"It is a type of integration that goes beyond trade agreements, in fact it gives priority to social, political and cultural aspects as well."
I have felt for a long time that if Democractic principals are going to have any future on the American continent that it was going to be South America that ultimatly showed the way. The USA is so over run by the worlds elite that true change seems impossible.
As for the nations of South America, I hope that the progressive parties can find stability amidst the long standing policies the USA has had to distabalize and promote corruption. I can't help but think that a strong solidarity between South American countries would be helpful.
The rhetoric of the current political parties really gives me hope that government can really be concerned with the welfare of it's populace. My Wife and me live in the state of Maine and are involved in a State wide initiative called the Creative Economy. It is an attempt to rewrite some of the economic indicators that are used to allocate State monies to projects that promote local economic development. We have been speculating that it would be amazing to have someone from Brazil, we were thinking Gilberto Gil, to come and school the State on how to promote local economic development (the creative economy is art and technology focused). It would also help people understand the imporatiance of the political acivity that is currently trying to succeed in South America and why we, as USians, should support it (starting with extraditing Pat Robertson to your legal system).
Thank you for the thorough response to my request for more information. I'll be sorting through it for some time to come.
"What we have issues with, is with the current administration, because they have actively worked against our country."
When has a US administration ever worked in your countries interest, or indeed any South American countries interest? As a North American, I'd really ike to know if you feel that it has ever happend. All I have read regarding North/South relations has been of violence and exploitation.
I'm very excited and interested in the political directions being forged by, paritcularly, Brazil and Venezuela and their willingness to stand up to the United States. Thank you for the links in your post, I will read them often. If you have any other links or books you could recomend I would be greatful. I'm mostly interested in current political thinking regarding the structuring of society, what forms of nationalism are developing and if there is any talk about either South American Unification or joining the European Union.
I'll bet that the differences your mentioning have more to do with what people eat and how active they remain througout their lives and less to do with genetics. Asian's tend to have very clean diets compared to Eurpean and American fare.
Rural people and particulary the rural poor tend to lead more active lives and eat food that is fresher, home made and healthier than the moderatly wealthy to obsenely rich.
I hear from the tech/geek community all the time that we don't have a problem with racisim or sexism. Everyone is equal, it's a meritocracy, etc. etc. It's easy to ignore these problems when your the dominant culture, or cocoon your self in a bubble and pretend you are.
Evolution is simply something that, when tested, tends to prove correct. Evidence is being mounted continualy to support some kind of evolutionary process. And it is not dogmatic. I see news all the time with headlines that state that evolutionary theory may have to be rethought in some way. I never hear creationists saying that creationist theory needs to be rethought. I only hear them talking about how they can make it work by disproving evolution. Creationists don't need to prove anything regarding thier theory because thier thoery does not predict anything.
As for intelligent gallactic star systems, well, whos to say? But if your telling me that we can't even gather any evidence than what are you proposing we do? Speculate and assume? Fine for science fiction, which is where this type of dreamy creativity is generally expressed, but in order to prove something you need to actually test your theory. So if you think that Gallaxies could be intellgient then figure out a way to detect it and get back to us.
If you think the earth was created 5k years ago by God and all you have is a biblical text and a bunch of idiotic statements regarding the age of fossils then please expect to be sidelined as a nut case. There is not an infinit amount of time to pander to all the crazy people.
"Even if you can split off the option to have maintenance and upgrade into a separate value, it does not mean it costs the same - in particular, you will always have to pay for that option if you buy proprietary software..."
The author asked enterprise software customers how software pricing would be effected if there were no support options. They replied that it would devalue the software a lot. This alone is instructive as it asks the support question in a way I have not seen before. Most arguments for proprietary software revolve around the ability to/get/ support. I have never seen it being asked how much would proprietary software be worth/without/ the option for support. It turns out that most of the value may be in support afterall, which is exactly what Free software critics have been arguing. This is one reason this article is so damning to proprietary software. It takes the primary argument of the Free software critics and says, "If only you understood how right you are!"
The real insight comes at the end of the article where the author notes that as far as the market goes, Free software provides more support options to the consumer in the context of free market capitalism, which should produce the best value for the customer via competition. If you buy the numbers in the article, most of the value of software, Free and Closed, is in support. So the model that produces the best support structure should win.
With proprietary software the free market goes out the window once you purchase the software and get locked into a long term support contract. Not true with Free software.
My point is that this article should be a banquet of food for thought. It applies some real math to the problem of TCO rather than anecdotal ranting or simple competition driven pricing models. This is not about what the market will bare (competition driven pricing) but an analysis of costs and value from the standpoint of an economist.
"You can't charge awefully more than your competition, can you ? If the competition gives it up for free -- then well, all your calculations go awry. "
This is not the type of pricing formula the article is discusing. It is much more interesting than that.
What the author is basicaly saying is that Free software and proprietary software cost about the same once you figure out what you are actually paying for (by breaking out all the hidden elements and assigning them a value).
His conclusion is that, at least for the "enterprise" market, the service options are almost the entirety of the cost of the software, even when you include the list price for the software itself.
The difference between Free and closed software is in how the options are sold. With closed software they are sold by the company that ownes the software. With Free software anyone has access to the source and so can provide support to the same level as the original developer if they so choose. This creates a market for service where all the capitalist pricing pressures are at play. Closed software is more insulated from these pressures.
I'm not explaining it terrible well, go (re)read the article. It is the most interesting thing I have read in awhile.
"But there's nothing illegal about what this particular type of business is doing."
Which is exactly why it is news. Slashdot is saying, "hey, look what this ass hats are doing". I haven't seen anyone argue in favor of the "service" they are offering in exchange for the money they are leaching. Therefore, it looks like a great scam to ban by technical means. But first someone has to bring up the issue so it can be discused, and a solution devised.
They are worse than useless, they are getting paid to be harmful. Thankfuly there is no law against making this kind of business technicaly impossible.
"Are you really suggesting that I pick a lawyer at random out of the yellow pages and dump a huge sum of cash on them next time I sign something?"
No, not exactly. First of all, I have been through this and I understand where your coming from (as best I can, anyway).
Secondly, you should call several lawyers, tell them your situation and see what they have to say. They should not charge you for the first conversation. This is typical and allows you to get a feel for the lawyer and if you think they know what they are talking about and can help you. You will learn a lot just from this process. There is nothing like being in your situation and talking with a knowledgeable lawyer who is _totally on your side_.
Provided you do find someone you "click" with, looking over a contract should amount to a few hours of work. So figure a few hundred dollars.
If you are planning on being employed be a company that requires the type of contract you posted here on Slashdot, then I think it is money and time well spent.
Not to be pedantic, but it is also the mature and professional thing to do. If your company does not understand why you are looking out for your own best interests then maybe you should reconsider working there. If they are mature professionals, they will work with you on the contract and you can start to feel better about them.
And yes, you should do this anytime you need to sign a contract or else you are chancing getting screwed and not on your own terms. Your company obviously took the time to talk to a lawyer, so should you.
Besides, what else are you going to do? What other advice have you recieved that is so stellar?
Hand the contract to a lawyer and have them give you there proffessional opinion.
Geez, thats the second time in two days I have suggested that someone see a lawyer.
I have heard that these contracts are unenforceable for the simple reason that they can not prevent you from earning a living. A judge is going to look very negativly on this contract and the burden of proof is going to be on them. It will also be costly for them to pursue it.
However, it's best to not have anything like this over your head. It may also be a good job and hard to think of leaving. I would not want to be in your shoes atm.
If you are thinking of leaving, why not try and have them modify the contract first. At least you will make a point before being shown the door. You can test there metal so to speak. Have a lawyer give you some advice first though.
Gather up all the "evidence" you can: bank statements, receipts, mail, emails, etc.
Get all the names to all the cops/Secret Service people you spoke with.
Get all the names to all the bank staff you spoke to.
Get dates/times for as many of the conversations you had.
TAKE ALL THIS TO A LAWYER!
The lawyer will weigh your situation and make a determination as to how to proceed in your best interest.
The bank says you owe $8k. Frankly, that is not a lot of money to them, but to you I'm sure it's quite significant.
One thing I know for sure. If your lawyer even files a dispute, you will owe nothing until the dispute is resolved. Filing is easy. Don't roll over and take this lying down. The bank is playing hard ball in hopes that you simply cave in and feel helpless. If you show some back bone they are going to have to make a cost/benefit analysis as to how much they want to fight for this $8k.
The Bank got screwed too. Bringing the law enforcement officials into this in the context of a legal case may actually put everyone on the same side.
It may also prompt a settlement.
Get a lawyer, play hard ball, but keep an open mind. Your going to have to be the bigger person in this situation.
While having your coffee made by a profesional is certainly the best, I have found second best to be using a stove top Bialetti espresso maker. These things are amazing.
I have a fairly good espresso maker with a steam wand but have found the Bialetti to be less hasle and it makes better coffee.
Also, I got a battery powered stove top milk frother that allows me to make as much foam and latte milk as a pan will hold, quickly. I can get stiffer foam out of the steam wand but the stove top frother creates a nice foam that works when I need to make several at once for guests.
To the sibling poster who said that Starbucks employees are well trained, I beg to differ. What the parent poster is talking about with regards to a profesional is not a graduate of a 2 week course on coffee making. They are talking about someone who has grown up in a culture that has an appreciation for excellence in coffee. You can't get that at Starbucks, no matter how hard they smile. Sadly, Europe is the place I have had the best coffees. I've had close in the North End in Boston. Starbucks is burnt motor oil by comparison.
"Do you HONESTLY believe that Al-Quaeda gives two shakes about the lives of innocent civilians that died as a result of military operations in Afghanistan..."
Do you believe that the USA, or indeed the entire "Western" world does? The problem is larger and deeper than the media and cetainly governments are willing to admit.
"You got it backwards. People are free to do anything, they please (within laws). Forming corporations is one of these freedoms."
The key term is "within laws", which is where corporations exist. Jesus.
"The point was that resisting a corporation (even a big one like Microsoft) is FAR easier, than other kinds of resistance. If people still don't do it, blaming Microsoft for the apathy is stupid."
What other kinds of resistence are easier? It seems to me that resisisting corporate take over is proving to be the single hardest thing to do in the modern age.
"If you -- hating Microsoft so much -- still use it, than you have nothing to add here -- you are the problem and I am the victim of your (in)actions. "
I do not use any proprietary software. I dont use any MS software either. Not sure where you got that idea but it is reflective of the rest of your argument in that it shows your willingness to invent your own facts to argue against.
Basicaly, you are having trouble sticking to the point and are all over the map. No worries, it's just grist for the mill.
"His corporation does not exist to benefit 'the society"
Exactly, which is why there was a federal lawsuit as well as several State lawsuits. That MS can get off on technicalities has nothing to do with the reality of the Government stepping in to insure that MS maintains a level of social good that is greater than it's harm. The fact that they keep getting the most bazzar settlements that effect nothing is reflective of a broken system that is being exploited by corporations, not of any rights those corporations have.
Corporations are given charters to perform some activity. They are issued those charters by the Government. The Government is for and by the people. It follows that the Government should not be allowing charters that ultimatly hurt society. This is, in fact, the way things are supposed to work and is the lip service that we hear.
I have no idea why your bringing up Socrates, the GULAG and AK-47's. There are plenty of more relavent details you are missing and I would suggest you start with those. But I have read the writings surrounding the trial of Socrates and it sounds much like what we have today. A selfish oligarchy attempting to maintain it's power despite the common good. It always amazes me that some people can get so knotted up when someone suggests that perhaps the people have the power to determin society. If you think I'm saying anything else, your not listening.
"Microsoft is not the problem. They are a perfectly legitimate business offering a product."
A lagitimate business is what ever "We The People" say it is. Thats the social contract that is granted to a corporation. They get to exist as long as it is more of a benefit to society than a harm. If it becomes harmful then the people are supposed to be able to revoke corporate status. We are a nation of laws and the people are supposed to be able to change the laws to suit the type of society they want. So saying Microsoft is the problem is quite simply stating that if it were put to vote, MS would get the corporate death penalty according to the poster.
Just because MS is currently a "legit" business (which they are not, according to court documents that were only overturned on a technicality) does not mean that they get to do whatever the heck they please for all time. Or do you prefer to live in a corporate oligarchy instead of a democracy?
Just to orient you with the thread you are appariently lost in, here is the grand parent post that you replied to, adding something about CNN and censorship:
"Probably because Fox News is a news source that can and does report objective stories frequently, despite its editorial slant. Just like CNN manages to report objective stories frequently despite it's editorial slant. Just like EVERY OTHER NEWS SOURCE manages to report objective stories frequently despite having an editorial slant."
Now this is a discusion "thread", so we build on each others ideas. You were presenting information that build on the grand parents post regarding FOX as an objective news source.
"I have equal contempt for all the major news organizations."
This is where where fall down. All news organizations are not equal, so having equal contempt for them is a failure in logic at best and ignorant at worst. If you don't care about the world then I guess it doesn't matter how you feel about news and reporting. But then why bother posting about it on Slashdot?
You might not be FOX, but you are certainly walking around thier house admiring the furnature, so I think the other posters comment should be something you could comprehend and address.
Taken "objectivly", using FOX as a source for news is simply ignorant. All news sources have a "slant". FOX news spins. FOX news exists to reinforce a certain world view. If you agree with that world view than watching FOX is certainly appealing, but don't think you being informed, because you are not, your being stroked.
I used to live in Boston and there is a Microcenter on Memorial Drive just outside what used to be Central Square (now it's an urban yuppy wasteland).
They have been selling Linux software for more than 7 years anyway. I would always go and buy the latest SuSE release from them.
Their book section is simply the best I have ever seen. They clearly have people in the purchasing department who know what they are doing. They carry not only the latest programing craze books but also advanced engineering books, theory, product spec books and out of print material. Simply amazing.
I also found the staff to be generally quite good. Usually when a store clerk asks me if I need any help I reflexivly say "no". But at Microcenter I would always pause and override that defensive behavour because more likely then not the clerk would take the time to understand what I wanted and help me find it.
They also supported Apple through the dark times. They are a company that has determination and creativity.
"Please, don't get the idea that I'm conservative prick. I'm just a run of the mill prick."
Ha!:-)
I don't think I ever misunderstood your argument in that people should do whatever they want and deal with the consequences. This is nice in the ideal world you spoke of. However, in the real world people need to have a certain level of confidence in their ability to live their lives without threat of discrimination, and so society sets up rules to protect them. History has shown that unchecked, the circles of power close around the select few. Thats my point. Yes, it infringes on your freedom but the question is what freedom is being given up vs. what benefit is being gained. Again, in the ideal all this is moot, but we are not in an ideal world.
Anyway, thank you for your perspective. I have also run a business and made hiring decisions, so this is not all academic to me.
You do seem to use extremes to justify a status quo argument. I think that is where the majority of our disagremeent lies.
"My problem with your entire stance is that, last I checked, people should be allowed to be superficial."
Yes. What I'm saying is that other people may need a certain level of protection from this superficiality when it comes to things as central to their lives as economic existence, hence the hiring laws. Drawing the line is largely subjective so no one point of view is going to be a good judge of what the limit of excentricity should be. I'm just challenging you a little on that point because, well, I presume we are here to be challenged.:-)
"You have to meet certain working requirements."
It's my opinion that employers hold a few to many cards in this arena, largely based on deep societal intollerainces (see exhibit A: History). But I'm also not blind to the fact that everyone can be expected to have their limits. Drawing the line is not easy.
Your extreme lawyer example is certainly not a case I will argue to broadly. I would mention that that lawyer, in that scenario, would have a history with the company and his co-workers. It might be revealing to ask why they did such a thing and you might be surprised and enlightened to find out. Maybe it would all work out. Or maybe their just a jerk or a nut. Dunno. But you should let him go for being a jerk, not necesarily for anything else.
Slashdot Mirror
"It is a type of integration that goes beyond trade agreements, in fact it gives priority to social, political and cultural aspects as well."
I have felt for a long time that if Democractic principals are going to have any future on the American continent that it was going to be South America that ultimatly showed the way. The USA is so over run by the worlds elite that true change seems impossible.
As for the nations of South America, I hope that the progressive parties can find stability amidst the long standing policies the USA has had to distabalize and promote corruption. I can't help but think that a strong solidarity between South American countries would be helpful.
The rhetoric of the current political parties really gives me hope that government can really be concerned with the welfare of it's populace. My Wife and me live in the state of Maine and are involved in a State wide initiative called the Creative Economy. It is an attempt to rewrite some of the economic indicators that are used to allocate State monies to projects that promote local economic development. We have been speculating that it would be amazing to have someone from Brazil, we were thinking Gilberto Gil, to come and school the State on how to promote local economic development (the creative economy is art and technology focused). It would also help people understand the imporatiance of the political acivity that is currently trying to succeed in South America and why we, as USians, should support it (starting with extraditing Pat Robertson to your legal system).
Thank you for the thorough response to my request for more information. I'll be sorting through it for some time to come.
Kind Regards
Link to story
As for Western style diet and education, if you mean American style, well, they might be better with what they have.
Kind Regards
"What we have issues with, is with the current administration, because they have actively worked against our country."
When has a US administration ever worked in your countries interest, or indeed any South American countries interest? As a North American, I'd really ike to know if you feel that it has ever happend. All I have read regarding North/South relations has been of violence and exploitation.
I'm very excited and interested in the political directions being forged by, paritcularly, Brazil and Venezuela and their willingness to stand up to the United States. Thank you for the links in your post, I will read them often. If you have any other links or books you could recomend I would be greatful. I'm mostly interested in current political thinking regarding the structuring of society, what forms of nationalism are developing and if there is any talk about either South American Unification or joining the European Union.
Kind Regards
I'll bet that the differences your mentioning have more to do with what people eat and how active they remain througout their lives and less to do with genetics. Asian's tend to have very clean diets compared to Eurpean and American fare.
Rural people and particulary the rural poor tend to lead more active lives and eat food that is fresher, home made and healthier than the moderatly wealthy to obsenely rich.
Kind regards
I hear from the tech/geek community all the time that we don't have a problem with racisim or sexism. Everyone is equal, it's a meritocracy, etc. etc. It's easy to ignore these problems when your the dominant culture, or cocoon your self in a bubble and pretend you are.
Kind Regards
Evolution is simply something that, when tested, tends to prove correct. Evidence is being mounted continualy to support some kind of evolutionary process. And it is not dogmatic. I see news all the time with headlines that state that evolutionary theory may have to be rethought in some way. I never hear creationists saying that creationist theory needs to be rethought. I only hear them talking about how they can make it work by disproving evolution. Creationists don't need to prove anything regarding thier theory because thier thoery does not predict anything.
As for intelligent gallactic star systems, well, whos to say? But if your telling me that we can't even gather any evidence than what are you proposing we do? Speculate and assume? Fine for science fiction, which is where this type of dreamy creativity is generally expressed, but in order to prove something you need to actually test your theory. So if you think that Gallaxies could be intellgient then figure out a way to detect it and get back to us.
If you think the earth was created 5k years ago by God and all you have is a biblical text and a bunch of idiotic statements regarding the age of fossils then please expect to be sidelined as a nut case. There is not an infinit amount of time to pander to all the crazy people.
Kind Regards
"Even if you can split off the option to have maintenance and upgrade into a separate value, it does not mean it costs the same - in particular, you will always have to pay for that option if you buy proprietary software..."
/get/ support. I have never seen it being asked how much would proprietary software be worth /without/ the option for support. It turns out that most of the value may be in support afterall, which is exactly what Free software critics have been arguing. This is one reason this article is so damning to proprietary software. It takes the primary argument of the Free software critics and says, "If only you understood how right you are!"
The author asked enterprise software customers how software pricing would be effected if there were no support options. They replied that it would devalue the software a lot. This alone is instructive as it asks the support question in a way I have not seen before. Most arguments for proprietary software revolve around the ability to
The real insight comes at the end of the article where the author notes that as far as the market goes, Free software provides more support options to the consumer in the context of free market capitalism, which should produce the best value for the customer via competition. If you buy the numbers in the article, most of the value of software, Free and Closed, is in support. So the model that produces the best support structure should win.
With proprietary software the free market goes out the window once you purchase the software and get locked into a long term support contract. Not true with Free software.
My point is that this article should be a banquet of food for thought. It applies some real math to the problem of TCO rather than anecdotal ranting or simple competition driven pricing models. This is not about what the market will bare (competition driven pricing) but an analysis of costs and value from the standpoint of an economist.
Kind Regards
"You can't charge awefully more than your competition, can you ? If the competition gives it up for free -- then well, all your calculations go awry. "
This is not the type of pricing formula the article is discusing. It is much more interesting than that.
What the author is basicaly saying is that Free software and proprietary software cost about the same once you figure out what you are actually paying for (by breaking out all the hidden elements and assigning them a value).
His conclusion is that, at least for the "enterprise" market, the service options are almost the entirety of the cost of the software, even when you include the list price for the software itself.
The difference between Free and closed software is in how the options are sold. With closed software they are sold by the company that ownes the software. With Free software anyone has access to the source and so can provide support to the same level as the original developer if they so choose. This creates a market for service where all the capitalist pricing pressures are at play. Closed software is more insulated from these pressures.
I'm not explaining it terrible well, go (re)read the article. It is the most interesting thing I have read in awhile.
Kind Regards
"Wow, Noam must be working that linguistic magic to make an opinion into a fact."
Your problem is that you have it backwords, "Noam" makes fact into opinion.
Kind Regards
"But there's nothing illegal about what this particular type of business is doing."
Which is exactly why it is news. Slashdot is saying, "hey, look what this ass hats are doing". I haven't seen anyone argue in favor of the "service" they are offering in exchange for the money they are leaching. Therefore, it looks like a great scam to ban by technical means. But first someone has to bring up the issue so it can be discused, and a solution devised.
They are worse than useless, they are getting paid to be harmful. Thankfuly there is no law against making this kind of business technicaly impossible.
Kind Regards
"Are you really suggesting that I pick a lawyer at random out of the yellow pages and dump a huge sum of cash on them next time I sign something?"
No, not exactly. First of all, I have been through this and I understand where your coming from (as best I can, anyway).
Secondly, you should call several lawyers, tell them your situation and see what they have to say. They should not charge you for the first conversation. This is typical and allows you to get a feel for the lawyer and if you think they know what they are talking about and can help you. You will learn a lot just from this process. There is nothing like being in your situation and talking with a knowledgeable lawyer who is _totally on your side_.
Provided you do find someone you "click" with, looking over a contract should amount to a few hours of work. So figure a few hundred dollars.
If you are planning on being employed be a company that requires the type of contract you posted here on Slashdot, then I think it is money and time well spent.
Not to be pedantic, but it is also the mature and professional thing to do. If your company does not understand why you are looking out for your own best interests then maybe you should reconsider working there. If they are mature professionals, they will work with you on the contract and you can start to feel better about them.
And yes, you should do this anytime you need to sign a contract or else you are chancing getting screwed and not on your own terms. Your company obviously took the time to talk to a lawyer, so should you.
Besides, what else are you going to do? What other advice have you recieved that is so stellar?
Kind Regards
"I've been to enough demonstrations to know that there is almost always a small contingent that is only interested in causing trouble."
Coming up with effective ways to find and punish those people sounds appropriate. Microwave ray beams does not.
"In some countries, rioting is a national pasttime."
Then why should the government be concerned about stopping it?
Kind Regards
Hand the contract to a lawyer and have them give you there proffessional opinion.
Geez, thats the second time in two days I have suggested that someone see a lawyer.
I have heard that these contracts are unenforceable for the simple reason that they can not prevent you from earning a living. A judge is going to look very negativly on this contract and the burden of proof is going to be on them. It will also be costly for them to pursue it.
However, it's best to not have anything like this over your head. It may also be a good job and hard to think of leaving. I would not want to be in your shoes atm.
If you are thinking of leaving, why not try and have them modify the contract first. At least you will make a point before being shown the door. You can test there metal so to speak. Have a lawyer give you some advice first though.
Kind Regards
Gather up all the "evidence" you can: bank statements, receipts, mail, emails, etc.
Get all the names to all the cops/Secret Service people you spoke with.
Get all the names to all the bank staff you spoke to.
Get dates/times for as many of the conversations you had.
TAKE ALL THIS TO A LAWYER!
The lawyer will weigh your situation and make a determination as to how to proceed in your best interest.
The bank says you owe $8k. Frankly, that is not a lot of money to them, but to you I'm sure it's quite significant.
One thing I know for sure. If your lawyer even files a dispute, you will owe nothing until the dispute is resolved. Filing is easy. Don't roll over and take this lying down. The bank is playing hard ball in hopes that you simply cave in and feel helpless. If you show some back bone they are going to have to make a cost/benefit analysis as to how much they want to fight for this $8k.
The Bank got screwed too. Bringing the law enforcement officials into this in the context of a legal case may actually put everyone on the same side.
It may also prompt a settlement.
Get a lawyer, play hard ball, but keep an open mind. Your going to have to be the bigger person in this situation.
Oh, and BTW, talk to a lawyer.
Kind Regards
Looks like it is functionaly the same but scores higher on the geek sheek scale. Although, Bialetti's have a hackish charm I like.
I haven't seen that one in particular but have seen several different makes that I like.
Kind Regards
Bialetti link
I have a fairly good espresso maker with a steam wand but have found the Bialetti to be less hasle and it makes better coffee.
Also, I got a battery powered stove top milk frother that allows me to make as much foam and latte milk as a pan will hold, quickly. I can get stiffer foam out of the steam wand but the stove top frother creates a nice foam that works when I need to make several at once for guests.
To the sibling poster who said that Starbucks employees are well trained, I beg to differ. What the parent poster is talking about with regards to a profesional is not a graduate of a 2 week course on coffee making. They are talking about someone who has grown up in a culture that has an appreciation for excellence in coffee. You can't get that at Starbucks, no matter how hard they smile. Sadly, Europe is the place I have had the best coffees. I've had close in the North End in Boston. Starbucks is burnt motor oil by comparison.
Kind Regards
"Do you HONESTLY believe that Al-Quaeda gives two shakes about the lives of innocent civilians that died as a result of military operations in Afghanistan..."
Do you believe that the USA, or indeed the entire "Western" world does? The problem is larger and deeper than the media and cetainly governments are willing to admit.
Kind Regards
"You got it backwards. People are free to do anything, they please (within laws). Forming corporations is one of these freedoms."
The key term is "within laws", which is where corporations exist. Jesus.
"The point was that resisting a corporation (even a big one like Microsoft) is FAR easier, than other kinds of resistance. If people still don't do it, blaming Microsoft for the apathy is stupid."
What other kinds of resistence are easier? It seems to me that resisisting corporate take over is proving to be the single hardest thing to do in the modern age.
"If you -- hating Microsoft so much -- still use it, than you have nothing to add here -- you are the problem and I am the victim of your (in)actions. "
I do not use any proprietary software. I dont use any MS software either. Not sure where you got that idea but it is reflective of the rest of your argument in that it shows your willingness to invent your own facts to argue against.
Basicaly, you are having trouble sticking to the point and are all over the map. No worries, it's just grist for the mill.
"His corporation does not exist to benefit 'the society"
Exactly, which is why there was a federal lawsuit as well as several State lawsuits. That MS can get off on technicalities has nothing to do with the reality of the Government stepping in to insure that MS maintains a level of social good that is greater than it's harm. The fact that they keep getting the most bazzar settlements that effect nothing is reflective of a broken system that is being exploited by corporations, not of any rights those corporations have.
Corporations are given charters to perform some activity. They are issued those charters by the Government. The Government is for and by the people. It follows that the Government should not be allowing charters that ultimatly hurt society. This is, in fact, the way things are supposed to work and is the lip service that we hear.
I have no idea why your bringing up Socrates, the GULAG and AK-47's. There are plenty of more relavent details you are missing and I would suggest you start with those. But I have read the writings surrounding the trial of Socrates and it sounds much like what we have today. A selfish oligarchy attempting to maintain it's power despite the common good. It always amazes me that some people can get so knotted up when someone suggests that perhaps the people have the power to determin society. If you think I'm saying anything else, your not listening.
Kind Regards
"Microsoft is not the problem. They are a perfectly legitimate business offering a product."
A lagitimate business is what ever "We The People" say it is. Thats the social contract that is granted to a corporation. They get to exist as long as it is more of a benefit to society than a harm. If it becomes harmful then the people are supposed to be able to revoke corporate status. We are a nation of laws and the people are supposed to be able to change the laws to suit the type of society they want. So saying Microsoft is the problem is quite simply stating that if it were put to vote, MS would get the corporate death penalty according to the poster.
Just because MS is currently a "legit" business (which they are not, according to court documents that were only overturned on a technicality) does not mean that they get to do whatever the heck they please for all time. Or do you prefer to live in a corporate oligarchy instead of a democracy?
Kind Regards
Just to orient you with the thread you are appariently lost in, here is the grand parent post that you replied to, adding something about CNN and censorship:
"Probably because Fox News is a news source that can and does report objective stories frequently, despite its editorial slant. Just like CNN manages to report objective stories frequently despite it's editorial slant. Just like EVERY OTHER NEWS SOURCE manages to report objective stories frequently despite having an editorial slant."
Now this is a discusion "thread", so we build on each others ideas. You were presenting information that build on the grand parents post regarding FOX as an objective news source.
"I have equal contempt for all the major news organizations."
This is where where fall down. All news organizations are not equal, so having equal contempt for them is a failure in logic at best and ignorant at worst. If you don't care about the world then I guess it doesn't matter how you feel about news and reporting. But then why bother posting about it on Slashdot?
Kind Regards
You might not be FOX, but you are certainly walking around thier house admiring the furnature, so I think the other posters comment should be something you could comprehend and address.
Taken "objectivly", using FOX as a source for news is simply ignorant. All news sources have a "slant". FOX news spins. FOX news exists to reinforce a certain world view. If you agree with that world view than watching FOX is certainly appealing, but don't think you being informed, because you are not, your being stroked.
Kind Regards
I used to live in Boston and there is a Microcenter on Memorial Drive just outside what used to be Central Square (now it's an urban yuppy wasteland).
They have been selling Linux software for more than 7 years anyway. I would always go and buy the latest SuSE release from them.
Their book section is simply the best I have ever seen. They clearly have people in the purchasing department who know what they are doing. They carry not only the latest programing craze books but also advanced engineering books, theory, product spec books and out of print material. Simply amazing.
I also found the staff to be generally quite good. Usually when a store clerk asks me if I need any help I reflexivly say "no". But at Microcenter I would always pause and override that defensive behavour because more likely then not the clerk would take the time to understand what I wanted and help me find it.
They also supported Apple through the dark times. They are a company that has determination and creativity.
Hats off to Microcenter.
Kind Regards
"Please, don't get the idea that I'm conservative prick. I'm just a run of the mill prick."
:-)
Ha!
I don't think I ever misunderstood your argument in that people should do whatever they want and deal with the consequences. This is nice in the ideal world you spoke of. However, in the real world people need to have a certain level of confidence in their ability to live their lives without threat of discrimination, and so society sets up rules to protect them. History has shown that unchecked, the circles of power close around the select few. Thats my point. Yes, it infringes on your freedom but the question is what freedom is being given up vs. what benefit is being gained. Again, in the ideal all this is moot, but we are not in an ideal world.
Anyway, thank you for your perspective. I have also run a business and made hiring decisions, so this is not all academic to me.
You do seem to use extremes to justify a status quo argument. I think that is where the majority of our disagremeent lies.
Kind Regards
"My problem with your entire stance is that, last I checked, people should be allowed to be superficial."
:-)
Yes. What I'm saying is that other people may need a certain level of protection from this superficiality when it comes to things as central to their lives as economic existence, hence the hiring laws. Drawing the line is largely subjective so no one point of view is going to be a good judge of what the limit of excentricity should be. I'm just challenging you a little on that point because, well, I presume we are here to be challenged.
"You have to meet certain working requirements."
It's my opinion that employers hold a few to many cards in this arena, largely based on deep societal intollerainces (see exhibit A: History). But I'm also not blind to the fact that everyone can be expected to have their limits. Drawing the line is not easy.
Your extreme lawyer example is certainly not a case I will argue to broadly. I would mention that that lawyer, in that scenario, would have a history with the company and his co-workers. It might be revealing to ask why they did such a thing and you might be surprised and enlightened to find out. Maybe it would all work out. Or maybe their just a jerk or a nut. Dunno. But you should let him go for being a jerk, not necesarily for anything else.
Kind Regards