You are essentially arguing that this was somehow unfair to Chevy because customers are not stupid and will not spend more money and buy a piece of junk, so by default they are going to buy a Honda.
While that might be true, I don't see the consumer being harmed, just Chevrolet.
The analogy doesn't stick though; the main reason Microsoft released IE for free was because they were scared as hell that Netscape would become a new software platform--an alternative to Windows. A better analogy would be Chevrolet designing a new type of 4 wheel vehicle, and Honda retaliating by giving away cars for free to run Chevrolet out of business.
As to the founding fathers, some 25% of the them were probably Deists, who really didn't have much to sasy on the subject of religion in the first place.
I'd guess a lot more than 25%; I'm sure most of them were, as it was a common belief system among enlightenment intellectuals. And of course, there is the bane of religious right recidivists, Chapter XI of the treaty signed in 1796 (ratified by Founding Father John Adams) with Tripoli that stated matter-of-factly that the United States was "not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion" (yes, that's a direct quote).
If you use a derogatory term like "fuzzy" to refer to someone who majored in a non-scientific discipline, it sounds like you've made a decision that you'll never change, no matter how many scientifically adept "fuzzies" you run into.
Actually in America the opposite seems to be true. I think most other countries move children pretty early into different education tracks; trade school, sciences, arts, etc. Here just about everyone is forced into a track which is meant to result eventually in college. In NYC we've lost a couple of trade schools in the past few years, which I think is a pretty big mistake; the students the papers quoted were extremely disappointed about missing out on something they found interesting and which would eventually lead to a steady job.
There were not (as of three years ago) three states out of 53 jurisdictions where there was a correlative, let alone causal, relationship between spending and test scores.
First of all, are these state test scores? Nothing can be really proved if each state comes up with its own test, which would probably be geared so that a certain percentage of the students will pass. Besides which, you state later that smaller class sizes improve the quality; I can't think of a single method to reduce class size that wouldn't require more funding.
Removing incompetent teachers and administrators is too difficult. Part of this is related to union representation and seniority; but just as often it is because of good 'ol boy networking and groupthink.
Don't forget the incredible teacher shortage. Why get rid of someone who you won't be able to replace...
Didn't MS get a black eye over this before? What has changed to make them think they can get away with it this time?
Because they keep getting away with it. If it's true they should calmly go to Redmond, find out the people who orchestrated it, then arrest them. Not sure what the charge could be; mail fraud (federal crime I believe), interfering with the anti-trust investigation, who knows. Believev me, best way to deal with a bunch of marketing people is to respond with physical force.
As I've stated before, I believe the US has been becoming less free since 1933, when our first "king" came in to power (FDR) and single handedly removed all Constitutional restraint on the federal government. All in the name of "empowering government to do more FOR you".
ALL Constitutional restraint? So you're actually claiming no private citizen has won a court case against the US government on Constitutional grounds? That the protective powers of the Constitution aren't invoked every day?
so as to fund "bread and circuses" which both buys votes and keeps the majority cowed.
Then leave. The United States doesn't have anti-emigration laws, you're free to go.
Where is the moral difference between using force of a gun to steal from someone, and using the force of government (also a gun) to steal from someone?
A social contract, and a choice; either abide by the contract, or you're free to leave.
He has neatly summarized my problem with Stallman, the FSF and the GPL. The big problem with Stallman is that he believes that users should have power over programmers, which I find absurd. The programmers are the creator of the work, and thus should have the "freedom" (there's that word again) to choose how their work is used.
Who the hell gives programmers the right to choose how their work is used? Programs are tools; if I create a hammer, then give or sell it to someone else, what gives me the right to insist that they only use it with their right hand, and then only to hammer in nails longer than one inch, and then only in July during a full moon? Yeah, that's taking it to extremes, but the point remains; when you create and distribute a piece of software, why should you get special rights to dictate how I use it. I should be able to reverse engineer and modify and use it in the privacy of my own home. If you don't like it, don't release your software.
We all need to read between the lines and realize the FSF is not a religion but that it very much stands for communism. The basic premise is that the community outweighs the individual. Communal freedoms overrule individual freedoms. Software is not the property of the individual or corporation that develops it but rather the community that uses it.
Ok, McCarthy.
The Free Software movement simply puts forth the idea that copyright shouldn't be extended to software. Nobody's restricting anyone's right to write software, they're simply saying don't think you can control your software after it leaves your hands. If you don't want anyone else to use it, or copy off it, or reverse engineer it, keep a single copy in your safe.
The funny thing is the original makers of Damascus steel were just as, if not more obsessed with keeping it out of the public domain than any corporation nowadays.
In academia, people write papers on doing nifty things, while in the real world, people actually do them. It's kind of like the article below where a CS professor writes about DOOM and it becomes clear (at least to me) that he doesn't really know the first thing about what John C. actually does.
Except that most scientific fields the only people on the cutting edge either have a PhD or are in the process of getting one. Find me an amateur physicist, or mathematician, or chemist who's made a major discovery in the past 50 years.
You forgot LOGO. Those squares won't draw themselves you know.
Re:Faked FROM fields.
on
Eliza for Spam
·
· Score: 3, Funny
What we NEED instead of more stupid laws (we have enough idiotic ideas about computer "crime" in law enforcement already, Taco) is legal recourse for the recipient
Giving a legal recourse for the recipient would require a law you know.
So? He suggested something to NASA, someone there apparently liked it, and they ran with it. Just because he's not an aeronautical engineer he can't possibly come up with an idea?
Slashdot Mirror
You are essentially arguing that this was somehow unfair to Chevy because customers are not stupid and will not spend more money and buy a piece of junk, so by default they are going to buy a Honda.
While that might be true, I don't see the consumer being harmed, just Chevrolet.
The analogy doesn't stick though; the main reason Microsoft released IE for free was because they were scared as hell that Netscape would become a new software platform--an alternative to Windows. A better analogy would be Chevrolet designing a new type of 4 wheel vehicle, and Honda retaliating by giving away cars for free to run Chevrolet out of business.
That should, of course, read as revisionists. And it probably should have a "historical" in front of it.
As to the founding fathers, some 25% of the them were probably Deists, who really didn't have much to sasy on the subject of religion in the first place.
I'd guess a lot more than 25%; I'm sure most of them were, as it was a common belief system among enlightenment intellectuals. And of course, there is the bane of religious right recidivists, Chapter XI of the treaty signed in 1796 (ratified by Founding Father John Adams) with Tripoli that stated matter-of-factly that the United States was "not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion" (yes, that's a direct quote).
Maybe I took it a bit too seriously, it's just that I've heard it used rather viciously before.
If you use a derogatory term like "fuzzy" to refer to someone who majored in a non-scientific discipline, it sounds like you've made a decision that you'll never change, no matter how many scientifically adept "fuzzies" you run into.
Actually in America the opposite seems to be true. I think most other countries move children pretty early into different education tracks; trade school, sciences, arts, etc. Here just about everyone is forced into a track which is meant to result eventually in college. In NYC we've lost a couple of trade schools in the past few years, which I think is a pretty big mistake; the students the papers quoted were extremely disappointed about missing out on something they found interesting and which would eventually lead to a steady job.
There were not (as of three years ago) three states out of 53 jurisdictions where there was a correlative, let alone causal, relationship between spending and test scores.
First of all, are these state test scores? Nothing can be really proved if each state comes up with its own test, which would probably be geared so that a certain percentage of the students will pass. Besides which, you state later that smaller class sizes improve the quality; I can't think of a single method to reduce class size that wouldn't require more funding.
Removing incompetent teachers and administrators is too difficult. Part of this is related to union representation and seniority; but just as often it is because of good 'ol boy networking and groupthink.
Don't forget the incredible teacher shortage. Why get rid of someone who you won't be able to replace...
Didn't MS get a black eye over this before? What has changed to make them think they can get away with it this time?
Because they keep getting away with it. If it's true they should calmly go to Redmond, find out the people who orchestrated it, then arrest them. Not sure what the charge could be; mail fraud (federal crime I believe), interfering with the anti-trust investigation, who knows. Believev me, best way to deal with a bunch of marketing people is to respond with physical force.
The don't advocate FORCE, they just like to criticize those who don't follow their guidelines. They're not coming up to you with guns here.
Linux has been out for what, 8 years and still not mature enough? Guess the open source community isn't up to it.
Yes, I'm just kidding. Personally I think it's a little unfair to expect an x86 os to run mainframes.
Just call it all UNIX. Yes, GNU IS UNIX, and so is Linux.
As I've stated before, I believe the US has been becoming less free since 1933, when our first "king" came in to power (FDR) and single handedly removed all Constitutional restraint on the federal government. All in the name of "empowering government to do more FOR you".
ALL Constitutional restraint? So you're actually claiming no private citizen has won a court case against the US government on Constitutional grounds? That the protective powers of the Constitution aren't invoked every day?
so as to fund "bread and circuses" which both buys votes and keeps the majority cowed.
Then leave. The United States doesn't have anti-emigration laws, you're free to go.
Where is the moral difference between using force of a gun to steal from someone, and using the force of government (also a gun) to steal from someone?
A social contract, and a choice; either abide by the contract, or you're free to leave.
He has neatly summarized my problem with Stallman, the FSF and the GPL. The big problem with Stallman is that he believes that users should have power over programmers, which I find absurd. The programmers are the creator of the work, and thus should have the "freedom" (there's that word again) to choose how their work is used.
Who the hell gives programmers the right to choose how their work is used? Programs are tools; if I create a hammer, then give or sell it to someone else, what gives me the right to insist that they only use it with their right hand, and then only to hammer in nails longer than one inch, and then only in July during a full moon? Yeah, that's taking it to extremes, but the point remains; when you create and distribute a piece of software, why should you get special rights to dictate how I use it. I should be able to reverse engineer and modify and use it in the privacy of my own home. If you don't like it, don't release your software.
We all need to read between the lines and realize the FSF is not a religion but that it very much stands for communism. The basic premise is that the community outweighs the individual. Communal freedoms overrule individual freedoms. Software is not the property of the individual or corporation that develops it but rather the community that uses it.
Ok, McCarthy.
The Free Software movement simply puts forth the idea that copyright shouldn't be extended to software. Nobody's restricting anyone's right to write software, they're simply saying don't think you can control your software after it leaves your hands. If you don't want anyone else to use it, or copy off it, or reverse engineer it, keep a single copy in your safe.
...and were not infrequently turned into real slaves. Not every employer gave up the indenturees when their contracts were up.
When did this 'shit-happens' -> 'let's sue' conversion of society (especially in the US) take place?
At about the same time corporations started caring only about the bottom line, short term profits.
Get promoted and move your arse to a wall office with a nice view and a hot secretary :)
10' by 10' IS an office in my book. Though the hot secretary is a reason for promotion I guess.
I was just responding to the frequent slashdot assertion that people with PhDs are somehow useless oafs who don't know how the "real world" works.
The funny thing is the original makers of Damascus steel were just as, if not more obsessed with keeping it out of the public domain than any corporation nowadays.
In academia, people write papers on doing nifty things, while in the real world, people actually do them. It's kind of like the article below where a CS professor writes about DOOM and it becomes clear (at least to me) that he doesn't really know the first thing about what John C. actually does.
Except that most scientific fields the only people on the cutting edge either have a PhD or are in the process of getting one. Find me an amateur physicist, or mathematician, or chemist who's made a major discovery in the past 50 years.
You forgot LOGO. Those squares won't draw themselves you know.
What we NEED instead of more stupid laws (we have enough idiotic ideas about computer "crime" in law enforcement already, Taco) is legal recourse for the recipient
Giving a legal recourse for the recipient would require a law you know.
So? He suggested something to NASA, someone there apparently liked it, and they ran with it. Just because he's not an aeronautical engineer he can't possibly come up with an idea?
You state it like a fact. Not so - that's a completely subjective thing.
The context of an online forum implies that its an opinion. I never said it wasn't.