What really annoys me about this subscription thing is the fact that we are forced to continually adapt to new versions of software. Bad enough that I'd need permission to use the program, now I also have to install patch after patch to calm those transition woes. And I can't wait to see people who screw up and need my help. A lot of fun.
What also annoys me about Office10 is what already bothers me about CDs. When you buy the stuff, it always looks overpriced and it never gives you any real rights. It's like buying air. I mean you have something that you can use, but it doesn't feel like it's really yours (the small print on CDs is quite telling, not counting the fact the the RIAA thinks making MP3s is immoral).
I also wonder about the future. Since these versions will have a specific "time to live", people wanting to renew their subscriptions will be desperate and might cave in to "questionning" by Microsoft. This would give the software giant a tool to peek into our private lives. And who knows, we might see a day where Microsoft could use this information in order to discriminate and refuse the service to people deemed "unfit to use the software" because they installed SunOffice or didn't vote for the right candidate.
Obi Wan Celeri
Wow hey, now I feel better about CDs... they don't expire - yet.
It makes perfect sense. RAMBUS figures out it can bring people to court over patents it has filed. It figures "I can do it so I'd be stupid not to".
But wait a minute.
When we start bringing people to court because we can, we start loosing touch with the fact that going to court is serious business. We should only do it AS A LAST RECOURSE. I don't see RAMBUS running around trying to accomodate people here. Going to court is their FIRST option.
Furthermore it brings out a very serious question: While it is logically right to go to court, it's definetely morally wrong - everyone else has been sharing information on memory interfaces through an open standard.
Is this the business way of the new millenium?
Should countries sign peace treaties while preparing their guns?
Should I sue my neighbour before he sues me?
And it does make me wonder what kind of government I have when I know all too well that RAMBUS and INTEL have been lobbying sucessfully for so long....
Obi Wan Celeri
"If you look at it in a fractal way, everything is related, no matter how far and how different"
Ok, to a good comment a serious reply. (this to help prove my case that the language law IS useful)
To quote you: "If French speaking people are such a large part of the population, why would those businesses opt for English only menus, etc?"
I have had many exchanges about the aptitude and interest of entreprise to adapt to a local market. In the case of Quebec, it is much cheaper to market products in english only than to play fair. Francophones, by proximity to a large mass of anglophones are at the very least functionnaly familiar with the Shakesperian tongue.
In sharp contrast, translating to french, hiring bilingual personnel is a problem. Therefore most companies will either stay away from Quebec or do the minimum. In any case, these companies will maximise their profit while they minimise their effort. A good example is companies who sell (retail) in french in Quebec but who's website has no mention of french at all. No one controls internet but you still have to act in good faith.
I stand my ground. If there is no laws then everything is likely to return to it's original state of 30 years ago. Can't happen? If you have a business and figure out you can increase your profit margin 30% by doing everything in english only, you will surely consider. And imagine french companies trying to compete but having to translate into two languages. There needs to be guidelines so that everyone plays fair.
Like I said earlier, things have gotten much better (at least in my perspective:) ) since this law has been brought into place. It puts a clear set of rules on the table and EVERYONE plays by them. Some peoeple don't like them but in my opinion if we get rid of them, it wouldn't be very long before the profit margin would take over the need for a satisfied customer. Just take a look at the software industry...
Having seen dumblaws.com I can tell this site has everything wrong - in fact the french population of Quebec is trying very hard to DEFEND it's linguistic rights.
30 years ago, most stores served and advertised primarly in english, even though 80% of the population was/is french. The so-called "dumb laws" changed things around. Today francophones can be served in french and most business respect the fact they can't do stuff in english only anymore. It even gave a chance for francophones to compete on their own turf, for once.
I can understand that some people are upset about language laws, it's a touchy subject. But let's not forget these laws apply to business and business practices ONLY, it does not, like dumblaws.com infer, forbid people from speaking in english in Quebec.
At 1% of the american population, I also believe francophones in Quebec were/are under enormous pressure to deal and live in english only. Can you blame us for trying to defend our rights?
Obi Wan Celeri To call a law dumb based only on the fact we do not understand why it's been written down is dumb in itself, don't you agree?
What's so bad about prOn? Let's face it, people do it and people watch it (specially music CEO's). Surfers are attracted to it because it's "politically incorrect" and because it tells them the naked truth (ok, well most of the time). Everything else just evades all the important questions about life (...). It is also a clear reaction to the totalitarian ways of feminists who, with their anax retentiveness, will just not accept anything that is not done by-the-book (i.e: male pornography is ok, we are more mature).
Hence the link between MP3's and SEX - in order to get either we'd have to go thru this process of figuring out what's right and what's wrong. All of this knowing you have no input in the process. As an example you might think a gal or a guy has a nice butt however you'd never say it - "You just can't do this sort of thing". But the natural thing to do is being honest...
I'd even go further. By linking MP3's and SEX the industry is telling people that beyond it's interpretation of facts, there lies nothing else. I guess that's completely predictable, but it still sends chills down my spine: not content with controling bank accounts, consuming habits and social behaviour, both the industry and the feminist movement try to control what people think.
My girlfriend won't even listen to a bloody MP3 even though I bought the album. What is the world coming to?
Big corporations love this... It's actually EXACTLY what they want.
On one side the corporative culture has always had a very high self-censorship level. "It" expects it from all it's employees. So therefore the internet self censorship shift will not bother the corporate users.
As a good example, my school dearly wants kids to publish their work on the school's website. But it's quite clear: They will read each and every work and pick only the ones who best represent the interest of it's "marketing" department. They don't need this self-censorship thing.
On the other side, free speech and the right to think will suffer. Having people do their own self-censorship is just another way of imposing that all healthy "corporate way of life" on the world. Buy a car. Go on expensive trips, buy that expensive clothing and jewlery. Do your bit for the deficit. Your life ain't complete without it. Obay your boss. Come in on time. Increase your performance. Stay later. Make a "reasonable web page". Support your local government. Hate the baddies we target and enroll so we can ship you wherever we screw up. Hell if you shine our boots we'll even give you a doughnut.
Ok, this is a little extreme;) but doesn't this trash about "what the web should be" make you sick? Who's web is this anyways? And how can "they" judge all the non-corporate surfers so harshly?
An interesting comparison can be made with creating computer viruses.
In my mind, creating viruses and bacteria is allright (read on before jumping to the ceiling), so long as they are not put into the "real world". Let alone being put into mass production.
From what I read, there are quite a few scientists thinking that artificial bacteria could spell bio-bonanza. Now doing research is allright by me, but we should concentrate on preserving whatever natural integrity there is left on earth - even though it might not be as commercialy enticing as creating new stuff.
Rabelais said 500 years ago... "Science sans conscience n'est que ruine de l'âme" He still is right on the mark.
Slashdot Mirror
What really annoys me about this subscription thing is the fact that we are forced to continually adapt to new versions of software. Bad enough that I'd need permission to use the program, now I also have to install patch after patch to calm those transition woes. And I can't wait to see people who screw up and need my help. A lot of fun.
... they don't expire - yet.
What also annoys me about Office10 is what already bothers me about CDs. When you buy the stuff, it always looks overpriced and it never gives you any real rights. It's like buying air. I mean you have something that you can use, but it doesn't feel like it's really yours (the small print on CDs is quite telling, not counting the fact the the RIAA thinks making MP3s is immoral).
I also wonder about the future. Since these versions will have a specific "time to live", people wanting to renew their subscriptions will be desperate and might cave in to "questionning" by Microsoft. This would give the software giant a tool to peek into our private lives. And who knows, we might see a day where Microsoft could use this information in order to discriminate and refuse the service to people deemed "unfit to use the software" because they installed SunOffice or didn't vote for the right candidate.
Obi Wan Celeri
Wow hey, now I feel better about CDs
Think about it.
....
It makes perfect sense. RAMBUS figures out it can bring people to court over patents it has filed. It figures "I can do it so I'd be stupid not to".
But wait a minute.
When we start bringing people to court because we can, we start loosing touch with the fact that going to court is serious business. We should only do it AS A LAST RECOURSE. I don't see RAMBUS running around trying to accomodate people here. Going to court is their FIRST option.
Furthermore it brings out a very serious question: While it is logically right to go to court, it's definetely morally wrong - everyone else has been sharing information on memory interfaces through an open standard.
Is this the business way of the new millenium?
Should countries sign peace treaties while preparing their guns?
Should I sue my neighbour before he sues me?
And it does make me wonder what kind of government I have when I know all too well that RAMBUS and INTEL have been lobbying sucessfully for so long
Obi Wan Celeri
"If you look at it in a fractal way, everything is related, no matter how far and how different"
Ok, to a good comment a serious reply.
:) ) since this law has been brought into place. It puts a clear set of rules on the table and EVERYONE plays by them. Some peoeple don't like them but in my opinion if we get rid of them, it wouldn't be very long before the profit margin would take over the need for a satisfied customer. Just take a look at the software industry ...
(this to help prove my case that the language law IS useful)
To quote you:
"If French speaking people are such a large part of the population, why would those businesses opt for English only menus, etc?"
I have had many exchanges about the aptitude and interest of entreprise to adapt to a local market. In the case of Quebec, it is much cheaper to market products in english only than to play fair. Francophones, by proximity to a large mass of anglophones are at the very least functionnaly familiar with the Shakesperian tongue.
In sharp contrast, translating to french, hiring bilingual personnel is a problem. Therefore most companies will either stay away from Quebec or do the minimum. In any case, these companies will maximise their profit while they minimise their effort. A good example is companies who sell (retail) in french in Quebec but who's website has no mention of french at all. No one controls internet but you still have to act in good faith.
I stand my ground. If there is no laws then everything is likely to return to it's original state of 30 years ago. Can't happen? If you have a business and figure out you can increase your profit margin 30% by doing everything in english only, you will surely consider. And imagine french companies trying to compete but having to translate into two languages. There needs to be guidelines so that everyone plays fair.
Like I said earlier, things have gotten much better (at least in my perspective
Obi Wan Celeri
Last reply. Thank you for reading.
I am very upset about your comments.
Having seen dumblaws.com I can tell this site has everything wrong - in fact the french population of Quebec is trying very hard to DEFEND it's linguistic rights.
30 years ago, most stores served and advertised primarly in english, even though 80% of the population was/is french. The so-called "dumb laws" changed things around. Today francophones can be served in french and most business respect the fact they can't do stuff in english only anymore. It even gave a chance for francophones to compete on their own turf, for once.
I can understand that some people are upset about language laws, it's a touchy subject. But let's not forget these laws apply to business and business practices ONLY, it does not, like dumblaws.com infer, forbid people from speaking in english in Quebec.
At 1% of the american population, I also believe francophones in Quebec were/are under enormous pressure to deal and live in english only. Can you blame us for trying to defend our rights?
Obi Wan Celeri
To call a law dumb based only on the fact we do not understand why it's been written down is dumb in itself, don't you agree?
Can I be completely frank?
What's so bad about prOn? Let's face it, people do it and people watch it (specially music CEO's). Surfers are attracted to it because it's "politically incorrect" and because it tells them the naked truth (ok, well most of the time). Everything else just evades all the important questions about life (...). It is also a clear reaction to the totalitarian ways of feminists who, with their anax retentiveness, will just not accept anything that is not done by-the-book (i.e: male pornography is ok, we are more mature).
Hence the link between MP3's and SEX - in order to get either we'd have to go thru this process of figuring out what's right and what's wrong. All of this knowing you have no input in the process. As an example you might think a gal or a guy has a nice butt however you'd never say it - "You just can't do this sort of thing". But the natural thing to do is being honest...
I'd even go further. By linking MP3's and SEX the industry is telling people that beyond it's interpretation of facts, there lies nothing else. I guess that's completely predictable, but it still sends chills down my spine: not content with controling bank accounts, consuming habits and social behaviour, both the industry and the feminist movement try to control what people think.
My girlfriend won't even listen to a bloody MP3 even though I bought the album. What is the world coming to?
... self censorship.
... It's actually EXACTLY what they want.
;) but doesn't this trash about "what the web should be" make you sick? Who's web is this anyways? And how can "they" judge all the non-corporate surfers so harshly?
Big corporations love this
On one side the corporative culture has always had a very high self-censorship level. "It" expects it from all it's employees. So therefore the internet self censorship shift will not bother the corporate users.
As a good example, my school dearly wants kids to publish their work on the school's website. But it's quite clear: They will read each and every work and pick only the ones who best represent the interest of it's "marketing" department. They don't need this self-censorship thing.
On the other side, free speech and the right to think will suffer. Having people do their own self-censorship is just another way of imposing that all healthy "corporate way of life" on the world. Buy a car. Go on expensive trips, buy that expensive clothing and jewlery. Do your bit for the deficit. Your life ain't complete without it. Obay your boss. Come in on time. Increase your performance. Stay later. Make a "reasonable web page". Support your local government. Hate the baddies we target and enroll so we can ship you wherever we screw up. Hell if you shine our boots we'll even give you a doughnut.
Ok, this is a little extreme
Obi Wan Celeri
An interesting comparison can be made with creating computer viruses.
In my mind, creating viruses and bacteria is allright (read on before jumping to the ceiling), so long as they are not put into the "real world". Let alone being put into mass production.
From what I read, there are quite a few scientists thinking that artificial bacteria could spell bio-bonanza. Now doing research is allright by me, but we should concentrate on preserving whatever natural integrity there is left on earth - even though it might not be as commercialy enticing as creating new stuff.
Rabelais said 500 years ago...
"Science sans conscience n'est que ruine de l'âme"
He still is right on the mark.
Obi Wan Celeri