Yes, the FINANCIAL transactions were often made not on the basis of what would be PROFITABLE, but what was expected of the people approving the loans in terms of personal obligations.
Yes, they do ask a lot from their employees, like US companies, but they also give more.
In the US, if your job becomes unnecessary, you're tossed out onto the street. In Japan you'd be more likely, especially if you're an older employee, to be given a make-work position. Why is this the case if they're only interested in squeezing them for everything they can get?
Don't forget that the Japanese put some cultural practices over profit (which is one of the reasons their banking industry is in such bad shape), so it would probably stop at the point where it conflicts with accepted cultural practices. In America a never-ending supply of corporate shills would be constantly pushing it past any boundaries, obsessed only with eking out a few more dollars.
Well, if you have it, might as well sell it. I mean, what else would you do, leave it in a big stack on the curb when you move out of your house and onto the island?
I probably wouldn't care about making any more, though.
From what I see, the only reason that corporations tolerate MS's bullcrap (daily crashes, frequent upgrades forced by file incompatibilities, etc.) is that "everyone knows how to use Windows."
Plus, everyone knows how to cope with MS problems from frequent use.
An example:
"Hey, Bob, netscape froze."
"Hit control-alternate-delete, click on netscape, then close the program."
After Bob installs Linux on everyone's desktop:
"Hey, Bob, netscape froze."
"Ok, open a terminal window, type "ps auxwww", then a vertical bar character, then "grep netscape", then find a netscape process with a high CPU usage, mark down the process id number, then type "kill thatnumber". If it doesn't work, do "kill" then dash 9, then the process number."
Windows also, to be honest, has a slightly easier way to do certain things.
Installing a new program:
"Bob, how do I install this program?"
"Double click on the installation program, then follow the directions on the screen."
Post-Linux:
"Bob, how do I install this program?"
"It's an RPM, so you have to do rpm -i then the filename."
"Ok, that's easy. Thought I'd have to compile it or something."
"Haha, no,you don't have to untar and compile it. All you have to do is use RPM."
"Hey, it won't run."
"Well, RPM just installed the source, so you have to compile it now."
"But you just said I wouldn't have to!"
"I don't remember saying that."
Oh, I was responding to the guy who responded to you; whatever ESR's rationale for why Microsoft isn't a monopoly, I'm fairly sure it has to do more with his personal beliefs than any actual economic mechanisms that might preclude it from being one.
No microsoftie so far could explain to me why Bill Gates himself sold more than half of his stock already and is continuing to sell thousands of shares every week.
His actions make sense to me. If had his stock portfolio I'd have sold them all and bought my own island already, even if I was convinced they'd double in value down the road. Hell, after that first billion do you really need more money?
ESR is no monopoly-whiner, which I find very refreshing...And if you ask me, I always said that Microsoft had market-domination and not monopoly.
You're both wrong. Microsoft is a perfect example of a monopoly.
I'm not sure what your rationale is, but ESR apparently doesn't believe in monopolies, because their existence pokes too many holes in his libertarian beliefs.
If a company has overwhelming market dominance, and uses that dominance to actively prevent others' entry into the market, that's a monopoly. I'm not sure which definition of the word you subscribe to.
The difference is RMS isn't trying to preach open source. He thinks it's unethical to charge money for software, so takes action to provide an alternative. He has been, for the most part, successful. I've never gotten the sense that he has it out for MS in particular, and the bottom line, as you put it, isn't what he cares about.
ESR on the other hand, is trying to preach open software as a superior financial alternative, a notion that hasn't really been effective.
I'm not sure I can agree. The worst part of the word "content" is it describes works of art, media, design, etc. in terms of their function, which for some reason irritates me.
It's kind of like describing a painting only in terms of its retail value, or a poem by how much space it takes up on the page.
If browsers had just refused to render non-standard, we wouldn't be in this mess. Of course, we also wouldn't have quite so big of a world-wide-web, because vanity publishing would have required synactical precision.
A smaller world wide web doesn't sound so bad nowadays...
I enjoyed Babylon 5 immensely, but it was a deeply flawed show; it used too many stock sci-fi situations, and the characters could often be pulpish and 2-dimensional.
I think the problem might have been stretched out too much. The storyline just wasn't enough to sustain that many seasons.
Oh, true, and I have no problem using deprecated tags myself, I just find it puzzling why they do it. Look at the tag; it's an extremely useful, simple way to do a little basic formatting. But they deprecated it, and now want us to replace it with a big chunk of CSS code.
1) Create what you wanted the site to look like using Photoshop.
That sounds horribly complicated. Wouldn't it at least double the length of time needed to actually code the thing?
What little HTML I do is via hand, with a few things (image maps, guestbooks, etc) cut and pasted. The sites don't look particularly ornate, but they do usually work in every browser I test them with.
I'm not. I'm looking for information. Content is too trendy and vacuous. Content is a word propagated by corporate drones, the kind of people who would sell you a book but never think of reading one themselves.
Slashdot Mirror
No, SuSE is submitting enhancements for Linux for the AMD Hammer. Made me think they were actually making suggestions to the chip design for a second.
Americans arnt overpaid, in our market, we are paid just right.
Right, we're just overworked.
Yes, the FINANCIAL transactions were often made not on the basis of what would be PROFITABLE, but what was expected of the people approving the loans in terms of personal obligations.
Yes, they do ask a lot from their employees, like US companies, but they also give more.
In the US, if your job becomes unnecessary, you're tossed out onto the street. In Japan you'd be more likely, especially if you're an older employee, to be given a make-work position. Why is this the case if they're only interested in squeezing them for everything they can get?
If I pay the fee, do I get to moderate again? Or is the blacklist impossible to get off of?
Don't forget that the Japanese put some cultural practices over profit (which is one of the reasons their banking industry is in such bad shape), so it would probably stop at the point where it conflicts with accepted cultural practices. In America a never-ending supply of corporate shills would be constantly pushing it past any boundaries, obsessed only with eking out a few more dollars.
I could have told you it was a scam two words into it; "Free broadband"? Who on earth would believe something like that?
Well, if you have it, might as well sell it. I mean, what else would you do, leave it in a big stack on the curb when you move out of your house and onto the island?
I probably wouldn't care about making any more, though.
I guess that's my social science background; we were supposed to put citations in parentheses in the text itself (Smith, 1994).
According to the story, it was a computer consultant shopping in CompUSA who saw this.
It's irrelevant, I guess, since nobody actually reads the stories anymore.
From what I see, the only reason that corporations tolerate MS's bullcrap (daily crashes, frequent upgrades forced by file incompatibilities, etc.) is that "everyone knows how to use Windows."
Plus, everyone knows how to cope with MS problems from frequent use.
An example:
"Hey, Bob, netscape froze."
"Hit control-alternate-delete, click on netscape, then close the program."
After Bob installs Linux on everyone's desktop:
"Hey, Bob, netscape froze."
"Ok, open a terminal window, type "ps auxwww", then a vertical bar character, then "grep netscape", then find a netscape process with a high CPU usage, mark down the process id number, then type "kill thatnumber". If it doesn't work, do "kill" then dash 9, then the process number."
Windows also, to be honest, has a slightly easier way to do certain things.
Installing a new program:
"Bob, how do I install this program?"
"Double click on the installation program, then follow the directions on the screen."
Post-Linux:
"Bob, how do I install this program?"
"It's an RPM, so you have to do rpm -i then the filename."
"Ok, that's easy. Thought I'd have to compile it or something."
"Haha, no,you don't have to untar and compile it. All you have to do is use RPM."
"Hey, it won't run."
"Well, RPM just installed the source, so you have to compile it now."
"But you just said I wouldn't have to!"
"I don't remember saying that."
Oh, I was responding to the guy who responded to you; whatever ESR's rationale for why Microsoft isn't a monopoly, I'm fairly sure it has to do more with his personal beliefs than any actual economic mechanisms that might preclude it from being one.
Let's be honest here; even though computers these days are a few hundred times as fast as they were 10 years ago, Linux really isn't that much faster.
All OSes bloat to fill up the available CPU usage.
No microsoftie so far could explain to me why Bill Gates himself sold more than half of his stock already and is continuing to sell thousands of shares every week.
His actions make sense to me. If had his stock portfolio I'd have sold them all and bought my own island already, even if I was convinced they'd double in value down the road. Hell, after that first billion do you really need more money?
Or just use Wordpad. Very few college students need anything more complicated than that.
ESR is no monopoly-whiner, which I find very refreshing...And if you ask me, I always said that Microsoft had market-domination and not monopoly.
You're both wrong. Microsoft is a perfect example of a monopoly.
I'm not sure what your rationale is, but ESR apparently doesn't believe in monopolies, because their existence pokes too many holes in his libertarian beliefs.
If a company has overwhelming market dominance, and uses that dominance to actively prevent others' entry into the market, that's a monopoly. I'm not sure which definition of the word you subscribe to.
The difference is RMS isn't trying to preach open source. He thinks it's unethical to charge money for software, so takes action to provide an alternative. He has been, for the most part, successful. I've never gotten the sense that he has it out for MS in particular, and the bottom line, as you put it, isn't what he cares about.
ESR on the other hand, is trying to preach open software as a superior financial alternative, a notion that hasn't really been effective.
I'm not sure I can agree. The worst part of the word "content" is it describes works of art, media, design, etc. in terms of their function, which for some reason irritates me.
It's kind of like describing a painting only in terms of its retail value, or a poem by how much space it takes up on the page.
If browsers had just refused to render non-standard, we wouldn't be in this mess. Of course, we also wouldn't have quite so big of a world-wide-web, because vanity publishing would have required synactical precision.
A smaller world wide web doesn't sound so bad nowadays...
I enjoyed Babylon 5 immensely, but it was a deeply flawed show; it used too many stock sci-fi situations, and the characters could often be pulpish and 2-dimensional.
I think the problem might have been stretched out too much. The storyline just wasn't enough to sustain that many seasons.
Oh, true, and I have no problem using deprecated tags myself, I just find it puzzling why they do it. Look at the tag; it's an extremely useful, simple way to do a little basic formatting. But they deprecated it, and now want us to replace it with a big chunk of CSS code.
1) Create what you wanted the site to look like using Photoshop.
That sounds horribly complicated. Wouldn't it at least double the length of time needed to actually code the thing?
What little HTML I do is via hand, with a few things (image maps, guestbooks, etc) cut and pasted. The sites don't look particularly ornate, but they do usually work in every browser I test them with.
Oh, I agree wholeheartedly. What I don't really get is why the W3C is so intent on moving everything onto it.
I'm surfing the web looking for content.
I'm not. I'm looking for information. Content is too trendy and vacuous. Content is a word propagated by corporate drones, the kind of people who would sell you a book but never think of reading one themselves.
1) Do not attempt to control every aspect of the display of the site in the browser of your visitors. This is not the purpose of HTML.
Then how do you explain CSS?
The one problem I have with the W3C is their tendency to deprecate things at the drop of a hat.