I dunno... I'd be more embarrassed that the company was still using Windows '98 because it didn't want to replace their legacy software. Oh, I know, I've heard it all before... there's no replacement for it, it would be too costly, blah blah blah.
But there almost certainly IS a replacement for your legacy apps, and your employer is being stupid by continuing to use it. Instead of paying the cost of replacement, they're paying the cost of NOT replacing it... higher IT staffing costs, decreased security, and the potential loss of many customers, not to mention lawsuits.
I've done work for a few companies who tried to hang on to their legacy software forever, usually vertical apps. None were successful with the strategy. Usually it's a lazy CEO/CFO who's afraid of change, or a profound misunderstanding the economics of IT. And, when these companies eventually break down and replace the app, they usually screw it up one way or the other.
Anyway, in your situation, I would recommend full disclosure, not only to customers but also employees (their personal data is at risk). Don't worry about whether they do it, just make sure that you're on record as recommending disclosure. Then look for a new job and get yourself as far from that company as possible. Nothing good is going to happen there.
(Gosh it brings back such horrible memories.... "We need X, Y, and Z, implement them right away." "Okay, here's the PO." "Wow, I didn't know it cost that much. Isn't there some setting you can just change? Tell you what, install the upgrades and we'll buy the licenses next quarter." Uggghh. "We need full daily backups!" "Here's a PO for some blank tapes." "Wow, they're expensive. Find me a cheaper way.")
Sure, but going forward Oracle, IBM, and others can pay programmers just as easily as Red Hat. Five years ago, that didn't make sense for the bigger companies. Now it does. In any event, the world really doesn't need a commercial, pay-to-use distribution. Free commercial distributions can work just fine, thank you. That was the essence of my comment.
And while I appreciate Red Hat's contributions, Linux is popular because it's Free, not because of Red Hat. They contributed, but so did many others.
To clarify... Red Hat could continue to operate at modest profits on their current business model... but the stock market (ie, the owners) aren't going to allow it. A private owner might settle for it, but the market has been sold the stock on the basis of a growth story that no longer exists. Management will be pressured to restructure or be acquired.
It's not hopeless for them, but it's time to just completely forget the 90's business model of making money by selling a branded OS. Shucks, even Microsoft can barely pull it off nowadays. Apple uses their OS to sell hardware. Oracle plans to use Linux to sell databases and CRM. See the trend?
Meanwhile Red Hat is using Linux to sell... Linux support? Somebody will eventually find a more worthwhile use for RHEL.
>> In one year, Red Hat will be all that remains of commercial Linux
Sure, but what will remain of Red Hat?
And who needs "commercial Linux" anyway?
Hey, I don't dislike Red Hat, in fact it's my favorite distro. But the idea of running a standalone Linux vendor is history. It is a dead parrot. It's nailed to its perch. It has shuffled off this mortal coil, etc. etc. etc.
Pretty simple, really. It's a defensive move. They NEED to be involved in Linux, especially overseas, where they can't get away with charging US prices (and can barely enforce the licenses anyway).
And don't expect MS to try and make SuSe proprietary; they're doing this precisely because they need an alternative product line, to gain an entry with customers who won't use Windows.
Expect to see a LOT of SuSe in China.
The lesson from this and the Oracle move is that it makes more economic sense for huge software companies to handle the distribution, and to benefit from the various synergies and good will that it creates, rather than to start a company that does nothing but Linux (and trying to figure out how to monetize free software). MS will eventually profit more from Linux than Red Hat ever did, but not by charging for the software.
Linux has "won", in a sense.... it's reached enough critical mass that there's a mad rush to be the one who gives it away. It may never outnumber Windows, but it will ALWAYS be a factor from here on out. The only question remaining is who will eventually buy Red Hat (sure, they may try to restructure, but they'll never be able to make a go of it with MS and Oracle trying to outdo each other at giving it away). SAP and HP are the first names that come to mind. Maybe Sun, but they couldn't afford it. Intel would have antitrust problems. Not sure if IBM would still be interested.
Despite what they say, Red Hat hasn't been selling service, they've been selling software. Read their licenses, and it says that you may install one copy of RHEL for each support contract you buy.... whether you want to service or not. If you want to install an extra copy for development or training, you pay for it, just like with Microsoft. In fact, MS might have better deals for developers and admins. Sure, you can get Fedora for free, but it's not the same product. If you want RHEL, you pay for it, one copy one "support contract"... plain and simple.
It was a good means to quickly generate revenues from corporate buyers when they implemented it, and it sounded good to Wall Street for a couple of years. Now they're catching on... selling free software for $300/server/year (or whatever it is now) is not a long-term business strategy, and that it was only a matter of time before somebody realized that web updates can be sold for a lot cheaper. I used to happily pay $70/server/year to subscribe to RHN for my production servers when I used RH9, but after the change to RHEL licensing terms, the stuff I do couldn't justify the price. I can't pay for the same support that a corporate customer requires, I just want updates.
Not that I'm any fan of Oracle... if anybody can screw this up, it'll be them. But it really does send a strong signal to Red Hat, because their business model just isn't sustainable beyond the small but lucrative niche that they currently sell to.
>> the same explanation at varying levels of detail?
Well, possible with some of them, but some are wildly divergent, or use different thermodynamic hypotheses to describe them.
>> reflects infrared light differently than ultraviolet light
That's the most plausible explanation, but the levels of CO2 elevation that are claimed (UN IPCC) is that of every ten thousand molecules in the atmosphere, ONE molecule is now CO2 instead of some other gas. They're worried that it might increase to two molecules out of every ten thousand over the next several decades.
Now, it's been 30+ years since I forgot how to do the math on those reflection/refraction effects, but really, one or two molecules out of ten thousand is supposed to send us into some sort of environmental death spiral? And why does nobody discuss a possible increase/decrease in Oxygen, and the possible effects of that... they'd seem to be equally important as the CO2 changes, but they're never discussed. Would adding or removing 100PPM of Oxygen from the atmosphere have a positive or negative effect on temperatures? Does anybody even know? Why the focus on CO2? It certainly seems politcally expedient, but it raises red flags to the properly skeptical scientist.
The entire theory rests on so-called positive feedbacks, which posit that small changes in one part of the ecosystem will become amplified as their effects pass through. To believe in such positive feedbacks requires suspension scientific skepticism, and a belief that somehow, some way, through a million years of volcanoes, meteors, and periods with CO2 levels far in excess of current ones, these positive feedbacks have apparently never been triggered. In fact, the very existence of the earth (and the fact that it has supported human life for more than a million years, most of it without heat or A/C), tends to convince me that ecosystems, by their very nature, are made up of complemetary negative feedbacks, and that postive feedbacks do not exist beyond a local level, end even there, they're necessarily temporary. The most obvious of the negative feedbacks, of course, are the oceans, which respond to warmth by evaporating more, thus creating more clouds, which in turn reduce temperatures, keeeping temperatures fairly stable. Doesn't that just make sense? Doesn't that help to explain how the climate has remained livable for the last million years or so?
Instead, we have people following a "science" that fervently believes in an inherently unstable earth, and in the refractive power of one molecule out of ten thousand, but is skeptical of clouds.
"To take the CO2 level up by 2000 ppm will indeed bring the O2 level down by 2000 ppm.... Complete non-issue."
That's the best science you can come up with? If so, perhaps you should stick to shouting down infidels and calling them trolls.
But seriously, why would the change in O2 level be a non-issue, but the change in CO2 level would lead to catastrophe? Am I a troll for asking these questions?
And what's the difference between the thermodymanic effects of oxygen molecules vs. CO2 molecules? twenty years of global warming "science" and I've never seen this addressed. On the ther hand, I've seen at least four or five different explanations of how CO2 will supposedly lead to catastrophe. Some say it's the same insulating effect as a blanket, some say it has to do with reflected/refracted light off the molecules, some say it has to do with infrared vs ultrviolet transmission. You'd think these folks would at least talk to each other to get the story straight.
I'm not worried about global warming, and not really worried about the medicine they're prescribing to cure it. But I'm horrified that people uncritically accept the "science" that's peddled by the politicians.
Well, of course we won't dig up all the coal and burn all the oil. Unfortunately, the "scientist" made the expedient assumption that usage would continue to increase unabated.
Had he spoken to an economist, he would have learned that once demand starts to exceed new discoveries, prices will increase to the point that other energy sources will become more useful. Has nothing to do with CO2, just simple economics. We'll never burn all the oil because the last 100 years' worth will become too precious.
And had he spoken to an accountant, he'd have been told to cross-check his math; in opther words, how much raw material would be needed to burn at what level of inefficiency to produce that much carbon dioxide?
Speaking of science, how come nobody complains that we're using up all the oxygen? I mean, it takes O2 to make CO2, right? Where does is come from? Why doesn't anybody ever talk about that?
And when the weatherman comes on to tell you how arm it will be, why does he tell you about the clouds in the sky, and not the CO2 in the air? I mean, it's not perfectly distributed throughout the atmosphere, and I'm sure it moves around. Shouldn't it be warmer on days when there's a little more CO2 locally? But they never even mention it.
The title of scientist does not immunize somebody from being full of shit.
This is nothing new, and hardly a TSA phenomenon. Try insulting a cop's mother when he arrests you; you'll see how far your free speech rights extend.
The TSA is basically a hall monitor in the heirarchy of law enforcement. So they're even more sensitive to taunts, and more likely to elevate an insult to the level of national emergency.
Good fucking grief. The FCC doesn't censor anything. They maintain standards in one small area, the publicly available broadcast airwaves. Public means they're available to all, and as such, it's pretty reasonable to maintain some standards so that the public can enjoy it. Just as we reserve parking spaces for the handicapped, we maintain our public public so that everybody can make use of it.
Beyond broadcast TV, there's virtually no government censorship in America except child pornography. Even people who want child porn seem to be able to get it. There is a forum for everything else you can dream up. You can go almost anywhere in the most conservative states and find stores where you can buy Marxist literature, sex toys and and porn that's as hard-core as anything you'll find in LA.
But when the government decides they control the wires into my house, I kinda have a problem with that. Meanwhile, morons run around crying crocodile tears for Howard Stern, totally distracted from the real freedom issue.
Technoligy in general seems to contrubute to the breakup of traditional social structures. Air travel changed a lot of things in the 50's & 60's, allowing people to relocate about the country.... before then, most people just lived in the city where they were born, and relationships ran long and deep.
Now, phones, TV, the Internet... they all direct our communication and our association away from older models. Musicians who used to hang out at the same nightclub now link to each other on MySpace. It's great that they can do it, but there was something better about the old way.
The one redeeming quality of socialism (if socialists would recognize it), is that it promotes a notion of community as opposed to the depersonalization and fragmentation of our relationships that advancing technology (fueled by capitalism and freedom) promotes. As old concepts like neighborhoods, towns, churches decline in influence, people feel the need for stronger communal associations. Government at various levels can fulfil some of that need, however poorly.
I believe the increasing size of the US gov't (as a percentage of GDP) over time is a reflection of the very same needs. The blessing of the US is that this is happening at a relatively slow and controlled pace over a period of decades. I love freedom and technology, but... well, here I am on the Internet instead of arguing with some friends at a lunch counter.
Get over it. Microsoft no longer matters. They got too big and the market has passed them by. They made hay during the 90's based on the proprietary model, but that strategy always runs out of steam eventually, and MS hasn't found a new business model to replace it. That's why the stock is down since 1998, and it's why Gates had to go.
It won't be today and it might not be next year, but Office's strangelehold on the corporate desktop will eventually be an historical footnote. Not because any government stopped it, but because users found better alternatives for much lower prices.
Good grief. Freedom is more complex than being able to say "fuck" on TV, okay?
The one part of the FCC's involvement that I don't have much of a problem with is their "censorship" of *broadcast* TV... if all they did was mange the public bandwidth and "censor" language (as opposed to opinions) to keep the public airwaves suitable for the public discourse, that wouldn't be a problem.
But beyond that, the First Ammendment promises freedom in our communications, not a federal authority that dishes out freedom where it sees fit. First they mandate a national telephone monopoly, then they congratulate themselves for breaking it up into six small monopolies. Somehow they've managed to extend their reach to managing who connects to the Internet and how much they pay. While they're promising consumer benefits, they're simply arbitrating between several huge corporations, and using that as an excuse to mandate all sorts of regulatory restrictions on the way we communicate; they specify from whom we can buy services, the records they must keep, which services we can use over which lines, to whom we must pay arbitrary fees, and which corporations we have to pay off for not doing business with the their competitors. All the while, they're protecting the established interests from market-based competition.
Am I the only one who finds the very idea of a "Federal Communications Commission" somewhat authoritarian?
The rationale is that they're "protecting competition", by making the taxes equal.
In other words, the established phone companies out-lobbied the startups.
The very notion that a nation with a First Ammendment needs a "Federal Communications Commission" is absurd. It's one thing to manage RF bandwidth, which was the FCC's original mandate... in the 1920's or 1930's. But they've expanded their mission to micromanaging every electronic communcation in the country, which, nowadays, includes just about everything. It's such an impossible task that they continue to pass new rules because the old ones are "broken". Of course, the new rules will quickly be "broken" too. And then they'll pass more.
I say, set up an eBay store to auction bandwidth, and close down the rest of the FCC. We can continue to pay the employees, that's not expensive compared to the damage they do when they're working.
The PC will always be around, but it's no longer driving the tech marketplace. Cell phones aren't a substitute, but they're one of four or five things, which, in combination, leave the PC in the support role.
PC's will be used to produce content, consumer devices will be used to watch/listen/play. Communication will be split among the platforms.
Here's my take. Aperture wasn't doing well, and it was competing against Adobe's Lightroom. Apple, meanwhile, is anxious for Adobe CS3 to ship, which currently is scheduled for Q1 of 2007. But Apple wants it in time for Christmas sales. In their last quarterly report, Apple execs said that they're working with Adobe to accelerate the launch of CS3, if possible, and that the lack of Universal software from Adobe was holding back sales of the Intel Macs. So I think they made a deal. Maybe we'll see the CS3 launch advanced.
Despite Intel's alleged transgressions, AMD is kicking Intel's butt badly in the marketplace. All that's being accomplished by this suit is to settle up between the two companies on a past dispute. AMD's value won't go up much if they win, and Intel's won't decrease much if they lose. It will have NO effect on the current or future marktetplace. In fact, Intel to this day is threatening a price war, it's just that they can't pull it off they way they used to (all they're doing is dumping $50 Celerons; when AMD has a 3-4% advantage in margin, it's tough to win a price war). Meanwhile, AMD has thrived despite any obstacles that Intel threw at them.
In other words, the market has already corrected for any transgressions, and AMD will be firmly in the driver's seat long before the suit is settled. The lawyers will be paid by future consumers of both brands.
Just seems strange.... Intel is the one accused of antitrust violations.... meanwhile the lawyers for the two sides get together and agree that it will take them two or three years to figure it all out.
Well, golf has moved beyond being a rich person's game in recent years. But I can see the point of the article, and how spending more has really become an advantage. To keep it fair, when I play golf with somebody from the 'hood, I always give 'em odds on the $10,000 Nassau.
Slashdot Mirror
I dunno... I'd be more embarrassed that the company was still using Windows '98 because it didn't want to replace their legacy software. Oh, I know, I've heard it all before... there's no replacement for it, it would be too costly, blah blah blah.
But there almost certainly IS a replacement for your legacy apps, and your employer is being stupid by continuing to use it. Instead of paying the cost of replacement, they're paying the cost of NOT replacing it... higher IT staffing costs, decreased security, and the potential loss of many customers, not to mention lawsuits.
I've done work for a few companies who tried to hang on to their legacy software forever, usually vertical apps. None were successful with the strategy. Usually it's a lazy CEO/CFO who's afraid of change, or a profound misunderstanding the economics of IT. And, when these companies eventually break down and replace the app, they usually screw it up one way or the other.
Anyway, in your situation, I would recommend full disclosure, not only to customers but also employees (their personal data is at risk). Don't worry about whether they do it, just make sure that you're on record as recommending disclosure. Then look for a new job and get yourself as far from that company as possible. Nothing good is going to happen there.
(Gosh it brings back such horrible memories.... "We need X, Y, and Z, implement them right away." "Okay, here's the PO." "Wow, I didn't know it cost that much. Isn't there some setting you can just change? Tell you what, install the upgrades and we'll buy the licenses next quarter." Uggghh. "We need full daily backups!" "Here's a PO for some blank tapes." "Wow, they're expensive. Find me a cheaper way.")
Sure, but going forward Oracle, IBM, and others can pay programmers just as easily as Red Hat. Five years ago, that didn't make sense for the bigger companies. Now it does. In any event, the world really doesn't need a commercial, pay-to-use distribution. Free commercial distributions can work just fine, thank you. That was the essence of my comment.
And while I appreciate Red Hat's contributions, Linux is popular because it's Free, not because of Red Hat. They contributed, but so did many others.
To clarify... Red Hat could continue to operate at modest profits on their current business model... but the stock market (ie, the owners) aren't going to allow it. A private owner might settle for it, but the market has been sold the stock on the basis of a growth story that no longer exists. Management will be pressured to restructure or be acquired.
It's not hopeless for them, but it's time to just completely forget the 90's business model of making money by selling a branded OS. Shucks, even Microsoft can barely pull it off nowadays. Apple uses their OS to sell hardware. Oracle plans to use Linux to sell databases and CRM. See the trend?
Meanwhile Red Hat is using Linux to sell... Linux support? Somebody will eventually find a more worthwhile use for RHEL.
>> In one year, Red Hat will be all that remains of commercial Linux
Sure, but what will remain of Red Hat?
And who needs "commercial Linux" anyway?
Hey, I don't dislike Red Hat, in fact it's my favorite distro. But the idea of running a standalone Linux vendor is history. It is a dead parrot. It's nailed to its perch. It has shuffled off this mortal coil, etc. etc. etc.
Pretty simple, really. It's a defensive move. They NEED to be involved in Linux, especially overseas, where they can't get away with charging US prices (and can barely enforce the licenses anyway).
And don't expect MS to try and make SuSe proprietary; they're doing this precisely because they need an alternative product line, to gain an entry with customers who won't use Windows.
Expect to see a LOT of SuSe in China.
The lesson from this and the Oracle move is that it makes more economic sense for huge software companies to handle the distribution, and to benefit from the various synergies and good will that it creates, rather than to start a company that does nothing but Linux (and trying to figure out how to monetize free software). MS will eventually profit more from Linux than Red Hat ever did, but not by charging for the software.
Linux has "won", in a sense.... it's reached enough critical mass that there's a mad rush to be the one who gives it away. It may never outnumber Windows, but it will ALWAYS be a factor from here on out. The only question remaining is who will eventually buy Red Hat (sure, they may try to restructure, but they'll never be able to make a go of it with MS and Oracle trying to outdo each other at giving it away). SAP and HP are the first names that come to mind. Maybe Sun, but they couldn't afford it. Intel would have antitrust problems. Not sure if IBM would still be interested.
>> China ends up with 100,000,000 computers running Linux
/. posting when it comes up later today.
Be careful what you wish for... WSJ is saying that MS will distrubute SuSe. Should make for a wild
Despite what they say, Red Hat hasn't been selling service, they've been selling software. Read their licenses, and it says that you may install one copy of RHEL for each support contract you buy.... whether you want to service or not. If you want to install an extra copy for development or training, you pay for it, just like with Microsoft. In fact, MS might have better deals for developers and admins. Sure, you can get Fedora for free, but it's not the same product. If you want RHEL, you pay for it, one copy one "support contract"... plain and simple.
It was a good means to quickly generate revenues from corporate buyers when they implemented it, and it sounded good to Wall Street for a couple of years. Now they're catching on... selling free software for $300/server/year (or whatever it is now) is not a long-term business strategy, and that it was only a matter of time before somebody realized that web updates can be sold for a lot cheaper. I used to happily pay $70/server/year to subscribe to RHN for my production servers when I used RH9, but after the change to RHEL licensing terms, the stuff I do couldn't justify the price. I can't pay for the same support that a corporate customer requires, I just want updates.
Not that I'm any fan of Oracle... if anybody can screw this up, it'll be them. But it really does send a strong signal to Red Hat, because their business model just isn't sustainable beyond the small but lucrative niche that they currently sell to.
>> the same explanation at varying levels of detail?
Well, possible with some of them, but some are wildly divergent, or use different thermodynamic hypotheses to describe them.
>> reflects infrared light differently than ultraviolet light
That's the most plausible explanation, but the levels of CO2 elevation that are claimed (UN IPCC) is that of every ten thousand molecules in the atmosphere, ONE molecule is now CO2 instead of some other gas. They're worried that it might increase to two molecules out of every ten thousand over the next several decades.
Now, it's been 30+ years since I forgot how to do the math on those reflection/refraction effects, but really, one or two molecules out of ten thousand is supposed to send us into some sort of environmental death spiral? And why does nobody discuss a possible increase/decrease in Oxygen, and the possible effects of that... they'd seem to be equally important as the CO2 changes, but they're never discussed. Would adding or removing 100PPM of Oxygen from the atmosphere have a positive or negative effect on temperatures? Does anybody even know? Why the focus on CO2? It certainly seems politcally expedient, but it raises red flags to the properly skeptical scientist.
The entire theory rests on so-called positive feedbacks, which posit that small changes in one part of the ecosystem will become amplified as their effects pass through. To believe in such positive feedbacks requires suspension scientific skepticism, and a belief that somehow, some way, through a million years of volcanoes, meteors, and periods with CO2 levels far in excess of current ones, these positive feedbacks have apparently never been triggered. In fact, the very existence of the earth (and the fact that it has supported human life for more than a million years, most of it without heat or A/C), tends to convince me that ecosystems, by their very nature, are made up of complemetary negative feedbacks, and that postive feedbacks do not exist beyond a local level, end even there, they're necessarily temporary. The most obvious of the negative feedbacks, of course, are the oceans, which respond to warmth by evaporating more, thus creating more clouds, which in turn reduce temperatures, keeeping temperatures fairly stable. Doesn't that just make sense? Doesn't that help to explain how the climate has remained livable for the last million years or so?
Instead, we have people following a "science" that fervently believes in an inherently unstable earth, and in the refractive power of one molecule out of ten thousand, but is skeptical of clouds.
"To take the CO2 level up by 2000 ppm will indeed bring the O2 level down by 2000 ppm.... Complete non-issue."
That's the best science you can come up with? If so, perhaps you should stick to shouting down infidels and calling them trolls.
But seriously, why would the change in O2 level be a non-issue, but the change in CO2 level would lead to catastrophe? Am I a troll for asking these questions?
And what's the difference between the thermodymanic effects of oxygen molecules vs. CO2 molecules? twenty years of global warming "science" and I've never seen this addressed. On the ther hand, I've seen at least four or five different explanations of how CO2 will supposedly lead to catastrophe. Some say it's the same insulating effect as a blanket, some say it has to do with reflected/refracted light off the molecules, some say it has to do with infrared vs ultrviolet transmission. You'd think these folks would at least talk to each other to get the story straight.
I'm not worried about global warming, and not really worried about the medicine they're prescribing to cure it. But I'm horrified that people uncritically accept the "science" that's peddled by the politicians.
Well, of course we won't dig up all the coal and burn all the oil. Unfortunately, the "scientist" made the expedient assumption that usage would continue to increase unabated.
Had he spoken to an economist, he would have learned that once demand starts to exceed new discoveries, prices will increase to the point that other energy sources will become more useful. Has nothing to do with CO2, just simple economics. We'll never burn all the oil because the last 100 years' worth will become too precious.
And had he spoken to an accountant, he'd have been told to cross-check his math; in opther words, how much raw material would be needed to burn at what level of inefficiency to produce that much carbon dioxide?
Speaking of science, how come nobody complains that we're using up all the oxygen? I mean, it takes O2 to make CO2, right? Where does is come from? Why doesn't anybody ever talk about that?
And when the weatherman comes on to tell you how arm it will be, why does he tell you about the clouds in the sky, and not the CO2 in the air? I mean, it's not perfectly distributed throughout the atmosphere, and I'm sure it moves around. Shouldn't it be warmer on days when there's a little more CO2 locally? But they never even mention it.
The title of scientist does not immunize somebody from being full of shit.
This is nothing new, and hardly a TSA phenomenon. Try insulting a cop's mother when he arrests you; you'll see how far your free speech rights extend.
The TSA is basically a hall monitor in the heirarchy of law enforcement. So they're even more sensitive to taunts, and more likely to elevate an insult to the level of national emergency.
Good fucking grief. The FCC doesn't censor anything. They maintain standards in one small area, the publicly available broadcast airwaves. Public means they're available to all, and as such, it's pretty reasonable to maintain some standards so that the public can enjoy it. Just as we reserve parking spaces for the handicapped, we maintain our public public so that everybody can make use of it.
Beyond broadcast TV, there's virtually no government censorship in America except child pornography. Even people who want child porn seem to be able to get it. There is a forum for everything else you can dream up. You can go almost anywhere in the most conservative states and find stores where you can buy Marxist literature, sex toys and and porn that's as hard-core as anything you'll find in LA.
But when the government decides they control the wires into my house, I kinda have a problem with that. Meanwhile, morons run around crying crocodile tears for Howard Stern, totally distracted from the real freedom issue.
Technoligy in general seems to contrubute to the breakup of traditional social structures. Air travel changed a lot of things in the 50's & 60's, allowing people to relocate about the country.... before then, most people just lived in the city where they were born, and relationships ran long and deep.
Now, phones, TV, the Internet... they all direct our communication and our association away from older models. Musicians who used to hang out at the same nightclub now link to each other on MySpace. It's great that they can do it, but there was something better about the old way.
The one redeeming quality of socialism (if socialists would recognize it), is that it promotes a notion of community as opposed to the depersonalization and fragmentation of our relationships that advancing technology (fueled by capitalism and freedom) promotes. As old concepts like neighborhoods, towns, churches decline in influence, people feel the need for stronger communal associations. Government at various levels can fulfil some of that need, however poorly.
I believe the increasing size of the US gov't (as a percentage of GDP) over time is a reflection of the very same needs. The blessing of the US is that this is happening at a relatively slow and controlled pace over a period of decades. I love freedom and technology, but... well, here I am on the Internet instead of arguing with some friends at a lunch counter.
Get over it. Microsoft no longer matters. They got too big and the market has passed them by. They made hay during the 90's based on the proprietary model, but that strategy always runs out of steam eventually, and MS hasn't found a new business model to replace it. That's why the stock is down since 1998, and it's why Gates had to go.
It won't be today and it might not be next year, but Office's strangelehold on the corporate desktop will eventually be an historical footnote. Not because any government stopped it, but because users found better alternatives for much lower prices.
Good grief. Freedom is more complex than being able to say "fuck" on TV, okay?
The one part of the FCC's involvement that I don't have much of a problem with is their "censorship" of *broadcast* TV... if all they did was mange the public bandwidth and "censor" language (as opposed to opinions) to keep the public airwaves suitable for the public discourse, that wouldn't be a problem.
But beyond that, the First Ammendment promises freedom in our communications, not a federal authority that dishes out freedom where it sees fit. First they mandate a national telephone monopoly, then they congratulate themselves for breaking it up into six small monopolies. Somehow they've managed to extend their reach to managing who connects to the Internet and how much they pay. While they're promising consumer benefits, they're simply arbitrating between several huge corporations, and using that as an excuse to mandate all sorts of regulatory restrictions on the way we communicate; they specify from whom we can buy services, the records they must keep, which services we can use over which lines, to whom we must pay arbitrary fees, and which corporations we have to pay off for not doing business with the their competitors. All the while, they're protecting the established interests from market-based competition.
Am I the only one who finds the very idea of a "Federal Communications Commission" somewhat authoritarian?
The rationale is that they're "protecting competition", by making the taxes equal.
In other words, the established phone companies out-lobbied the startups.
The very notion that a nation with a First Ammendment needs a "Federal Communications Commission" is absurd. It's one thing to manage RF bandwidth, which was the FCC's original mandate... in the 1920's or 1930's. But they've expanded their mission to micromanaging every electronic communcation in the country, which, nowadays, includes just about everything. It's such an impossible task that they continue to pass new rules because the old ones are "broken". Of course, the new rules will quickly be "broken" too. And then they'll pass more.
I say, set up an eBay store to auction bandwidth, and close down the rest of the FCC. We can continue to pay the employees, that's not expensive compared to the damage they do when they're working.
This is the beauty of capitalism. No matter how rich and powerful you are, you still get fired when you screw up.
The PC will always be around, but it's no longer driving the tech marketplace. Cell phones aren't a substitute, but they're one of four or five things, which, in combination, leave the PC in the support role.
PC's will be used to produce content, consumer devices will be used to watch/listen/play. Communication will be split among the platforms.
Here's my take. Aperture wasn't doing well, and it was competing against Adobe's Lightroom. Apple, meanwhile, is anxious for Adobe CS3 to ship, which currently is scheduled for Q1 of 2007. But Apple wants it in time for Christmas sales. In their last quarterly report, Apple execs said that they're working with Adobe to accelerate the launch of CS3, if possible, and that the lack of Universal software from Adobe was holding back sales of the Intel Macs. So I think they made a deal. Maybe we'll see the CS3 launch advanced.
Makes more sense than a freaking acquisition.
Ed Markey involved with telecom lobbyists? Say it ain't so!
Despite Intel's alleged transgressions, AMD is kicking Intel's butt badly in the marketplace. All that's being accomplished by this suit is to settle up between the two companies on a past dispute. AMD's value won't go up much if they win, and Intel's won't decrease much if they lose. It will have NO effect on the current or future marktetplace. In fact, Intel to this day is threatening a price war, it's just that they can't pull it off they way they used to (all they're doing is dumping $50 Celerons; when AMD has a 3-4% advantage in margin, it's tough to win a price war). Meanwhile, AMD has thrived despite any obstacles that Intel threw at them.
In other words, the market has already corrected for any transgressions, and AMD will be firmly in the driver's seat long before the suit is settled. The lawyers will be paid by future consumers of both brands.
In a better world, both companies would be suing the lawyers.
Just seems strange.... Intel is the one accused of antitrust violations.... meanwhile the lawyers for the two sides get together and agree that it will take them two or three years to figure it all out.
Well, golf has moved beyond being a rich person's game in recent years. But I can see the point of the article, and how spending more has really become an advantage. To keep it fair, when I play golf with somebody from the 'hood, I always give 'em odds on the $10,000 Nassau.
That proves it. Americans are from Mars, Europeans are from Venus.