Re:anti-bsd posts up 75% on slashdot!!!!!
on
USENIX Reports
·
· Score: 1
Slashdot won't do that because it would embarrass the whole "Linux is taking the world by storm!" crowd to see that even at the biggest Linux propaganda site on Earth, most people still use Internet Explorer. I wish someone would put the question to Taco sometime when he's speaking, so that he can't just duck it the way he does here. Must be that "new journalism" thing.;)
If microsoft would just stop all this crap with windows being the one and only operating system.
Microsoft develops a ton of Macintosh software. If something else grabbed a decent marketshare, they'd probably develop for that platform, too.
developing software NO MATTER WHAT THE PLATFORM OR LICENSE
So, it's uncool for them to dis the GPL, but not the other way around? Should Bruce Perens also go back to writing software instead of calling people who write BSD-licensced software "dupes"? Is it okay for the KDE guys to keep working, or should they wait until after they, as Richard Stallman ordered, "beg for forgiveness"? After seeing all the companies who have been completely flamed here for not releasing their software under the GPL, even though they were writing free beer software for Linux, it's pretty odd to hear someone here telling Microsoft to not talk about licensing.
Oh, and as far as karma goes, I think Gates will do all right with the hundreds of millions of dollars that he's given to charity. What was the big accomplishment of a certain GPL advocate who hit the big time? Oh gee, he wrote a lengthy article to Slashdot letting everyone know how cool it was to be rich, and to remind them that they'd be on his shitlist if they dared ever ask for a donation. That's class.
Easy. They're in the business of making money. Linux has a miniscule desktop marketshare, about 1% at last count, and negligible corporate desktop presence. Now why again are they supposed to spend all this money to try to grab a piece of such a small market? Sounds like a losing proposition, especially since so many Linux users will tell anyone who will listen that they don't want any Microsoft software. They're not a charity, so seriously, why would they produce those products for Linux?
Oh, the irony. Netscape/Sun/Oracle/Apple/Linux/IBM/AOL advocates have been blaming Microsoft for all of their own fuckups for the past two decades. Can't make a good browser? Damn that IE bundling! Can count the number of Network Computers sold on two hands? Microsoft FUD! Companies don't want to produce software for Linux users which have a history of not wanting to pay for anything? Microsoft is strong-arming companies to only code for Windows! People hate OS/2? Steve Bartko brought mighty IBM to its knees! Worry about losing IM marketshare even as you're refusing to let third parties connect to AIM/ICQ users, all while suing any related product with the letters "AIM" in the name? Those Microsoft bastards are making us do it!!!
Cheers,
Re:Make companies pay for software they can't use?
on
Microsoft and the GPL
·
· Score: 1
If the government-funded research is put into the public domain, you can take it and use it in your GPL'd projects too, just like Microsoft can use it in their own projects. So you're getting the value from your tax dollars. The difference is that if Microsoft spends their own money to enhance the base software, you think you're somehow entitled to get a free ride off their work. Why is that? They're the ones who spent the money to enhance it, not you.
Microsoft can't play its "embrace and extend" game with GPL-licensed software because the company can't appropriate and modify the code.
Say what? Since when has Microsoft ever needed someone else's source code to "embrace and extend" features?
If Linux had been released under the BSD license, Microsoft would have probably already released a version of Linux, Linux++ or Linux# or L-Nux, with a variety of maddeningly incompatible oddities that taken together would make it even more difficult to develop applications for Linux.
Please. Why wouldn't Microsoft just do the same with FreeBSD, then, and use its Linux compatibility features? Using BSD's Linux compatibility isn't perfect by any stretch of the imagination, but there's not much more problems than dealing with the incompatibilities already present between different Linux distributions. Kinda funny how he doesn't realize that there already are "maddeningly incompatible oddities" between the current Linux distributions.
No need to get pissy, kid. Someone asked for evidence that the Appeals Court decided this way because Microsoft "bought whatever / whomever they needed," and you replied with links about Microsoft donations. Sure, it was meant to be pithy, not entirely accurate, but when someone points out to you the flaw in the argument, you actually stick by it?
So, you proclaim as conclusive evidence the fact that one side gave money, yet you have no idea if the other side gave more or not, and when challenged, tell the reader to look it up himself. That stuff might pass as an argument at your community college, but not in the real world.
Dude, you're in denial and anyone who believes you has to be pretty gullible. It's really simple: If Microsoft really were irrelevant, there wouldn't be two or three stories about them here every single day at Slashdot, a GNU/Linux-leaning web site. The stories here about them wouldn't generate the huge number of comments that they do, and the whining reaction to every single thing they do wouldn't be so shrill.
(I do have to ask, though: Palm? Good Lord, is Palm fscked. It honestly makes me wonder if you have any idea what's going on in the real world.)
Which corruption would that be? It should be a lot more disturbing if you actually think that one single biased judge should be allowed to decide the entire fate of one of the largest companies in the country without there being any recourse via the appeals process.
And that is supposed to prove what? That you conveniently overlook the money that the AOLs, Netscapes, Suns, and Oracles of the world paid government officials to get Microsoft prosecuted? Got any evidence that Microsoft paid more than they did?
Easy -- Flash ads use more of your CPU than GIFs do. So when people are tired of having their web browser behaving more sluggishly because of all the Flash ads (scrolling slowed down, Flash artifacts remaining on the screen for half a second after you switched windows, etc.), they might think about upgrading their CPUs or even a new computer, quite likely with a brand new Intel chip inside. Intel absolutely loves when newer, more CPU-intensive formats start getting popular with people.
Actually, trying to associate the GPL, a very restrictive license, with the BSDL, a very free license, is exactly the kind of misrepresentation that I've come to expect from GNU/Linux FUDmeisters. GPL advocates trying to leech off the successes of the BSD/Apache/MIT X licenses while conveniently forgetting how restrictive the GPL is seems a whole lot more disingenuous than what you're accusing Microsoft of doing.
And if you want to learn more about what passport is before you get one - you have to go to a web site that requires a pssport.
You do??? Oh wait, I was confusing you with someone who actually has a clue. For anyone else wanting not only to learn about Passport, but actually download the SDK, they can just go to msdn.microsoft.com, click the big "Downloads" link at the top of the page, select the "Software Development Kits" from the menu, and choose "Microsoft Passport SDK v1.4.2." No login needed to either view the summary information or download the SDK itself.
And you guys are always telling us how Microsoft is the one spreading lies? Comical.
Well, the only reason why Microsoft would want Apple to stay away from x86 is because they don't want to see Apple go out of business. It's to Microsoft's benefit to have Apple still be around.
See, the real reason why all MacOS-on-x86 plans have been canned is because Apple always realizes that it would be the quickest way to kill off Apple. Remember when those relatively small companies were putting a hurting on Apple by selling Mac clones? Now imagine Apple having to compete with Dell. Or competing with the entire x86 sector, which is about 15 times the size of Apple, telling everyone how much better and cheaper it is to run MacOS on an x86 instead of Apple hardware. Apple can get away overcharging for its hardware as long as they control the platform. When that goes away, so does Apple.
And even if you did get the same bang for the buck, Apple would have to fight the very strong argument of, "If you get an x86-based computer, you'll be able to run MacOS just like the PPC guys, but when you want or need to run one of those Windows-only based apps or games, just reboot and switch OSes — no more need for those slow emulators when you can just use the real thing". And if Apple ever really did do this, that argument would in a few quarters change to, "Well, Apple seems to be having troubles lately, maybe we should get our MacOS computer on an x86 instead of Apple hardware. I like Apple hardware better, but I want to be able to switch to Windows if Apple goes out of business."
Not gonna happen as long as Apple relies on its hardware sales to stay in business.
Except that anyone who looked at RedHat's numbers realized that RedHat did not turn a real profit. They lost almost 30 millions bucks. In other words, a couple more years worth of quarters like this last one for which they claimed a profit, and they'll be bankrupt.
And if a webmaster doesn't want people doing that to his pages, can he turn it off? Of course not. Is there an uproar at Slashdot about it? Of course not. What does this say about most Slashdotters, especially the editors? I'll let the rest of you answer that for yourselves.
And no, this wasn't directed at you at all, Phill, thanks for the post.
The revenue that RedHat's getting is coming mainly through service contracts, not from people buying their shrinkwrap boxes. If you're a big business who wants to go the Linux route, are you going to trust a company that in all honesty is still losing money? What happens to your support if they go tits up? Nah, you're gonna trust someone like Big Blue. It's not about anybody being revolutionary, it's about stability.
Yo! How 'bout waiting until RedHat turns a real profit before spewing that nonsense? See, RedHat actually spent a lot more money than it took in for the past quarter. About two more years worth of "success" like this quarter, and the company's going to be taking a dirt nap.
Sorry, but RedHat's announcement hasn't seemed to have fooled anybody but some people around here desperate for any good news about Linux. That's why W.R. Hambrecht today downgraded RedHat's and a reason why the stock is down from where it closed yesterday. The revenue for the quarter was 7% less than what RedHat told Wall Street to expect, revenue is 5% down from last quarter, revenue from their network consulting services are already dropping, and they're now refusing to give analysts any guidance for RHAT performance in future quarters. Maybe they've run out of book-keeping tricks?:) "None of the other companies I cover have refused to give guidance," Prakesh Patel, analyst with WR Hambrecht and Co. "It definitely is troubling. Regardless of the economic environment, the company has a sales pipeline and should have estimates of closing deals that's the job of management."
And that doesn't even address the big gun aimed right at them that goes by the name IBM. If IBM ever decides to sell their own Linux distribution, it's bye-bye RedHat.
Heh, you mean that guy actually rants at other companies besides Microsoft?;) I think we'd all agree that Microsoft is making money, and that a lot of people can tell when a company is getting a little fancy with their book-keeping in order to report a profit.
I actually take RedHat at face value and consider them to have turned a profit this past quarter. Like you said, other companies have their own tricks to make their financials say what they want, and RedHat has every right to do the same. I just wanted to point out that behind the rosy headline, there are some worrisome realities in their numbers.
As far as your question goes, RedHat's CFO flat out told Reuters that they wouldn't be reiterating their guidance for the rest of the year, which they issued back in March. If you remember when they came out with the previous quarter's numbers in March, RedHat guaranteed that they'd be profitable in the next quarter, which I think is by far the biggest factor behind the numbers they announced today.
RedHat actually lost a net $27.6 million this past quarter on revenues of only $25.6 million. Some fancy bookmaking allowed them to present this as a profit, but not everyone was fooled. c|net's lede read: "Red Hat, the top seller of the Linux operating system, became profitable by some measurements while meeting analyst expectations for the most recent quarter."
See, this so called "profit" was only due to all the adjustments they made, just like last quarter, when RedHat said that they broke even (or at least came within $600,000 of it), even though they really lost over $24 million. Be skeptical when a company tells you that they turned a $600,000 profit when they're taking a $20.8 million charge for "amortization of goodwill and tangibles." Yeah, okay....
And not to be too doom-and-gloomish, but the revenue for the quarter was 7% less than what RedHat told Wall Street to expect, revenue is 5% down from last quarter, revenue from their network consulting services are already dropping, and they're now refusing to give analysts any guidance for RHAT performance in future quarters. Maybe they've run out of book-keeping tricks?:) "None of the other companies I cover have refused to give guidance," Prakesh Patel, analyst with WR Hambrecht and Co. "It definitely is troubling. Regardless of the economic environment, the company has a sales pipeline and should have estimates of closing deals that's the job of management."
Heh, I know. It makes me wonder if there is going to be anyone left to use all this broadband capacity. The Canadian goverment will probably be increasing the already-high tax rates to pay for this, driving the Canadian dollar downward ever closer to the value of the peso, resulting in an increase of the more well-off Canadians moving to the U.S.
And no, this isn't some anti-Canadian troll — I think the Canadian people have been great neighbors (recent booing of the U.S. flag notwithstanding) and the government has been a great ally, but it sure seems sometimes that their government is determined to turn Canada into a ghetto. How many wealthy Americans move to Canada versus the tons of wealthy Canadians moving to the U.S.? Note: Wealthy people spend money, employ people, and generate most of the taxable income that the goverment wants.
As a big sports fan, it's just sad. Yeah, I know my Cubbies are losers, but I've always felt more sorry for the Expos, who year after year develop great talent only to have it bolt for the U.S. at the first chance. The Raptors are a great team to watch, and it sucks that it's just assumed that Vinsanity's going to split, not because the team doesn't have a bright future, but because it's in Canada. And the Grizzlies leaving the beauty of Vancouver for a hole like Memphis? It's going to be a sad day if the current trend continues with hockey, leaving the NHL with zero Canadian teams, but it pisses me off that U.S. teams are having to subsidize the Canadian teams just because the Canadian government is so short-sighted. Anyway...
Slashdot Mirror
Slashdot won't do that because it would embarrass the whole "Linux is taking the world by storm!" crowd to see that even at the biggest Linux propaganda site on Earth, most people still use Internet Explorer. I wish someone would put the question to Taco sometime when he's speaking, so that he can't just duck it the way he does here. Must be that "new journalism" thing. ;)
Cheers,
If microsoft would just stop all this crap with windows being the one and only operating system.
Microsoft develops a ton of Macintosh software. If something else grabbed a decent marketshare, they'd probably develop for that platform, too.
developing software NO MATTER WHAT THE PLATFORM OR LICENSE
So, it's uncool for them to dis the GPL, but not the other way around? Should Bruce Perens also go back to writing software instead of calling people who write BSD-licensced software "dupes"? Is it okay for the KDE guys to keep working, or should they wait until after they, as Richard Stallman ordered, "beg for forgiveness"? After seeing all the companies who have been completely flamed here for not releasing their software under the GPL, even though they were writing free beer software for Linux, it's pretty odd to hear someone here telling Microsoft to not talk about licensing.
Oh, and as far as karma goes, I think Gates will do all right with the hundreds of millions of dollars that he's given to charity. What was the big accomplishment of a certain GPL advocate who hit the big time? Oh gee, he wrote a lengthy article to Slashdot letting everyone know how cool it was to be rich, and to remind them that they'd be on his shitlist if they dared ever ask for a donation. That's class.
Cheers,
Easy. They're in the business of making money. Linux has a miniscule desktop marketshare, about 1% at last count, and negligible corporate desktop presence. Now why again are they supposed to spend all this money to try to grab a piece of such a small market? Sounds like a losing proposition, especially since so many Linux users will tell anyone who will listen that they don't want any Microsoft software. They're not a charity, so seriously, why would they produce those products for Linux?
Cheers,
Oh, the irony. Netscape/Sun/Oracle/Apple/Linux/IBM/AOL advocates have been blaming Microsoft for all of their own fuckups for the past two decades. Can't make a good browser? Damn that IE bundling! Can count the number of Network Computers sold on two hands? Microsoft FUD! Companies don't want to produce software for Linux users which have a history of not wanting to pay for anything? Microsoft is strong-arming companies to only code for Windows! People hate OS/2? Steve Bartko brought mighty IBM to its knees! Worry about losing IM marketshare even as you're refusing to let third parties connect to AIM/ICQ users, all while suing any related product with the letters "AIM" in the name? Those Microsoft bastards are making us do it!!!
Cheers,
If the government-funded research is put into the public domain, you can take it and use it in your GPL'd projects too, just like Microsoft can use it in their own projects. So you're getting the value from your tax dollars. The difference is that if Microsoft spends their own money to enhance the base software, you think you're somehow entitled to get a free ride off their work. Why is that? They're the ones who spent the money to enhance it, not you.
Cheers,
Microsoft can't play its "embrace and extend" game with GPL-licensed software because the company can't appropriate and modify the code.
Say what? Since when has Microsoft ever needed someone else's source code to "embrace and extend" features?
If Linux had been released under the BSD license, Microsoft would have probably already released a version of Linux, Linux++ or Linux# or L-Nux, with a variety of maddeningly incompatible oddities that taken together would make it even more difficult to develop applications for Linux.
Please. Why wouldn't Microsoft just do the same with FreeBSD, then, and use its Linux compatibility features? Using BSD's Linux compatibility isn't perfect by any stretch of the imagination, but there's not much more problems than dealing with the incompatibilities already present between different Linux distributions. Kinda funny how he doesn't realize that there already are "maddeningly incompatible oddities" between the current Linux distributions.
Cheers,
No need to get pissy, kid. Someone asked for evidence that the Appeals Court decided this way because Microsoft "bought whatever / whomever they needed," and you replied with links about Microsoft donations. Sure, it was meant to be pithy, not entirely accurate, but when someone points out to you the flaw in the argument, you actually stick by it?
So, you proclaim as conclusive evidence the fact that one side gave money, yet you have no idea if the other side gave more or not, and when challenged, tell the reader to look it up himself. That stuff might pass as an argument at your community college, but not in the real world.
Cheers,
Dude, you're in denial and anyone who believes you has to be pretty gullible. It's really simple: If Microsoft really were irrelevant, there wouldn't be two or three stories about them here every single day at Slashdot, a GNU/Linux-leaning web site. The stories here about them wouldn't generate the huge number of comments that they do, and the whining reaction to every single thing they do wouldn't be so shrill.
(I do have to ask, though: Palm? Good Lord, is Palm fscked. It honestly makes me wonder if you have any idea what's going on in the real world.)
Cheers,
Which corruption would that be? It should be a lot more disturbing if you actually think that one single biased judge should be allowed to decide the entire fate of one of the largest companies in the country without there being any recourse via the appeals process.
Cheers,
And that is supposed to prove what? That you conveniently overlook the money that the AOLs, Netscapes, Suns, and Oracles of the world paid government officials to get Microsoft prosecuted? Got any evidence that Microsoft paid more than they did?
Cheers,
And why are there Intel Ads in Flash?
Easy -- Flash ads use more of your CPU than GIFs do. So when people are tired of having their web browser behaving more sluggishly because of all the Flash ads (scrolling slowed down, Flash artifacts remaining on the screen for half a second after you switched windows, etc.), they might think about upgrading their CPUs or even a new computer, quite likely with a brand new Intel chip inside. Intel absolutely loves when newer, more CPU-intensive formats start getting popular with people.
Cheers,
Actually, trying to associate the GPL, a very restrictive license, with the BSDL, a very free license, is exactly the kind of misrepresentation that I've come to expect from GNU/Linux FUDmeisters. GPL advocates trying to leech off the successes of the BSD/Apache/MIT X licenses while conveniently forgetting how restrictive the GPL is seems a whole lot more disingenuous than what you're accusing Microsoft of doing.
Cheers,
And if you want to learn more about what passport is before you get one - you have to go to a web site that requires a pssport.
You do??? Oh wait, I was confusing you with someone who actually has a clue. For anyone else wanting not only to learn about Passport, but actually download the SDK, they can just go to msdn.microsoft.com, click the big "Downloads" link at the top of the page, select the "Software Development Kits" from the menu, and choose "Microsoft Passport SDK v1.4.2." No login needed to either view the summary information or download the SDK itself.
And you guys are always telling us how Microsoft is the one spreading lies? Comical.
Cheers,
You don't need any PassPort account to logon to Windows XP, valid or otherwise. Where the Hell did you get that from?
Cheers,
Why bother trying to sound reasonable if you're going to follow it with bullshit like "Them thar Smart Tags control web content!"? Later, dude.
Cheers,
Every now and then there's posters on /. who wonder how one makes money with Open Source. Well, read this press release, this is how you do it...
Heh, you mean having to take on a second full-time job? I think a lot of us already have enough trouble maintaining a social life as it is. :)
Cheers,
Well, the only reason why Microsoft would want Apple to stay away from x86 is because they don't want to see Apple go out of business. It's to Microsoft's benefit to have Apple still be around.
See, the real reason why all MacOS-on-x86 plans have been canned is because Apple always realizes that it would be the quickest way to kill off Apple. Remember when those relatively small companies were putting a hurting on Apple by selling Mac clones? Now imagine Apple having to compete with Dell. Or competing with the entire x86 sector, which is about 15 times the size of Apple, telling everyone how much better and cheaper it is to run MacOS on an x86 instead of Apple hardware. Apple can get away overcharging for its hardware as long as they control the platform. When that goes away, so does Apple.
And even if you did get the same bang for the buck, Apple would have to fight the very strong argument of, "If you get an x86-based computer, you'll be able to run MacOS just like the PPC guys, but when you want or need to run one of those Windows-only based apps or games, just reboot and switch OSes — no more need for those slow emulators when you can just use the real thing". And if Apple ever really did do this, that argument would in a few quarters change to, "Well, Apple seems to be having troubles lately, maybe we should get our MacOS computer on an x86 instead of Apple hardware. I like Apple hardware better, but I want to be able to switch to Windows if Apple goes out of business."
Not gonna happen as long as Apple relies on its hardware sales to stay in business.
Cheers,
Except that anyone who looked at RedHat's numbers realized that RedHat did not turn a real profit. They lost almost 30 millions bucks. In other words, a couple more years worth of quarters like this last one for which they claimed a profit, and they'll be bankrupt.
Cheers,
And if a webmaster doesn't want people doing that to his pages, can he turn it off? Of course not. Is there an uproar at Slashdot about it? Of course not. What does this say about most Slashdotters, especially the editors? I'll let the rest of you answer that for yourselves.
And no, this wasn't directed at you at all, Phill, thanks for the post.
Cheers,
The revenue that RedHat's getting is coming mainly through service contracts, not from people buying their shrinkwrap boxes. If you're a big business who wants to go the Linux route, are you going to trust a company that in all honesty is still losing money? What happens to your support if they go tits up? Nah, you're gonna trust someone like Big Blue. It's not about anybody being revolutionary, it's about stability.
Cheers,
Yo! How 'bout waiting until RedHat turns a real profit before spewing that nonsense? See, RedHat actually spent a lot more money than it took in for the past quarter. About two more years worth of "success" like this quarter, and the company's going to be taking a dirt nap.
Sorry, but RedHat's announcement hasn't seemed to have fooled anybody but some people around here desperate for any good news about Linux. That's why W.R. Hambrecht today downgraded RedHat's and a reason why the stock is down from where it closed yesterday. The revenue for the quarter was 7% less than what RedHat told Wall Street to expect, revenue is 5% down from last quarter, revenue from their network consulting services are already dropping, and they're now refusing to give analysts any guidance for RHAT performance in future quarters. Maybe they've run out of book-keeping tricks? :) "None of the other companies I cover have refused to give guidance," Prakesh Patel, analyst with WR Hambrecht and Co. "It definitely is troubling. Regardless of the economic environment, the company has a sales pipeline and should have estimates of closing deals that's the job of management."
And that doesn't even address the big gun aimed right at them that goes by the name IBM. If IBM ever decides to sell their own Linux distribution, it's bye-bye RedHat.
Cheers,
Heh, you mean that guy actually rants at other companies besides Microsoft? ;) I think we'd all agree that Microsoft is making money, and that a lot of people can tell when a company is getting a little fancy with their book-keeping in order to report a profit.
I actually take RedHat at face value and consider them to have turned a profit this past quarter. Like you said, other companies have their own tricks to make their financials say what they want, and RedHat has every right to do the same. I just wanted to point out that behind the rosy headline, there are some worrisome realities in their numbers.
As far as your question goes, RedHat's CFO flat out told Reuters that they wouldn't be reiterating their guidance for the rest of the year, which they issued back in March. If you remember when they came out with the previous quarter's numbers in March, RedHat guaranteed that they'd be profitable in the next quarter, which I think is by far the biggest factor behind the numbers they announced today.
Cheers,
RedHat actually lost a net $27.6 million this past quarter on revenues of only $25.6 million. Some fancy bookmaking allowed them to present this as a profit, but not everyone was fooled. c|net's lede read: "Red Hat, the top seller of the Linux operating system, became profitable by some measurements while meeting analyst expectations for the most recent quarter."
See, this so called "profit" was only due to all the adjustments they made, just like last quarter, when RedHat said that they broke even (or at least came within $600,000 of it), even though they really lost over $24 million. Be skeptical when a company tells you that they turned a $600,000 profit when they're taking a $20.8 million charge for "amortization of goodwill and tangibles." Yeah, okay....
And not to be too doom-and-gloomish, but the revenue for the quarter was 7% less than what RedHat told Wall Street to expect, revenue is 5% down from last quarter, revenue from their network consulting services are already dropping, and they're now refusing to give analysts any guidance for RHAT performance in future quarters. Maybe they've run out of book-keeping tricks? :) "None of the other companies I cover have refused to give guidance," Prakesh Patel, analyst with WR Hambrecht and Co. "It definitely is troubling. Regardless of the economic environment, the company has a sales pipeline and should have estimates of closing deals that's the job of management."
Cheers,
Heh, I know. It makes me wonder if there is going to be anyone left to use all this broadband capacity. The Canadian goverment will probably be increasing the already-high tax rates to pay for this, driving the Canadian dollar downward ever closer to the value of the peso, resulting in an increase of the more well-off Canadians moving to the U.S.
And no, this isn't some anti-Canadian troll — I think the Canadian people have been great neighbors (recent booing of the U.S. flag notwithstanding) and the government has been a great ally, but it sure seems sometimes that their government is determined to turn Canada into a ghetto. How many wealthy Americans move to Canada versus the tons of wealthy Canadians moving to the U.S.? Note: Wealthy people spend money, employ people, and generate most of the taxable income that the goverment wants.
As a big sports fan, it's just sad. Yeah, I know my Cubbies are losers, but I've always felt more sorry for the Expos, who year after year develop great talent only to have it bolt for the U.S. at the first chance. The Raptors are a great team to watch, and it sucks that it's just assumed that Vinsanity's going to split, not because the team doesn't have a bright future, but because it's in Canada. And the Grizzlies leaving the beauty of Vancouver for a hole like Memphis? It's going to be a sad day if the current trend continues with hockey, leaving the NHL with zero Canadian teams, but it pisses me off that U.S. teams are having to subsidize the Canadian teams just because the Canadian government is so short-sighted. Anyway...
Cheers,
So what? What is it that they have a monopoly on?
Cheers,