Hmmm. The poster above demonstrated a very clear knowledge about HR practices. We would certainly appreciate it if you know something we don't, you would share it with us. Why just spout a one-liner with no evidence to back it up?
I understand your frustration; however, we must not lower ourselves to beneath their level with such thoughts.
They stay in office largely because of a lack of education. Ultimately, the burden of education lies with the people who have the most knowledge. In other words, it is geeks like us who are responsible for educating the rest of society about technology; unfortunately, most of us are not exactly great communicators. We prefer to communicate with or through machines rather than face to face.
They stay alive because assassination is an even worse crime than writing bad legislation. The success of democracy depends on working within the system to effect change; once someone decides that he is above the system, that he can take the law into his own hands, then he puts himself beneath the slime who do this, and becomes a common murderer.
Just think of how people view Timothy McVeigh, abortion doctor killers, and terrorists, and you will see why they stay alive: Because killing them is much more wrong.
Red Hat, like any other company, has a financial stake that they must defend. Their position on UCITA is somewhat biased. Open Source software as a business model might be harmed by UCITA; however, it is about as likely to prevent people from working on Open Source as warning labels on packs of cigarettes are to keep people from smoking. People will still do it, because it is highly addictive, even if they later learn that it is bad for them. Open Source, that is.:)
The only thing I have ever seen Linus Torvalds take credit for is being a bastard.
I think what this means is that he dictates the terms for contributions to Linux. He ultimately decides what goes in and what doesn't, and how patches should be submitted. There is no one sharing this responsibility with him. Ultimately, despite the thousands of people who have contributed to Linux, and the projects beforehand (such as GNU) that made these steps possible, the Linux kernel is still very much under Linus' control.
There is obviously more to it than that, but not much more than this:
I heard an interview with Linus that was on NPR about a year or so ago (it was posted to slashdot at the time) where he made this claim. That is, the claim that he is really just a bastard. I laughed -- I thought it was hilarious, because he certainly didn't SOUND like a bastard. He sounded like a very nice guy, very polite -- someone I would like to work with.
When Google posted their "moments in Usenet history," I found the flamewar between Linus and the author of Minix revealing. All through Linus' posts, even in the flamewar, I get the sense that he's not out to discredit or belittle the author of Minix, but to disagree more civilly, and in the face of some pretty harsh criticism.
I have never submitted anything for the Linux kernel; however, if I did, I get the feeling that if Linus wouldn't want it, he wouldn't put it in. I also get the feeling that he would not reject it in a way to make me feel rejected.
The proper way to do this is by giving credit to the person for the idea and the effort he or she has put in. Ultimately, you are the one who benefits from his or her work, so give them honest and sincere appreciation for that. Then, tell him/her that you want to wait before adding the patch to the software. And if anyone has an idea but no patch, ask them to code it up for you! Give them a challenge!
I believe that, aside from the fact he picked a project that millions of people were interested in, his civil authoritarianism has been the reason for Linux's success.
So take this to heart. Be friendly and appreciative of everyone who contributes, but ultimately be the one who makes the decision. The benefit of being a civil bastard is that people will enjoy working with you, and you will be able to maintain your vision.
Sorry, but you just pushed one of my buttons when you said, "Zionists."
You seem to be someone who understands History well, so I am surprised to see you refer to "Zionists." My experience is limited, but the only people I've heard use this term are those who were brainwashed into believing that there were vast Jewish-led conspiracies -- none of which have ever historically had any basis or documented evidence to support. If we may look at Israel's current government as a splendid example: Say what you will about Sharon, and there are many documented things that would lead you to say bad things about him, one thing he is not is a despot. I humbly submit that democracies cannot be run with an iron fist by one man. They are run in committees, viewed by the public, owned by the public, with public documentation of all proceedings, and the left had has no idea what the right is doing.
We are rational people, so we can see that if Israel is a public government, then I submit that there would be such evidence of conspiracy that even the most pro-Jewish individuals would be unable to deny the truth in the face of the overwhelming mountains of documented evidence.
But I, in my ignorance, have yet to see a single shred.
I believe this may be of what the article speaks. As we have internet communications, as every individual on earth slowly but surely becomes connected to each other, such conspiracies become damned near impossible to propagate. Where is the evidence? We can look for evidence, and despite mounds of misinformation, we can go straight to the source and determine quite easily what is true and what is not. For example, there are many things about the net that are being attributed to George Carlin, such as the infamous "bad american" e-mail. Except that it's a fraud, which can be determined quite easily -- by going to George Carlin's website directly. And those who doubt the veracity of George Carlin's website can use other means, such as Yahoo! Yellow Pages (to look him or his agent up and call him), texts of known Carlin routines (to perform literary analysis to compare the viewpoints and styles of his writing), and places like www.snopes2.com which investigate such things and usually list other references on the subject.
I would suggest that due to the sheer number of people putting information on the 'net, that I am more likely to be struck by lightning than I am to find a lie that cannot be proven false elsewhere on the internet.
Let me submit for your approval this point of view: that if the powerful will to allow the weak to have a will of their own, then the iron cultural law tarnishes somewhat. I have been told that this is the purpose behind the Bill of Rights and indeed, the concept of "Rights" itself: To protect people in a democracy against the "tyranny of the majority."
In Israel, Palestinians are the majority. I believe it is well-documented that Palestinians, to a man, are not educated in the workings of democracy -- their cultural background assumes a hierarchical leadership, and my experience is that cultures that expect hierarchical leadership are not really prepared to understand the concept of democracy, where a government is subservient to the people's interests. My best friend, who grew up in China, and who is among the most brilliant people I know, is crippled in this manner: The concept that the 280 million people who are not involved directly with government in the United States are somehow more powerful than the few million who ARE government officials or members of the military is beyond her comprehension, due to her cultural background. It would seem to me to be a matter of simple math.
Also, Palestinians have replaced this education with a different kind of education; children are taught how wonderful it is to kill Israelis. So in this case, who protects the Israelis from the tyranny of the majority? Well, they have chosen not to extend political rights to the Palestinians for their protection.
When a Palestinian and an Israeli move to the United States, and they are appreciated based on their work ethic and productivity rather than birthright, and when they both have a voice in government through voting, discourse, and by simply being citizens, the relationship changes. They may live side by side. They may be friends. They will share tools with each other, and celebrate holidays in each other's back yard. The desire to kill ends. This is not because they are in this country, but because they have the same rights, and the same ability, and each is protected -- each one can worship God or Allah as he chose, or not at all. Freedom is not just freedom from oppression from the outside, but I would suggest that it is also an internal freedom -- freedom from the history and culture that binds us.
From what I have seen here in the States, social integration is ultimately the most difficult, but best solution for all involved. I submit to you the melting pot of the United States, where people of all colors associate together, work together, play together, and fall in love with each other. Where you see marriages between people with different skin colors, religions, and political beliefs -- sometimes all three. This isn't utopia -- it's the reality I live in every day.
And the beauty of technology is that you can verify all I've said here.
The action I would have you take from here is to question your beliefs with evidence -- evidence you can obtain and verify with today's technology. The benefit is that you will see the iron law rust and fall apart, and you will see that the weak are getting stronger more quickly than the strong.
It doesn't matter to me if he would die that day anyway. It doesn't matter to me if he died the next. It doesn't matter to me how well I knew him, or if I knew him at all. It doesn't matter to me if this person is innocent or not. It doesn't matter to me if by doing so, I would have averted a great tragedy.
Because I don't know if any of that is true. What I do know is that I murdered someone in cold blood, without taking any of these things into consideration. If you told me that this person was good, or bad, or would die tomorrow, or whatever -- if this information is somehow verifiable, then the situation changes. But you're not asked to distinguish between the Dalai Lama in this situation. You are not an executor of justice even if the victim is a menace to humanity, because you have no idea that you are doing such a thing -- you are only killing another human being in your own mind. This is about the choice YOU made, not the choices someone else made.
What you are asked is if you could do something morally wrong with no punishment and great reward, would you do it?
Another way to phrase the question is this: Is behaving in a certain way -- ANY way, not just according to a moral standard -- worth doing for its own sake?
I personally believe that behaving morally is worth doing for its own sake. Not because I hope for Heaven, or fear the fires of Hell, not because Christ saved me, but simply because I love God for what He has done for me.
Whoops! Hit "submit" before I'd answered everything.
"Wonder how helpful the US government would be to a corporation based in China wishing to operate in the US..."
One only need to look at the Chinese corporations and citizens who do business and live in this country to see the evidence of just how helpful our government is: Our government provides a wonderful environment for people to do business here. That's why our universities attract the best and brightest in the world, and why every day thousands of people risk their lives to cross the border to work as hard as they can in this country.
"With this and the X-Box how long will Microsoft's reserves last?"
A long, long, long time. Microsoft has so many billions in cash -- this isn't even one of those billions. Microsoft could release a handful of Xboxes, each one less successful than the last, and never even get near the bottom of the Fortune 500.
"Sounds like a government actually doing it's job, rather than allowing their country to be exploited by foreign corporations."
Hardly. If a government wants to keep itself from being exploited, they can institute a minimum wage, limit work hours, limit the age people can work at, allow collective bargaining, and then enforce these laws. Just like the United States does.
China doesn't give a damn if their workers are exploited. They go ahead and allow this, and then the government itself reaps the profits from the exploitation of their own people.
This is largely why true democracy and checks and balances are necessary to prevent exploitation.
I'm probably posting this far too late for anyone to read it, but here goes...
Actually, the bit about the new deal that struck me was this: "He said China had not made any specific pledges in return."
In other words, China has absolutely no obligation to do anything for Microsoft.
China gets 3/4 of a billion bucks, that they can spend how they please. And they don't have to do anything in return for this.
China has a long history of making it very difficult for corporations outside of China to make money. Corporations are attracted to China because of the immense size of the market, but the Chinese government typically structures the deals benefit the Chinese government, and the companies are lucky to break even.
Also, despite the fact that in Chinese culture you return kindness for kindness with your family and friends, the same is not true for business.
What it all comes down to is this: Microsoft will be lucky to get just a symbolic act. Maybe a highly-publicized "raid" on a handful of small-time software distributors? Who knows? But if they get free money, with no need to do anything in return...
...the evidence suggests that they won't do anything in return.
The suckers in this case are the folks in Redmond. They are basically throwing their money away.
"Never attribute to malice what can be attributed to stupidity."
This has all the markings of a simple misunderstanding on LucasArts' part, and not a malicious assault. Once an understanding is reached (that is: 1. ScummVM didn't steal anything, and 2. ScummVM causes people to buy more LucasArts games) the two sides will hopefully see the light -- provided they work towards the goal of understanding each other together, and don't turn this into an antagonistic battle.
LucasArts and ScummVM stand to benefit from each other; ScummVM needs to work towards achieving an understanding with LucasArts. ScummVM's response looks like a good step in this direction.
"And really having only one tool is not a monopoly."
How, then, would you define "monopoly?"
You are right that Windows succeeds because it has one interface that most everyone is used to. But should those of us who do not like Windows' interface be forced to use it for the sake of the others? I agree that this is not really a monopoly: It strikes me, rather, as despotism.
I am glad that KDE and Gnome are competing. It means that we who use Linux, unlike the Windows-using world, have a choice. And what's more, I feel that their competition helps to make them better.
The problem I have with Microsoft is that they DO have a clear, defined direction. And if I am a Windows user, it is the only direction I can go.
I want my Open Source projects to compete. I like it when projects fork. I like the fact that there is no despot who tells us how things must be. If it weren't for dissent, no one would have tried to start any newer or better projects to begin with -- we'd all be happy with whatever OS Microsoft spoon-fed us in the first place.
In ESR's "Cathedral & The Bazaar," he explains why forking and dissension is a good thing, and although his word is far from Bible Truth, he certainly has a point, doesn't he?
But ultimately, the current success of most Open Source projects seem to me to be the result of dissension and a lack of shared vision. We haven't had one yet, and I don't think it's out of line to say we got here because we bothered to disagree -- with Redmond and Cupertino as well as with each other.
So ultimately, I think it is in our best interests to remain in disagreement, and to continue to pursue our own interests and beliefs. Because ultimately, that is what separates us from Microsoft, and what makes us stronger.
Hybrid cars get their electricity from the motor, usually a diesel. It's the same idea as running SETI@Home on your computer, or how a turbo works -- pumping spare energy into storage, to give you a boost one way or another.
As for electrics, the electricity at least doesn't HAVE to come from a fossil-fuel-burning plant. It can come from hydroelectric power, from wind power, from solar power, or from nuclear power. It at least gives us a choice of what power source we can use, by converting that power source into something universal.
Ultimately, the real problem with fossil fuels is that we're locked into using them -- this is bad because we will eventually run out, and it is bad because we are forced to send our money to folks in the Middle East, some of whom then send that money to terrorist organizations, some of whom then kill Americans.
Electricity, at least, can be created through many sources.
Jon, if you expect to have any credibility at all, you need to stop being so sloppy. Whenever you write an editorial like this, you lend merit to your detractors' complaints.
1. Spider-Man was NOT a hyped blockbuster? I'm not even sure you could make the argument that it had less hype than Episode 2. Spider-Man certainly seems to have had many more product tie-ins and marketing tie-ins than Episode 2 did -- and almost as many as Episode 1. 2. Star Wars, making $200M in 12 days -- doing so even faster than Episode 1 did -- is somehow failing? 3. Joseph Campbell did not help Lucas pen Star Wars. That is an urban legend. Joseph Campbell would later use Star Wars to help sell his ideas, and Lucas would then use Campbell to help sell Star Wars. But Campbell and Lucas didn't know about each other until after Star Wars came out.
The third doesn't really affect your point, but the first two do.
What's worse, Jon, is that when you write a sociological article as badly as you've written this one, you not only undermine your own credibility, but you undermine the credibility of real Sociological research, and the benefits it can have for you, me, and the world, by adding to the already-common perception that Sociology is nothing more than pseudoscience with no basis in hard fact and logical extrapolation. This hurts not just you, but all of us.
If you continue writing articles in this way, you will not find much of a career in journalism, and people will largely ignore you, even when you do have something interesting and important to say.
Right now, Microsoft needs EA more than EA needs Microsoft. You cannot imagine how huge this announcement really is -- it may not single-handedly sink the X-box, but it will hurt it badly.
To give you another example of where a small company with a big franchise can hurt a big corporation, consider what the impact on News Corp. (the parent company of Fox) would be if George Lucas decided that he wanted to switch to Sony/Universal for distribution of the Star Wars films instead.
Microsoft knew this from the beginning: Their entire strategy from the outset has been to court developers, because they know that having good games is the only thing that will sell the console and make the X-box succeed. And they were doing a fabulous job of it as well, up until now -- they just fell back into one of their old bad habits. These old bad habits will hurt Microsoft in the long run in other areas, but here, the impact is immediate.
In the long term, this could be the beginning of the end of Microsoft's shoddy business practices. This is the first time Microsoft really got hit in the gut for their bullying tactics. What's more, if this is a hard enough hit to be part of the X-box's failure, people will look at the failure of the X-box and say, "Wow, Microsoft really screwed up." And that realization will cause them to question other things about Microsoft's business strategies. And Microsoft will be hurt even worse.
Of course EA said it in public. In the video game arena, publishers like Infogrames and EA are the 900lb. gorillas. Not Sony, not Nintendo, and most definitely not Microsoft.
You're right that "direct democracy" is something entirely different from a "republic," so I stand corrected, as does my dictionary, which seems to suggest that "direct democracy" and "republic" are two different breeds of "democracy." In either case, there is the same idea that the government is accountable to the people in one form or the other, although as you say, with direct democracy, accountability can be drowned out by the tyranny of the majority.
I'm far more worried about the length of the letter. It's a LONG one... given the average attention span of the average statesman, this doesn't help much.
And of course I'm going to give the proper attribution to the right person.
I've read a bit of the Federalist Papers (okay, it was just Alexander Hamilton's brilliant first paper... it goes downhill as soon as you get to John Jay's first writing) and of course we've all read the Declaration of Independence and other such great documents. And this reads like one of those documents. This guy could give lessons in what being a Democratic and Free state really means to the US Government. In fact, I think this letter should be required reading for all US Government officials.
I'd even go as far as to say we should begin a letter-writing campaign to mail copies of this to our congress-critters, to the White House, and to the national news media.
I'm going to put this on my TODO: list. I am going to draft a letter with these contents, and mail them to the people who represent me.
As the submitter said, "All that is required for Evil to triumph is that good men do nothing." I may not be a perfectly good man, but I'm going to do SOMETHING!
You're all doom and gloom about this. There's a happier side to this story.
The thing is, the overloaded use of a word tends to lessen the impact of the word and its meaning and impact. "Piracy" has impact today, but tomorrow, it won't hit people as hard -- especially when they realize that what Valenti means by "piracy" -- making copies of movies and music you already own for your own personal use -- is something that is explicitly legal, and everyone does. This growing realization among the public will make the word mean a whole lot less in this context. And then people fighting off genuine copyright rip-off schemes will have to find a better word, because nobody will give a damn about "piracy."
The same thing has happened to a lot of words. Now that enough people have used "rape" to refer to more mundane violations, it doesn't have the violent and horrible impact that genuine rape has. And "masturbation" used to be a guaranteed way to get folks to blush in public, until we started discussing such thing more openly -- a casualty of AIDS.
But in the meantime, other words get new meanings and become a lot stronger when they get new meanings in a cultural context. Like "postal," as in, "I'm gonna go postal if I get one more MAKE MONEY FAST spam!":)
Before I go off on a rant, the article makes some valid points -- people have taken the Lucas/Campbell association way too far.
But then, the whole point of Campbell's research wasn't something you would go dig into and then use in the first place anyway; the point was that there were certain archetypal myths that people have always enjoyed. Lucas didn't need to have been familiar with Campbell's work or ancient Greek legends to have done something that agrees with Campbell's research! In a sense, as someone who'd studied a half-century of cinema (focusing on the good ones), he couldn't help himself but to follow it, subconciously.
Let's not replace one form of idiocy with another when we backlash against the first kind, k?
"I would have supported BNETD too, if it weren't obvious they stole code. "
Ok, if this bug is "very obvious," why wouldn't it then be "very obvious" to someone who was reverse-engineering the software by sniffing packets?
Seems to me that this is not only more obvious than your suggestion that they stole code, but that it is a simpler and (by Occam's Razor) more likely conclusion.
An argument that is very powerful that I never see anywhere is the damage that this bill wil do to artists.
The main argument the RIAA and MPAA make is that this is for the protection of artists from consumers. This is only partially true; the only artists who are protected are signed artists who are receiving heavy promotion from the industries in question; independent artists, up-and-comers, and the like use the cheap digital equipment and freely-distributable content to sell their wares.
Once CBDTPA passes, independent artists and musicians will basically have to break the law to have the free and cheap promotion and development tools they have today -- or they simply will not be able to pursue the arts for a living.
Think about it. Over the past couple of years, there has been a storm of new independent films and music that have become famous overnight thanks to inexpensive and easily-copyable technology. Anyone can make an MP3 or a Movie, and distribute it easily. This means that there's a lot of really bad art out there, but the cream is able to rise to the top ("Hey, check out this awesome song I just got off of Kazaa!") and music/movies the RIAA/MPAA never would have approved of get out, and through this advertising people are able to make a living.
Need an example? How about Matt Stone and Trey Parker, creators of South Park. The internet made them. They mock the MPAA. And the MPAA is trying to make sure that no one can make movies without going through them.
That's what's really happening here. This is not about protecting the artists at all; it is about control. Control over what you listen to and what you watch. It is outright racketeering.
Please tell them about the artists. From one wannabe musician.
Re:What's the correct way to upgrade my KDE?
on
KDE 3.0 is Out
·
· Score: 2
Yo! Someone mod the parent of this one up!!! It's actually *gasp* informative!
Slashdot Mirror
Hmmm. The poster above demonstrated a very clear knowledge about HR practices. We would certainly appreciate it if you know something we don't, you would share it with us. Why just spout a one-liner with no evidence to back it up?
I understand your frustration; however, we must not lower ourselves to beneath their level with such thoughts.
:)
They stay in office largely because of a lack of education. Ultimately, the burden of education lies with the people who have the most knowledge. In other words, it is geeks like us who are responsible for educating the rest of society about technology; unfortunately, most of us are not exactly great communicators. We prefer to communicate with or through machines rather than face to face.
They stay alive because assassination is an even worse crime than writing bad legislation. The success of democracy depends on working within the system to effect change; once someone decides that he is above the system, that he can take the law into his own hands, then he puts himself beneath the slime who do this, and becomes a common murderer.
Just think of how people view Timothy McVeigh, abortion doctor killers, and terrorists, and you will see why they stay alive: Because killing them is much more wrong.
Red Hat, like any other company, has a financial stake that they must defend. Their position on UCITA is somewhat biased. Open Source software as a business model might be harmed by UCITA; however, it is about as likely to prevent people from working on Open Source as warning labels on packs of cigarettes are to keep people from smoking. People will still do it, because it is highly addictive, even if they later learn that it is bad for them. Open Source, that is.
The only thing I have ever seen Linus Torvalds take credit for is being a bastard.
I think what this means is that he dictates the terms for contributions to Linux. He ultimately decides what goes in and what doesn't, and how patches should be submitted. There is no one sharing this responsibility with him. Ultimately, despite the thousands of people who have contributed to Linux, and the projects beforehand (such as GNU) that made these steps possible, the Linux kernel is still very much under Linus' control.
There is obviously more to it than that, but not much more than this:
I heard an interview with Linus that was on NPR about a year or so ago (it was posted to slashdot at the time) where he made this claim. That is, the claim that he is really just a bastard. I laughed -- I thought it was hilarious, because he certainly didn't SOUND like a bastard. He sounded like a very nice guy, very polite -- someone I would like to work with.
When Google posted their "moments in Usenet history," I found the flamewar between Linus and the author of Minix revealing. All through Linus' posts, even in the flamewar, I get the sense that he's not out to discredit or belittle the author of Minix, but to disagree more civilly, and in the face of some pretty harsh criticism.
I have never submitted anything for the Linux kernel; however, if I did, I get the feeling that if Linus wouldn't want it, he wouldn't put it in. I also get the feeling that he would not reject it in a way to make me feel rejected.
The proper way to do this is by giving credit to the person for the idea and the effort he or she has put in. Ultimately, you are the one who benefits from his or her work, so give them honest and sincere appreciation for that. Then, tell him/her that you want to wait before adding the patch to the software. And if anyone has an idea but no patch, ask them to code it up for you! Give them a challenge!
I believe that, aside from the fact he picked a project that millions of people were interested in, his civil authoritarianism has been the reason for Linux's success.
So take this to heart. Be friendly and appreciative of everyone who contributes, but ultimately be the one who makes the decision. The benefit of being a civil bastard is that people will enjoy working with you, and you will be able to maintain your vision.
Sorry, but you just pushed one of my buttons when you said, "Zionists."
You seem to be someone who understands History well, so I am surprised to see you refer to "Zionists." My experience is limited, but the only people I've heard use this term are those who were brainwashed into believing that there were vast Jewish-led conspiracies -- none of which have ever historically had any basis or documented evidence to support. If we may look at Israel's current government as a splendid example: Say what you will about Sharon, and there are many documented things that would lead you to say bad things about him, one thing he is not is a despot. I humbly submit that democracies cannot be run with an iron fist by one man. They are run in committees, viewed by the public, owned by the public, with public documentation of all proceedings, and the left had has no idea what the right is doing.
We are rational people, so we can see that if Israel is a public government, then I submit that there would be such evidence of conspiracy that even the most pro-Jewish individuals would be unable to deny the truth in the face of the overwhelming mountains of documented evidence.
But I, in my ignorance, have yet to see a single shred.
I believe this may be of what the article speaks. As we have internet communications, as every individual on earth slowly but surely becomes connected to each other, such conspiracies become damned near impossible to propagate. Where is the evidence? We can look for evidence, and despite mounds of misinformation, we can go straight to the source and determine quite easily what is true and what is not. For example, there are many things about the net that are being attributed to George Carlin, such as the infamous "bad american" e-mail. Except that it's a fraud, which can be determined quite easily -- by going to George Carlin's website directly. And those who doubt the veracity of George Carlin's website can use other means, such as Yahoo! Yellow Pages (to look him or his agent up and call him), texts of known Carlin routines (to perform literary analysis to compare the viewpoints and styles of his writing), and places like www.snopes2.com which investigate such things and usually list other references on the subject.
I would suggest that due to the sheer number of people putting information on the 'net, that I am more likely to be struck by lightning than I am to find a lie that cannot be proven false elsewhere on the internet.
Let me submit for your approval this point of view: that if the powerful will to allow the weak to have a will of their own, then the iron cultural law tarnishes somewhat. I have been told that this is the purpose behind the Bill of Rights and indeed, the concept of "Rights" itself: To protect people in a democracy against the "tyranny of the majority."
In Israel, Palestinians are the majority. I believe it is well-documented that Palestinians, to a man, are not educated in the workings of democracy -- their cultural background assumes a hierarchical leadership, and my experience is that cultures that expect hierarchical leadership are not really prepared to understand the concept of democracy, where a government is subservient to the people's interests. My best friend, who grew up in China, and who is among the most brilliant people I know, is crippled in this manner: The concept that the 280 million people who are not involved directly with government in the United States are somehow more powerful than the few million who ARE government officials or members of the military is beyond her comprehension, due to her cultural background. It would seem to me to be a matter of simple math.
Also, Palestinians have replaced this education with a different kind of education; children are taught how wonderful it is to kill Israelis. So in this case, who protects the Israelis from the tyranny of the majority? Well, they have chosen not to extend political rights to the Palestinians for their protection.
When a Palestinian and an Israeli move to the United States, and they are appreciated based on their work ethic and productivity rather than birthright, and when they both have a voice in government through voting, discourse, and by simply being citizens, the relationship changes. They may live side by side. They may be friends. They will share tools with each other, and celebrate holidays in each other's back yard. The desire to kill ends. This is not because they are in this country, but because they have the same rights, and the same ability, and each is protected -- each one can worship God or Allah as he chose, or not at all. Freedom is not just freedom from oppression from the outside, but I would suggest that it is also an internal freedom -- freedom from the history and culture that binds us.
From what I have seen here in the States, social integration is ultimately the most difficult, but best solution for all involved. I submit to you the melting pot of the United States, where people of all colors associate together, work together, play together, and fall in love with each other. Where you see marriages between people with different skin colors, religions, and political beliefs -- sometimes all three. This isn't utopia -- it's the reality I live in every day.
And the beauty of technology is that you can verify all I've said here.
The action I would have you take from here is to question your beliefs with evidence -- evidence you can obtain and verify with today's technology. The benefit is that you will see the iron law rust and fall apart, and you will see that the weak are getting stronger more quickly than the strong.
It doesn't matter to me if he would die that day anyway.
It doesn't matter to me if he died the next.
It doesn't matter to me how well I knew him, or if I knew him at all.
It doesn't matter to me if this person is innocent or not.
It doesn't matter to me if by doing so, I would have averted a great tragedy.
Because I don't know if any of that is true. What I do know is that I murdered someone in cold blood, without taking any of these things into consideration. If you told me that this person was good, or bad, or would die tomorrow, or whatever -- if this information is somehow verifiable, then the situation changes. But you're not asked to distinguish between the Dalai Lama in this situation. You are not an executor of justice even if the victim is a menace to humanity, because you have no idea that you are doing such a thing -- you are only killing another human being in your own mind. This is about the choice YOU made, not the choices someone else made.
What you are asked is if you could do something morally wrong with no punishment and great reward, would you do it?
Another way to phrase the question is this: Is behaving in a certain way -- ANY way, not just according to a moral standard -- worth doing for its own sake?
I personally believe that behaving morally is worth doing for its own sake. Not because I hope for Heaven, or fear the fires of Hell, not because Christ saved me, but simply because I love God for what He has done for me.
And because murder sucks ass.
Whoops! Hit "submit" before I'd answered everything.
"Wonder how helpful the US government would be to a corporation based in China wishing to operate in the US..."
One only need to look at the Chinese corporations and citizens who do business and live in this country to see the evidence of just how helpful our government is: Our government provides a wonderful environment for people to do business here. That's why our universities attract the best and brightest in the world, and why every day thousands of people risk their lives to cross the border to work as hard as they can in this country.
"With this and the X-Box how long will Microsoft's reserves last?"
A long, long, long time. Microsoft has so many billions in cash -- this isn't even one of those billions. Microsoft could release a handful of Xboxes, each one less successful than the last, and never even get near the bottom of the Fortune 500.
"Sounds like a government actually doing it's job, rather than allowing their country to be exploited by foreign corporations."
Hardly. If a government wants to keep itself from being exploited, they can institute a minimum wage, limit work hours, limit the age people can work at, allow collective bargaining, and then enforce these laws. Just like the United States does.
China doesn't give a damn if their workers are exploited. They go ahead and allow this, and then the government itself reaps the profits from the exploitation of their own people.
This is largely why true democracy and checks and balances are necessary to prevent exploitation.
I'm probably posting this far too late for anyone to read it, but here goes...
Actually, the bit about the new deal that struck me was this: "He said China had not made any specific pledges in return."
In other words, China has absolutely no obligation to do anything for Microsoft.
China gets 3/4 of a billion bucks, that they can spend how they please. And they don't have to do anything in return for this.
China has a long history of making it very difficult for corporations outside of China to make money. Corporations are attracted to China because of the immense size of the market, but the Chinese government typically structures the deals benefit the Chinese government, and the companies are lucky to break even.
Also, despite the fact that in Chinese culture you return kindness for kindness with your family and friends, the same is not true for business.
What it all comes down to is this: Microsoft will be lucky to get just a symbolic act. Maybe a highly-publicized "raid" on a handful of small-time software distributors? Who knows? But if they get free money, with no need to do anything in return...
...the evidence suggests that they won't do anything in return.
The suckers in this case are the folks in Redmond. They are basically throwing their money away.
"Never attribute to malice what can be attributed to stupidity."
This has all the markings of a simple misunderstanding on LucasArts' part, and not a malicious assault. Once an understanding is reached (that is: 1. ScummVM didn't steal anything, and 2. ScummVM causes people to buy more LucasArts games) the two sides will hopefully see the light -- provided they work towards the goal of understanding each other together, and don't turn this into an antagonistic battle.
LucasArts and ScummVM stand to benefit from each other; ScummVM needs to work towards achieving an understanding with LucasArts. ScummVM's response looks like a good step in this direction.
"And really having only one tool is not a monopoly."
How, then, would you define "monopoly?"
You are right that Windows succeeds because it has one interface that most everyone is used to. But should those of us who do not like Windows' interface be forced to use it for the sake of the others? I agree that this is not really a monopoly: It strikes me, rather, as despotism.
I see things differently.
I am glad that KDE and Gnome are competing. It means that we who use Linux, unlike the Windows-using world, have a choice. And what's more, I feel that their competition helps to make them better.
The problem I have with Microsoft is that they DO have a clear, defined direction. And if I am a Windows user, it is the only direction I can go.
I want my Open Source projects to compete. I like it when projects fork. I like the fact that there is no despot who tells us how things must be. If it weren't for dissent, no one would have tried to start any newer or better projects to begin with -- we'd all be happy with whatever OS Microsoft spoon-fed us in the first place.
In ESR's "Cathedral & The Bazaar," he explains why forking and dissension is a good thing, and although his word is far from Bible Truth, he certainly has a point, doesn't he?
But ultimately, the current success of most Open Source projects seem to me to be the result of dissension and a lack of shared vision. We haven't had one yet, and I don't think it's out of line to say we got here because we bothered to disagree -- with Redmond and Cupertino as well as with each other.
So ultimately, I think it is in our best interests to remain in disagreement, and to continue to pursue our own interests and beliefs. Because ultimately, that is what separates us from Microsoft, and what makes us stronger.
Hybrid cars get their electricity from the motor, usually a diesel. It's the same idea as running SETI@Home on your computer, or how a turbo works -- pumping spare energy into storage, to give you a boost one way or another.
As for electrics, the electricity at least doesn't HAVE to come from a fossil-fuel-burning plant. It can come from hydroelectric power, from wind power, from solar power, or from nuclear power. It at least gives us a choice of what power source we can use, by converting that power source into something universal.
Ultimately, the real problem with fossil fuels is that we're locked into using them -- this is bad because we will eventually run out, and it is bad because we are forced to send our money to folks in the Middle East, some of whom then send that money to terrorist organizations, some of whom then kill Americans.
Electricity, at least, can be created through many sources.
But then, that's electrics, not hybrids.
Jon, if you expect to have any credibility at all, you need to stop being so sloppy. Whenever you write an editorial like this, you lend merit to your detractors' complaints.
1. Spider-Man was NOT a hyped blockbuster? I'm not even sure you could make the argument that it had less hype than Episode 2. Spider-Man certainly seems to have had many more product tie-ins and marketing tie-ins than Episode 2 did -- and almost as many as Episode 1.
2. Star Wars, making $200M in 12 days -- doing so even faster than Episode 1 did -- is somehow failing?
3. Joseph Campbell did not help Lucas pen Star Wars. That is an urban legend. Joseph Campbell would later use Star Wars to help sell his ideas, and Lucas would then use Campbell to help sell Star Wars. But Campbell and Lucas didn't know about each other until after Star Wars came out.
The third doesn't really affect your point, but the first two do.
What's worse, Jon, is that when you write a sociological article as badly as you've written this one, you not only undermine your own credibility, but you undermine the credibility of real Sociological research, and the benefits it can have for you, me, and the world, by adding to the already-common perception that Sociology is nothing more than pseudoscience with no basis in hard fact and logical extrapolation. This hurts not just you, but all of us.
If you continue writing articles in this way, you will not find much of a career in journalism, and people will largely ignore you, even when you do have something interesting and important to say.
Right now, Microsoft needs EA more than EA needs Microsoft. You cannot imagine how huge this announcement really is -- it may not single-handedly sink the X-box, but it will hurt it badly.
To give you another example of where a small company with a big franchise can hurt a big corporation, consider what the impact on News Corp. (the parent company of Fox) would be if George Lucas decided that he wanted to switch to Sony/Universal for distribution of the Star Wars films instead.
Microsoft knew this from the beginning: Their entire strategy from the outset has been to court developers, because they know that having good games is the only thing that will sell the console and make the X-box succeed. And they were doing a fabulous job of it as well, up until now -- they just fell back into one of their old bad habits. These old bad habits will hurt Microsoft in the long run in other areas, but here, the impact is immediate.
In the long term, this could be the beginning of the end of Microsoft's shoddy business practices. This is the first time Microsoft really got hit in the gut for their bullying tactics. What's more, if this is a hard enough hit to be part of the X-box's failure, people will look at the failure of the X-box and say, "Wow, Microsoft really screwed up." And that realization will cause them to question other things about Microsoft's business strategies. And Microsoft will be hurt even worse.
Of course EA said it in public. In the video game arena, publishers like Infogrames and EA are the 900lb. gorillas. Not Sony, not Nintendo, and most definitely not Microsoft.
Does that make any sense at all?
You're right that "direct democracy" is something entirely different from a "republic," so I stand corrected, as does my dictionary, which seems to suggest that "direct democracy" and "republic" are two different breeds of "democracy." In either case, there is the same idea that the government is accountable to the people in one form or the other, although as you say, with direct democracy, accountability can be drowned out by the tyranny of the majority.
My apologies for the confusion this caused.
I'm far more worried about the length of the letter. It's a LONG one... given the average attention span of the average statesman, this doesn't help much.
And of course I'm going to give the proper attribution to the right person.
I've read a bit of the Federalist Papers (okay, it was just Alexander Hamilton's brilliant first paper... it goes downhill as soon as you get to John Jay's first writing) and of course we've all read the Declaration of Independence and other such great documents. And this reads like one of those documents. This guy could give lessons in what being a Democratic and Free state really means to the US Government. In fact, I think this letter should be required reading for all US Government officials.
I'd even go as far as to say we should begin a letter-writing campaign to mail copies of this to our congress-critters, to the White House, and to the national news media.
I'm going to put this on my TODO: list. I am going to draft a letter with these contents, and mail them to the people who represent me.
As the submitter said, "All that is required for Evil to triumph is that good men do nothing." I may not be a perfectly good man, but I'm going to do SOMETHING!
If you compare the population of the USA at the two different times, you get an even more impressive result for E.T. as well.
... how much does Slashdot cost the economy? :)
The dialogue is better, but it's the same bad acting, of course. :)
You're all doom and gloom about this. There's a happier side to this story.
:)
The thing is, the overloaded use of a word tends to lessen the impact of the word and its meaning and impact. "Piracy" has impact today, but tomorrow, it won't hit people as hard -- especially when they realize that what Valenti means by "piracy" -- making copies of movies and music you already own for your own personal use -- is something that is explicitly legal, and everyone does. This growing realization among the public will make the word mean a whole lot less in this context. And then people fighting off genuine copyright rip-off schemes will have to find a better word, because nobody will give a damn about "piracy."
The same thing has happened to a lot of words. Now that enough people have used "rape" to refer to more mundane violations, it doesn't have the violent and horrible impact that genuine rape has. And "masturbation" used to be a guaranteed way to get folks to blush in public, until we started discussing such thing more openly -- a casualty of AIDS.
But in the meantime, other words get new meanings and become a lot stronger when they get new meanings in a cultural context. Like "postal," as in, "I'm gonna go postal if I get one more MAKE MONEY FAST spam!"
Before I go off on a rant, the article makes some valid points -- people have taken the Lucas/Campbell association way too far.
But then, the whole point of Campbell's research wasn't something you would go dig into and then use in the first place anyway; the point was that there were certain archetypal myths that people have always enjoyed. Lucas didn't need to have been familiar with Campbell's work or ancient Greek legends to have done something that agrees with Campbell's research! In a sense, as someone who'd studied a half-century of cinema (focusing on the good ones), he couldn't help himself but to follow it, subconciously.
Let's not replace one form of idiocy with another when we backlash against the first kind, k?
"I would have supported BNETD too, if it weren't obvious they stole code. "
Ok, if this bug is "very obvious," why wouldn't it then be "very obvious" to someone who was reverse-engineering the software by sniffing packets?
Seems to me that this is not only more obvious than your suggestion that they stole code, but that it is a simpler and (by Occam's Razor) more likely conclusion.
An argument that is very powerful that I never see anywhere is the damage that this bill wil do to artists.
The main argument the RIAA and MPAA make is that this is for the protection of artists from consumers. This is only partially true; the only artists who are protected are signed artists who are receiving heavy promotion from the industries in question; independent artists, up-and-comers, and the like use the cheap digital equipment and freely-distributable content to sell their wares.
Once CBDTPA passes, independent artists and musicians will basically have to break the law to have the free and cheap promotion and development tools they have today -- or they simply will not be able to pursue the arts for a living.
Think about it. Over the past couple of years, there has been a storm of new independent films and music that have become famous overnight thanks to inexpensive and easily-copyable technology. Anyone can make an MP3 or a Movie, and distribute it easily. This means that there's a lot of really bad art out there, but the cream is able to rise to the top ("Hey, check out this awesome song I just got off of Kazaa!") and music/movies the RIAA/MPAA never would have approved of get out, and through this advertising people are able to make a living.
Need an example? How about Matt Stone and Trey Parker, creators of South Park. The internet made them. They mock the MPAA. And the MPAA is trying to make sure that no one can make movies without going through them.
That's what's really happening here. This is not about protecting the artists at all; it is about control. Control over what you listen to and what you watch. It is outright racketeering.
Please tell them about the artists. From one wannabe musician.
Yo! Someone mod the parent of this one up!!! It's actually *gasp* informative!