... like many other Apple products, it's very 3 years ago.
Well, given that the "designs" -- if you want to call them -- of Dell et al are very 10 years ago, I guess that means that Apple is 7 years ahead of the pack!
I'd rather pay a little more for these things and have cheap medical care and a decent social security.
I'd give up all of those things for cheap medical care and decent social security. (Hell, I've already given up two of 'em and part of the other two.) I don't think it works that way, though.
Re:Forever War == Starship Troopers after Vietnam
on
The Forever War
·
· Score: 3, Informative
I think of Forever War as sort of an "anti-Starship Troopers. Heinlein's novel rather glamorizes the military in general and the PBI (Poor Bloody Infantry) in particular; Haldeman's book does not.
I think it's worth pointing out that -- contrary to what many people probably assume -- Heinlein thought "Forever War" was an excellent piece of work, and told Haldeman so, in personally and in public.
But that doesn't fit the pre-conceptions that a lot of people have, so it usually gets lost in the generally shallow analysis whenever this comparison comes up...
Wait, a site that was "All ads, all the time" became too popular? And advertisers could track which ads were more popular than others objectively and exactly?
Nope. I mean, they could, but only in that specific context, so the information wasn't useful to them. Adcritic's audience was not the intended audience, and it's unlikely that any statistically meaningful information about the latter could be drawn from the former.
Advertisers probably have much better methods of judging the actual impact of ads than Adcritic could ever be.
I think the important point was in the last paragraph:
In the final analysis, almost anything can be called an addiction if it routinely interrupts life's basic components, including school, work and relationships, he said. The important thing is balance.
I doubt very much that gaming is physically addicting. But I don't doubt at all that -- for some people, in some contexts -- it can be psychologically addicting. That's not unique to gaming, of course, but it's certainly worth being aware of.
True, but federal law also define's corporations as citizens.. ergo, they have a responsibility as a citizen with more ability than the normal "joe/jane average" to the society that bore them.
IANAcorporateL, but that's not federal law, that's the result of various legal precidents. And the legal fiction of a corporate person has AFAIK only been applied to what rights they have, not what responsibilities. In fact, incorporating legally limits the personal responsibilities of the people in the corporation.
The thing that most bothers me about this settlement proposal is not that Microsoft is engaging in yet another huge marketing effort. It's that Microsoft still doesn't *get it*.
...
Microsoft prides itself on providing boundless upward value to stockholders, but it seems to have a huge mental block when it comes to assessing its role in the larger culture.
It's a corporation, it doesn't need to give a shit about "its role in the larger culture." Corporations are, literally, defined as organizations whose primary and over-riding purpose is to increase their financial power. If we want them to act differently, we have to change the definition.
The kids are going to win in the end. They are going to get better computers in the classroom...
No, according to the article, they wouldn't be getting better computers, they'd be getting reconditioned(!) computers and MS software.
Oh dear, I guess I'm "Microsoft bashing" now. And when I say that it was grey and cloudy here this morning, I guess I'm "weather bashing". I'm such a meanie.
I'm sure this is an offer direct from Billy's heart, and the fact that it amounts to a slap on the wrist and would be a grab for more early mindshare and -- thanks to XP/IE defaults -- would enable MS to collect info on a lucrative market segment is purely accidental.
Humans aren't perfect, but applications of technology that remove human control are scary. The increased potential for intentional and accidental abuse are staggering. The scene above was sort of tongue-in-cheek, but in reality, this bus might very well reduce the cost of terrorism to the price of a bucket of paint!
There's a driver at the controls. One of his/her controls is a brake. Problem solved. You are now free to freak out about something else.
(Could be I'm missing their point, but I don't understand why they need the bus to be self-steering if there's gonna be a driver anyway.)
BTW, I was in a hardware store the other day, and they were selling box-cutters! Box-cutters, right out there in the open where any terrorist could have bought as many as they wanted. No permit needed, no waiting-period, nobody checking anybody's papers, nothing. Are those people living in the '90's, or what?
Just wear tinfoil on your head... it totally eliminates the corporate oppression! It really works! I used to be oppressed on a daily basis. But ever since I started where the tin foil hat, people avoid me like the plague! I've even seen people cross the street to avoid walking by me!
People aren't avoiding you 'cause of the tinfoil hat. It's the swoosh brand on your forehead that freaks 'em. They haven't been sufficiently assimilated to want one of their own. Yet.
I don't know if it's "normal business practice", but I have never seen such artistic dancing around the questions.
Well, it seems to be a fairly typical example of CorpSpeak to me. If they're true to form, most of their effort will go into trying to change their image rather than into making any substantive changes.
Making an important decision with very long-term and very serious repercussions when one is scared shitless is not a good idea.
Now that we've been nastily welcomed to the real world, the US public is generally scared shitless (and violently angry, and etc). Rather than demanding that our reps do something, anything, ASAP, this is when they should be moving most carefully.
"A strong conviction that something must be done is the parent of many bad measures." - Daniel Webster
The "semantics" are not an aside. The distinctions are actually very important.
do you see people migrating in large numbers FROM the countries with huge private (or corporate) enterprise or is it the other way around?
If people had a choice between life imprisonment and death row, I think I know which I would see many people choose.
Anyhow, what people often move to avoid -- when they can -- are too often the negative costs of corporatism that corporations externalize whenever they can. Externalizing costs whenever possible improves the bottom line, which is the only goal of corporations... by definition.
That is why countries with majority GDP generated by private enterprises generally do much worse than government-controlled economies... Yeah, right.
(a) GDP is a piss-poor measure of how much better or worse an economy is doing, though it's useful as a statistic to manipulate public policy with. (b) There is very little true "private enterprise" happening, and effectively none that corporations are involved with. (Despite the lip-service their spokesdroids pay to the concept, and the success they've had encouraging people to confuse it with what corporations do.)
Adam Smith disliked the corporations that existed at the time he wrote Wealth of Nations and I have little doubt that he would despise the ones that exist now.
Not true, governments have guns. I doubt seriously any business is going to be able to fight that.
Why would business need guns when it can manipulate governments into using guns for them? It's not like this doesn't happen already (and hasn't been happening for at least decades).
Plus wonderful countries like Brazil and South Africa are starting the horrendous trend of taking property and intellectual rights from corporations.
"Taking them", or taking them back? In any case, that's not exactly "starting the... trend". (a) It's not something new and (b) there's actually less of that than there is of the reverse.
You've heard of "privatization", right? That's where a corporation takes over a government function, and proves that they're at least as good at running a bureaucracy as a government is, and even better at making sure as few benefits as possible get to the people who pay for them.
Governments? Corporations? Two sides of same intentionally-devalued coin. A pox on both their houses.
Even if that were true -- which it isn't, despite what their PR staff tries to tell us -- that would be a sign that our system is even more fucked up than it actually is.
Who can say they're really surpised by this? Perhaps some of you would like to try to justify your Naderism now, eh?
Jeff Raikes, Microsoft's group vice president for worldwide sales and support, was a member of Gore's national finance committee.
If Gore had ended up in office, other decisions may or may not have been made differently. (Mostly, I suspect, the spins would have differed far more than the actual decisions themselves, if one can judge by Gore's ex-boss.) I really doubt it it would have made any difference in this issue.
I can't speak to open source directly, but there are other things that I do that I could do for money but don't. Because -- as astonishing as it may be to some people -- I have found that there are some things worth doing, for which money is inadequate compensation. (Or even, in some cases, would make it less worth doing.)
Apparently they were pulled to keep the information they supplied to the FCC private. I guess "pending" applications are kept private. Ones that have been approved are made public. I guess Palm and Handspring are trying to keep some things as close to their chest as long as possible.
[nod] That's the story, though it seems kind of silly. With stuff like this, there's no such thing as temporarily public. The info is out there now, changing the status of the FCC application won't change that.
Re:Hey Scott Adams, your 15 minutes are up
on
The Ultimate Cubicle
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
[nod] The "ultimate cubicle" is still a fuckin' cubicle, just like an "ultimate jail cell" would still be a fuckin' jail cell.
I agree with Tom Tomorrow:
Scott Adams has an absurdist sense of humor that appeals to me sometimes. It's just that all the articles praising Dilbert were painting it as this radical critique of corporate culture, and I'm sorry, it's just not. The extent to which it critiques corporate culture is to say that bosses are dumb and cubicles are small. I don't necessarily dislike the strip, but Scott Adams shouldn't smile and accept the media's crowning him a radical critic when what he's doing is essentially Blondie updated for the '90s.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, given that the "designs" -- if you want to call them -- of Dell et al are very 10 years ago, I guess that means that Apple is 7 years ahead of the pack!
I'd give up all of those things for cheap medical care and decent social security. (Hell, I've already given up two of 'em and part of the other two.) I don't think it works that way, though.
Everybody take a drink!
"Create value for consumers!"
Everybody take a drink!
"Pervasive computing!"
Everybody take a drink!
"Proactive interactions!"
Everybody take a drink!
I think it's worth pointing out that -- contrary to what many people probably assume -- Heinlein thought "Forever War" was an excellent piece of work, and told Haldeman so, in personally and in public.
But that doesn't fit the pre-conceptions that a lot of people have, so it usually gets lost in the generally shallow analysis whenever this comparison comes up ...
The statements is not incorrect. The implication you take from it is incorrect. "If A then B" does not logically imply "If not-A then not-B".
(Though it is a fairly common mistake, so it could be argued that science writers might want to take it into account when they write their articles.)
Nope. I mean, they could, but only in that specific context, so the information wasn't useful to them. Adcritic's audience was not the intended audience, and it's unlikely that any statistically meaningful information about the latter could be drawn from the former.
Advertisers probably have much better methods of judging the actual impact of ads than Adcritic could ever be.
In the final analysis, almost anything can be called an addiction if it routinely interrupts life's basic components, including school, work and relationships, he said. The important thing is balance.
I doubt very much that gaming is physically addicting. But I don't doubt at all that -- for some people, in some contexts -- it can be psychologically addicting. That's not unique to gaming, of course, but it's certainly worth being aware of.
IANAcorporateL, but that's not federal law, that's the result of various legal precidents. And the legal fiction of a corporate person has AFAIK only been applied to what rights they have, not what responsibilities. In fact, incorporating legally limits the personal responsibilities of the people in the corporation.
...
Microsoft prides itself on providing boundless upward value to stockholders, but it seems to have a huge mental block when it comes to assessing its role in the larger culture.
It's a corporation, it doesn't need to give a shit about "its role in the larger culture." Corporations are, literally, defined as organizations whose primary and over-riding purpose is to increase their financial power. If we want them to act differently, we have to change the definition.
No, according to the article, they wouldn't be getting better computers, they'd be getting reconditioned(!) computers and MS software.
Oh dear, I guess I'm "Microsoft bashing" now. And when I say that it was grey and cloudy here this morning, I guess I'm "weather bashing". I'm such a meanie.
I'm sure this is an offer direct from Billy's heart, and the fact that it amounts to a slap on the wrist and would be a grab for more early mindshare and -- thanks to XP/IE defaults -- would enable MS to collect info on a lucrative market segment is purely accidental.
There's a driver at the controls. One of his/her controls is a brake. Problem solved. You are now free to freak out about something else.
(Could be I'm missing their point, but I don't understand why they need the bus to be self-steering if there's gonna be a driver anyway.)
BTW, I was in a hardware store the other day, and they were selling box-cutters! Box-cutters, right out there in the open where any terrorist could have bought as many as they wanted. No permit needed, no waiting-period, nobody checking anybody's papers, nothing. Are those people living in the '90's, or what?
People aren't avoiding you 'cause of the tinfoil hat. It's the swoosh brand on your forehead that freaks 'em. They haven't been sufficiently assimilated to want one of their own. Yet.
Gross exaggeration makes your point weaker, not stronger.
Well, it seems to be a fairly typical example of CorpSpeak to me. If they're true to form, most of their effort will go into trying to change their image rather than into making any substantive changes.
Tweedle-dum or Tweedle-dee, the fix was in.
Making an important decision with very long-term and very serious repercussions when one is scared shitless is not a good idea.
Now that we've been nastily welcomed to the real world, the US public is generally scared shitless (and violently angry, and etc). Rather than demanding that our reps do something, anything, ASAP, this is when they should be moving most carefully.
"A strong conviction that something must be done is the parent of many bad measures." - Daniel Webster
After all, you'll feel pretty silly with your cupped hands holding your beer...
Only for the first couple of beers.
"Bahrtender! Pahr me ahnutha dubble handful, if ya playse!"
Whatever...
Semantics aside
The "semantics" are not an aside. The distinctions are actually very important.
do you see people migrating in large numbers FROM the countries with huge private (or corporate) enterprise or is it the other way around?
If people had a choice between life imprisonment and death row, I think I know which I would see many people choose.
Anyhow, what people often move to avoid -- when they can -- are too often the negative costs of corporatism that corporations externalize whenever they can. Externalizing costs whenever possible improves the bottom line, which is the only goal of corporations
That is why countries with majority GDP generated by private enterprises generally do much worse than government-controlled economies
(a) GDP is a piss-poor measure of how much better or worse an economy is doing, though it's useful as a statistic to manipulate public policy with. (b) There is very little true "private enterprise" happening, and effectively none that corporations are involved with. (Despite the lip-service their spokesdroids pay to the concept, and the success they've had encouraging people to confuse it with what corporations do.)
Adam Smith disliked the corporations that existed at the time he wrote Wealth of Nations and I have little doubt that he would despise the ones that exist now.
Not true, governments have guns. I doubt seriously any business is going to be able to fight that.
Why would business need guns when it can manipulate governments into using guns for them? It's not like this doesn't happen already (and hasn't been happening for at least decades).
Plus wonderful countries like Brazil and South Africa are starting the horrendous trend of taking property and intellectual rights from corporations.
"Taking them", or taking them back? In any case, that's not exactly "starting the
You've heard of "privatization", right? That's where a corporation takes over a government function, and proves that they're at least as good at running a bureaucracy as a government is, and even better at making sure as few benefits as possible get to the people who pay for them.
Governments? Corporations? Two sides of same intentionally-devalued coin. A pox on both their houses.
Um, no.
Even if that were true -- which it isn't, despite what their PR staff tries to tell us -- that would be a sign that our system is even more fucked up than it actually is.
Who can say they're really surpised by this? Perhaps some of you would like to try to justify your Naderism now, eh?
Jeff Raikes, Microsoft's group vice president for worldwide sales and support, was a member of Gore's national finance committee.
If Gore had ended up in office, other decisions may or may not have been made differently. (Mostly, I suspect, the spins would have differed far more than the actual decisions themselves, if one can judge by Gore's ex-boss.) I really doubt it it would have made any difference in this issue.
I can't speak to open source directly, but there are other things that I do that I could do for money but don't. Because -- as astonishing as it may be to some people -- I have found that there are some things worth doing, for which money is inadequate compensation. (Or even, in some cases, would make it less worth doing.)
[nod] That's the story, though it seems kind of silly. With stuff like this, there's no such thing as temporarily public. The info is out there now, changing the status of the FCC application won't change that.
I agree with Tom Tomorrow:
Scott Adams has an absurdist sense of humor that appeals to me sometimes. It's just that all the articles praising Dilbert were painting it as this radical critique of corporate culture, and I'm sorry, it's just not. The extent to which it critiques corporate culture is to say that bosses are dumb and cubicles are small. I don't necessarily dislike the strip, but Scott Adams shouldn't smile and accept the media's crowning him a radical critic when what he's doing is essentially Blondie updated for the '90s.