He's "the friend with big schlong." Like you have the smart friend, the asshole friend, the in jail friend, the drinks 3 cases riend, and so on.
ROFL! I have plenty of friends, and I am proud to say that none of them fit into any of those categories. Well, I've got an asshole friend, they're all pretty smart, and a couple of us can drink a fifth of something or other.
However, ALL my male friends under 5'8" drive really big trucks. I think its a symptom of "Little Man Syndrome", and I don't think penis size is a factor, but the size of something certainly is.
"We view this as Palmisano's coming-out party," said Thomas Bittman, an analyst at Gartner Research. "The industry will be measuring IBM against this as a benchmark for years."
Well, here is Gartner Group, missing the boat again. SimUtility has been doing this for years now, but because IBM is getting in to the market its news?
Timesharing of computers is a very valid, and far from dead market for computing. There are a lot of companies that do not want to buy their own supercomputers, which will likely sit unused the majority of the time. As for the example of a car manufacturer doing testing on a new model, this already happens as do many other organizations.
- America's Cup boat designers
- Racing teams
- Natural Resource Explorers
- scientific organizations
- and many many more
We're not exactly talking about a new or even revived paradigm. Timesharing never died.
The Holodeck would be the death of civilization as we know it.
Seriously can you imagine an even greater scourge? Who the hell would leave? Sure, I'd like to think that my first foray would be to play baseball with 17 hall of famers, to drive through the streets of Monte Carlo for McLaren, or even storm a 747 widebody with an MP5 and a couple of flashbangs, but we all know that the first thing booted up on 90% of all holodecks would be "A Night with Jenna Jameson".
only when we see a truly free market will there be the opportunity for massive growth.
The only thing I can say in response to this is...
Laissez-faire in theory is perfect. Socialism in theory is perfect. Marxism in theory is perfect. Trickle-Down Economics in theory is perfect. Democracy in theory is perfect.
As soon as you insert the human factor, everything goes to shit.
I think Dan was more than fair. He clearly stated that he respects most VC's, but some clearly passed on ALL their fiduciary duty to their shareholders to the shareholders.
I have had the misfortune of sitting across from VC, loudly proclaiming, to a conference room full of developers words to the effect of, "All we have to do is field a working prototype, IPO, and wait for the suitors to come knocking." I've heard this from different VC's in different conference rooms.
Now, to be fair, I've also been in conference rooms with VC's who have rolled up their sleeves and worked late in to the evening to help us make their client profitable.
A large number of VC, in the waning days of the boom, were nothing more than snake-oil salesman. The good ones were pretty much, previously-engaged.
I think deregulation, in theory, is a great idea. But, it never seems to work out in the end. BTW, Your analysis of the airline industry is incomplete by failing to mention the high fatality rate of businesses in those markets. The problem with these industries is that they are expensive markets to enter, high cost, and generate little profit. In order for the companies to stay in business, they have to drive up consumer rates to the highest acceptable rate and avoid modernization at all costs, just to approach break-even.
Add power to your list. Mine's nearly doubled since deregulation. There still isn't any competition, because the barriers to entry are too high and the new electric company refuses to upgrade its power plants without a grant. The brownouts are just around the corner.
Exactly! We do registry edits all the time on remote systems at work. We are simply smart enough to do them via VNC, or at the very least Terminal Services over private vlans.
While you're at it disable Remote Registry while you are at it. It truly amazes what services Microsoft deems the average user needs running. I find the whole concept of Remote Registry particularly disturbing.
"Cool this service allows people to modify my registry remotely, sweet!"
While I know there are some legitimate and possibly useful reasons to have these services enabled, why on earth are they enabled by default?
Everyone and their brother knew that Boston was lobbying hard for MacWorld and that IDG was all for it. Apple certainly DID know before the deal was inked and they didn't say a word. BUT this way, Steve gets to show us all how powerful he is.
This is a classic, "I'm gonna take my ball and go home." I suspect little Stevie Jobs said those exact words many times.
Alan Cox didn't write the code that he learned the exploit to. Furthermore, Red Hat did not write the kernel, thus it is not their own code. The parent post merely chose the wrong words to make his point.
Ok, well let's continue, shall we? I'll submit a patch to KDE removing the US flag, because you're not a sovereign nation, you're simply a renegade province of the UK and as such, you don't need a flag. Right?
There is a big difference here, even our one-time oppressors recognize our independence, Taiwan's certainly does not.
No, we are railing against Red Hat because they are, through their actions, deliberately perpetuating this myth that Taiwan is somehow not a country in its own right,
I would like no better than to see a "recognized" free Taiwan, but it will not happen until the rest of the world unites behind them. It is not fair to ask Red Hat, a software company, to do what nations are not brave enough to do. Red Hat is not the open source movement's Joan of Arc, they are a company, a business. Had they decided to keep the flag, they would have essentially locked themselves out of one of the world's largest markets. I don't expect Bob Young to play the role of statesman and defender of freedom everywhere. I expect the statesmen to play that role and they have done a very poor job when it comes to Taiwan. They are the ones to blame, Red Hat is hardly responsible for the continuation of the lunacy of "One China".
and because I do not feel that this is an appropriate action for a company that supposedly puts the freedoms of its users - including its Taiwanese users - first.
Red Hat can never hope to replace the United Nations and Amnesty International and no one should expect them to. They have set out to free their users from proprietary software not tyranny. Despite some people's impressions of Bill Gates, there is a difference.
Red Hat is the one that stands accused of hypocrisy here.
Why? Because they say, "Who would buy a car with the hood welded shut?" No, Red Hat never promised to protect their users from tyranny, opression, and the "One China Doctrine". Shadowman is not a real superhero.
So a matter which is initially noticed and brought to our attention by Taiwanese Linux users, which they complain and bitch about, which they start an online petition for, where they feel that Red Hat is trampling on their toes - am I not allowed to stand by them and stick up for them? Because I know if I was in their position, I would be VERY pissed off, and rightfully so. How does it amount to hypocrisy that I am willing to speak out in their defence? I can understand their displeasure, but it is not Red Hat who started this mess, Richard Nixon did. Red Hat was damned if they did and damned if they didn't. No matter what they did someone would be pissed. Red Hat chose the path in their best interest as a company is expected to do within the limits of the law. Do we have to like it? Of course not. Are you a hypocrite for standing up for them? No. The hypocrisy comes in the form of the majority of people in the world benefiting from Taiwan's "effective" independence, but not supporting their drive for "recognized" independence.
Don't give me the BS about the fact that I should only care about world events that I have no direct control over. I do care about these things, and I have done what is within my power - how many of you have written to your representative or gone on a political demonstration in the last 6 months? I have. But currently I am sitting in front of my computer, this issue has come to my attention today, so I am using what I feel is an appropriate and effective forum to air my views and try to get the message across. Why do you have a problem with that?
I have no problem with people expressing their views, but I have just as much right to tell you they are a little misdirected. Red Hat had no choice in this matter. They are a company and they must make decision with THEIR interests in mind. Had Red Hat kept the flag, they WOULD have been open to some serious liability from their shareholders that would have threatened their future. Their responsibility is to the users of their software and their shareholders, not to the people of Taiwan. While a stand on this issue by them would have been admirable, it would have accomplished nothing. Whether or not Red Hat kept the flag would have meant jack to the independence of Taiwan. The fact that the US government can sell billions of dollars of arms to a place they happily recognize as a renegade province of its best trading buddy is insane. How we can blame a small software company for not embarking on a grand quest of liberation is ludicrous. I don't expect any company to make diplomatic policy, I expect my legislators and President to do that.
But this is the whole point! This is exactly the doctrine that Red Hat is perpetuating, whether you deny it or not. I, and over 4000 Taiwanese Linux users, don't think this is right.
What about the Mainland Linux users who feel its wrong to include the flag of a rebel province. No matter what Red Hat chose to do someone on either side of the Strait would have been upset. Now if there were more upset Linux users on the Mainland then on Taiwan, then Red Hat made the right choice. "You can't please all of the people all of the time."
Leave business to businesses and diplomacy to diplomats. Red Hat is simply doing what is in their best interest as a business, as well as to their consumers. The diplomats, on the other hand, need to be leaned on hard for their position on the Taiwan issue. Let us unite in motivating the right people to do the right thing.
Damnit, there are some things that are more important than making money! Like freedom and democracy? Things that Taiwan has, and mainland China doesn't. It's bad enough that governments around the world have kow-towed to this Chinese insanity, but a 'free software' company?
You are absolutely correct, there are more important things than making money. There are also more important things than spending all of our time on/. bitching about Red Hat. Why don't you rechannel your anger at Red Hat for merely trying to survive in an imperfect world and write a letter to your government condeming their inaction on Taiwan. Taiwan's situation is NOT right, but what the hell have any of us done for Taiwan lately? (This is rhetorical, I don't want to hear it because this question is like, "How often do you have sex? Everyone claims they do more than they really do.)
The majority of the people on/. are sitting behind computers with half its parts manufactured in Taiwan because of its cheap labor. The world makes billions and billions of dollars off of Taiwan, but fails to rally behind its quest for freedom. Instead of talking about the real issue, we are railing against Red Hat, because it isn't blatantly off-topic. This entire thread is so fucking hypocritical.
Like you said, there are things that are more important than making money. Well, you know what there are things in the world a LOT more important than what Red Hat is doing now. The world is failing to deliver on its promise to help Afghanistan rebuild, but ya know what? Red Hat moved the KDE Credits to a less conspicuous place. A crazed psycopath is roaming Maryland killing random people with a rifle, but Red Hat has just released 8.0 with a unified theme for KDE and GNOME, THOSE BASTARDS! Let's all get a grip people and if we are going to talk about what Red Hat's done to KDE, lets not try and pin the "One China Doctrine" on them for something they are hardly even perpetuating.
That's very political. China not recognising Taiwan is nothing but political.
Should read...
The entire world not recognizing Taiwan is nothing but political.
Red Hat is in the business of selling software, not in the business of legitimizing governments. To do so is a disservice to themselves and their shareholders. There is no room for ethics or politics in this decision.
In this case, it's a small part of an ongoing strategy by mainland China to delegitimise and hide from view all aspects of Taiwans democracy and (effective) independence.
You are absolutely correct, but it is not Red Hat's place to take on this issue. If no one, including Taiwan, considers themselves an independent nation, why should Red Hat?
That RedHat were willing to agree to the PRC request to remove the flag shows that they considered the economic benefits to outweigh any moral issues with the implied censorship.
There is no moral issue here. If Taiwan is NOT a nation and China is, then Red Hat really has only one choice. Now, if the rest of the world would rally behind Taiwan and support them as an independent nation, rather than reap the rewards of their (effective) independence, then I would stand behind your statements.
The United States, the home of Red Hat, doesn't recognize Taiwan as a country. What is more unethical, selling arms to a nation you do not recognize to perpetuate a billion dollar defense industry? Or, removing a flag that for all intents and purposes is NOT a national flag?
While, I think Red Hat's decision sucks, it is the only logical solution. To not do so would open them up to legitimate gripes from their shareholders. China is arguably the largest Linux market in the world, only a fool would turn their back on it for politics. (No matter what choice they made it would be made for politics)
If people really think that this whole situation is unfair, complain to your government. They are the ones who refuse to stand behind a freely elected government, not Red Hat.
Re:Does anybody have more info?
on
3D LCD Display
·
· Score: 2
Cool, at the cost these monitors will most likely retail at we can split the cost. I just hope they're dual input.
Slashdot Mirror
He's "the friend with big schlong." Like you have the smart friend, the asshole friend, the in jail friend, the drinks 3 cases riend, and so on.
ROFL! I have plenty of friends, and I am proud to say that none of them fit into any of those categories. Well, I've got an asshole friend, they're all pretty smart, and a couple of us can drink a fifth of something or other.
However, ALL my male friends under 5'8" drive really big trucks. I think its a symptom of "Little Man Syndrome", and I don't think penis size is a factor, but the size of something certainly is.
You want sick? Here's a thought...
Imagine a holodeck program with a beowulf cluster of penis birds and hot grits on Natalie Portman. The title, "A Slashdotter's Dream".
"We view this as Palmisano's coming-out party," said Thomas Bittman, an analyst at Gartner Research. "The industry will be measuring IBM against this as a benchmark for years."
Well, here is Gartner Group, missing the boat again. SimUtility has been doing this for years now, but because IBM is getting in to the market its news?
Timesharing of computers is a very valid, and far from dead market for computing. There are a lot of companies that do not want to buy their own supercomputers, which will likely sit unused the majority of the time. As for the example of a car manufacturer doing testing on a new model, this already happens as do many other organizations.
- America's Cup boat designers
- Racing teams
- Natural Resource Explorers
- scientific organizations
- and many many more
We're not exactly talking about a new or even revived paradigm. Timesharing never died.
The Holodeck would be the death of civilization as we know it.
Seriously can you imagine an even greater scourge? Who the hell would leave? Sure, I'd like to think that my first foray would be to play baseball with 17 hall of famers, to drive through the streets of Monte Carlo for McLaren, or even storm a 747 widebody with an MP5 and a couple of flashbangs, but we all know that the first thing booted up on 90% of all holodecks would be "A Night with Jenna Jameson".
Not At All :)
Then again, I kind of miss Karateka, but Stick Fighter fixed that.
only when we see a truly free market will there be the opportunity for massive growth.
The only thing I can say in response to this is...
Laissez-faire in theory is perfect.
Socialism in theory is perfect.
Marxism in theory is perfect.
Trickle-Down Economics in theory is perfect.
Democracy in theory is perfect.
As soon as you insert the human factor, everything goes to shit.
I think Dan was more than fair. He clearly stated that he respects most VC's, but some clearly passed on ALL their fiduciary duty to their shareholders to the shareholders.
I have had the misfortune of sitting across from VC, loudly proclaiming, to a conference room full of developers words to the effect of, "All we have to do is field a working prototype, IPO, and wait for the suitors to come knocking." I've heard this from different VC's in different conference rooms.
Now, to be fair, I've also been in conference rooms with VC's who have rolled up their sleeves and worked late in to the evening to help us make their client profitable.
A large number of VC, in the waning days of the boom, were nothing more than snake-oil salesman. The good ones were pretty much, previously-engaged.
I think deregulation, in theory, is a great idea. But, it never seems to work out in the end. BTW, Your analysis of the airline industry is incomplete by failing to mention the high fatality rate of businesses in those markets. The problem with these industries is that they are expensive markets to enter, high cost, and generate little profit. In order for the companies to stay in business, they have to drive up consumer rates to the highest acceptable rate and avoid modernization at all costs, just to approach break-even.
Add power to your list. Mine's nearly doubled since deregulation. There still isn't any competition, because the barriers to entry are too high and the new electric company refuses to upgrade its power plants without a grant. The brownouts are just around the corner.
Take a break from /., go to CNN and look for any story on the SEC.
Exactly! We do registry edits all the time on remote systems at work. We are simply smart enough to do them via VNC, or at the very least Terminal Services over private vlans.
Of course. However, given the number of nasty exploits coming out of the Windows world lately, would you want to take the chance?
While you're at it disable Remote Registry while you are at it. It truly amazes what services Microsoft deems the average user needs running. I find the whole concept of Remote Registry particularly disturbing.
"Cool this service allows people to modify my registry remotely, sweet!"
While I know there are some legitimate and possibly useful reasons to have these services enabled, why on earth are they enabled by default?
Everyone and their brother knew that Boston was lobbying hard for MacWorld and that IDG was all for it. Apple certainly DID know before the deal was inked and they didn't say a word. BUT this way, Steve gets to show us all how powerful he is.
This is a classic, "I'm gonna take my ball and go home." I suspect little Stevie Jobs said those exact words many times.
And they are friggin expensive. You can buy 10 to 20 drives for the cost of a DLT.
Sure, DDS is cheaper, but I've had less hard drive failures than I have had bad DDS tapes.
I did not know that, but I suppose now that I think of it, that certainly makes sense.
Gitmo is a U.S. Naval Installation and is in fact U.S. soil.
Think about it. Do you think Fidel would let us set up a Navy base on what was still considered Cuban soil?
Oh Shit! Does this mean those "Break the Code" puzzles in the newspaper are going to land me in jail?
Alan Cox didn't write the code that he learned the exploit to. Furthermore, Red Hat did not write the kernel, thus it is not their own code. The parent post merely chose the wrong words to make his point.
Ok, well let's continue, shall we? I'll submit a patch to KDE removing the US flag, because you're not a sovereign nation, you're simply a renegade province of the UK and as such, you don't need a flag. Right?
There is a big difference here, even our one-time oppressors recognize our independence, Taiwan's certainly does not.
No, we are railing against Red Hat because they are, through their actions, deliberately perpetuating this myth that Taiwan is somehow not a country in its own right,
I would like no better than to see a "recognized" free Taiwan, but it will not happen until the rest of the world unites behind them. It is not fair to ask Red Hat, a software company, to do what nations are not brave enough to do. Red Hat is not the open source movement's Joan of Arc, they are a company, a business. Had they decided to keep the flag, they would have essentially locked themselves out of one of the world's largest markets. I don't expect Bob Young to play the role of statesman and defender of freedom everywhere. I expect the statesmen to play that role and they have done a very poor job when it comes to Taiwan. They are the ones to blame, Red Hat is hardly responsible for the continuation of the lunacy of "One China".
and because I do not feel that this is an appropriate action for a company that supposedly puts the freedoms of its users - including its Taiwanese users - first.
Red Hat can never hope to replace the United Nations and Amnesty International and no one should expect them to. They have set out to free their users from proprietary software not tyranny. Despite some people's impressions of Bill Gates, there is a difference.
Red Hat is the one that stands accused of hypocrisy here.
Why? Because they say, "Who would buy a car with the hood welded shut?" No, Red Hat never promised to protect their users from tyranny, opression, and the "One China Doctrine". Shadowman is not a real superhero.
So a matter which is initially noticed and brought to our attention by Taiwanese Linux users, which they complain and bitch about, which they start an online petition for, where they feel that Red Hat is trampling on their toes - am I not allowed to stand by them and stick up for them? Because I know if I was in their position, I would be VERY pissed off, and rightfully so. How does it amount to hypocrisy that I am willing to speak out in their defence?
I can understand their displeasure, but it is not Red Hat who started this mess, Richard Nixon did. Red Hat was damned if they did and damned if they didn't. No matter what they did someone would be pissed. Red Hat chose the path in their best interest as a company is expected to do within the limits of the law. Do we have to like it? Of course not. Are you a hypocrite for standing up for them? No. The hypocrisy comes in the form of the majority of people in the world benefiting from Taiwan's "effective" independence, but not supporting their drive for "recognized" independence.
Don't give me the BS about the fact that I should only care about world events that I have no direct control over. I do care about these things, and I have done what is within my power - how many of you have written to your representative or gone on a political demonstration in the last 6 months? I have. But currently I am sitting in front of my computer, this issue has come to my attention today, so I am using what I feel is an appropriate and effective forum to air my views and try to get the message across. Why do you have a problem with that?
I have no problem with people expressing their views, but I have just as much right to tell you they are a little misdirected. Red Hat had no choice in this matter. They are a company and they must make decision with THEIR interests in mind. Had Red Hat kept the flag, they WOULD have been open to some serious liability from their shareholders that would have threatened their future. Their responsibility is to the users of their software and their shareholders, not to the people of Taiwan. While a stand on this issue by them would have been admirable, it would have accomplished nothing. Whether or not Red Hat kept the flag would have meant jack to the independence of Taiwan. The fact that the US government can sell billions of dollars of arms to a place they happily recognize as a renegade province of its best trading buddy is insane. How we can blame a small software company for not embarking on a grand quest of liberation is ludicrous. I don't expect any company to make diplomatic policy, I expect my legislators and President to do that.
But this is the whole point! This is exactly the doctrine that Red Hat is perpetuating, whether you deny it or not. I, and over 4000 Taiwanese Linux users, don't think this is right.
What about the Mainland Linux users who feel its wrong to include the flag of a rebel province. No matter what Red Hat chose to do someone on either side of the Strait would have been upset. Now if there were more upset Linux users on the Mainland then on Taiwan, then Red Hat made the right choice. "You can't please all of the people all of the time."
Leave business to businesses and diplomacy to diplomats. Red Hat is simply doing what is in their best interest as a business, as well as to their consumers. The diplomats, on the other hand, need to be leaned on hard for their position on the Taiwan issue. Let us unite in motivating the right people to do the right thing.
Damnit, there are some things that are more important than making money! Like freedom and democracy? Things that Taiwan has, and mainland China doesn't. It's bad enough that governments around the world have kow-towed to this Chinese insanity, but a 'free software' company?
/. bitching about Red Hat. Why don't you rechannel your anger at Red Hat for merely trying to survive in an imperfect world and write a letter to your government condeming their inaction on Taiwan. Taiwan's situation is NOT right, but what the hell have any of us done for Taiwan lately? (This is rhetorical, I don't want to hear it because this question is like, "How often do you have sex? Everyone claims they do more than they really do.)
/. are sitting behind computers with half its parts manufactured in Taiwan because of its cheap labor. The world makes billions and billions of dollars off of Taiwan, but fails to rally behind its quest for freedom. Instead of talking about the real issue, we are railing against Red Hat, because it isn't blatantly off-topic. This entire thread is so fucking hypocritical.
You are absolutely correct, there are more important things than making money. There are also more important things than spending all of our time on
The majority of the people on
Like you said, there are things that are more important than making money. Well, you know what there are things in the world a LOT more important than what Red Hat is doing now. The world is failing to deliver on its promise to help Afghanistan rebuild, but ya know what? Red Hat moved the KDE Credits to a less conspicuous place. A crazed psycopath is roaming Maryland killing random people with a rifle, but Red Hat has just released 8.0 with a unified theme for KDE and GNOME, THOSE BASTARDS! Let's all get a grip people and if we are going to talk about what Red Hat's done to KDE, lets not try and pin the "One China Doctrine" on them for something they are hardly even perpetuating.
That's very political. China not recognising Taiwan is nothing but political.
Should read...
The entire world not recognizing Taiwan is nothing but political.
Red Hat is in the business of selling software, not in the business of legitimizing governments. To do so is a disservice to themselves and their shareholders. There is no room for ethics or politics in this decision.
In this case, it's a small part of an ongoing strategy by mainland China to delegitimise and hide from view all aspects of Taiwans democracy and (effective) independence.
You are absolutely correct, but it is not Red Hat's place to take on this issue. If no one, including Taiwan, considers themselves an independent nation, why should Red Hat?
That RedHat were willing to agree to the PRC request to remove the flag shows that they considered the economic benefits to outweigh any moral issues with the implied censorship.
There is no moral issue here. If Taiwan is NOT a nation and China is, then Red Hat really has only one choice. Now, if the rest of the world would rally behind Taiwan and support them as an independent nation, rather than reap the rewards of their (effective) independence, then I would stand behind your statements.
And...
The United States, the home of Red Hat, doesn't recognize Taiwan as a country. What is more unethical, selling arms to a nation you do not recognize to perpetuate a billion dollar defense industry? Or, removing a flag that for all intents and purposes is NOT a national flag?
While, I think Red Hat's decision sucks, it is the only logical solution. To not do so would open them up to legitimate gripes from their shareholders. China is arguably the largest Linux market in the world, only a fool would turn their back on it for politics. (No matter what choice they made it would be made for politics)
If people really think that this whole situation is unfair, complain to your government. They are the ones who refuse to stand behind a freely elected government, not Red Hat.
Cool, at the cost these monitors will most likely retail at we can split the cost. I just hope they're dual input.
Shut up you two, don't give them any ideas.