I have no problem with giving credit where credit is due, but the original article asks how far this can go. The next step after 'on-boot' messages is application splash-screens (sure they serve to inform and distract from the tima an app uses to start up). Splash-screens that push upgrades and companies are an advertisement.
Where it goes from there is anyone's guess. An active desktop that acts like one of those 'free' Internet serveces where half your screen is devoted to a parade of banner ads??
Each time you run ls you see a text line pushing you to check Red Hat's site for latest sources? Or maybe their current share price?
Open source is the key to preventing this sort of thing, since with compiled code, one it's in there, it's IN there. Maybe a fair trade-off is to put the credits into a standard log file. Each time you install a new app or tool, the acknowledgement gets appended to the 'credits' file, that you can view at your leisure and discresion; without it taking up boot-time screen space.
This would give two benefits. 1) You could redirect it to/dev/null if you don't care, or 2) when things go wrong, you can correlate the error-producing widget to the company/resource that might be able to help. Plus, the file would read like the closing credits in a movie...
OS Kernel : Linus Torvalds Best Boy: Alan Cox Package Manager: Red Hat Gnome Desktop: Miguel de Icaza and friends Visual Effects: 3dfx GNU Software appears courtesy of Richard Stallman DeCSS code NOT produced by the Motion Picture Association of America This OS brought to you by the letters S and B (as in Speach and Beer), and by the number 1.
Remove the letters S, P, A, M, then rot13 to email.
My God man!! Why not PGP it, and provide the public key in the/. 'user info' page. Or better yet, provide the email address as individual HTML links, each character to a different site, the Nth character on which is the actual character to replace the link with to generate the real address.
When this type of obfuscation is necessary, SPAM needs to be killed!
It's been my experience of British comedy in general (Python is a good example) that it has a very deep darkness at the core of all that sillyness. Take Python's Life of Brian for example; or the Ministry of Silly Walks and Mary, Queen of Scotts skits. Mr. Bean also shares this thread - he continually does silly things to out-do cruel fate.
While Python and Bean use physical comedy to bring this darkness across, many British stand-ups show it with quick, sarcastic zingers that make a deep reference to history, or politics or literature. See the Brit version of Who's Line is It Anyways and compare to the US. The Brit version requires thinking to get many of the gags, and the US one goes for much more immediate (dare I say 'mindless') laughter.
Vonnegut (Sirens of Titan in particular) seems to share a common root with British humour, has a similar dark quality, and seems to say that the Universe is fscking with us, despite all of our efforts, to accomplish something which by our standards is totally pointless.
The dark irony is fall-down funny, until we recognize ourselves in the characters who's best efforts are consistently thwarted by the trivial. I think that this sort of self-reflection and 'carrying on with dignity' despite adversity, is a very British trait.
Witness Brit versions of Practical Jokes and contrast to the US version. The British 'victims' try to act normal in an un-natural situation and the effort they put into it is what is funny. Americans (over)react according to the situation, and the excess of their reaction is what's amusing.
It's a very different brand of humour than American sit-coms, home videos and crude (Andrew Dice Clay/Chris Rock) stand-up. "Wazzzup!?" jokes would never fly in Britain, for example.
Oh c'mon. That is such extreme speculation, that it makes absolutely no sense, except as an episode of ST: Voyager.
Life based on Strong Force? Existing in an environment where the gravity and velocities tear atoms apart?
What kind of life would that be? - You'd (literally) have to drag yourself out of bed in the morning. - You'd eat photon pancakes for breakfast. - Commuting to work, by more than a single Planck length, would be killer. - Any attempt to "move up in the world" or to even "get a raise" would meet with complete failure; and due to the conditions, you could not even find a tall building to jump from to end your misery. - Light and fluffy pastries would be but a dream. - All your friends (the Harmoniums) would be down and out. - You fell, and you can't get up. - "Wazzzup!?" might actually be funny.
And stock options are the only form of compensation? Sounds like tunnel vision.
I suppose that two comapnies which want to foster this sort of relationship with 'bouncing workers' would just offer them signing bonuses. Or a 'non-restricted' leave of absence that explicitly does not forbid working for another company... After all, once MS-OS and MS-Apps are non-competitors, giving an employee a 6 month 'sabatical' shouldn't be a problem, right?
Where there's a will, there's a way. The pre-IPO Internet Start-up choke-chain of stock options is not the only form of compensation.
how do you explain Microsoft Office for the Macintosh?
First off, there's money to be made there. Second, Apple users are a rabid bunch, and not easily convinced to jump ship and buy a Windows PC. The two camps are pretty entrenched, and so there's no real loss of OS sales by propping up the MacOS market with some applications.
Now, explain NT for RISC, and the death of the Alpha port of NT-HAL. Back scratching with Intel? Falling out with Compaq?
You give an enormous amount of credit to the Federal government's abilities to effectively regulate business. The power of governments in general is on the wane, and this trend will only continue.
And what better way to re-assert the government's control over business than to go after the BIGGEST player, and win!?
Whenever the authority of the government has been challenged by business, the government responded by taking down the biggest player. Standard Oil, Bell Telecom, Microsoft. First it was about an energy resource, then about the communication infrastructure, now about the software that runs the world (let's not kid ourselves, MS owns computing)...
Each of these things is now effectively controlled (regulated) by the government - speaking from a post-breakup point of view. Any new industry that grows past a particular size MUST be regulated, else the government falls. Ronald Reagan summed it up well by saying "If it moves, tax it; if it keeps moving, regulate it; if it stops moving, subsidize it."
I thought the point of the break was Microsoft's "bundling" of IE with Windows.
Yes and No. And Roe v. Wade was about one woman's right to have an abortion. Netscape was not the plaintiff, the DoJ was, so the matter is raised to a different level. If Netscape brought suit, the tactics would have been different. MS would have simply out-spent and out-appealed Netscape. Even if (IF) Netscape managed to win (and not go bankrupt trying) then the best consequence would have been unbundling of IE; after the fact. Jane Roe gave birth because the case took so long.
The thing is that this set a precedent, first of all. Secondly, in the case of MS, there has been the Conclusion of Law that MS has illegaly used it's leagally obtained monopoly power. So Microsoft's ability to do so again will be taken away. The damage is done, but the DoJ doesn't want it to repeat.
It would be VERY BAD for customer confidence if the Monolithic Microsoft decided to port it's applications (MSO is a cash-cow after all) to another, competing OS - especially a free one.
What sort of message would that send to customers? "Microsoft has no confidence in it's OS".
But if the Big Bad Fed huffs and puffs and blows Microsoft apart, then the MS-Apps can happily port to Linux, and be justified in doing so, in the name of competition ( or Innovation(tm) ). Subsequently MS-OS can 'partner' with other applications companies, (under NDA of course) and glean what it is that they do better than MS-Apps; after all, MS-OS is just trying to do what's best for the customer ( Innovation2k(tm) ).
This 'break-up' might be good for Microsoft. On the App side they would 'embrace and extend' Linux. Yes, it's open source, but if you NEED some key daemon (closed source of course) to run that hot new version of Office... Well, all but the purists and the zealots would oppose, and they don't run MS-Products(tm) as it is.
On the OS side, poor, battered MS-OS could 'take a peek' into how MS-Apps competitors do things (in an effort to help them compete, of course). And while communicaton between MS-OS and MS-Apps would be Federally monitored, the board members of these companies would regularly play golf together. What's more, developers at either company (OS or Apps) could easily 'job-hop' across the street, with their lap-top PCs, every couple of months. I wonder how well this developer migration would coincide with each companies release cycles.. Hmmm.
Sounds a bit reactionary, let's give the idea a minute to sink in.
1. It costs virtually nothing to copy data
Yeah, so what? It also costs nothing to copy data between Lotus and Microsoft. They don't exactly have a Cartel going.
2. Source between these two companies can be shared in such a way that they can basically keep operating as one company
This is why they need to be two companies. The Fed can dictate the terms of the break-up, and include a clause about conspiratorial practices. I expect that the terms of break-up will REQUIRE that communication between these two SEPARATE companies be conducted on open channels, via published APIs and public company press releases. Again, M$ and Lotus style. The Fed can not exert this kind of control on separate departments of one company, but they can on separate companies.
3. The two companies would have different products (OS / Everything Else) and therefore don't have to compete against eachother unlike the oil and phone company breakups!
The purpose of a company is to make money. The more money the better - since a company must show profit to it's stake-holders.
An applications company will necessarily develop for all platforms, since it will not care about the success of a particular one. Office for Mac and Linux is right around the corner. An applications company will seek to maximize profits by making it's product available on all possible platforms.
An operating systems company will seek to support as many different applications as it possibly can, to make its product OS(es) as desirable to customers as possible. It will be in the best interest of such a company to make the OS easy to code for, and to make the API available to all application developers.
If an applications company and an OS company share information 'under the table', they will be guilty of conspiracy to form a monopoly - this problem has been solved before - they are just like oil afterall.
In the case of Standard Oil, SO consipired with rail shipping companies to give preferential treatment to SO's business, and to squeeze other competitors out of the market.
If MS-Apps were to play footsie with MS-OS, they would get slapped with Sherman Act faster than you can say MONOPOLY. Besides this, they would be more PROFITABLE without conspiring. That is what business is all about, profits, not control of the market. The two often go hand in hand, but with the Fed's fingers in your pie, it's just not doable.
The point of the break-up is not to force MS-OS and MS-Apps to compete against each other. The point is to make it un-profitable for the two product lines to bolster each other's success in the market place. The point is to make all apps compete for all platforms, with no one specific combination of the two (MS-OS and MS-Apps, for example) profitting a single company.
Agreed. He came across as very arrogant. I think that he could have said pretty much the same thing without that 'preaching from on-high' tone.
He could have conveyed some small bit of respect for his audience.
In fact, the only times he came across as anything other than pedantic, was in response to questions about his photography and writings. Very much like a real professor at a real college, when asked about his 'research interests'.
So I guess he's well on his way to being a Keeper of the Ivory Tower - even if it is not accredited.
I have not seen multitasking better than that of OS/2 on anything.
Back in the day (uh-oh..) I got a huge kick out of being able to format BOTH the A: and B: floppies, while defragging one HD, while playing Falcon 3.0 off of the other HD.. All at the same time. The only time the game slowed down was when incidental sound effects kicked in. sigh
This was all on a 486/33Mhz with 32MB RAM, with OS/2 2.0... They just don't make them like they used to. sigh
Sure, OS/2 had it's imperfections. It didn't protect process memory the way UNIX does; but it was preemptive multitasking in the day when Windows 3.0 was cooperative (and barely even that). The preemptive multitasking of NT4 is not yet as smooth as OS/2's was many years ago. sigh
With your hard work and determination, you have succeeded. You have claimed your education (as I have - follow the first thread below my posting), and you have made a life.
Education was not denied to you due to your economic status. It was available, as were other successes - but it took a lot of hard work. Which was exactly my point.
You are in a position to better appreciate your success than somone who received an Ivy League education gratis. You have the depth of experience to educate those around you about the TRUE WORTH of an education, because you know first hand, the difference that an EARNED success makes.
And by the way, the girl that takes out my trash is named Rosa. Her father works in the next building over - also as a janitor. When I started for this company a few years ago, I (25 at the time) passed him (a man in his early 50's) in a hallway. He said "Excuse me Mister" (with a heavy foreign accent) and stepped aside to let me pass. It felt as if I had been kicked in the teeth, to have a man who could easily be my Father, step out of my way. 'Mister' indeed... "No Sir! Excuse ME. Let me help you with that bucket. Thank you for what you do here."
Rosa takes classes in a local community college. She's trying to get a scholarship and transfer to a state University in the fall. Her father can not give her the money that this will involve, but he has given her the drive to succeed. Just like my father gave me, and your father gave you.
I am very proud of my success, I deserve all that I have achieved because of the work I've put in. But don't think for a second that I am somehow proud, or feel in any way superior, to anyone else; not to Rosa, not to her father, not to my father, and not to yours.
They're all faster than you currently will ever need.
Today, that might be true. But as another poster pointed out, faster cards allow less 'optimization experienced' coders to make their ideas workable.
Maybe with built in T&L, explicit support for 3D, and the slew of 'overkill' functionality, we will see some truly remarkable new ideas develop.
Sure, the human eye can't see much difference in the ultra-high frame rates. But, when you have a whole lot of 3D shapes moving independently on the screen, mutating as they go, the lower end cards will start to chop, while the top-dogs will run smooth.
I certainly don't want my Lawnmower Man experience screwed up by BitBlt redraws. And that's exactly what such high-end hardware will make possible (or at least more likely). Fully immersive VR with complete freedom of motion - granted, on a screen it will always look crappy. The VR goggles (or whatever) is just the other side of the coin to the very shinny graphics cards first side.
Forecast calls for rain. In fact, scientists predict a 95% chance of cats and dogs; which, correcting for their poor forecasts in the past, means we'll be seeing frogs and locusts.
Wha? Whaddya mean I can't skip to the next chapter?
In preparation for the forecast deluge, NOAA's Atmospheric Research Center (ARC) is fully staffed and stocked for over a month of independent operation.
IIRC, solid rocket boosters are a lot less complicated and a lot cheaper. They have few moving parts, unlike a jet engine, and so there's less engine and more fuel.
First off, let me say again, without double-speak this time, that I think education is a great benefit. It offers huge advantages. That said, I don't think it's a requirement for living adequately. What we seem to be running into is semantincs. Some people perceive having cable TV as a necessity - this is a 'spoiled American' perception. Some people take great offense that a restaurant does not offer valet parking - this is just plain obscene. Some people want to heat their home AND afford food in the winter - this is my idea of adequate living.
Being poor, in the U.S., is lacking sufficient capital to live well, on your own.
The definition of living 'well' varies a lot. I still argue that a person with enough drive, willing to work hard, and advance on merit, can get all their necessities paid for, and still be able to afford some semblance of comfort. Of course, this does presume the bare minimum of creature comforts, food, shelter... Harldy acceptable by 'modern standards' eh?
Education should not rely on grants and loans specifically targeted at certain racial or religous groups, nor is the limited support offered, capable of getting a poor individual through college. These ethnic and religous grants and loans also do not help poor white individuals.
Agreed. And further more, I know a thing or two about this from personal experience. It's been my experience to go out and get myself a B.S., and subsequently an M.S. in CS, on my own, working full time, without the benefit of loans, grants or scholarships. I'm white, and my folks make/made just enough that I didn't qualify for financial aid - but all their income is tied up in a double mortgage, [sob-story snipped for brevity]... Needless to say, my attitude about hardships not being insurmountable comes from the fact that I did it.
It would be wise to not equate human nature with your own personal ill-will. [...] I'm sure there will be individuals, such as yourself, that think that they should somehow be entitled to a decent life, while someone else can't.
Now that was just uncalled for, especially in the context of what I just told you in the above paragraph. I worked my way up. I didn't grow up in a slumm, that's true, but *I* got what I have. Nobody handed me a thing, and I did it without going into debt. I expect a certain level of performance from my fellow man, that level being determined by my own ability. If *I* can do it, I feel no pity for someone who claims that they can not.
I came to the US with my parents when I was 10 years old. I am one of those 'damned immigrants' who comes here and 'steals American jobs'. I didn't 'steal' a thing. It was given to me because I work harder than most 'native' citizens who think that the world owes them something for having had the foresight to not ooze down their mother's thigh on the night of their conception.
I worked my ass off in parochial school (where I went because the nuns spoke Polish), and worked in crap jobs through high-school. I worked in increasingly better crap jobs while I put myself through a state University. Then I got a decent job, and worked my ass off there while I worked my ass off some more getting an MS at night courses at a 'prestigious University'.
So save your condescention until after you know where I'm coming from.
I agree with you, the world isn't fair. But, given your new information, accept the fact that this lack of fairness is not a terminal condition. Too many people are faced with this unfairness and throw up their arms and cry "Poor me! Nobody will give me a break! Won't someone PLEASE think of the children!! Boo-hoo!".
To which my response, having walked that path for quite some time now, is: If you spent as much energy trying to improve your life as you do bitching about how unfair the world is, you'd be happy by now.
The U.S. model of economics lends itself to consolidation of corporations until the market is divided amongst a small number of large corporations.
The term for this is 'oligopoly', and there's a real good economic reason for it. The limited competition of 3 to 7 players gets the biggest bang-for-the-buck in terms of economies of scale. It's cheapest to produce disposable goods, if only a handful of manufacturers are competing for raw resources and supply channels. And after all, that is what we Americans crave, isn't it? Disposable doo-hickies of all sorts? The Statue of Liberty should have a 'no user servicable parts inside' sticker on her butt.
As for investors who do no work at all, maybe. They do have to know a good investment from a money-pit though, or else they wouldn't be investors for long. They do something. They grease the wheels of the economy that keeps us both gainfully employed.
True enough, but it does depend what 'poor' means.
My pseudo-troll was based on the single statement in the original post, which said, in effect, that poor people stay poor since they do not have a higher-ed degree.
Poor need not mean impoverished. The reasoning you present, that there is an upper-bound on earnings based on education, is circular. If you make the lack of an education part of the definition of being poor, then yeah, that is the difference between poor and rich. But nothing has been said.
An impoverished person CAN will themselves above the line of poverty. That is all I wanted to clarify. Poor is not poor due to lack of education. Poor (impoverished in the U.S. of A.) is a solvable condition. Takes hard work, luck, persistence, but not a higher-education degree.
Knowledge is not a by-product of education. It is the POINT OF IT. Anyone who is getting an education for any other reason (getting the degree that opens doors, for example) is doing it for the wrong reason.
That is it very difficult for the down-trodden to secure resources and exploit opportunities is a very true and unfortunate fact. We have established many institutions and systems to help. This is exactly the purpose of the United Negro and Native American College Funds; not to mention the great number of ethnically oriented scholarships that are available. Universities offer financial aid to students with lesser means, and there are many other options available (military and civil services for example). So, yes, it tougher to get going in life when you're poor, but it's not impossible.
As for our 'broken predatory' economic system; I'm not so sure I agree that it is. Are you proposing that benefits of being a member of society be divided equally, or based on need? We've seen that fail after causing countless millions of people pain for half a century. I prefer it here, having been there.
Here, I am rewarded based on merit, and my value to others is compensated reflecting my worth. There, my needs were met, and marginally at that, while some people where more equal than the rest of society. Do I think that the US system is perfect, far from it. Universal health care is a Good Thing IMO, and the concepts of HMOs and any sort of insurance (auto, life and especially health) and cancerous tumors feeding on American society. But, what is here is better than what is anywhere else; this is why people like myself keep coming here. We're willing to work hard, knowing that we will be compensated proportionally to our efforts.
It is only human nature to want MORE for one's self. You would not begrudge this to anyone, until you had to compete with them directly for finite resources. This 'broken predatory' economic system has provided us with the creature comforts necessary to allow us to speculate about improving it.
A fair and equitable economy is impossible due to human nature. There will always be a 'top-dog', and a hierarchy of 'underlings', and there is always going to be 'parasites'. The underlings with ambition, willing to work hard and take advantage of opportunities, will be given more opportunities, until they compete with the top-dog directly.
It is a good economic model that encourages competition (Capitalism), established checks and balances to prevent excessive exploitation of the lower by the higher (DoJ, anti-trust, law), and punishes parasitic abuse of the system (welfare is broken). The US has hit it pretty close.
As for the chasm between rich and poor, it's worse elsewhere than here. This system may be a 'broken predatory' one, but it's better than most by far. And education may make the difference between richer and poorer in relative proximity (a tax bracket or two), but not between rich and poor in economic extremes (poverty and gluttonous excess). Tis all.
Hook, line and sinker! I heard the trolling motor over-head, but I decided to bite anyway.
Are you saying that if the poor had a prestigious degree, they would cease to be poor?
Reminds me of a little story/joke:
A very devoutly religious man went to church each morning, and prayed heartily: "Please Lord, let me win the Lottery."
The years went on, and the man's faith stayed steadfast, but the laws of economics drove him into poverty. He continued his daily payer though: "Please Lord! I am a faithful and humble servant. Please let me win the Lottery!"
Eventually, the man died of old age. He went to heaven and met God. He asked: "Lord, I prayed to you every day, I kept my faith and lived a good life. The only thing I ever asked for was that you would let me win the Lottery, but you never did. Why?"
And God said onto him: " I would have, but it was up to you to go and buy a ticket."
It's not exactly on track with your argument, but it's in the same spirit. An education does not assure wealth and success. One has to be motivated to succeed, and in the US (more than anywhere else), the desire to succeed and the willingness to work hard for one's success is all that is really required.
Some people get lucky, and win the Lottery. Others have doors unlocked for them with a Ivy-covered degree. But it is up to the individual to walk through the open door. A motivated person can break down a locked door, or crawl in through a window. (Who here hasn't padded their Resume early on??)
It's more about knowledge and skill than about 'proof of skill' that a degree is. The degree may get you in the door, but what you do inside is what keeps you there. A poor person who is willing to work hard, and can think on their feet, does not need to be poor for long.
As for the reason why poor people remain poor... IMHO, it is because they've come to believe that that is what they are, what they will always be, and worst of all, what they deserve to be.
For all his twisted thinking, Nietsche got this right: "Slave Mentality". People who think that 'the Man' is 'keeping them down', and who put the blame for their misfortune on the shoulders of someone other than themselves, will always and forever be poor. By not accepting responsibility for their own fate, the perpetually poor give control of their lives over to people in whose best interest it is to have a poor, unhappy and frightenned lower class.
The lower class exists because people do not realize that by getting off their welfare-subsidised ass (and I'm not talking about the 'down on their luck' poor, but the perpetually poor, welfare-breeding-welfare poor) they can only improve their situation.
Yeah, I know, it's obvious. But just in case SOMEONE doesn't yet get it...
Blame Canada
Sheila: Time's have changed Our kids are getting worse They won't obey their parents They just want to fart and curse! Sharon: Should we blame the government? Mrs. Cartman: Or blame society? Dads: Or should we blame the images on TV?
Sheila: Heck NO, blame Canada Everyone: Blame Canada Sheila: With all their beady little eyes And flapping heads so full of lies Everyone: Blame Canada Blame Canada Sheila: We need to form a full assault Everyone: It's Canada's fault!
Sharon: Don't blame me For my son Stan He saw the darn cartoon And now he's off to join the clan!
Mrs. Cartman: And my boy Eric once Had my picture on his shelf But now when I see him he tells me to fuck myself! Sheila: Well, blame Canada Everyone: Blame Canada It seems that everything's gone wrong Since Canada came along Everyone: Blame Canada Blame Canada Guy on TV: There not even a real country anyway
Mrs. McCormick: My son could've been a doctor or a lawyer it's true Instead he burned up like a piggy on a bar-b-q Everyone: Should we blame the matches? Should we blame the fire? Or the doctors who allowed him to expire? Sheila: Heck no!
Everyone: Blame Canada Blame Canada Sheila: With all their hockey hubabaloo Mrs. Cartman: And that bitch Anne Murray too Everyone: Blame Canada Shame on Canada The smut we must stop The trash we must smash Laughter and fun must all be undone We must blame them and cause a fuss Before someone thinks of blaming us
Re:Reasons to give *do* matter. Drug money donatio
on
Why Do Open Source?
·
· Score: 1
Moral relativism is a very questionable belief system, but it warrants mention. It's nice to live by ideals, and take upon ourselves the duty/responsibility/opportunity to maintain order of society; but there are plenty of situations where there are more pressing and immediate needs than keeping up with ideals.
The trade-offs can be simple - stealing bread to feed a hungry child, having exhausted all 'Right' options can hardly be Wrong in the relative sense. Surely the child's welfare is more important than the posession of bread (provided you do not cause greater harm via good intention)... blah blah.. Aristotalian Ethics rears it's ugly head...
Conversely, the statement that one 'can not hold up great ideals by compromising lesser ones' has merit. Here lies absolutism, and stealing a stamp is a Federal offense.
Life is complex, and that's why, after thousands of years of battle with morals, ethics and philosophy, there are no easy answers.
You're right though, "Utility" works well, provided we consider the extent to which our actions have effects, and choose wisely. But then there's always that contrary bugger who comes along and says "What gives YOU the right to make such decisions?";P
Slashdot Mirror
ReiserFS TO-DO list:
/dev/null if you don't care, or 2) when things go wrong, you can correlate the error-producing widget to the company/resource that might be able to help. Plus, the file would read like the closing credits in a movie...
#1: Remove 'sponsorship message'.
#2..#n: Everything else
--
I have no problem with giving credit where credit is due, but the original article asks how far this can go. The next step after 'on-boot' messages is application splash-screens (sure they serve to inform and distract from the tima an app uses to start up). Splash-screens that push upgrades and companies are an advertisement.
Where it goes from there is anyone's guess. An active desktop that acts like one of those 'free' Internet serveces where half your screen is devoted to a parade of banner ads??
Each time you run ls you see a text line pushing you to check Red Hat's site for latest sources? Or maybe their current share price?
Open source is the key to preventing this sort of thing, since with compiled code, one it's in there, it's IN there. Maybe a fair trade-off is to put the credits into a standard log file. Each time you install a new app or tool, the acknowledgement gets appended to the 'credits' file, that you can view at your leisure and discresion; without it taking up boot-time screen space.
This would give two benefits. 1) You could redirect it to
OS Kernel : Linus Torvalds
Best Boy: Alan Cox
Package Manager: Red Hat
Gnome Desktop: Miguel de Icaza and friends
Visual Effects: 3dfx
GNU Software appears courtesy of Richard Stallman
DeCSS code NOT produced by the Motion Picture Association of America
This OS brought to you by the letters S and B (as in Speach and Beer), and by the number 1.
Fin.
ySyblPq@nApz.wuhM.rqh
/. 'user info' page. Or better yet, provide the email address as individual HTML links, each character to a different site, the Nth character on which is the actual character to replace the link with to generate the real address.
Remove the letters S, P, A, M, then rot13 to email.
My God man!! Why not PGP it, and provide the public key in the
When this type of obfuscation is necessary, SPAM needs to be killed!
I've never read HGTTG, but I know I should.
It's been my experience of British comedy in general (Python is a good example) that it has a very deep darkness at the core of all that sillyness. Take Python's Life of Brian for example; or the Ministry of Silly Walks and Mary, Queen of Scotts skits. Mr. Bean also shares this thread - he continually does silly things to out-do cruel fate.
While Python and Bean use physical comedy to bring this darkness across, many British stand-ups show it with quick, sarcastic zingers that make a deep reference to history, or politics or literature. See the Brit version of Who's Line is It Anyways and compare to the US. The Brit version requires thinking to get many of the gags, and the US one goes for much more immediate (dare I say 'mindless') laughter.
Vonnegut (Sirens of Titan in particular) seems to share a common root with British humour, has a similar dark quality, and seems to say that the Universe is fscking with us, despite all of our efforts, to accomplish something which by our standards is totally pointless.
The dark irony is fall-down funny, until we recognize ourselves in the characters who's best efforts are consistently thwarted by the trivial. I think that this sort of self-reflection and 'carrying on with dignity' despite adversity, is a very British trait.
Witness Brit versions of Practical Jokes and contrast to the US version. The British 'victims' try to act normal in an un-natural situation and the effort they put into it is what is funny. Americans (over)react according to the situation, and the excess of their reaction is what's amusing.
It's a very different brand of humour than American sit-coms, home videos and crude (Andrew Dice Clay/Chris Rock) stand-up. "Wazzzup!?" jokes would never fly in Britain, for example.
Oh c'mon. That is such extreme speculation, that it makes absolutely no sense, except as an episode of ST: Voyager.
Life based on Strong Force? Existing in an environment where the gravity and velocities tear atoms apart?
What kind of life would that be?
- You'd (literally) have to drag yourself out of bed in the morning.
- You'd eat photon pancakes for breakfast.
- Commuting to work, by more than a single Planck length, would be killer.
- Any attempt to "move up in the world" or to even "get a raise" would meet with complete failure; and due to the conditions, you could not even find a tall building to jump from to end your misery.
- Light and fluffy pastries would be but a dream.
- All your friends (the Harmoniums) would be down and out.
- You fell, and you can't get up.
- "Wazzzup!?" might actually be funny.
Quick!
Someone hack up a procmail version of Napster.
And stock options are the only form of compensation? Sounds like tunnel vision.
I suppose that two comapnies which want to foster this sort of relationship with 'bouncing workers' would just offer them signing bonuses. Or a 'non-restricted' leave of absence that explicitly does not forbid working for another company...
After all, once MS-OS and MS-Apps are non-competitors, giving an employee a 6 month 'sabatical' shouldn't be a problem, right?
Where there's a will, there's a way. The pre-IPO Internet Start-up choke-chain of stock options is not the only form of compensation.
how do you explain Microsoft Office for the Macintosh?
First off, there's money to be made there. Second, Apple users are a rabid bunch, and not easily convinced to jump ship and buy a Windows PC. The two camps are pretty entrenched, and so there's no real loss of OS sales by propping up the MacOS market with some applications.
Now, explain NT for RISC, and the death of the Alpha port of NT-HAL. Back scratching with Intel? Falling out with Compaq?
You give an enormous amount of credit to the Federal government's abilities to effectively regulate business. The power of governments in general is on the wane, and this trend will only continue.
And what better way to re-assert the government's control over business than to go after the BIGGEST player, and win!?
Whenever the authority of the government has been challenged by business, the government responded by taking down the biggest player. Standard Oil, Bell Telecom, Microsoft. First it was about an energy resource, then about the communication infrastructure, now about the software that runs the world (let's not kid ourselves, MS owns computing)...
Each of these things is now effectively controlled (regulated) by the government - speaking from a post-breakup point of view. Any new industry that grows past a particular size MUST be regulated, else the government falls. Ronald Reagan summed it up well by saying "If it moves, tax it; if it keeps moving, regulate it; if it stops moving, subsidize it."
I thought the point of the break was Microsoft's "bundling" of IE with Windows.
Yes and No. And Roe v. Wade was about one woman's right to have an abortion. Netscape was not the plaintiff, the DoJ was, so the matter is raised to a different level. If Netscape brought suit, the tactics would have been different. MS would have simply out-spent and out-appealed Netscape. Even if (IF) Netscape managed to win (and not go bankrupt trying) then the best consequence would have been unbundling of IE; after the fact. Jane Roe gave birth because the case took so long.
The thing is that this set a precedent, first of all. Secondly, in the case of MS, there has been the Conclusion of Law that MS has illegaly used it's leagally obtained monopoly power. So Microsoft's ability to do so again will be taken away. The damage is done, but the DoJ doesn't want it to repeat.
... if you think that the stock market (NASDAQ) roller-coaster has nothing to do with the Findings of Law.
What's the consequence of a break-up judgement?
Appeals. And a recession, but that's just a detail, isn't it?
Well let's see...
It would be VERY BAD for customer confidence if the Monolithic Microsoft decided to port it's applications (MSO is a cash-cow after all) to another, competing OS - especially a free one.
What sort of message would that send to customers? "Microsoft has no confidence in it's OS".
But if the Big Bad Fed huffs and puffs and blows Microsoft apart, then the MS-Apps can happily port to Linux, and be justified in doing so, in the name of competition ( or Innovation(tm) ). Subsequently MS-OS can 'partner' with other applications companies, (under NDA of course) and glean what it is that they do better than MS-Apps; after all, MS-OS is just trying to do what's best for the customer ( Innovation2k(tm) ).
This 'break-up' might be good for Microsoft. On the App side they would 'embrace and extend' Linux. Yes, it's open source, but if you NEED some key daemon (closed source of course) to run that hot new version of Office... Well, all but the purists and the zealots would oppose, and they don't run MS-Products(tm) as it is.
On the OS side, poor, battered MS-OS could 'take a peek' into how MS-Apps competitors do things (in an effort to help them compete, of course). And while communicaton between MS-OS and MS-Apps would be Federally monitored, the board members of these companies would regularly play golf together. What's more, developers at either company (OS or Apps) could easily 'job-hop' across the street, with their lap-top PCs, every couple of months. I wonder how well this developer migration would coincide with each companies release cycles.. Hmmm.
Back, and to the left. Back!... And to the left!
Sounds a bit reactionary, let's give the idea a minute to sink in.
1. It costs virtually nothing to copy data
Yeah, so what? It also costs nothing to copy data between Lotus and Microsoft. They don't exactly have a Cartel going.
2. Source between these two companies can be shared in such a way that they can basically keep operating as one company
This is why they need to be two companies. The Fed can dictate the terms of the break-up, and include a clause about conspiratorial practices. I expect that the terms of break-up will REQUIRE that communication between these two SEPARATE companies be conducted on open channels, via published APIs and public company press releases. Again, M$ and Lotus style. The Fed can not exert this kind of control on separate departments of one company, but they can on separate companies.
3. The two companies would have different products (OS / Everything Else) and therefore don't have to compete against eachother unlike the oil and phone company breakups!
The purpose of a company is to make money. The more money the better - since a company must show profit to it's stake-holders.
An applications company will necessarily develop for all platforms, since it will not care about the success of a particular one. Office for Mac and Linux is right around the corner. An applications company will seek to maximize profits by making it's product available on all possible platforms.
An operating systems company will seek to support as many different applications as it possibly can, to make its product OS(es) as desirable to customers as possible. It will be in the best interest of such a company to make the OS easy to code for, and to make the API available to all application developers.
If an applications company and an OS company share information 'under the table', they will be guilty of conspiracy to form a monopoly - this problem has been solved before - they are just like oil afterall.
In the case of Standard Oil, SO consipired with rail shipping companies to give preferential treatment to SO's business, and to squeeze other competitors out of the market.
If MS-Apps were to play footsie with MS-OS, they would get slapped with Sherman Act faster than you can say MONOPOLY. Besides this, they would be more PROFITABLE without conspiring. That is what business is all about, profits, not control of the market. The two often go hand in hand, but with the Fed's fingers in your pie, it's just not doable.
The point of the break-up is not to force MS-OS and MS-Apps to compete against each other. The point is to make it un-profitable for the two product lines to bolster each other's success in the market place. The point is to make all apps compete for all platforms, with no one specific combination of the two (MS-OS and MS-Apps, for example) profitting a single company.
Agreed. He came across as very arrogant.
I think that he could have said pretty much the same thing without that 'preaching from on-high' tone.
He could have conveyed some small bit of respect for his audience.
In fact, the only times he came across as anything other than pedantic, was in response to questions about his photography and writings. Very much like a real professor at a real college, when asked about his 'research interests'.
So I guess he's well on his way to being a Keeper of the Ivory Tower - even if it is not accredited.
It's not so much about the names as about the IP addresses. We are Running Out of Address Space quickly.
:)
One more good reason to switch to IPv6, and ask your ISP to do the same.
I have not seen multitasking better than that of OS/2 on anything.
Back in the day (uh-oh..) I got a huge kick out of being able to format BOTH the A: and B: floppies, while defragging one HD, while playing Falcon 3.0 off of the other HD.. All at the same time. The only time the game slowed down was when incidental sound effects kicked in. sigh
This was all on a 486/33Mhz with 32MB RAM, with OS/2 2.0... They just don't make them like they used to. sigh
Sure, OS/2 had it's imperfections. It didn't protect process memory the way UNIX does; but it was preemptive multitasking in the day when Windows 3.0 was cooperative (and barely even that). The preemptive multitasking of NT4 is not yet as smooth as OS/2's was many years ago. sigh
You prove my point.
With your hard work and determination, you have succeeded. You have claimed your education (as I have - follow the first thread below my posting), and you have made a life.
Education was not denied to you due to your economic status. It was available, as were other successes - but it took a lot of hard work. Which was exactly my point.
You are in a position to better appreciate your success than somone who received an Ivy League education gratis. You have the depth of experience to educate those around you about the TRUE WORTH of an education, because you know first hand, the difference that an EARNED success makes.
And by the way, the girl that takes out my trash is named Rosa. Her father works in the next building over - also as a janitor. When I started for this company a few years ago, I (25 at the time) passed him (a man in his early 50's) in a hallway. He said "Excuse me Mister" (with a heavy foreign accent) and stepped aside to let me pass.
It felt as if I had been kicked in the teeth, to have a man who could easily be my Father, step out of my way. 'Mister' indeed... "No Sir! Excuse ME. Let me help you with that bucket. Thank you for what you do here."
Rosa takes classes in a local community college. She's trying to get a scholarship and transfer to a state University in the fall. Her father can not give her the money that this will involve, but he has given her the drive to succeed. Just like my father gave me, and your father gave you.
I am very proud of my success, I deserve all that I have achieved because of the work I've put in. But don't think for a second that I am somehow proud, or feel in any way superior, to anyone else; not to Rosa, not to her father, not to my father, and not to yours.
They're all faster than you currently will ever need.
Today, that might be true. But as another poster pointed out, faster cards allow less 'optimization experienced' coders to make their ideas workable.
Maybe with built in T&L, explicit support for 3D, and the slew of 'overkill' functionality, we will see some truly remarkable new ideas develop.
Sure, the human eye can't see much difference in the ultra-high frame rates. But, when you have a whole lot of 3D shapes moving independently on the screen, mutating as they go, the lower end cards will start to chop, while the top-dogs will run smooth.
I certainly don't want my Lawnmower Man experience screwed up by BitBlt redraws. And that's exactly what such high-end hardware will make possible (or at least more likely). Fully immersive VR with complete freedom of motion - granted, on a screen it will always look crappy. The VR goggles (or whatever) is just the other side of the coin to the very shinny graphics cards first side.
Forecast calls for rain. In fact, scientists predict a 95% chance of cats and dogs; which, correcting for their poor forecasts in the past, means we'll be seeing frogs and locusts.
Wha? Whaddya mean I can't skip to the next chapter?
In preparation for the forecast deluge, NOAA's Atmospheric Research Center (ARC) is fully staffed and stocked for over a month of independent operation.
-- Bah! Trying too hard.
Standard disclaimer: I am not a space cadet.
IIRC, solid rocket boosters are a lot less complicated and a lot cheaper. They have few moving parts, unlike a jet engine, and so there's less engine and more fuel.
First off, let me say again, without double-speak this time, that I think education is a great benefit. It offers huge advantages. That said, I don't think it's a requirement for living adequately. What we seem to be running into is semantincs. Some people perceive having cable TV as a necessity - this is a 'spoiled American' perception. Some people take great offense that a restaurant does not offer valet parking - this is just plain obscene. Some people want to heat their home AND afford food in the winter - this is my idea of adequate living.
Being poor, in the U.S., is lacking sufficient capital to live well, on your own.
The definition of living 'well' varies a lot. I still argue that a person with enough drive, willing to work hard, and advance on merit, can get all their necessities paid for, and still be able to afford some semblance of comfort. Of course, this does presume the bare minimum of creature comforts, food, shelter... Harldy acceptable by 'modern standards' eh?
Education should not rely on grants and loans specifically targeted at certain racial or religous groups, nor is the limited support offered, capable of getting a poor individual through college. These ethnic and religous grants and loans also do not help poor white individuals.
Agreed. And further more, I know a thing or two about this from personal experience. It's been my experience to go out and get myself a B.S., and subsequently an M.S. in CS, on my own, working full time, without the benefit of loans, grants or scholarships. I'm white, and my folks make/made just enough that I didn't qualify for financial aid - but all their income is tied up in a double mortgage, [sob-story snipped for brevity]... Needless to say, my attitude about hardships not being insurmountable comes from the fact that I did it.
It would be wise to not equate human nature with your own personal ill-will. [...] I'm sure there will be individuals, such as yourself, that think that they should somehow be entitled to a decent life, while someone else can't.
Now that was just uncalled for, especially in the context of what I just told you in the above paragraph. I worked my way up. I didn't grow up in a slumm, that's true, but *I* got what I have. Nobody handed me a thing, and I did it without going into debt. I expect a certain level of performance from my fellow man, that level being determined by my own ability. If *I* can do it, I feel no pity for someone who claims that they can not.
I came to the US with my parents when I was 10 years old. I am one of those 'damned immigrants' who comes here and 'steals American jobs'. I didn't 'steal' a thing. It was given to me because I work harder than most 'native' citizens who think that the world owes them something for having had the foresight to not ooze down their mother's thigh on the night of their conception.
I worked my ass off in parochial school (where I went because the nuns spoke Polish), and worked in crap jobs through high-school. I worked in increasingly better crap jobs while I put myself through a state University. Then I got a decent job, and worked my ass off there while I worked my ass off some more getting an MS at night courses at a 'prestigious University'.
So save your condescention until after you know where I'm coming from.
I agree with you, the world isn't fair. But, given your new information, accept the fact that this lack of fairness is not a terminal condition. Too many people are faced with this unfairness and throw up their arms and cry "Poor me! Nobody will give me a break! Won't someone PLEASE think of the children!! Boo-hoo!".
To which my response, having walked that path for quite some time now, is: If you spent as much energy trying to improve your life as you do bitching about how unfair the world is, you'd be happy by now.
The U.S. model of economics lends itself to consolidation of corporations until the market is divided amongst a small number of large corporations.
The term for this is 'oligopoly', and there's a real good economic reason for it. The limited competition of 3 to 7 players gets the biggest bang-for-the-buck in terms of economies of scale. It's cheapest to produce disposable goods, if only a handful of manufacturers are competing for raw resources and supply channels. And after all, that is what we Americans crave, isn't it? Disposable doo-hickies of all sorts? The Statue of Liberty should have a 'no user servicable parts inside' sticker on her butt.
As for investors who do no work at all, maybe. They do have to know a good investment from a money-pit though, or else they wouldn't be investors for long. They do something. They grease the wheels of the economy that keeps us both gainfully employed.
True enough, but it does depend what 'poor' means.
My pseudo-troll was based on the single statement in the original post, which said, in effect, that poor people stay poor since they do not have a higher-ed degree.
Poor need not mean impoverished. The reasoning you present, that there is an upper-bound on earnings based on education, is circular. If you make the lack of an education part of the definition of being poor, then yeah, that is the difference between poor and rich. But nothing has been said.
An impoverished person CAN will themselves above the line of poverty. That is all I wanted to clarify. Poor is not poor due to lack of education. Poor (impoverished in the U.S. of A.) is a solvable condition. Takes hard work, luck, persistence, but not a higher-education degree.
Knowledge is not a by-product of education. It is the POINT OF IT. Anyone who is getting an education for any other reason (getting the degree that opens doors, for example) is doing it for the wrong reason.
That is it very difficult for the down-trodden to secure resources and exploit opportunities is a very true and unfortunate fact. We have established many institutions and systems to help. This is exactly the purpose of the United Negro and Native American College Funds; not to mention the great number of ethnically oriented scholarships that are available. Universities offer financial aid to students with lesser means, and there are many other options available (military and civil services for example). So, yes, it tougher to get going in life when you're poor, but it's not impossible.
As for our 'broken predatory' economic system; I'm not so sure I agree that it is. Are you proposing that benefits of being a member of society be divided equally, or based on need? We've seen that fail after causing countless millions of people pain for half a century. I prefer it here, having been there.
Here, I am rewarded based on merit, and my value to others is compensated reflecting my worth. There, my needs were met, and marginally at that, while some people where more equal than the rest of society. Do I think that the US system is perfect, far from it. Universal health care is a Good Thing IMO, and the concepts of HMOs and any sort of insurance (auto, life and especially health) and cancerous tumors feeding on American society. But, what is here is better than what is anywhere else; this is why people like myself keep coming here. We're willing to work hard, knowing that we will be compensated proportionally to our efforts.
It is only human nature to want MORE for one's self. You would not begrudge this to anyone, until you had to compete with them directly for finite resources. This 'broken predatory' economic system has provided us with the creature comforts necessary to allow us to speculate about improving it.
A fair and equitable economy is impossible due to human nature. There will always be a 'top-dog', and a hierarchy of 'underlings', and there is always going to be 'parasites'. The underlings with ambition, willing to work hard and take advantage of opportunities, will be given more opportunities, until they compete with the top-dog directly.
It is a good economic model that encourages competition (Capitalism), established checks and balances to prevent excessive exploitation of the lower by the higher (DoJ, anti-trust, law), and punishes parasitic abuse of the system (welfare is broken). The US has hit it pretty close.
As for the chasm between rich and poor, it's worse elsewhere than here. This system may be a 'broken predatory' one, but it's better than most by far. And education may make the difference between richer and poorer in relative proximity (a tax bracket or two), but not between rich and poor in economic extremes (poverty and gluttonous excess). Tis all.
Hook, line and sinker! I heard the trolling motor over-head, but I decided to bite anyway.
Are you saying that if the poor had a prestigious degree, they would cease to be poor?
Reminds me of a little story/joke:
A very devoutly religious man went to church each morning, and prayed heartily: "Please Lord, let me win the Lottery."
The years went on, and the man's faith stayed steadfast, but the laws of economics drove him into poverty. He continued his daily payer though: "Please Lord! I am a faithful and humble servant. Please let me win the Lottery!"
Eventually, the man died of old age. He went to heaven and met God. He asked: "Lord, I prayed to you every day, I kept my faith and lived a good life. The only thing I ever asked for was that you would let me win the Lottery, but you never did. Why?"
And God said onto him: " I would have, but it was up to you to go and buy a ticket."
It's not exactly on track with your argument, but it's in the same spirit. An education does not assure wealth and success. One has to be motivated to succeed, and in the US (more than anywhere else), the desire to succeed and the willingness to work hard for one's success is all that is really required.
Some people get lucky, and win the Lottery. Others have doors unlocked for them with a Ivy-covered degree. But it is up to the individual to walk through the open door. A motivated person can break down a locked door, or crawl in through a window. (Who here hasn't padded their Resume early on??)
It's more about knowledge and skill than about 'proof of skill' that a degree is. The degree may get you in the door, but what you do inside is what keeps you there. A poor person who is willing to work hard, and can think on their feet, does not need to be poor for long.
As for the reason why poor people remain poor... IMHO, it is because they've come to believe that that is what they are, what they will always be, and worst of all, what they deserve to be.
For all his twisted thinking, Nietsche got this right: "Slave Mentality". People who think that 'the Man' is 'keeping them down', and who put the blame for their misfortune on the shoulders of someone other than themselves, will always and forever be poor. By not accepting responsibility for their own fate, the perpetually poor give control of their lives over to people in whose best interest it is to have a poor, unhappy and frightenned lower class.
The lower class exists because people do not realize that by getting off their welfare-subsidised ass (and I'm not talking about the 'down on their luck' poor, but the perpetually poor, welfare-breeding-welfare poor) they can only improve their situation.
The lack of education has little to do with it.
Yeah, I know, it's obvious. But just in case SOMEONE doesn't yet get it...
Blame Canada
Sheila: Time's have changed
Our kids are getting worse
They won't obey their parents
They just want to fart and curse!
Sharon: Should we blame the government?
Mrs. Cartman: Or blame society?
Dads: Or should we blame the images on TV?
Sheila: Heck NO, blame Canada
Everyone: Blame Canada
Sheila: With all their beady little eyes
And flapping heads so full of lies
Everyone: Blame Canada
Blame Canada
Sheila: We need to form a full assault
Everyone: It's Canada's fault!
Sharon: Don't blame me
For my son Stan
He saw the darn cartoon
And now he's off to join the clan!
Mrs. Cartman: And my boy Eric once
Had my picture on his shelf
But now when I see him he tells me to fuck myself!
Sheila: Well, blame Canada
Everyone: Blame Canada
It seems that everything's gone wrong
Since Canada came along
Everyone: Blame Canada
Blame Canada
Guy on TV: There not even a real country anyway
Mrs. McCormick: My son could've been a doctor or a lawyer it's true
Instead he burned up like a piggy on a bar-b-q
Everyone: Should we blame the matches?
Should we blame the fire?
Or the doctors who allowed him to expire?
Sheila: Heck no!
Everyone: Blame Canada
Blame Canada
Sheila: With all their hockey hubabaloo
Mrs. Cartman: And that bitch Anne Murray too
Everyone: Blame Canada
Shame on Canada
The smut we must stop
The trash we must smash
Laughter and fun
must all be undone
We must blame them and cause a fuss
Before someone thinks of blaming us
Moral relativism is a very questionable belief system, but it warrants mention. It's nice to live by ideals, and take upon ourselves the duty/responsibility/opportunity to maintain order of society; but there are plenty of situations where there are more pressing and immediate needs than keeping up with ideals.
;P
The trade-offs can be simple - stealing bread to feed a hungry child, having exhausted all 'Right' options can hardly be Wrong in the relative sense. Surely the child's welfare is more important than the posession of bread (provided you do not cause greater harm via good intention)... blah blah.. Aristotalian Ethics rears it's ugly head...
Conversely, the statement that one 'can not hold up great ideals by compromising lesser ones' has merit. Here lies absolutism, and stealing a stamp is a Federal offense.
Life is complex, and that's why, after thousands of years of battle with morals, ethics and philosophy, there are no easy answers.
You're right though, "Utility" works well, provided we consider the extent to which our actions have effects, and choose wisely. But then there's always that contrary bugger who comes along and says "What gives YOU the right to make such decisions?"