I take some responsibility for those other problems. But don't blame me for your girlfriend issues. If you want somebody to cook for you, go hire one of those immigrants you hate so much.
As I recall, Lucent wasn't called Lucent until AT&T spun it off. And that business wasn't profitable until AT&T got rid of it. People who were competing with AT&T weren't interested in buying hardware from AT&T. At least, that was the reason they gave when they spun it off. Possibly Lucent just needed to get out from under AT&T's inept management.
Another detail: however much money has been made putting Unix into phone switches is a tiny fraction of what AT&T hoped to make when they were allowed to turn Unix into a commercial product. AT&T spent something like a billion dollars having a company I worked for build 68010-based Unix systems that were designed to compete directly against IBM-compatibles. Never sold a one. Actually, according to one of my sources, they never even tried: their strategy changed and they abandoned the product.
They must have made some money licensing Unix to companies like Sun and IBM. But not a fraction of what they hoped when they decided to give up being a common carrier.
Coincidentally, some 15 years later I briefly worked for Microport, which was a major vendor of UnixWare, the pathetic little descendent of AT&T's big plans for Unix (by then owned by SCO). What percentage of UnixWare buyers were telcos? 100%, or something like it.
No kidding. A long time ago I was trading email with a guy who ran a music server I was using. At one point I realized he worked at MS, and I apologized for some anti-Windows remarks I'd made. He replied with good humor, pointing out that his server was running Linux!
Clumsy wording, no punch. What was wrong with the one I submitted, "Happy Cartfone Day"? And why do editors have time to change headlines but not the time to make sure submissions actually make sense?
Your history is a little off. First off, AT&T did step out of line, and repeatedly. RTFA.
Second, AT&T chose to break up. OK, technically, they were being litigated by the anti-trust cops, but they'd managed to drag it out for 8 years. At which time, the White House was inhabited by Ronald Reagan, not exactly a fiend for fighting big business.
But AT&T's management decided that a breakup, if done on their terms, would turn into a bonanza. The anti-trust people wanted them to get out of the hardware business. Instead, they got to keep their hardware business and spin off their local operating companies instead. This voided the 1956 consent decreee (imposed on them by another anti-business radical, Eisenhower) that limited their businesses to "common carrier" stuff. This allowed them to launch a number of initiatives based on all that technology they were now free to apply commercially. A prime example: UNIX.
Alas they never managed to make much money off of UNIX, or any of the other enterprises they started. Technology isn't worth much if you have no business sense.
One more quibble, this time with your definition of "politically motivated". The breakup was driven by justice department civil servants, and actually happened under a pro-business administration. If there was politics involved it was the make the breakup more like the one AT&T wanted.
So only companies that have only a marginal interest in software can afford to embrace open source? If that were true, Red Hat wouldn't be so profitable.
The economic model for open source says that you give away the software and sell your expertise with it. That model's been drastically oversold (literally thousands of companies with bust trying it during the dotcom bubble) but some people do make a living at it. Microsoft's actually pretty well set up to do that: their support and services organization is humungous.
Of course, they have no incentive to open-source Windows, the single product that accounts for most of their cash flow. But that particular gravy train may not last much longer.
Well, speaking of zealotry. You're looking at the decision to go open source as a moral one. But it's always a business decision. Was at Sun, and will be at Microsoft.
And try to remember that the people who work at Microsoft (or anywhere else) are not the same people working there 10 years ago.
No, actually "post-modernism" properly applies only to art. Though I guess maybe architecture is a kind of art.
But speaking of cluefulness, I never say "post-modern" except to be sarcastic. Missed that, didn't you?
The different between us is not generational, it's a matter of maturity: you consider a conversation to be game of one-upmanship (at least you do if you actually read that page you pointed me to) while I consider a conversation to be a sharing of ideas. There are plenty of people from my generation with your attitude. The only difference is that they don't have cutsy slang to describe their silly games.
Har har. Fact is that one generation's Victory or Death struggle is often the next's What's the Big Deal. I work at Sun, and ten years ago, there really were people here who compared Microsoft to the Nazi party. Now we have OEM and Interoperability agreements, and there's no question in my mind that our partnership with the Dark Side^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H Microsoft is a Good Thing.
And you know, in the past, many people at Sun have not been friendly to Open Source either. And I don't mean the distant past either. When the decision was made to open up our Java implementations, there were some fairly important people who quit rather than participate. I think it's a safe bet that the culture at Microsoft is undergoing a similar upheaval. They haven't been anti-open source because of Bill Palpatine's mind control, but because a lot of people thought it was a bad idea. I've seen exactly the same struggle at every company that ends up going Open Source.
Terms like "high horse" are considered insulting. If you didn't know that, maybe you need to to think more carefully about how you express yourself.
And as for "lighten up", while it can be a friendly expression, when used in this kind of argument it always seems to be a rhetorical guerilla tactic: people who don't have an intelligent response accuse the other side of taking themselves too seriously. Rush Limbaugh seems to be particularly fond of it. When you use it in conjunction with "high horse", any claim that that you're just trying to be funny is not terribly honest.
More species have died in the millions of years before man than exist currently.
Yes, and natural causes kills more people than Hitler ever heard of. Does that make genocide OK?
Unless you plan on living forever you won't see any of it either. no matter what happens.
So, because I'm mortal, I shouldn't give a shit about the future? Right now, our species is likely to die off in the near future or (just as bad, IMHO) continue to live with decreased vitality and happiness on planet that's had its natural resources and wonders used up and devastated. That's something that needs to be cared about.
You know why the olive leaf is the symbol of peace? Because an olive tree takes over a century to become fully productive. Nobody plants an olive for their own benefit, it's something you do because you care about the future. I prefer to care, even if nobody else gives a shit.
OK, the crazy weather connection remains unproven. But forgive me if I show no interest in refuting the "shifting crops" fallacy every single time somebody trots it out.
As for the China/India argument, you're probably right. So what? Because the problem's insoluble, we should make stupid jokes and pretend it's not there?
I like a sick joke as much as the next guy. But this one started with one that wasn't particularly funny, beat it to death, and wound up with a guy who quite seriously suggested that global warming was a good thing, because it would temporarily flood New York. Too many nigger and kikes? He didn't say.
I only sent you that link because I didn't feel like responding to the same post twice (or, as I said to the other poster, for the thousandth time). But judging from your response, I shouldn't even have bothered to do that. Why think when you can insult?
A second response to your secondary point: I personally have never accused the Reps of "fear mongering", and I don't know anybody who has. Perhaps some left wing TV pundit? Or perhaps some right wing TV pundit is fond of accusing left wingers of accusing right wingers of fear mongering? Either way, IDGAS: I have no interest in the retarded antics of TV pundits.
As a matter of fact, when Dubya decided to invade Afghanistan, I was all for it. Removing the Taliban from power and bring Osama to justice both seemed worthy goals. Alas, he's managed to do neither: the Taliban, though technically out of power, still control much of the country. And Osama is still out there. Dubya has been too busy Bringing Democracy To Iraq to find him.
The destruction of civilization seems to be kind of a high price to pay to get rid of a few smug idiots. And while it's true that humans adapt to adversity, that's not necessarily a positive thing. Consider, for example, our large brains. They're a survival trait only as long as we're able to consume enough food to maintain them (I think something like 25% of the calories we consume go to keep our brains working). In the resource-challenged future, big brains might well cease to be a survival characteristic.
In any case, the future looks to be a highly-constrained place, with less leisure, freedom, and interesting life forms to share the planet with. And yet this is not a future that's particularly hard to avoid. What is hard is persuading anybody to make the sacrifices necessary to avoid it. Forgive me if I find that a tad frustrating.
Slashdot Mirror
Maybe you don't see yourself as a flamer or a troll. I certainly don't see "get down off your high horse" as a serious attempt at discussion.
There wasn't an attack on our soil for some years before 9/11? Was OBL impotent then too?
If you think things are great in Afghanistan, you need to stop listening to talk shows and start reading actual news.
I take some responsibility for those other problems. But don't blame me for your girlfriend issues. If you want somebody to cook for you, go hire one of those immigrants you hate so much.
As I recall, Lucent wasn't called Lucent until AT&T spun it off. And that business wasn't profitable until AT&T got rid of it. People who were competing with AT&T weren't interested in buying hardware from AT&T. At least, that was the reason they gave when they spun it off. Possibly Lucent just needed to get out from under AT&T's inept management.
Another detail: however much money has been made putting Unix into phone switches is a tiny fraction of what AT&T hoped to make when they were allowed to turn Unix into a commercial product. AT&T spent something like a billion dollars having a company I worked for build 68010-based Unix systems that were designed to compete directly against IBM-compatibles. Never sold a one. Actually, according to one of my sources, they never even tried: their strategy changed and they abandoned the product.
They must have made some money licensing Unix to companies like Sun and IBM. But not a fraction of what they hoped when they decided to give up being a common carrier.
Coincidentally, some 15 years later I briefly worked for Microport, which was a major vendor of UnixWare, the pathetic little descendent of AT&T's big plans for Unix (by then owned by SCO). What percentage of UnixWare buyers were telcos? 100%, or something like it.
No kidding. A long time ago I was trading email with a guy who ran a music server I was using. At one point I realized he worked at MS, and I apologized for some anti-Windows remarks I'd made. He replied with good humor, pointing out that his server was running Linux!
(Will Duke Nukem Forever run on WINE on HURD?)
Clumsy wording, no punch. What was wrong with the one I submitted, "Happy Cartfone Day"? And why do editors have time to change headlines but not the time to make sure submissions actually make sense?
Your history is a little off. First off, AT&T did step out of line, and repeatedly. RTFA.
Second, AT&T chose to break up. OK, technically, they were being litigated by the anti-trust cops, but they'd managed to drag it out for 8 years. At which time, the White House was inhabited by Ronald Reagan, not exactly a fiend for fighting big business.
But AT&T's management decided that a breakup, if done on their terms, would turn into a bonanza. The anti-trust people wanted them to get out of the hardware business. Instead, they got to keep their hardware business and spin off their local operating companies instead. This voided the 1956 consent decreee (imposed on them by another anti-business radical, Eisenhower) that limited their businesses to "common carrier" stuff. This allowed them to launch a number of initiatives based on all that technology they were now free to apply commercially. A prime example: UNIX.
Alas they never managed to make much money off of UNIX, or any of the other enterprises they started. Technology isn't worth much if you have no business sense.
One more quibble, this time with your definition of "politically motivated". The breakup was driven by justice department civil servants, and actually happened under a pro-business administration. If there was politics involved it was the make the breakup more like the one AT&T wanted.
And never managed to maintain the loyalty of their colonies and ended up losing them all.
Another nitpick: LEOs were not exactly mini. See the pictures on this enthusiasts web site.
And we've been here before.
So only companies that have only a marginal interest in software can afford to embrace open source? If that were true, Red Hat wouldn't be so profitable.
The economic model for open source says that you give away the software and sell your expertise with it. That model's been drastically oversold (literally thousands of companies with bust trying it during the dotcom bubble) but some people do make a living at it. Microsoft's actually pretty well set up to do that: their support and services organization is humungous.
Of course, they have no incentive to open-source Windows, the single product that accounts for most of their cash flow. But that particular gravy train may not last much longer.
Well, speaking of zealotry. You're looking at the decision to go open source as a moral one. But it's always a business decision. Was at Sun, and will be at Microsoft.
And try to remember that the people who work at Microsoft (or anywhere else) are not the same people working there 10 years ago.
No, actually "post-modernism" properly applies only to art. Though I guess maybe architecture is a kind of art.
But speaking of cluefulness, I never say "post-modern" except to be sarcastic. Missed that, didn't you?
The different between us is not generational, it's a matter of maturity: you consider a conversation to be game of one-upmanship (at least you do if you actually read that page you pointed me to) while I consider a conversation to be a sharing of ideas. There are plenty of people from my generation with your attitude. The only difference is that they don't have cutsy slang to describe their silly games.
Har har. Fact is that one generation's Victory or Death struggle is often the next's What's the Big Deal. I work at Sun, and ten years ago, there really were people here who compared Microsoft to the Nazi party. Now we have OEM and Interoperability agreements, and there's no question in my mind that our partnership with the Dark Side^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H Microsoft is a Good Thing.
And you know, in the past, many people at Sun have not been friendly to Open Source either. And I don't mean the distant past either. When the decision was made to open up our Java implementations, there were some fairly important people who quit rather than participate. I think it's a safe bet that the culture at Microsoft is undergoing a similar upheaval. They haven't been anti-open source because of Bill Palpatine's mind control, but because a lot of people thought it was a bad idea. I've seen exactly the same struggle at every company that ends up going Open Source.
Terms like "high horse" are considered insulting. If you didn't know that, maybe you need to to think more carefully about how you express yourself.
And as for "lighten up", while it can be a friendly expression, when used in this kind of argument it always seems to be a rhetorical guerilla tactic: people who don't have an intelligent response accuse the other side of taking themselves too seriously. Rush Limbaugh seems to be particularly fond of it. When you use it in conjunction with "high horse", any claim that that you're just trying to be funny is not terribly honest.
You're assuming that I get all my "fallacies" from the usual half-witted suspects. Not everybody gets their science from the talk shows.
More species have died in the millions of years before man than exist currently.
Yes, and natural causes kills more people than Hitler ever heard of. Does that make genocide OK?
Unless you plan on living forever you won't see any of it either. no matter what happens.
So, because I'm mortal, I shouldn't give a shit about the future? Right now, our species is likely to die off in the near future or (just as bad, IMHO) continue to live with decreased vitality and happiness on planet that's had its natural resources and wonders used up and devastated. That's something that needs to be cared about.
You know why the olive leaf is the symbol of peace? Because an olive tree takes over a century to become fully productive. Nobody plants an olive for their own benefit, it's something you do because you care about the future. I prefer to care, even if nobody else gives a shit.
You know the worst thing about this online game of mutual humiliation? It's boring.
OK, the crazy weather connection remains unproven. But forgive me if I show no interest in refuting the "shifting crops" fallacy every single time somebody trots it out.
As for the China/India argument, you're probably right. So what? Because the problem's insoluble, we should make stupid jokes and pretend it's not there?
Yeah, and the racist quip about New York was particularly hilarious.
I like a sick joke as much as the next guy. But this one started with one that wasn't particularly funny, beat it to death, and wound up with a guy who quite seriously suggested that global warming was a good thing, because it would temporarily flood New York. Too many nigger and kikes? He didn't say.
I never said it was.
I only sent you that link because I didn't feel like responding to the same post twice (or, as I said to the other poster, for the thousandth time). But judging from your response, I shouldn't even have bothered to do that. Why think when you can insult?
So, there are a lot of asinine threads. Some are more asinine than others. This one is way at the top of my list.
When I said "uninhabitable" I meant "by humans". Speciesist of me, I know.
A second response to your secondary point: I personally have never accused the Reps of "fear mongering", and I don't know anybody who has. Perhaps some left wing TV pundit? Or perhaps some right wing TV pundit is fond of accusing left wingers of accusing right wingers of fear mongering? Either way, IDGAS: I have no interest in the retarded antics of TV pundits.
As a matter of fact, when Dubya decided to invade Afghanistan, I was all for it. Removing the Taliban from power and bring Osama to justice both seemed worthy goals. Alas, he's managed to do neither: the Taliban, though technically out of power, still control much of the country. And Osama is still out there. Dubya has been too busy Bringing Democracy To Iraq to find him.
The destruction of civilization seems to be kind of a high price to pay to get rid of a few smug idiots. And while it's true that humans adapt to adversity, that's not necessarily a positive thing. Consider, for example, our large brains. They're a survival trait only as long as we're able to consume enough food to maintain them (I think something like 25% of the calories we consume go to keep our brains working). In the resource-challenged future, big brains might well cease to be a survival characteristic.
In any case, the future looks to be a highly-constrained place, with less leisure, freedom, and interesting life forms to share the planet with. And yet this is not a future that's particularly hard to avoid. What is hard is persuading anybody to make the sacrifices necessary to avoid it. Forgive me if I find that a tad frustrating.