I think this editorial is misleading about the nature of slashdot moderation.
Being a full-time professional C/C++ programmer for 13 years who is writing a book on politics and philosophy, I was very excited when I first discovered slashdot; however, I made two posts in the past that were insightful and interesting (otherwise I would not have posted them). They contained not one offensive word and were clearly on topic. However, one was moderated down as flamebait and the other as off topic. The only explanation could be that moderators simply disagreed with me.
That kind of moderation means that slashdot readers like me who dare to veer from the party line will lose interest in slashdot for two reasons. One is because no one wants to waste time writing a post if no one else is going to read it, and the second reason is that many people don't feel like they're learning anything new when 98% of posts tout the party line and often do so with inflammatory language.
The opposite is also true. I have seen posts that are very interesting get a 3, while a post that could not possibly be of interest to anyone except a publisher of an academic journal at MIT gets a 5!
This post will probably be my last attempt to share insight on slashdot. If you guys don't want my kind here, then moderate away.
Windows NT includes many technical innovations that DOS did not have. Who cares how Microsoft got their technology as long as they did not steal it?
I have been developing commercial software using Microsoft technologies for 13 years and they have worked fine, been easy to use, and they have been affordable.
Note that these are not my opinions. These are direct observations. These points are not up for debate.
Note I said they worked fine. I would prefer something that is better and cheaper - and even easier to use. That is why I am looking at Linux. Also, I especially like the virtues of open source.
Microsoft can't force anything. They don't have any guns. They aren't going to send Luige over to break your legs. They can't make you buy their products. They can't stop you from buying their products.
They can only hire lawyers to try to persuade the government to force someone to do something or stop doing something.
I think Microsoft is not doing anything that any other company wouldn't do if they were in Microsoft's position.
If slashdot posters tried to fight the government as hard as they try to fight Microsoft, maybe then something would change.
Re:Atomic Operations are key
on
Why Not MySQL?
·
· Score: 1
A server does not need intensive graphics. Therefore, perhaps an OS sould be optimized for a particular role.
Is there any balanced and concise source that compares the architecture of multiple operating systems? My background: I primarily code business logic and client/server logic using C++ on Windows.
Does anyone remember when the ADL got caught a few years ago illegally spying on Americans? The only details I remember are that they maintained a database on thousands of Americans who anyone reported to them had criticized them or said or done anything anti-Semitic, and they actually acquired police databases illegally. I seem to recall that they had tried to harm the people in their database, but I don't remember any details. This story received surprisingly little press coverage. If the KKK had done this, we would still be hearing about it.
The questions reveal insight into Republican vs. Democrat vs. Independent values.
One question reveals that significantly more Democrats would support a government regulation even if it meant that technological innovation would be slowed. In other words, Democrats are more likely to agree with the unabomber that technology is bad, and they are more likely to think that the government would never make a regulation if it were harmful.
Another question reveals that significantly more Democrats would want to see Microsoft regulated even if it meant they would have to pay more for software. In other words Democrats are more likely to prefer to see everyone equally poor than to see a world where everyone is wealthy but some are much more wealthy than others.
Unlike this book, I foresee an increasingly dynamic and profitable future if the government continues to allow the naturally exponential pace of innovation. Any government involvement would inevitably be a form of order-by-means-of-stagnation.
However, stuff happens, and any problem at all is a chance for a politican to champion the interests of the people, and just as with so many other fields, we would never realize the wonderous future we had given up to benefit the careers of politicians and the fears of bureaucrats.
As for why there are some problems:
The benefits of good design such as extensibility, flexibility, and reusability seem less important now that a monkey can rapidly develop software with a slick interface using today's development tools. If software needs change, it is not such a big deal to write new software.
Most businesses are also ignorant of any critical and yet not blatantly obvious requirements such as security, scalability, data integrity, and reliability.
The way that this issue will be resolved in a free market is that the more far sighted companies, who are able to build on their past technology (like MS), will eventually out compete those who want it ALL and want it all NOW. Another way that competition will solve this problem is that companies will develop tools that make it easier to develop software that has a good architecture. Such technologies are currently known as components combined with application servers. Two examples are COM+ and EJB/NAS. Yet a third free market measure is certification tests like those given by Sun and MS.
The fourth, and perhaps the best argument against government involvement, is reputation. The reputations of companies and individual developers will become public knowledge given the Internet, and thus accountability will modify their behavior. Government on the other hand is not accountable - try to stop paying taxes - try to elect someone who is not a Republican or Democrat.
In the case of DOJ vs. Microsoft, who do you think would win if Microsoft chose the winner; therefore, how fair is this trial? Does anyone really believe that the government knows much about business, technology, or economics?
Let's compare Microsoft to the government.
When there is a stable and entrenched monopoly, like a big central government, it can only lose power if there is a revolution.
Microsoft has a monopoly in a rapidly evolving industry where people are free to buy or BUNDLE whatever they want. The worst thing that can happen to us is that we pay a little more for some choices. MS can't actually force anything. MS doesn't have any guns after all. If MS can force anything, it is only through government backing.
Lets compare MS to its competitors.
Given this starting point of instability and limited power, MS could rapidly lose market share if it stops innovating or makes bad decisions. Suppose MS did not change one line of source code. It wouldn't even exist five years from now.
Now you could point out that MS could buy up companies that innovate instead of innovating itself, and we would be using those new technologies instead, but isn't that what most critics want?
MS has always been vulnerable, but its competitors have made so many astoundingly wrong decisions that MS has won by default.
Other companies would have been far more nasty if they were in the position that Microsoft is in, which is one reason they are NOT in the position that MS in. Other companies STILL use the IBM tactic of running only on proprietary hardware, and are grudgingly attempting some backwards compatibility because of competition from MS.
Does anyone really think that the government or MS competitors really care what is in the customers' best interests?
I think that less successful companies are using the government to kill off one of their competitors. I find this far more offensive than anything Microsoft has done.
The VA Linux IPO made me think that I should start an internet or Linux company so that investors would give me 100 or maybe even 1000 times more than my company was worth too, but then I realized that would mean the investors must either be deceived or else they are informed and know they can sell at a profit because someone else will come along and pay more - just like a pyramid scheme.
How is it possible to see light that originated at about the time of the big bang when we are moving through space at less than the speed of light? Wouldn't any light from the time of the big bang long since have passed us by?
Time
I have read that according to relativity a moving object ages more slowly the faster it is moving. If it were moving away, wouldn't this just be the Doppler effect like a redshift? Wouldn't an object moving towards us seem to age faster?
Reality
What evidence is there that our reality is or is not a computer simulation? For example, the speed of light limitation on velocity and the discrete (particle) nature of matter?
Consciousness
It occurs to me that an argument against simulated reality is that computers are ruled based; whereas, humans have free will. However, if the brain is a physical device, it can be simulated by a computer. It seems more plausible that the molecular causes and effects resulting in thought are so complex that it merely seems like free will, and it IS free will in that no other entity is guiding it as far as we know.
Libertarians think the government should not control hardly anything.
What are the alternatives?
Liberals think the government should limit your financial freedom more than your personal behavioral freedom; therefore, they would tax your internet use.
Conservatives think the government should limit your personal behavioral freedom more than your financial freedom; therefore, they would limit what you can see on the internet.
Authoritarians think that the government should control just about everything.
Centrists are those who think the government should control everything in moderation.
To find out where you are on the politicial map, you can spend one minute and take the "world's smallest political quiz" at http://www.self-gov.org.
Consider that we have 100 times more government than we did in 1776. One way the government does this is by proposing such an outrageous law at first, and then many people people will actually be relieved when the final law that is passed ONLY monitors your driving and doesn't remotely control your car. Another technique is to claim there is a crisis. For example, over 30,000 people die on the roads each year!!! Can't you already see the tearful mothers testifying before Congress on TV? Another technique is to point out that other western nations, such as Britain, has even less freedom. It does not make me feel any better to know that we are not as far along the road to serfdom as other nations.
In the case of Microsoft vs. the government, who would you expect to win if Microsoft chose the winner? Likewise, who would you expect to win if the government chose the winner? Therefore, it really doesn't matter how much Microsoft spent; whereas, it would matter very much if it were a case of Joe OpenSourceDeveloper vs. Sun.
Slashdot Mirror
Being a full-time professional C/C++ programmer for 13 years who is writing a book on politics and philosophy, I was very excited when I first discovered slashdot; however, I made two posts in the past that were insightful and interesting (otherwise I would not have posted them). They contained not one offensive word and were clearly on topic. However, one was moderated down as flamebait and the other as off topic. The only explanation could be that moderators simply disagreed with me.
That kind of moderation means that slashdot readers like me who dare to veer from the party line will lose interest in slashdot for two reasons. One is because no one wants to waste time writing a post if no one else is going to read it, and the second reason is that many people don't feel like they're learning anything new when 98% of posts tout the party line and often do so with inflammatory language.
The opposite is also true. I have seen posts that are very interesting get a 3, while a post that could not possibly be of interest to anyone except a publisher of an academic journal at MIT gets a 5!
This post will probably be my last attempt to share insight on slashdot. If you guys don't want my kind here, then moderate away.
I have been developing commercial software using Microsoft technologies for 13 years and they have worked fine, been easy to use, and they have been affordable.
Note that these are not my opinions. These are direct observations. These points are not up for debate.
Note I said they worked fine. I would prefer something that is better and cheaper - and even easier to use. That is why I am looking at Linux. Also, I especially like the virtues of open source.
They can only hire lawyers to try to persuade the government to force someone to do something or stop doing something.
I think Microsoft is not doing anything that any other company wouldn't do if they were in Microsoft's position.
If slashdot posters tried to fight the government as hard as they try to fight Microsoft, maybe then something would change.
Is there any balanced and concise source that compares the architecture of multiple operating systems? My background: I primarily code business logic and client/server logic using C++ on Windows.
Does anyone remember when the ADL got caught a few years ago illegally spying on Americans? The only details I remember are that they maintained a database on thousands of Americans who anyone reported to them had criticized them or said or done anything anti-Semitic, and they actually acquired police databases illegally. I seem to recall that they had tried to harm the people in their database, but I don't remember any details. This story received surprisingly little press coverage. If the KKK had done this, we would still be hearing about it.
One question reveals that significantly more Democrats would support a government regulation even if it meant that technological innovation would be slowed. In other words, Democrats are more likely to agree with the unabomber that technology is bad, and they are more likely to think that the government would never make a regulation if it were harmful.
Another question reveals that significantly more Democrats would want to see Microsoft regulated even if it meant they would have to pay more for software. In other words Democrats are more likely to prefer to see everyone equally poor than to see a world where everyone is wealthy but some are much more wealthy than others.
However, stuff happens, and any problem at all is a chance for a politican to champion the interests of the people, and just as with so many other fields, we would never realize the wonderous future we had given up to benefit the careers of politicians and the fears of bureaucrats.
As for why there are some problems:
The benefits of good design such as extensibility, flexibility, and reusability seem less important now that a monkey can rapidly develop software with a slick interface using today's development tools. If software needs change, it is not such a big deal to write new software.
Most businesses are also ignorant of any critical and yet not blatantly obvious requirements such as security, scalability, data integrity, and reliability.
The way that this issue will be resolved in a free market is that the more far sighted companies, who are able to build on their past technology (like MS), will eventually out compete those who want it ALL and want it all NOW. Another way that competition will solve this problem is that companies will develop tools that make it easier to develop software that has a good architecture. Such technologies are currently known as components combined with application servers. Two examples are COM+ and EJB/NAS. Yet a third free market measure is certification tests like those given by Sun and MS.
The fourth, and perhaps the best argument against government involvement, is reputation. The reputations of companies and individual developers will become public knowledge given the Internet, and thus accountability will modify their behavior. Government on the other hand is not accountable - try to stop paying taxes - try to elect someone who is not a Republican or Democrat.
Let's compare Microsoft to the government.
When there is a stable and entrenched monopoly, like a big central government, it can only lose power if there is a revolution.
Microsoft has a monopoly in a rapidly evolving industry where people are free to buy or BUNDLE whatever they want. The worst thing that can happen to us is that we pay a little more for some choices. MS can't actually force anything. MS doesn't have any guns after all. If MS can force anything, it is only through government backing.
Lets compare MS to its competitors.
Given this starting point of instability and limited power, MS could rapidly lose market share if it stops innovating or makes bad decisions. Suppose MS did not change one line of source code. It wouldn't even exist five years from now.
Now you could point out that MS could buy up companies that innovate instead of innovating itself, and we would be using those new technologies instead, but isn't that what most critics want?
MS has always been vulnerable, but its competitors have made so many astoundingly wrong decisions that MS has won by default.
Other companies would have been far more nasty if they were in the position that Microsoft is in, which is one reason they are NOT in the position that MS in. Other companies STILL use the IBM tactic of running only on proprietary hardware, and are grudgingly attempting some backwards compatibility because of competition from MS.
Does anyone really think that the government or MS competitors really care what is in the customers' best interests?
I think that less successful companies are using the government to kill off one of their competitors. I find this far more offensive than anything Microsoft has done.
Jim Hammond
The VA Linux IPO made me think that I should start an internet or Linux company so that investors would give me 100 or maybe even 1000 times more than my company was worth too, but then I realized that would mean the investors must either be deceived or else they are informed and know they can sell at a profit because someone else will come along and pay more - just like a pyramid scheme.
Creation
How is it possible to see light that originated at about the time of the big bang when we are moving through space at less than the speed of light? Wouldn't any light from the time of the big bang long since have passed us by?
Time
I have read that according to relativity a moving object ages more slowly the faster it is moving. If it were moving away, wouldn't this just be the Doppler effect like a redshift? Wouldn't an object moving towards us seem to age faster?
Reality
What evidence is there that our reality is or is not a computer simulation? For example, the speed of light limitation on velocity and the discrete (particle) nature of matter?
Consciousness
It occurs to me that an argument against simulated reality is that computers are ruled based; whereas, humans have free will. However, if the brain is a physical device, it can be simulated by a computer. It seems more plausible that the molecular causes and effects resulting in thought are so complex that it merely seems like free will, and it IS free will in that no other entity is guiding it as far as we know.
Thanks,
Jim Hammond
What are the alternatives?
Liberals think the government should limit your financial freedom more than your personal behavioral freedom; therefore, they would tax your internet use.
Conservatives think the government should limit your personal behavioral freedom more than your financial freedom; therefore, they would limit what you can see on the internet.
Authoritarians think that the government should control just about everything.
Centrists are those who think the government should control everything in moderation.
To find out where you are on the politicial map, you can spend one minute and take the "world's smallest political quiz" at http://www.self-gov.org.
Consider that we have 100 times more government than we did in 1776. One way the government does this is by proposing such an outrageous law at first, and then many people people will actually be relieved when the final law that is passed ONLY monitors your driving and doesn't remotely control your car. Another technique is to claim there is a crisis. For example, over 30,000 people die on the roads each year!!! Can't you already see the tearful mothers testifying before Congress on TV? Another technique is to point out that other western nations, such as Britain, has even less freedom. It does not make me feel any better to know that we are not as far along the road to serfdom as other nations.
In the case of Microsoft vs. the government, who would you expect to win if Microsoft chose the winner? Likewise, who would you expect to win if the government chose the winner? Therefore, it really doesn't matter how much Microsoft spent; whereas, it would matter very much if it were a case of Joe OpenSourceDeveloper vs. Sun.