Fine, if you don't want to eat it, then take pride in yourself that you avoid less healthy food.
But it's just weird to take pride in the fact that your city has decided to restrict the freedom of citizens by not allowing them to eat what they want.
We got an incompetent CEO put in place by our venture backers.
Word. I raised $4.5 million, later another $15 million, only to watch the company that I and my partner built slam into the ground with a huge crater. At the time, it seemed like a good idea to bring in a CEO "with experience", but the guy was utter, total fool. He bought into every dot com cliche you can think of, including "spend as much money as possible to create an illusion of a large company so we can go public".
It's a much longer story that this, but one of the lessons I learned is that I should have trusted my own business instincts and not assumed that some "gray hair" is more competent than me.
I agree with you: there are VERY few scenerios where you "need" big VC capital. In fact, I think it's almost a disadvantage. It's SO easy to get into a mode where you waste money just because you have it. As you saw, the money ended up being a curse to your competitors. I think that's true more often than it isn't. The only way to use money like that is to sock it away and pretend it doesn't exist until you REALLY need it. Frugality shouldn't end just because you have money in the bank.
Some of us also take some pride in living in the only state that doesn't have a McDonalds in its capital city. Or living in the last state to get a Wal Mart.
Sorry, you've lost me. How is it something to take pride in to not have fast food to buy, or a store with very low prices? You take pride in buying slow food, or paying high prices?
If needing people are denied capabilities to survive in a society, then it's ethical correct to _fight_ for once life using _any_ means necessary.
I actually agree with you. In certain countries without opportunities, the ethical standards will be different. However, the subject was the US, where there is no lack of opportunity.
What pisses me off is that they can get the assistance of the US government (in the form of US Marshals) to "raid" companies suspected of using that software.
They do it because there is a law against using unlicensed software. It's called "stealing".
Why don't we have the US Marshals raid Microsoft when they produce security-hole-ridden software that causes a small business to lose millions?
Because there is no law against producing security-hole-ridden software. That's called "caveat emptor".
Why should our government always be on the side of the big business?
Because people who work at "big businesses" are citizens, too.
This is technically true, and one of the reasons I always preferred DSL. But in practice, a Cable Modem is a pretty phat pipe, at least here on the Palos Verdes Peninsula (California / Cox). I regularly get 300 K-bytes per second downloads (yes, that's 2.4 megabits/sec). Nothing like getting 1/4 10Base-T Ethernet speeds.
That's compared to the 384kb DSL that I used to pay twice as much for at my old pad.
Such articles you ask about are rare, because corporate media don't considerate newsworthy.
Are you insane? I don't know about the local news in your town, but my local news is unbelievably sensationalistic. If we had someone starve to death, it would be all over the news with the newspeople wringing their hands asking "how could this happen, blah blah blah".
Have you ever tried to get by on welfare and food stamps?
I guarantee you that if you put me out on the street, right now with absolutely nothing except the clothes on back and told me I couldn't do anything professionally that I'd done before, I would survive just fine.
Of course, your response would be something like, "well, sure, YOU could, having the benefit of a reasonable education and not living in poverty your whole life. What about these other people??" -- and my response would be, "Exactly."
So the people who work full-time jobs, but are still homeless because that won't cover their rent, that's their fault.
Sheesh, give me a scenerio where someone could work a full-time job, but not be able to cover their share of the rent in a roommate situation.
The factory worker who loses his job because the factory that's been in his town for 40 years suddenly decided it would be slightly cheaper to operate out of Mexico, that's his fault.
It's his fault if he feels he is entitled to have that particular job. If he can't find another equivalent job in that town, then it's time to educate himself to find a different job or find another town. It's his fault if he didn't work to improve himself. It's his fault if he doesn't realize that this factory could close at any time, and he's exposed if it does.
The woman who is thrown out on the street with her children, because her landlord found out he could charge some cappucino-swilling yuppie web designer twice as much rent, that's her fault.
No one is EVER "thrown out on the street", they are always given notice, by law. If the landlord can get twice as much rent, then why the hell should he not be able to charge what it's worth? Why should some person be able to freeload? If they can't afford the place, then freaking move. It's not that complicated, but we have so many people who whine they should be able to live wherever they want, at whatever price they want. Well, tough sh**. You can't live wherever you want. You can't work wherever you want.
In short, a lot of people need to grow up and stop being whiny little children who think that life owes them something.
Remember that there's starvation and homelessness in the United States
Point me to one article of someone who starved to death in the US.
And someone is homeless in the US because they choose to be. They choose to spend their welfare check and food stamps on something other than housing and food.
I'm all for educating and elevating the people trapped in poverty, but I am dead-set against using guilt-based political statements like that. The first step in raising someone out of poverty is making sure they realize that they are the ones that hold themselves in it*.
*Of course, we are talking about able-bodied people and the mentally sane, to those who would be determined to make some "gotcha" point about this.
Check out this reply to your post. Now, I don't know if this story is true or not, but let's say it is. It implies that McCullagh's motivations are not political, but career-oriented ("yellow journalism", as the poster said it).
I would assume you would agree that stories about copying DVDs would probably not be related to Libertarian politics.
This just underscores the danger of making assumptions about someone's motivations. Your point would have been much stronger if you had just stuck to the facts, and not make assumptions about something you have no evidence for.
I pointed to the very specific discussion in the debunking by Salon [salon.com], and I do so again.
That article gives an opinion that it was politically motivated, but again cites no evidence.
I also pointed to many places establishing that he does have those leanings,
So it's guilt by association? You seem to think that if someone is a Libertarian, then any criticism of a pro-government figure must be politically motivated. Sorry, but that's simply not logical.
All the rhetoric notwithstanding (you CAN make your point in fewer words, trust me), we only need to focus on this:
Declan McCullagh wrote the story because he's a Libertarian proselytizer
You offered no evidence that his motivation was based on political leanings. Therefore, the whole subject was irrelevent and done for your own purposes (a "hatchet job", one might say).
Why spew all the hatred of Libertarians? I'm not particularly a fan of their philosophy in all ways, but all that frothing about it just undermines your point.
In any case, no one seriously believes that Al Gore "invented" the Internet, or even claimed he did. It's funny, because of Al Gore's personality.
So you're scared to buy something because they don't advertise it a certain way?
No, I'm scared to buy something when it's not apparent that I don't have to get the subscription. If you say it still works without it, then I'll believe you. But the point of this article is why people aren't buying the things, and I submit it's because most people don't want a monthly charge. How am I supposed to know that it will work without the subscription?
When I tried to figure this out before, the TiVo web site made it seem like the subscription was mandatory. I haven't checked it lately -- maybe they've changed it. But I don't think that this is exactly common knowledge.
My fear was that the machine would turn into a dead hulk unless I kept paying money to TiVo. If that's not the case, then they better let people know.
I know that's what scares me off from the TiVo, and yes I know that you can buy it without it. But it's expensive without it, and they don't go out of their way to advertise that you can get it without the subscription.
PVR makers: READ MY LIPS I DON'T WANT A FREAKING SUBSCRIPTION. Shoot your marketing "genuises" who think that lock-in is the way to big $$$$ and just give me a basic unit.
If you consider yourself even *slightly* intellectual, it's never a waste of time to refute someone based on facts.
I didn't say that I haven't refuted him to my own satisfaction, I just don't think he's worth my time to refute him to others. He simply isn't that important. But by all means, make your own conclusions.
You cannot simply blow off someone of Chomskys caliber: he is an internationally celebrated speaker/author/thinker.
He's a celebrated linguist, not a political thinker. He is simply more proof that someone can be very, very intelligent, but way off base when it comes to understanding politics. By all accounts, the Unabomber was a highly intelligent person. That doesn't make him any more mentally balanced.
I don't know Chomsky, except by his writings. And based on his writings, I have concluded that he is mentally unbalanced. He has so much emotional hatred of the United States that it clouds his thinking. It's beyond simple policy disagreement. I doubt he's dangerous like the Unabomber, but they have more in common than many would like believe.
Maybe you are scared that you might discover Chomsky is right about a lot of things?
I'm sure he's right about something amid all that frothing and foaming. As they say, a broken clock is right twice a day. Even the Unabomber's manifesto had some good points about technology and civilization. But if there is something "right" about Chomsky, there's nothing there that you can't find from more reasonable thinkers.
I'll be honest with you. I'm not trying to blow you off, but Chomsky is not worth my time to refute. If you search around on the Internet, you can find people with more energy than I have on this issue.
Here's one thing to think about: when someone is so over-the-top critical, and can't find ANYTHING to say that's good, that should be your signal that he's probably leaving out a lot of facts. Chomsky's great mental flaw is selective facts. He only selects facts that support his theories, but ignores anything that does not support his theories. Of course, using that method, you can prove just about anything and even claim a "factual" basis for the claims.
building killing devices and using them on peasants in the third world
Again, maybe you should stop staring at your navel and become educated about world events. This is ludicrously wrong.
imaginary "Evil Axis".
I guess those 3000 people were imaginary, too. Let me guess: you are a fan of Chomsky, right? Here's a hint: He's a crackpot. But hey, you can believe what you want. But you'll be happier if you live in the real universe rather than Chomsky's mentally unbalanced one.
CNN manager talking to a reporter: Now Jones, it was a bad, bad thing when you drove up to that crime scene and ran over the body. The police were very angry with us. Very angry indeed. Now, now, I know it was an accident.
Fire you? No, no, everyone makes mistakes, Jones. Why, when I was a young cub like yourself, I made a few in my day, too.
In fact, I have little assignment for you, Jones. Right up your alley. Let me show you this map...
Imagine how many space probes the $50 billion extra, that George W wants to spend on making bombs and guns, could build and launch.
None. Because without defense, there is no country to make the space probes.
It's like the whole world is navel gazing when there is so much to see.
Maybe you should stop gazing at your own navel and realize that there is more going on that your little pet interest.
Re:Manual length and Macs vs. PC
on
Macintosh Clustering
·
· Score: 0, Flamebait
Sorry, but I don't buy it. The Mac was probably somewhat easier back then than Win 3.1, but the documentation you got with PCs was useful. Apple shipped a small manual by leaving out all the useful information.
It was total marketing, not even close to reality.
Slashdot Mirror
Fine, if you don't want to eat it, then take pride in yourself that you avoid less healthy food.
But it's just weird to take pride in the fact that your city has decided to restrict the freedom of citizens by not allowing them to eat what they want.
We got an incompetent CEO put in place by our venture backers.
Word. I raised $4.5 million, later another $15 million, only to watch the company that I and my partner built slam into the ground with a huge crater. At the time, it seemed like a good idea to bring in a CEO "with experience", but the guy was utter, total fool. He bought into every dot com cliche you can think of, including "spend as much money as possible to create an illusion of a large company so we can go public".
It's a much longer story that this, but one of the lessons I learned is that I should have trusted my own business instincts and not assumed that some "gray hair" is more competent than me.
I agree with you: there are VERY few scenerios where you "need" big VC capital. In fact, I think it's almost a disadvantage. It's SO easy to get into a mode where you waste money just because you have it. As you saw, the money ended up being a curse to your competitors. I think that's true more often than it isn't. The only way to use money like that is to sock it away and pretend it doesn't exist until you REALLY need it. Frugality shouldn't end just because you have money in the bank.
Some of us also take some pride in living in the only state that doesn't have a McDonalds in its capital city. Or living in the last state to get a Wal Mart.
Sorry, you've lost me. How is it something to take pride in to not have fast food to buy, or a store with very low prices? You take pride in buying slow food, or paying high prices?
If needing people are denied capabilities to survive in a society, then it's ethical correct to _fight_ for once life using _any_ means necessary.
I actually agree with you. In certain countries without opportunities, the ethical standards will be different. However, the subject was the US, where there is no lack of opportunity.
What pisses me off is that they can get the assistance of the US government (in the form of US Marshals) to "raid" companies suspected of using that software.
They do it because there is a law against using unlicensed software. It's called "stealing".
Why don't we have the US Marshals raid Microsoft when they produce security-hole-ridden software that causes a small business to lose millions?
Because there is no law against producing security-hole-ridden software. That's called "caveat emptor".
Why should our government always be on the side of the big business?
Because people who work at "big businesses" are citizens, too.
This is technically true, and one of the reasons I always preferred DSL. But in practice, a Cable Modem is a pretty phat pipe, at least here on the Palos Verdes Peninsula (California / Cox). I regularly get 300 K-bytes per second downloads (yes, that's 2.4 megabits/sec). Nothing like getting 1/4 10Base-T Ethernet speeds.
That's compared to the 384kb DSL that I used to pay twice as much for at my old pad.
Such articles you ask about are rare, because corporate media don't considerate newsworthy.
Are you insane? I don't know about the local news in your town, but my local news is unbelievably sensationalistic. If we had someone starve to death, it would be all over the news with the newspeople wringing their hands asking "how could this happen, blah blah blah".
Have you ever tried to get by on welfare and food stamps?
I guarantee you that if you put me out on the street, right now with absolutely nothing except the clothes on back and told me I couldn't do anything professionally that I'd done before, I would survive just fine.
Of course, your response would be something like, "well, sure, YOU could, having the benefit of a reasonable education and not living in poverty your whole life. What about these other people??" -- and my response would be, "Exactly."
So the people who work full-time jobs, but are still homeless because that won't cover their rent, that's their fault.
Sheesh, give me a scenerio where someone could work a full-time job, but not be able to cover their share of the rent in a roommate situation.
The factory worker who loses his job because the factory that's been in his town for 40 years suddenly decided it would be slightly cheaper to operate out of Mexico, that's his fault.
It's his fault if he feels he is entitled to have that particular job. If he can't find another equivalent job in that town, then it's time to educate himself to find a different job or find another town. It's his fault if he didn't work to improve himself. It's his fault if he doesn't realize that this factory could close at any time, and he's exposed if it does.
The woman who is thrown out on the street with her children, because her landlord found out he could charge some cappucino-swilling yuppie web designer twice as much rent, that's her fault.
No one is EVER "thrown out on the street", they are always given notice, by law. If the landlord can get twice as much rent, then why the hell should he not be able to charge what it's worth? Why should some person be able to freeload? If they can't afford the place, then freaking move. It's not that complicated, but we have so many people who whine they should be able to live wherever they want, at whatever price they want. Well, tough sh**. You can't live wherever you want. You can't work wherever you want.
In short, a lot of people need to grow up and stop being whiny little children who think that life owes them something.
Seems like a good idea to me, whats wrong with that?
Sun and Bill Joy didn't do it that way, therefore, it's bad.
Remember that there's starvation and homelessness in the United States
Point me to one article of someone who starved to death in the US.
And someone is homeless in the US because they choose to be. They choose to spend their welfare check and food stamps on something other than housing and food.
I'm all for educating and elevating the people trapped in poverty, but I am dead-set against using guilt-based political statements like that. The first step in raising someone out of poverty is making sure they realize that they are the ones that hold themselves in it*.
*Of course, we are talking about able-bodied people and the mentally sane, to those who would be determined to make some "gotcha" point about this.
Check out this reply to your post. Now, I don't know if this story is true or not, but let's say it is. It implies that McCullagh's motivations are not political, but career-oriented ("yellow journalism", as the poster said it).
I would assume you would agree that stories about copying DVDs would probably not be related to Libertarian politics.
This just underscores the danger of making assumptions about someone's motivations. Your point would have been much stronger if you had just stuck to the facts, and not make assumptions about something you have no evidence for.
I pointed to the very specific discussion in the debunking by Salon [salon.com], and I do so again.
That article gives an opinion that it was politically motivated, but again cites no evidence.
I also pointed to many places establishing that he does have those leanings,
So it's guilt by association? You seem to think that if someone is a Libertarian, then any criticism of a pro-government figure must be politically motivated. Sorry, but that's simply not logical.
All the rhetoric notwithstanding (you CAN make your point in fewer words, trust me), we only need to focus on this:
Declan McCullagh wrote the story because he's a Libertarian proselytizer
You offered no evidence that his motivation was based on political leanings. Therefore, the whole subject was irrelevent and done for your own purposes (a "hatchet job", one might say).
Why spew all the hatred of Libertarians? I'm not particularly a fan of their philosophy in all ways, but all that frothing about it just undermines your point.
In any case, no one seriously believes that Al Gore "invented" the Internet, or even claimed he did. It's funny, because of Al Gore's personality.
Sheesh, lighten up.
Porting Gnome to .Net is playing Microsoft's game.
That's like saying programming in C is playing AT&T's game.
It's just a technology, people.
Man, would you guys please fix the page widening posts? Just make a limit of 2 nested block quote tags or something.
Here's an idea worth literally billions of dollars -- and I'm deadly serious. Feel free to use it if you wish.
Create a 100% compatible clone of Windows.
I guarantee if you pull it off, you will get an instant 10% of the market. If you're smart, you'll be able to grow it from there.
And there you go! A great idea. But there's that little thing about implementing the idea.
I can give you dozens of good ideas. But there is a lot of truth in, "if it were easy, everyone would do it".
So you're scared to buy something because they don't advertise it a certain way?
No, I'm scared to buy something when it's not apparent that I don't have to get the subscription. If you say it still works without it, then I'll believe you. But the point of this article is why people aren't buying the things, and I submit it's because most people don't want a monthly charge. How am I supposed to know that it will work without the subscription?
When I tried to figure this out before, the TiVo web site made it seem like the subscription was mandatory. I haven't checked it lately -- maybe they've changed it. But I don't think that this is exactly common knowledge.
My fear was that the machine would turn into a dead hulk unless I kept paying money to TiVo. If that's not the case, then they better let people know.
I know that's what scares me off from the TiVo, and yes I know that you can buy it without it. But it's expensive without it, and they don't go out of their way to advertise that you can get it without the subscription.
PVR makers: READ MY LIPS I DON'T WANT A FREAKING SUBSCRIPTION. Shoot your marketing "genuises" who think that lock-in is the way to big $$$$ and just give me a basic unit.
If you consider yourself even *slightly* intellectual, it's never a waste of time to refute someone based on facts.
I didn't say that I haven't refuted him to my own satisfaction, I just don't think he's worth my time to refute him to others. He simply isn't that important. But by all means, make your own conclusions.
You cannot simply blow off someone of Chomskys caliber: he is an internationally celebrated speaker/author/thinker.
He's a celebrated linguist, not a political thinker. He is simply more proof that someone can be very, very intelligent, but way off base when it comes to understanding politics. By all accounts, the Unabomber was a highly intelligent person. That doesn't make him any more mentally balanced.
I don't know Chomsky, except by his writings. And based on his writings, I have concluded that he is mentally unbalanced. He has so much emotional hatred of the United States that it clouds his thinking. It's beyond simple policy disagreement. I doubt he's dangerous like the Unabomber, but they have more in common than many would like believe.
Maybe you are scared that you might discover Chomsky is right about a lot of things?
I'm sure he's right about something amid all that frothing and foaming. As they say, a broken clock is right twice a day. Even the Unabomber's manifesto had some good points about technology and civilization. But if there is something "right" about Chomsky, there's nothing there that you can't find from more reasonable thinkers.
I'll be honest with you. I'm not trying to blow you off, but Chomsky is not worth my time to refute. If you search around on the Internet, you can find people with more energy than I have on this issue.
Here's one thing to think about: when someone is so over-the-top critical, and can't find ANYTHING to say that's good, that should be your signal that he's probably leaving out a lot of facts. Chomsky's great mental flaw is selective facts. He only selects facts that support his theories, but ignores anything that does not support his theories. Of course, using that method, you can prove just about anything and even claim a "factual" basis for the claims.
building killing devices and using them on peasants in the third world
Again, maybe you should stop staring at your navel and become educated about world events. This is ludicrously wrong.
imaginary "Evil Axis".
I guess those 3000 people were imaginary, too. Let me guess: you are a fan of Chomsky, right? Here's a hint: He's a crackpot. But hey, you can believe what you want. But you'll be happier if you live in the real universe rather than Chomsky's mentally unbalanced one.
CNN manager talking to a reporter: Now Jones, it was a bad, bad thing when you drove up to that crime scene and ran over the body. The police were very angry with us. Very angry indeed. Now, now, I know it was an accident.
Fire you? No, no, everyone makes mistakes, Jones. Why, when I was a young cub like yourself, I made a few in my day, too.
In fact, I have little assignment for you, Jones. Right up your alley. Let me show you this map...
Imagine how many space probes the $50 billion extra, that George W wants to spend on making bombs and guns, could build and launch.
None. Because without defense, there is no country to make the space probes.
It's like the whole world is navel gazing when there is so much to see.
Maybe you should stop gazing at your own navel and realize that there is more going on that your little pet interest.
Sorry, but I don't buy it. The Mac was probably somewhat easier back then than Win 3.1, but the documentation you got with PCs was useful. Apple shipped a small manual by leaving out all the useful information.
It was total marketing, not even close to reality.