Some good points, but there are some important points left out:
1) we often "occupy" their lands at their requests. The legitimate Saudi government wants the US there, very much - it was the nut-job Osama who was all in a wad about the US occupying the holy land. Osama does not represent the Saudi government, Osama was exiled from Saudi. Afghanistan also wanted the US when the US was helping them fight the USSR. Kuwait also wanted the US to defend against the Iraq. I think, at one time, Iraq wanted US help to defend itself against Iran.
2) the US would not have to help Israel, if the Muslims would leave Israel alone.
3) Maybe you are forgetting about numerous unjustified attacks against the US, and US allies?
4) If the crazies would leave the US alone, I am sure that the US would be happy to leave the crazies alone.
IMO: it might be better if the US just left the mid-east alone. Let the crazies go back to killing each other, if that's what they want to do. Let the Muslims take Israel, Israel is more trouble than it's worth.
Stories like this get the MS shills out in full force. I suppose you can nit pick the details of the law suit, and say MS is not really charging royalties for Linux, per se. But I think we all know what MS is up to, and it should come as no surprise. Ballmer threatened to patent-sue linux out of existence, years ago. Since then, MS has rigged law suits against redhat, htc, and anybody who might have anything to do with Linux. The scox scam is another shining example of MS tactics - although we could nit pick and say that is not really MS trying to sue linux out of existence.
This lawsuit, of itself, is not supposed to eliminate linux. It is just part of MS's ongoing effort. MS motto seems to be: "if you can't beat them, sue them."
Blaming this on the software patent system is like saying: "it's okay for OJ to murder his ex-wife, it was the US legal that was at fault for OJ get away with it."
Playing devil's advocate, I have to ask: how important is the "jaw dropping" effect?
Is that really what makes a name brand? Or keeps a name brand?
For example, when I buy a laser printer, or a copying machine, or some other office machine; I do not usually look for anything "jaw dropping" I just want a solid value.
Frankly, when it comes to a production desktop, I think I would prefer less useless, cutesy, feature (like clippy), and more solid, useful, performance.
"Doing pretty well" is not the same as dominating. When msft can not leverage the vendor lockin effect - by using file formats or whatever - then msft has to compete on a level playing field. And msft does not like a level playing field.
Windows may be huge in the server market, but, IMO, that is not the same as *dominating* the market.
MS dominates the desktop market. It is very difficult for businesses to not use msft on the desktops and laptops. I do not see msft having a similar vendor-lock stranglehold on the server market.
I think there are, or will soon be, alternatives for exchange, and sharepoint. Have you looked at google apps? Google apps works great for me, especially for the price.
Don't be too sure. Other products have been well entrenched. Remember dBase, WordPerfect, Wordstar, Lotus 1-2-3?
Nobody will be able to compete with MS-Office, or Windows, directly. But, with changing technologies, other companies will not have to compete directly. The world is going to SaaS, and to mobile internet devices, and MS is not keeping up.
Yes, Microsoft dominate the OS marketshare - on laptops and desktops. When it comes to servers, gaming consoles, smart phones, tablets, or any other internet devices: not so much.
MS is not dead by any stretch, but the market is changing, the paradigms are shifting, and MS is not dominating the new market. If MS were to lose it's strangle-hold on document formats, then MS might become a far less relevant company.
As I understand it, you can get ePub books from the library, but not AZW formatted. It seems to me that would give ePub ebook makers a competitive advantage.
Maybe Amazon wants to make AZW format available to libraries, while not supporting ePub?
IMO: kindles should support ePub. Stop the "tower of babble."
Asking Robert Half if IT salaries are going to go up, is like asking a Century 21 agent if it's a good time to buy a house. The answer is a forgone, agenda driven, conclusion.
These sorts of surveys are always meaningless. Did anybody predict the massive layoffs of IT workers in 2009? How about the total collapse in 2000/2001? Do we ever seen any sorts of warnings about massive offshoring, and/or inshoring, from these industry puff pieces?
The industry propaganda is unwaveringly optimistic of the future for IT workers. But, reality often tells a very different story.
Wouldn't it nice, or at least useful, if the ratings to a stock were cut before the stock fell 23%, instead of after? It's like somebody telling you to watch out for that car, after you've been hit.
I Googled but couldn't find any info. Who was this "molesting drug abuser" and who was his friend?
Sean Parker. At least that is the way Sean was portrayed in the movie. Remember Sean getting caught with the cocaine, and underage girls? And, it was hinted that was not Sean's first time.
"When I left the movie, I had the impression that Zunkenberg was portrayed as a thieving, condescending, misogynistic, little twerp."
That's the movie I want to see! Are we talking about the same movie?
I'm beginning to wonder. In the movie I saw, Mark stole his ideas, did not come up with any new tech ideas, he vindictively stabbed his best (only?) friend in the back. He, and every guy in the movie, treated woman as objects, or worse. Practically every word out of his mouth had a sneering, condescending, tone to it. I can not think of anything he did, or said, that was kind, or caring. I can not think of anything he did that showed any genuine integrity or honor.
I left the movie thinking I had seen a story about a spoiled, smarmy little prick. Now I'm told it was the story of a hero for our times?
I remember when people like Rosa Parks were considered heroes for our time. Now, we would have more respect for somebody who mugged Rosa for her bus fare. After all, there is more money in mugging. And money is what makes "heroes" right?
Be fair, though. However he earned his money, Bill Gates as an individual has done at least eight metric shit-tons more good in the world than Mark Zuckerberg ever has.
Gates has also done at least eight metric shit-tons more harm in the world than Mark Zuckerberg ever has.
I think it's important to recognize that this is a dramatization and not a real-life account. He was portrayed that way because it makes a move interesting, but doesn't seem to be the real story.
Maybe my point was not clear. I was just surprised to read that Zuckenbert was being protrayed as a "hero." It seemed to me that Zuckenberg was being portrayed as an asshole.
Since when are "heros" known for conniving, betraying, stealing, and generally being obnoxious, condescending, smarmy, little weasels?
Maybe I'm giving away my age, I grew up during "John Wayne" type hero era. I grew up thinking of heros as honorable, self sacrificing, that sort of thing. Not little pukes like Zuckenberg's portrayal.
According to the movie, Mark was characterized as a comp sci guy who saw beyond what the Winklevoss twins had in mind.
Okay, so the Winklovoss twins had the idea of social network for Harvard. Then Mark came up with the original idea of a social network for everybody?
Again, what was Mark's contribution? Seems to me Mark did not contribute the idea, the code, the money, or even the final name. Yet Mark connived his way into the lion's share of the profits.
Seems to me that Mark was portrayed as a scam artists, and a complete asshole. I was a little surprised to read that Mark was portrayed as a "hero for our time."
Mark Zuckerberg - dick, computer geek, had some vision to make something cool
Did he have some great vision? Or did he steal the visions of other people, and then connive those people out of their fair share? What great original idea did mark have?
I read some movie review that said Mark was characterized more like a marketing major than a comp. sci. major.
When I left the movie, I had the impression that Zunkenberg was portrayed as a thieving, condescending, misogynistic, little twerp. He stole everybody else's ideas, idolized a child molesting drug abuser, and betrayed his best (only?) friend. His only redeeming value is that he was a talented programmer.
Not my idea of a hero, but then, I don't idolize Bill Gates either.
Slashdot Mirror
Some good points, but there are some important points left out:
1) we often "occupy" their lands at their requests. The legitimate Saudi government wants the US there, very much - it was the nut-job Osama who was all in a wad about the US occupying the holy land. Osama does not represent the Saudi government, Osama was exiled from Saudi. Afghanistan also wanted the US when the US was helping them fight the USSR. Kuwait also wanted the US to defend against the Iraq. I think, at one time, Iraq wanted US help to defend itself against Iran.
2) the US would not have to help Israel, if the Muslims would leave Israel alone.
3) Maybe you are forgetting about numerous unjustified attacks against the US, and US allies?
4) If the crazies would leave the US alone, I am sure that the US would be happy to leave the crazies alone.
IMO: it might be better if the US just left the mid-east alone. Let the crazies go back to killing each other, if that's what they want to do. Let the Muslims take Israel, Israel is more trouble than it's worth.
Maybe this is the "embrace" stage?
Personally I'm not much interested in someone's motivations for committing a crime
So you don't care if someone's motivation for killing is self-defense?
I don't support hate crimes either, but intent is, and should be, very important in determining the punishment for an action.
Self defense is not a crime. While intent may be relevant to determining punishment, that is not a reason for special category of crime.
http://www.techgadgets.in/displays/2010/30/maylong-m-150-tablet-now-available-through-walgreens/
You can also buy the Pandigital Novel at Walgreens for $160. I have never seen the PDN for $100.
Barnes and Noble is coming out with the Color Nook for $250.
Stories like this get the MS shills out in full force. I suppose you can nit pick the details of the law suit, and say MS is not really charging royalties for Linux, per se. But I think we all know what MS is up to, and it should come as no surprise. Ballmer threatened to patent-sue linux out of existence, years ago. Since then, MS has rigged law suits against redhat, htc, and anybody who might have anything to do with Linux. The scox scam is another shining example of MS tactics - although we could nit pick and say that is not really MS trying to sue linux out of existence.
This lawsuit, of itself, is not supposed to eliminate linux. It is just part of MS's ongoing effort. MS motto seems to be: "if you can't beat them, sue them."
Blaming this on the software patent system is like saying: "it's okay for OJ to murder his ex-wife, it was the US legal that was at fault for OJ get away with it."
Playing devil's advocate, I have to ask: how important is the "jaw dropping" effect?
Is that really what makes a name brand? Or keeps a name brand?
For example, when I buy a laser printer, or a copying machine, or some other office machine; I do not usually look for anything "jaw dropping" I just want a solid value.
Frankly, when it comes to a production desktop, I think I would prefer less useless, cutesy, feature (like clippy), and more solid, useful, performance.
"Doing pretty well" is not the same as dominating. When msft can not leverage the vendor lockin effect - by using file formats or whatever - then msft has to compete on a level playing field. And msft does not like a level playing field.
Windows may be huge in the server market, but, IMO, that is not the same as *dominating* the market.
MS dominates the desktop market. It is very difficult for businesses to not use msft on the desktops and laptops. I do not see msft having a similar vendor-lock stranglehold on the server market.
I think there are, or will soon be, alternatives for exchange, and sharepoint. Have you looked at google apps? Google apps works great for me, especially for the price.
Don't be too sure. Other products have been well entrenched. Remember dBase, WordPerfect, Wordstar, Lotus 1-2-3?
Nobody will be able to compete with MS-Office, or Windows, directly. But, with changing technologies, other companies will not have to compete directly. The world is going to SaaS, and to mobile internet devices, and MS is not keeping up.
Yes, Microsoft dominate the OS marketshare - on laptops and desktops. When it comes to servers, gaming consoles, smart phones, tablets, or any other internet devices: not so much.
MS is not dead by any stretch, but the market is changing, the paradigms are shifting, and MS is not dominating the new market. If MS were to lose it's strangle-hold on document formats, then MS might become a far less relevant company.
As I understand it, you can get ePub books from the library, but not AZW formatted. It seems to me that would give ePub ebook makers a competitive advantage.
Maybe Amazon wants to make AZW format available to libraries, while not supporting ePub?
IMO: kindles should support ePub. Stop the "tower of babble."
I was so glad to read that Ebert also hates 3D. It's just so nice to know that I am not alone.
Ebert: "Why I Hate 3-D (And You Should Too)"
http://www.newsweek.com/2010/04/30/why-i-hate-3-d-and-you-should-too.html
I have one, and I have found it to be a waste of time. Companies want the CISSP.
CompTIA is now making an Advanced Security+ cert. I think that is supposed to compete with the CISSP.
Asking Robert Half if IT salaries are going to go up, is like asking a Century 21 agent if it's a good time to buy a house. The answer is a forgone, agenda driven, conclusion.
These sorts of surveys are always meaningless. Did anybody predict the massive layoffs of IT workers in 2009? How about the total collapse in 2000/2001? Do we ever seen any sorts of warnings about massive offshoring, and/or inshoring, from these industry puff pieces?
The industry propaganda is unwaveringly optimistic of the future for IT workers. But, reality often tells a very different story.
Calculus: Leibniz and Newton
Evolution: Charles Darwin and Alfred Russel Wallace
Telephone: Elisha Gray and Alexander Bell
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elisha_Gray_and_Alexander_Bell_telephone_controversy
Wouldn't it nice, or at least useful, if the ratings to a stock were cut before the stock fell 23%, instead of after? It's like somebody telling you to watch out for that car, after you've been hit.
Isn't that how it works?
http://www.comedycentral.com/videos/index.jhtml?title=e-waste-delivery&videoId=314027
I Googled but couldn't find any info.
Who was this "molesting drug abuser" and who was his friend?
Sean Parker. At least that is the way Sean was portrayed in the movie. Remember Sean getting caught with the cocaine, and underage girls? And, it was hinted that was not Sean's first time.
"When I left the movie, I had the impression that Zunkenberg was portrayed as a thieving, condescending, misogynistic, little twerp."
That's the movie I want to see! Are we talking about the same movie?
I'm beginning to wonder. In the movie I saw, Mark stole his ideas, did not come up with any new tech ideas, he vindictively stabbed his best (only?) friend in the back. He, and every guy in the movie, treated woman as objects, or worse. Practically every word out of his mouth had a sneering, condescending, tone to it. I can not think of anything he did, or said, that was kind, or caring. I can not think of anything he did that showed any genuine integrity or honor.
I left the movie thinking I had seen a story about a spoiled, smarmy little prick. Now I'm told it was the story of a hero for our times?
I remember when people like Rosa Parks were considered heroes for our time. Now, we would have more respect for somebody who mugged Rosa for her bus fare. After all, there is more money in mugging. And money is what makes "heroes" right?
Be fair, though. However he earned his money, Bill Gates as an individual has done at least eight metric shit-tons more good in the world than Mark Zuckerberg ever has.
Gates has also done at least eight metric shit-tons more harm in the world than Mark Zuckerberg ever has.
But then, Zuckerberg is a lot younger.
I think it's important to recognize that this is a dramatization and not a real-life account. He was portrayed that way because it makes a move interesting, but doesn't seem to be the real story.
Maybe my point was not clear. I was just surprised to read that Zuckenbert was being protrayed as a "hero." It seemed to me that Zuckenberg was being portrayed as an asshole.
Since when are "heros" known for conniving, betraying, stealing, and generally being obnoxious, condescending, smarmy, little weasels?
Maybe I'm giving away my age, I grew up during "John Wayne" type hero era. I grew up thinking of heros as honorable, self sacrificing, that sort of thing. Not little pukes like Zuckenberg's portrayal.
According to the movie, Mark was characterized as a comp sci guy who saw beyond what the Winklevoss twins had in mind.
Okay, so the Winklovoss twins had the idea of social network for Harvard. Then Mark came up with the original idea of a social network for everybody?
Again, what was Mark's contribution? Seems to me Mark did not contribute the idea, the code, the money, or even the final name. Yet Mark connived his way into the lion's share of the profits.
Seems to me that Mark was portrayed as a scam artists, and a complete asshole. I was a little surprised to read that Mark was portrayed as a "hero for our time."
Maybe I'm missing something.
Mark Zuckerberg - dick, computer geek, had some vision to make something cool
Did he have some great vision? Or did he steal the visions of other people, and then connive those people out of their fair share? What great original idea did mark have?
I read some movie review that said Mark was characterized more like a marketing major than a comp. sci. major.
As I understand it, Zuckenberg did not exactly come from "rags" either.
Zuckenberg was portrayed as a "hero" ?
When I left the movie, I had the impression that Zunkenberg was portrayed as a thieving, condescending, misogynistic, little twerp. He stole everybody else's ideas, idolized a child molesting drug abuser, and betrayed his best (only?) friend. His only redeeming value is that he was a talented programmer.
Not my idea of a hero, but then, I don't idolize Bill Gates either.