MS Windows via some virtual machine, versionX of MS Office (and also Photoshop, QuickBooks, etc) now runs on Mac, Linux, GoogleOS, the web, too. The lock-in, and Microsoft's cash cow, thus end.
Agreed - AT&T is a definite negative to the US tech market. I'd say slice 'n dice them back up into 10 competing companies, but in the least they need to be restricted from controlling both the ISP/backbone/cable business and also a large part of the wireless system.
The wireless carriers will not have their cake and eat it to. Prices have not come down while technology has improved leaps and bounds - in the US, we all still pay at least $40-$50/month for basic phone service.
There are two markets and the wireless carriers cannot control both simultaneously:
Either I want basic phone service at true cost (see third world countries for reference) of about $5-$10 for metered calls/text without all the bells and whistles.
OR I want Japanese/S.Korea style access, availability, and speed from the platform of my choice, and the wireless carrier is nothing more than a link to the internet, not knowing whether I'm connecting with a phone, pc, or some clever hybrid not manufactured and 'approved' by the wireless corp.
I should not be paying over $70/month for basic phone, text messages, very restricted internet access at special 'hotspots' or reduced bandwidth. I'm soon going to be expecting
Not to be a troll, but how exactly does Obama equal Ron Paul? Seems like Obama doesn't really say much more than the typical Time for Change bs while continuing to stuff his pockets with lobbyist money.
I'll be the first to admit that he can talk the talk, and has the face that voters would go for (unlike Paul, who has all the right ideas, but lacks the charm and looks of those like Romney, Obama, etc), but what the hell does he actually stand for?
Does he ever give concrete examples of what he would support if elected? Usually this means proposing actual ideas instead of just listing off abstract drivel that everyone typically agrees with. Real solutions that I want to hear will always tick off a large group of voters because there are no answers to our real problems that will be a win-win for everyone - someone has to lose out.
For example, Paul has steadfastly supported letting my generation get out of Social Security since it obviously will not be solvent when I actually retire. This pisses off older folks like no other since they depend on me to fund their retirement.
Paul says he would abolish a huge part of the federal government. The rest, including Obama, limit themselves to saying that a change is needed in Washington, though we never learn what constitutes a change.
Paul has been crystal clear regarding immigration - the borders would be closed and there would be absolutely no amnesty. The other candidates tip-toe around the Latino vote with such statements as we definitely need some sort of comprehensive reform that is fair for everyone.
I don't agree with some of Paul's ideas, but I appreciate the fact that he speaks in clear and unambiguous terms. Sometimes one cannot explain a complex idea via a one minute soundbyte, but it seemed like Paul did not try to hide his agenda in order to appeal to everyone.
Is there a source with a list of proof (proposed legislation by Obama, actual voting record, etc)?
Slashdot Mirror
Whether it's a multi-thousand page open specification for what should be a simple doc format, or an even larger and more confusing tax code that only specialized lawyers can understand is not the point. Instead, it is just one more case of the already wealthy, advantaged, and powere advantaging off an uneven playing field. Not uncommon at all in the modern US.
Agreed. Microsoft's biggest hurdle is a revenue model based on keeping the user tied to legacy APIs. Unfortunately, the minute they create an elegant module-based kernel that allows plugging in multiple VMs, Pandora's box opens up.
When any versionX of MS Office can run on top of any version of MS Windows via some virtual machine, versionX of MS Office (and also Photoshop, QuickBooks, etc) now runs on Mac, Linux, GoogleOS, the web, too. The lock-in, and Microsoft's cash cow, thus end.
Agreed - AT&T is a definite negative to the US tech market. I'd say slice 'n dice them back up into 10 competing companies, but in the least they need to be restricted from controlling both the ISP/backbone/cable business and also a large part of the wireless system. The wireless carriers will not have their cake and eat it to. Prices have not come down while technology has improved leaps and bounds - in the US, we all still pay at least $40-$50/month for basic phone service. There are two markets and the wireless carriers cannot control both simultaneously: Either I want basic phone service at true cost (see third world countries for reference) of about $5-$10 for metered calls/text without all the bells and whistles. OR I want Japanese/S.Korea style access, availability, and speed from the platform of my choice, and the wireless carrier is nothing more than a link to the internet, not knowing whether I'm connecting with a phone, pc, or some clever hybrid not manufactured and 'approved' by the wireless corp. I should not be paying over $70/month for basic phone, text messages, very restricted internet access at special 'hotspots' or reduced bandwidth. I'm soon going to be expecting
Not to be a troll, but how exactly does Obama equal Ron Paul? Seems like Obama doesn't really say much more than the typical Time for Change bs while continuing to stuff his pockets with lobbyist money.
I'll be the first to admit that he can talk the talk, and has the face that voters would go for (unlike Paul, who has all the right ideas, but lacks the charm and looks of those like Romney, Obama, etc), but what the hell does he actually stand for?
Does he ever give concrete examples of what he would support if elected? Usually this means proposing actual ideas instead of just listing off abstract drivel that everyone typically agrees with. Real solutions that I want to hear will always tick off a large group of voters because there are no answers to our real problems that will be a win-win for everyone - someone has to lose out.
For example, Paul has steadfastly supported letting my generation get out of Social Security since it obviously will not be solvent when I actually retire. This pisses off older folks like no other since they depend on me to fund their retirement.
Paul says he would abolish a huge part of the federal government. The rest, including Obama, limit themselves to saying that a change is needed in Washington, though we never learn what constitutes a change.
Paul has been crystal clear regarding immigration - the borders would be closed and there would be absolutely no amnesty. The other candidates tip-toe around the Latino vote with such statements as we definitely need some sort of comprehensive reform that is fair for everyone.
I don't agree with some of Paul's ideas, but I appreciate the fact that he speaks in clear and unambiguous terms. Sometimes one cannot explain a complex idea via a one minute soundbyte, but it seemed like Paul did not try to hide his agenda in order to appeal to everyone. Is there a source with a list of proof (proposed legislation by Obama, actual voting record, etc)?
Thanks