"Many groups were suppressed before and during the 2012 election by the IRS targeting"
Do you hear yourself? Political groups are not supposed to be tax exempt. That is what the IRS was looking for: "Is this 501c4 application for a civic group or a political group?" You say that these groups couldn't engage in political activity because of the IRS investigation. That means you are saying they are political groups, not civic groups, and therefore should not have received tax exempt status.
I'm not saying the IRS didn't make very serious mistakes: they did. But your claim that it effected the election is by definition off point.
The point is that Apple is suing HTC because they are using a map to pinpoint a location. I bet that in the last month, there have been a thousand courses taught in colleges and high schools that tell students how to pinpoint locations on maps. Why isn't Apple suing those community college profs instead of HTC?
Do I really need to answer that?
Who came up with mapping technology first? Was it perhaps Google Maps?
Well even if they are scummy, and I'm not saying they are, it is better to be scummy and use solar power than to be scummy and use carbon based power. I'm always ready to hear some good news....
Yes, I think it is great to let private business in some public areas. (But not national parks, for instance.) I don't want it mandated. Private business works well when it expands based on market forces, not by government mandate.
I'm not sure I understand. You want the government to mandate that private businesses start up concessions? I think I need a little icon so I can tell when a message is meant to be ironic and when I should take it literally.
Granted, one can always find individual cases that demand outrage, but overall, the reporting on Congress is more alarmist than accurate. Put 600 people in a room and ask them to make a decision. Any 600 people, any decision. If you'd like, you can just put the people designing C++ or HTML in a room and ask them to come up with a spec. Now give reporters full access to everything they say and do. If, in one week's time, reporters can't make everyone on that random committee look like an idiot, then they aren't trying.
The point is that Congress is not supposed to look pretty. It never has been pretty. It never has been noble. It has always, regardless of who is in power, been preoccupied with petty squabbles and produced absurd compromises. It is, as many have pointed out, the worst system imaginable -- except for all the rest.
The right is now having fun shooting ducks in a barrel by making fun of Congress, just as the left has had fun maligning Congress when the right was in power. All this is very entertaining, but it is shows a fundamental misunderstanding of how government works. All this attention from the press just makes congressman grand stand, and promotes the silliest and most disruptive sound bites without promoting anything useful. The problem is not so much Congress, but the way Congress and the press interact.
It depends what you are trying to do. If you are trying to predict the outcome of the next election, for instance, polling a large number of people is more effective than asking any one expert -- unless the expert happens to be a pollster. If you trying to understand what material appeals to the widest range of readers, then asking for input from a large number of people would be a good idea. If you don't have access to a major media outlet, and you want to reach a large audience, then using social networking skills might be a good idea. Surprisingly, it appears that letting lots of people collaborate on a software project can work also -- so long as you have the right safe guards and project leaders in place. Of course, your point about chess is a good one, and I don't think any number of collaborators would likely create a better novel than Moby Dick. The truth is that this isn't a binary type of thing. Experts are good in some cases, and crowds are good in some cases, and sometimes both are needed.
You don't back up a single one of your "facts." I remember the period quite well, and the fact that the UN inspectors couldn't actually find any WMD before the war was such big news that the White House sent Colin Powell to the UN to try to convince a doubtful world that had already taken to the streets in record numbers to protest America's planned, but unprovoked, invasion of Iraq. It wasn't just a few people who had doubts. Protests of over 1 million people occurred in multiple European cities. Hundreds of thousands of citizens took to the streets to protest here in America, particular in New York, but also in large numbers in San Francisco.
Here are some quotes which are veriviable.
What Bush said on March 18, 2003, the day he announced the invasion, which would occur two days later:
"Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised."
What Rumsfeld said about WMD in Iraq on March 30, 2003 just after the invasion:
"We know where they are. They are in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad."
What he said on May 4, of 2003, after reality had begun to sink in:
"I never believed that we'd just tumble over weapons of mass destruction in that country."
What Condelezza said on May 12, 2003:
"U.S. officials never expected that 'we were going to open garages and find' weapons of mass destruction."
The key George Bush quote, given when signing a defense bill, Aug 5, 2004:
"Our enemies are innovative and resourceful, and so are we. They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we."
I'm not sure I understand. We live in a country in which the press went along with the President when he claimed that there was WMD when there was no WMD, when he claimed there was a nuclear threat when there was no nuclear threat, when he promoted a plan to increase pollution called the "The Clear Skies Initiative", and when he appointed lobbyists from major polluters to run key portions of the EPA. When the President, the Vice President, and the Attorney General all promoted torture, the press called it a patriotic act. How could anything possibly be more unpatriotic, more out of sync with the intentions of our founding fathers, than torture? When the President snoops on citizens in a clear and unequivocal violation of the law, the press goes along with his claims that he has a right to do so. And yet the only type of leader who would possibly have a right to do such a thing would be a dictator.
Given this situation the government feels it needs new outlets for propaganda? If nothing else, such programs would be an obvious waste of our tax dollars. American are subjected to enough propaganda as it is. If we want to send propaganda overseas, all we have to do is let them watch our major news outlets. After all, most Americans are already listening to either Rush Limbaugh or Fox News. What else could a right wing government that promotes torture, major polluters, and snooping on its citizens possibly want for its citizens and the citizens of other countries?
Intel based Linux systems often sell in the $200 to $500 range. How is a machine that costs $999 or $1299 competitive on price with machines that cost one half, one third or even less than one quarter as much? I put together a fast, quiet Linux based small form factor ShuttleX box for $500. I like Macs, but Apple has a ways to go before it can compete on price.
I have to disagree that the CLR is somehow different in kind from the Java virtual machine. I once wrote an article" on this subject, and while researching the article I was surprised to find out that the.NET CLR is "virtually" identical to the Java virtual machine in nearly all its details. The CLR is Microsoft's implementation of the JVM.
For your argument to make sense, you would have to prove that being rich is a positive attribute. But that is not the case. Some people get rich off prostitution, pornography, selling drugs, selling cigarettes, selling weapons to third world despots, exploiting the elderly, exploiting children, winning the lottery, investing in a stock, destroying the environment, etc. These are all ways of getting rich that don't reflect positively on the person who acquired the money.
What you are arguing for is a plotocracy: a society in which power and virtue should be given and attributed to the rich simply because they are rich. Personally, I'm strongly against that idea, and so are most people -- when they stop to think about it.
I'm not in favor of communism, but your statement about the "failure" of communism is patently false. The fastest growing economy in the world today is run by the Chinese communist government. It has been growing at some 8 to 10 percent per year for nearly ten years now, and no one is expecting it to slow down.
This is a remarkable post. It's interesting to see where this logic leads. Following your logic, the following statements become true:
1) I have no kids. Therefore the government should do nothing for education because it doesn't effect me directly.
2) I'm a pacifist, therefore there should be no military since it doesn't effect me directly.
3) I'm a vegetarian, therefore the USDA should stop inspecting meat.
4) I have a friend who does not have a drivers license, therefore highways don't benefit him, so they government never should not have built them, since they don't benefit everyone.
Etc. etc.
In truth, though I don't have children, I believe the argument that I benefit from the education of others because it helps improve the standard of living in this country. And I believe we should have broadband everywhere because it enhances the use of computers, and computers are benefiting everyone in the country by raising our standard of living and our ability to communicate.
Microsoft offers a license to read and write these documents for free. You have to get the license, but the license is free. See this page:
http://www.microsoft.com/Office/xml/faq.mspx
So these comments about having to own Office to read the document are off the point, as are comments about open source software not being able to read the documents.
What is to the point, however, is that Microsoft's license might not be compatible with some open source licenses. This is a telling point, and a real problem with the Microsoft "open" license.
So many of the comments here are just nonsense, spouting paranoid stuff that is off the point. But there is a real issue here, but we need an expert in Open Source licenses to know exactly which licenses are restricted.
The following is the text of a review, sans screenshots, that I have posted on codefez.com.
Gambas is a free, open source, Visual Basic like development environment for Linux. It has a built in visual designer, a built in debugger, components, a properties window (object inspector), and code insight. You can currently access MySQL and PostgreSQL databases from Gambas programs.
Gambas is not source compatible with Visual Basic. Instead, it contains an improved, rearchitected version of the Basic language. There is definitely a good deal of C++ code in the project, but it is rumored that the IDE itself was written in Gambas, just as Delphi was written in Delphi.
The Gambas IDE has free floating windows like the original Delphi, and unlike Visual Studio. There is a green run button just like in Delphi, and you can compile the project to a Linux executable in one step.
Gambas is fast and responsive. On my aging 1700 MHZ Fedora 2 system, I would estimate that response time in the IDE is roughly equivalent with Delphi 1 or 2. There is a barely perceptible lag between the time I push the green run button and the time when the compiled program first appears, but it is well under a second. If I put a break point on the first line of code in a button response method, I can sense that there is a lag before I hit the break point, but it is not a humanly measurable period of time. It is not quite instant, but it is a small enough period of time that I am not able to measure it.
A color coded version of CodeInsight appears instantly when you need it. If I type in a variable, such as ListBox1, then type a period, the list of methods on the object appears as quickly as my machine can redraw. CodeInsight picks up on new methods that I add to my main class instantly, without me having to recompile the code. For instance, if I add a method called Foo to my main class, then Gambas sees it immediately when I type the period after the word me. (me plays the same role in Basic as the words this or self do in Java, C++ and Delphi. It is a way of referencing the current object.)
Gambas has an event model very similar to the Delphi or VB 6. You can access the list of built in events for a component by right clicking on it. For instance, if you right click on a button, you can choose Events from the popup menu, and then select one of 16 events to automatically create the wrapper code for your event. Selecting the DblClk event creates the following code:
PUBLIC SUB Button1_DblClick()
END;
Other events you can create on a button include: Click, Drag, DragMove, Drop, Enter, GotFocus, KeyPress, KeyRelease, Leave, LostFocus, Menu, MouseDown, MouseMove, MouseUp and MouseWheel. You can see the popup window for creating these events in a screenshot.
Gambas has a simple toolbox, containing about 25 components, as shown in Figure 4. You can double click the icon for any of these components in the ToolBox to make an instance of the component appear in the upper left hand corner of the currently selected form.
Gambas comes with the following built in components: Label, Image, TextLabel, ProgressBar, Button, CheckBox, RadioButton, ToggleButton, TextBox, ComboBox, TextArea, ListBox, ListView, TreeView, IconView, GridView, ColumnView, Frame, Panel, TabStrip, ScrollView, DrawingArea, Timer, GambasEditor, LCDNumber, Dial, SpinBox, ScrollBar, Slider, TableView, Splitter, Workspace.
I did not detect any context sensitive help, but pressing F1 brought up the help file in less than one second. I was then able to search on the name of my currently selected component to get very minimal, but complete, hyperlink style help. For instance, if I typed in the word Button, I got a list of the properties, methods and events on the button. If I clicked on the name of any of the events or methods, I was taken to a short description of that event or method. The declaration for the item was also listed in the help pane.
The components in Gambas appear to be based on the QT libra
One of the core outcomes of the EU case is that Microsoft needs to open up server standards. If they believe in open standards, why are they losing court cases for not having open standards?
Gosh that sounds weird. I'm just trying to make a simple statement of fact, but there is something surreal about this kind of argument!
Jeff argues that monocultures are inevitable. This is not true. There are mechanisms in place in this country for breaking up monopolies. These techniquest have been used for nearly 100 years, since the presidency of Theodore Rosevelt. Using them in the past has brought great benefit to both consumers and businesses. In particular, one could break up Microsoft by splitting the application group from the OS group. One could furthermore split the browser out of the OS. Much of Jeff's argument depends on the false premise that monocultures in the computer world are inevitable, and can't be avoided. Take this point out, and the article has a very different flavor.
I consider myself pretty tough on Microsoft, and I particularly don't like the registry, and definitely prefer text files. And contrary to the opinion of the other person who replied to you, there are standard APIs for accessing the values in.INI files or property files.
But nevertheless, I have to say that it is unfair to claim that the Registry is easily corrupted. It can be corrupted, and if it is corrupted, really, really, bad things happen. Nevertheless, it very rarely does get corrupted, and a back up copy is kept, and I believe installed automatically if necessary.
It is fair to say that the registry is a bad idea, and that if it is corrupted the system could completely collapse, making it a serious single point of failure. But it is not fair to say that it is easily corrupted. I'm not sure I've seen a case of a corrupted registry in the last 5 or 6 years, though I did used to see them from time to time back in the good old days.
Of course, if someone has some compelling stories of registry corruption, it would be interesting to hear them. And though I'm sure such stories exist, I bet they are rare.
By the way:
You can add information to the registry from the command line. Create a file with a.REG extension, put the right data in it like this:
- - REGEDIT
HKEY_CLASSES_ROOT\TestApp.Application = Delphi Automation Server Test App
- -
Now type:
start myFile.reg
and it goes into the registry.
Final note,.NET programming brings back text files for configuration in the form of.config files. There are standard APIs for accessing their settings. So it looks like even Microsoft is finally admitting that the registry might not have been such a good idea.
People forget that writing is a form of thought. In a sense, it even reflects the soul of the person who writes.
The beauty of a satire like this is that it exposes not just the absurdity of the text being parodied, but the spiritual depravity that made such texts posssible. It shows the texture and opagueness of the shutters that have been drawn over the souls of people who actually believe that such writing can possibly have meaning.
On a more practical note, the primary means that such people employ when constructing their deceptive texts is to make up non-sensical nouns or noun phrases and then treat them as if they had meaning. For instance, this satire contains the following sentence fragment: "These three things, Vulnerability Detection, Exploit Development, and Attack Execution, were used by Immunity to determine the costs to 0wn the different operating systems." As technical people, we read sentences like this all the time. Generally, such sentences mean absolutely nothing. We repeat phrases like "Attack Execution," too embarrassed and too confused to admit even to ourselves that we have no idea of what they mean, or even if they are capable of meaning. These are entirely exploitative sentences and phrases, and have no substance whatsoever beyond what we endow them with by virtue of our blindness and fear.
Here, of course, the phrases are designed to have a meaning opposite to their apparent value. In other words, they are means of describing not legitimate forms of software analysis, but security exploits. Yet the fact that the parody has a level of meaning generally missing from the text being parodies is just part of the joke.
As a form of thought, the texts being parodied here are primarily viral. They infect not just the reader, but the writer, and ultimately, an entire society.
You talk about fairness. That is an interesting term to use in a case like this.
The problem here is that Microsoft is a monopoly and monopolies are inherently unfair. Microsoft was in fact found guilty of being a monopoly, but powerful forces in Washington let Microsoft off the hook. At first that seemed like a break for Microsoft, but in the long run, I think it will prove even worse for Microsoft than it was for the computer industry as a whole.
I use and like Microsoft products. But monopolies are inherently unfair. With a few very minor exceptions, no company that charges money for its products has been able to compete with Microsoft. The government refused to break up the Microsoft monopoly, and the capitalist system can't spawn a company capable of competing with Microsoft.
But people don't like monopolies. Just as nature abhors a vacuum, so do people abhor a monopoly.
Unable to compete on the business level with Microsoft, computer users have been forced to compete via a new kind of animal: free, open source software. This new animal is very powerful. Over the long run, it will probably prove powerful enough to defeat Microsoft.
The tragedy here is not that Microsoft is a villian that is getting away with something. The tragedy is that the system has failed to stop the monopoly through normal channels. As a result, something new has emerged which does not create as much capital or jobs as a commercial company would.
Frankly, I wish Linux were a commercial product. I would love to see another company compete with Microsoft. Then there would be lots of jobs both at Microsoft, and at the competing company. Instead we have free software. Free software doesn't create as many jobs, or as much capital as commercial software. Capital means money for jobs and money for R&D, and R&D means great new technology.
This system is broken. The monopoly in Redmond should have been broken up. But it wasn't, and the result has been what is happening in Mass. The same thing will probably happen everywhere over time. The only people who can stop it are our elected representatives in Washington. They have a job to do breaking up monopolies. If they do their job, in the long run, it will be better for Microsoft, better for programmers, and better for the computer industry as a whole.
Weird things happen when greed runs rampant. This case in Mass. is one example of the many weird things we will see over the next few years if our government doesn't start doing its job.
To me, it's very simple. Any artist who is any good should be able to go in the studio, start the tapes rolling, and record the CD in 60 minutes, a few hours max, then walk out and go home. Someone then turns the music into MP3 or even some proprietary format that can't easily be copied, and sells the output on the net for $3 or $4 max per album.
The total cost of that kind of distribution should be at most a few thousand dollars. If the artist is really good, they will sell tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands of copies, and make a fortune.
You say that's not realistic? But many of the great albums were in fact recorded exactly that way. Most of the classic Miles Davis, Charles Mingus or T. Monk albums were recorded in one or two takes. The early Beatle's albums, which still sell like crazy, were little more than recordings of the group playing live in the studio. Classic Bob Dylan albums like Blonde on Blonde, Positively Fourth Street or Planet Waves were also basically live recordings with just one or two takes per song.
When the Beatles recorded Sgt Peppers they started this trend toward albums that took a long time and cost huge sums to make. But everyone forgets that they were a huge success before they decided to make that album, and their success was based on what amounted to live recordings in the studio.
So the solution is simple. What are the arguments against it?
You could argue that not everyone has a computer and a good connection to the internet. But if major artists started releasing their albums on the Internet for $3 a pop, then believe me, there would all of a sudden be a lot of people signing up for ADSL, cable, etc. And the profits would go up, and connections would work.
And lots of people would make lots of money. Sure the record companies would lose out. But computer people, and artists, both old and new, would make a lot more than they are making now.
The answer is simple: record albums cheaply, and distribute them on the net for virtually no cost. The only losers would be the record companies and no talent acts that need hours of time in the studio in order to sound decent. Everybody else would gain.
This solution is so obvious that it makes one wonder why it's not happening. The reasoning it's not happening? Because the politicians who control the market are in the direct pay of established corporations. It's not capitalism, it's cronyism. Or more simply, corruption.
A good musician, like Michael Brecker, Joshua Redmon, or Joni Mitchell sounds great when recorded live. They don't need expensive studio time. A major talent like Neil Young, Leonard Cohen or Ani DiFranco sounds just as good live as they do in the studio. Just go in the studio, do your thing, and sell it on the net cheaply. Then all the controversy would end, and a lot of corrupt people would have to get new jobs.
As long time Linux user and big Linux supporter, I find the suggestion that we buy Linux products a bit ironic. The Linux name is very, very closely associated with the idea of free software. (Free in both senses of the word.) So all of a sudden people are supposed to buy the product in order to support the fact that it is free software? No matter how hard it flaps its wings, I'm not sure that particular goose will ever get off the ground. I'm pro Linux, and I'm not against paying money for software, but the combination of the two has a certain inherent contradiction which I believe worthy of contemplation.
Slashdot Mirror
"Many groups were suppressed before and during the 2012 election by the IRS targeting"
Do you hear yourself? Political groups are not supposed to be tax exempt. That is what the IRS was looking for: "Is this 501c4 application for a civic group or a political group?" You say that these groups couldn't engage in political activity because of the IRS investigation. That means you are saying they are political groups, not civic groups, and therefore should not have received tax exempt status.
I'm not saying the IRS didn't make very serious mistakes: they did. But your claim that it effected the election is by definition off point.
The point is that Apple is suing HTC because they are using a map to pinpoint a location. I bet that in the last month, there have been a thousand courses taught in colleges and high schools that tell students how to pinpoint locations on maps. Why isn't Apple suing those community college profs instead of HTC?
Do I really need to answer that?
Who came up with mapping technology first? Was it perhaps Google Maps?
Well even if they are scummy, and I'm not saying they are, it is better to be scummy and use solar power than to be scummy and use carbon based power. I'm always ready to hear some good news....
Yes, I think it is great to let private business in some public areas. (But not national parks, for instance.) I don't want it mandated. Private business works well when it expands based on market forces, not by government mandate.
I'm not sure I understand. You want the government to mandate that private businesses start up concessions? I think I need a little icon so I can tell when a message is meant to be ironic and when I should take it literally.
Granted, one can always find individual cases that demand outrage, but overall, the reporting on Congress is more alarmist than accurate. Put 600 people in a room and ask them to make a decision. Any 600 people, any decision. If you'd like, you can just put the people designing C++ or HTML in a room and ask them to come up with a spec. Now give reporters full access to everything they say and do. If, in one week's time, reporters can't make everyone on that random committee look like an idiot, then they aren't trying.
The point is that Congress is not supposed to look pretty. It never has been pretty. It never has been noble. It has always, regardless of who is in power, been preoccupied with petty squabbles and produced absurd compromises. It is, as many have pointed out, the worst system imaginable -- except for all the rest.
The right is now having fun shooting ducks in a barrel by making fun of Congress, just as the left has had fun maligning Congress when the right was in power. All this is very entertaining, but it is shows a fundamental misunderstanding of how government works. All this attention from the press just makes congressman grand stand, and promotes the silliest and most disruptive sound bites without promoting anything useful. The problem is not so much Congress, but the way Congress and the press interact.
It depends what you are trying to do. If you are trying to predict the outcome of the next election, for instance, polling a large number of people is more effective than asking any one expert -- unless the expert happens to be a pollster. If you trying to understand what material appeals to the widest range of readers, then asking for input from a large number of people would be a good idea. If you don't have access to a major media outlet, and you want to reach a large audience, then using social networking skills might be a good idea. Surprisingly, it appears that letting lots of people collaborate on a software project can work also -- so long as you have the right safe guards and project leaders in place. Of course, your point about chess is a good one, and I don't think any number of collaborators would likely create a better novel than Moby Dick. The truth is that this isn't a binary type of thing. Experts are good in some cases, and crowds are good in some cases, and sometimes both are needed.
- Charlie
Dear Anonymous Coward,
You don't back up a single one of your "facts." I remember the period quite well, and the fact that the UN inspectors couldn't actually find any WMD before the war was such big news that the White House sent Colin Powell to the UN to try to convince a doubtful world that had already taken to the streets in record numbers to protest America's planned, but unprovoked, invasion of Iraq. It wasn't just a few people who had doubts. Protests of over 1 million people occurred in multiple European cities. Hundreds of thousands of citizens took to the streets to protest here in America, particular in New York, but also in large numbers in San Francisco.
Here are some quotes which are veriviable.
What Bush said on March 18, 2003, the day he announced the invasion, which would occur two days later:
"Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised."
What Rumsfeld said about WMD in Iraq on March 30, 2003 just after the invasion:
"We know where they are. They are in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad."
What he said on May 4, of 2003, after reality had begun to sink in:
"I never believed that we'd just tumble over weapons of mass destruction in that country."
What Condelezza said on May 12, 2003:
"U.S. officials never expected that 'we were going to open garages and find' weapons of mass destruction."
The key George Bush quote, given when signing a defense bill, Aug 5, 2004:
"Our enemies are innovative and resourceful, and so are we. They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we."
I'm not sure I understand. We live in a country in which the press went along with the President when he claimed that there was WMD when there was no WMD, when he claimed there was a nuclear threat when there was no nuclear threat, when he promoted a plan to increase pollution called the "The Clear Skies Initiative", and when he appointed lobbyists from major polluters to run key portions of the EPA. When the President, the Vice President, and the Attorney General all promoted torture, the press called it a patriotic act. How could anything possibly be more unpatriotic, more out of sync with the intentions of our founding fathers, than torture? When the President snoops on citizens in a clear and unequivocal violation of the law, the press goes along with his claims that he has a right to do so. And yet the only type of leader who would possibly have a right to do such a thing would be a dictator.
Given this situation the government feels it needs new outlets for propaganda? If nothing else, such programs would be an obvious waste of our tax dollars. American are subjected to enough propaganda as it is. If we want to send propaganda overseas, all we have to do is let them watch our major news outlets. After all, most Americans are already listening to either Rush Limbaugh or Fox News. What else could a right wing government that promotes torture, major polluters, and snooping on its citizens possibly want for its citizens and the citizens of other countries?
Intel based Linux systems often sell in the $200 to $500 range. How is a machine that costs $999 or $1299 competitive on price with machines that cost one half, one third or even less than one quarter as much? I put together a fast, quiet Linux based small form factor ShuttleX box for $500. I like Macs, but Apple has a ways to go before it can compete on price.
http://www.linspire.com/homelink28
I have to disagree that the CLR is somehow different in kind from the Java virtual machine. I once wrote an article" on this subject, and while researching the article I was surprised to find out that the .NET CLR is "virtually" identical to the Java virtual machine in nearly all its details. The CLR is Microsoft's implementation of the JVM.
For your argument to make sense, you would have to prove that being rich is a positive attribute. But that is not the case. Some people get rich off prostitution, pornography, selling drugs, selling cigarettes, selling weapons to third world despots, exploiting the elderly, exploiting children, winning the lottery, investing in a stock, destroying the environment, etc. These are all ways of getting rich that don't reflect positively on the person who acquired the money.
What you are arguing for is a plotocracy: a society in which power and virtue should be given and attributed to the rich simply because they are rich. Personally, I'm strongly against that idea, and so are most people -- when they stop to think about it.
I'm not in favor of communism, but your statement about the "failure" of communism is patently false. The fastest growing economy in the world today is run by the Chinese communist government. It has been growing at some 8 to 10 percent per year for nearly ten years now, and no one is expecting it to slow down.
This is a remarkable post. It's interesting to see where this logic leads. Following your logic, the following statements become true:
1) I have no kids. Therefore the government should do nothing for education because it doesn't effect me directly.
2) I'm a pacifist, therefore there should be no military since it doesn't effect me directly.
3) I'm a vegetarian, therefore the USDA should stop inspecting meat.
4) I have a friend who does not have a drivers license, therefore highways don't benefit him, so they government never should not have built them, since they don't benefit everyone.
Etc. etc.
In truth, though I don't have children, I believe the argument that I benefit from the education of others because it helps improve the standard of living in this country. And I believe we should have broadband everywhere because it enhances the use of computers, and computers are benefiting everyone in the country by raising our standard of living and our ability to communicate.
Microsoft offers a license to read and write these documents for free. You have to get the license, but the license is free. See this page:
http://www.microsoft.com/Office/xml/faq.mspx
So these comments about having to own Office to read the document are off the point, as are comments about open source software not being able to read the documents.
What is to the point, however, is that Microsoft's license might not be compatible with some open source licenses. This is a telling point, and a real problem with the Microsoft "open" license.
So many of the comments here are just nonsense, spouting paranoid stuff that is off the point. But there is a real issue here, but we need an expert in Open Source licenses to know exactly which licenses are restricted.
The following is the text of a review, sans screenshots, that I have posted on codefez.com.
Gambas is a free, open source, Visual Basic like development environment for Linux. It has a built in visual designer, a built in debugger, components, a properties window (object inspector), and code insight. You can currently access MySQL and PostgreSQL databases from Gambas programs.
Gambas is not source compatible with Visual Basic. Instead, it contains an improved, rearchitected version of the Basic language. There is definitely a good deal of C++ code in the project, but it is rumored that the IDE itself was written in Gambas, just as Delphi was written in Delphi.
The Gambas IDE has free floating windows like the original Delphi, and unlike Visual Studio. There is a green run button just like in Delphi, and you can compile the project to a Linux executable in one step.
Gambas is fast and responsive. On my aging 1700 MHZ Fedora 2 system, I would estimate that response time in the IDE is roughly equivalent with Delphi 1 or 2. There is a barely perceptible lag between the time I push the green run button and the time when the compiled program first appears, but it is well under a second. If I put a break point on the first line of code in a button response method, I can sense that there is a lag before I hit the break point, but it is not a humanly measurable period of time. It is not quite instant, but it is a small enough period of time that I am not able to measure it.
A color coded version of CodeInsight appears instantly when you need it. If I type in a variable, such as ListBox1, then type a period, the list of methods on the object appears as quickly as my machine can redraw. CodeInsight picks up on new methods that I add to my main class instantly, without me having to recompile the code. For instance, if I add a method called Foo to my main class, then Gambas sees it immediately when I type the period after the word me. (me plays the same role in Basic as the words this or self do in Java, C++ and Delphi. It is a way of referencing the current object.)
Gambas has an event model very similar to the Delphi or VB 6. You can access the list of built in events for a component by right clicking on it. For instance, if you right click on a button, you can choose Events from the popup menu, and then select one of 16 events to automatically create the wrapper code for your event. Selecting the DblClk event creates the following code:
PUBLIC SUB Button1_DblClick()
END;
Other events you can create on a button include: Click, Drag, DragMove, Drop, Enter, GotFocus, KeyPress, KeyRelease, Leave, LostFocus, Menu, MouseDown, MouseMove, MouseUp and MouseWheel. You can see the popup window for creating these events in a screenshot.
Gambas has a simple toolbox, containing about 25 components, as shown in Figure 4. You can double click the icon for any of these components in the ToolBox to make an instance of the component appear in the upper left hand corner of the currently selected form.
Gambas comes with the following built in components: Label, Image, TextLabel, ProgressBar, Button, CheckBox, RadioButton, ToggleButton, TextBox, ComboBox, TextArea, ListBox, ListView, TreeView, IconView, GridView, ColumnView, Frame, Panel, TabStrip, ScrollView, DrawingArea, Timer, GambasEditor, LCDNumber, Dial, SpinBox, ScrollBar, Slider, TableView, Splitter, Workspace.
I did not detect any context sensitive help, but pressing F1 brought up the help file in less than one second. I was then able to search on the name of my currently selected component to get very minimal, but complete, hyperlink style help. For instance, if I typed in the word Button, I got a list of the properties, methods and events on the button. If I clicked on the name of any of the events or methods, I was taken to a short description of that event or method. The declaration for the item was also listed in the help pane.
The components in Gambas appear to be based on the QT libra
One of the core outcomes of the EU case is that Microsoft needs to open up server standards. If they believe in open standards, why are they losing court cases for not having open standards?
Gosh that sounds weird. I'm just trying to make a simple statement of fact, but there is something surreal about this kind of argument!
Jeff argues that monocultures are inevitable. This is not true. There are mechanisms in place in this country for breaking up monopolies. These techniquest have been used for nearly 100 years, since the presidency of Theodore Rosevelt. Using them in the past has brought great benefit to both consumers and businesses. In particular, one could break up Microsoft by splitting the application group from the OS group. One could furthermore split the browser out of the OS. Much of Jeff's argument depends on the false premise that monocultures in the computer world are inevitable, and can't be avoided. Take this point out, and the article has a very different flavor.
I wish I could think of something interesting to say, but I'm just too blown away to say anything. Absolutely amazing.
I consider myself pretty tough on Microsoft, and I particularly don't like the registry, and definitely prefer text files. And contrary to the opinion of the other person who replied to you, there are standard APIs for accessing the values in .INI files or property files.
.REG extension, put the right data in it like this:
.NET programming brings back text files for configuration in the form of .config files. There are standard APIs for accessing their settings. So it looks like even Microsoft is finally admitting that the registry might not have been such a good idea.
But nevertheless, I have to say that it is unfair to claim that the Registry is easily corrupted. It can be corrupted, and if it is corrupted, really, really, bad things happen. Nevertheless, it very rarely does get corrupted, and a back up copy is kept, and I believe installed automatically if necessary.
It is fair to say that the registry is a bad idea, and that if it is corrupted the system could completely collapse, making it a serious single point of failure. But it is not fair to say that it is easily corrupted. I'm not sure I've seen a case of a corrupted registry in the last 5 or 6 years, though I did used to see them from time to time back in the good old days.
Of course, if someone has some compelling stories of registry corruption, it would be interesting to hear them. And though I'm sure such stories exist, I bet they are rare.
By the way:
You can add information to the registry from the command line. Create a file with a
- -
REGEDIT
HKEY_CLASSES_ROOT\TestApp.Application = Delphi Automation Server Test App
- -
Now type:
start myFile.reg
and it goes into the registry.
Final note,
- Charlie
People forget that writing is a form of thought. In a sense, it even reflects the soul of the person who writes.
The beauty of a satire like this is that it exposes not just the absurdity of the text being parodied, but the spiritual depravity that made such texts posssible. It shows the texture and opagueness of the shutters that have been drawn over the souls of people who actually believe that such writing can possibly have meaning.
On a more practical note, the primary means that such people employ when constructing their deceptive texts is to make up non-sensical nouns or noun phrases and then treat them as if they had meaning. For instance, this satire contains the following sentence fragment: "These three things, Vulnerability Detection, Exploit Development, and Attack Execution, were used by Immunity to determine the costs to 0wn the different operating systems." As technical people, we read sentences like this all the time. Generally, such sentences mean absolutely nothing. We repeat phrases like "Attack Execution," too embarrassed and too confused to admit even to ourselves that we have no idea of what they mean, or even if they are capable of meaning. These are entirely exploitative sentences and phrases, and have no substance whatsoever beyond what we endow them with by virtue of our blindness and fear.
Here, of course, the phrases are designed to have a meaning opposite to their apparent value. In other words, they are means of describing not legitimate forms of software analysis, but security exploits. Yet the fact that the parody has a level of meaning generally missing from the text being parodies is just part of the joke.
As a form of thought, the texts being parodied here are primarily viral. They infect not just the reader, but the writer, and ultimately, an entire society.
You talk about fairness. That is an interesting term to use in a case like this.
The problem here is that Microsoft is a monopoly and monopolies are inherently unfair. Microsoft was in fact found guilty of being a monopoly, but powerful forces in Washington let Microsoft off the hook. At first that seemed like a break for Microsoft, but in the long run, I think it will prove even worse for Microsoft than it was for the computer industry as a whole.
I use and like Microsoft products. But monopolies are inherently unfair. With a few very minor exceptions, no company that charges money for its products has been able to compete with Microsoft. The government refused to break up the Microsoft monopoly, and the capitalist system can't spawn a company capable of competing with Microsoft.
But people don't like monopolies. Just as nature abhors a vacuum, so do people abhor a monopoly.
Unable to compete on the business level with Microsoft, computer users have been forced to compete via a new kind of animal: free, open source software. This new animal is very powerful. Over the long run, it will probably prove powerful enough to defeat Microsoft.
The tragedy here is not that Microsoft is a villian that is getting away with something. The tragedy is that the system has failed to stop the monopoly through normal channels. As a result, something new has emerged which does not create as much capital or jobs as a commercial company would.
Frankly, I wish Linux were a commercial product. I would love to see another company compete with Microsoft. Then there would be lots of jobs both at Microsoft, and at the competing company. Instead we have free software. Free software doesn't create as many jobs, or as much capital as commercial software. Capital means money for jobs and money for R&D, and R&D means great new technology.
This system is broken. The monopoly in Redmond should have been broken up. But it wasn't, and the result has been what is happening in Mass. The same thing will probably happen everywhere over time. The only people who can stop it are our elected representatives in Washington. They have a job to do breaking up monopolies. If they do their job, in the long run, it will be better for Microsoft, better for programmers, and better for the computer industry as a whole.
Weird things happen when greed runs rampant. This case in Mass. is one example of the many weird things we will see over the next few years if our government doesn't start doing its job.
- Charlie Calvert
To me, it's very simple. Any artist who is any good should be able to go in the studio, start the tapes rolling, and record the CD in 60 minutes, a few hours max, then walk out and go home. Someone then turns the music into MP3 or even some proprietary format that can't easily be copied, and sells the output on the net for $3 or $4 max per album.
The total cost of that kind of distribution should be at most a few thousand dollars. If the artist is really good, they will sell tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands of copies, and make a fortune.
You say that's not realistic? But many of the great albums were in fact recorded exactly that way. Most of the classic Miles Davis, Charles Mingus or T. Monk albums were recorded in one or two takes. The early Beatle's albums, which still sell like crazy, were little more than recordings of the group playing live in the studio. Classic Bob Dylan albums like Blonde on Blonde, Positively Fourth Street or Planet Waves were also basically live recordings with just one or two takes per song.
When the Beatles recorded Sgt Peppers they started this trend toward albums that took a long time and cost huge sums to make. But everyone forgets that they were a huge success before they decided to make that album, and their success was based on what amounted to live recordings in the studio.
So the solution is simple. What are the arguments against it?
You could argue that not everyone has a computer and a good connection to the internet. But if major artists started releasing their albums on the Internet for $3 a pop, then believe me, there would all of a sudden be a lot of people signing up for ADSL, cable, etc. And the profits would go up, and connections would work.
And lots of people would make lots of money. Sure the record companies would lose out. But computer people, and artists, both old and new, would make a lot more than they are making now.
The answer is simple: record albums cheaply, and distribute them on the net for virtually no cost. The only losers would be the record companies and no talent acts that need hours of time in the studio in order to sound decent. Everybody else would gain.
This solution is so obvious that it makes one wonder why it's not happening. The reasoning it's not happening? Because the politicians who control the market are in the direct pay of established corporations. It's not capitalism, it's cronyism. Or more simply, corruption.
A good musician, like Michael Brecker, Joshua Redmon, or Joni Mitchell sounds great when recorded live. They don't need expensive studio time. A major talent like Neil Young, Leonard Cohen or Ani DiFranco sounds just as good live as they do in the studio. Just go in the studio, do your thing, and sell it on the net cheaply. Then all the controversy would end, and a lot of corrupt people would have to get new jobs.
- Charlie
As long time Linux user and big Linux supporter, I find the suggestion that we buy Linux products a bit ironic. The Linux name is very, very closely associated with the idea of free software. (Free in both senses of the word.) So all of a sudden people are supposed to buy the product in order to support the fact that it is free software? No matter how hard it flaps its wings, I'm not sure that particular goose will ever get off the ground. I'm pro Linux, and I'm not against paying money for software, but the combination of the two has a certain inherent contradiction which I believe worthy of contemplation.