Its Miguel's company, and in the free market he's free
Ummmm - what part of the idea behind GNU dont you understand? Shared, Co-Operative, Democratic (like) development.
Since when did "free markets" mean fucking anything in GNU? This is not about corporate profit friend. Its kind of fitting that RMS was at the World Social Forum, GNU is *exactly* about removing top-down, corporate domination.
RMS, being a (more) equal member of the GNU Community, has every right to ask Miguel what he's up to...
"...and those who protect their property are wrong..."
Thanks for the waste of time.*
Without going into too much detail -- that you are obviously aware (otherwise you couldnt skillfully troll in such a way) -- your rabid 'property' assertion is malformed.
Intellectual "property" is not "property": it doesnt exist. It is an agreement, an artificial construct -- not a real thing . Now, outside of the "Get off my Property or Ill shoot you" United States, there is not such a radical concept of "personal property", in fact, allot of nations manage to share a great deal in their civil society.
So, really, you are making a very contentious point, failing to realize that your bias and pre-disposed perspective is not shared by all people (that 'intellectual property' exists && an individuals property is the most precious and unquestionable 'right' (the former was born by plutocrats && the latter by McCarthyism (+ unnatural adherence to the US Constitution without critical analysis (read: "American Democracy as a Religion))) but i digress).
So, where does that leave your post, and my ill-prepared retort? Nowhere, from my perspective you are a slave to your myopia and I -- who doesnt agree with ultimate-right of personal property or intellectual-property (in total) -- am a Neo-Communist.
Basically, you drop a blatent non-sequitur on/.; get modded +1 insightful, and I am amazed at both the moderator and yourself for not being able to recognize an argument beyond the skill of an 8th grade debate team, and I welcome the Anti-Communist bigotry that I will illicit.
*You certainly wasted my time with your narrow and skewed world-view -- how did you enjoy my wasting yours with mine?
Note to troll moderators: Ive got tonnes of karma to burn.
"...and those who protect their property are wrong..."
Thanks for the waste of time.*
Without going into too much detail -- that you are obviously aware (otherwise you couldnt skillfully troll in such a way) -- your rabid 'property' assertion is malformed.
Intellectual "property" is not "property": it doesnt exist. It is an agreement, an artificial construct -- not a real thing. Now, outside of the "Get off my Property or Ill shoot you" United States, there is not such a radical concept of "personal property", in fact, allot of nations manage to share a great deal in their civil society.
So, really, you are making a very contentious point, failing to realize that your bias and pre-disposed perspective is not shared by all people (that 'intellectual property' exists && an individuals property is the most precious and unquestionable 'right' (the former was born by plutocrats && the latter by McCarthyism (+ unnatural adherence to the US Constitution without critical analysis (read: "American Democracy as a Religion))) but i digress).
So, where does that leave your post, and my ill-prepared retort? Nowhere, from my perspective you are a slave to your myopia and I -- who doesnt agree with ultimate-right of personal property or intellectual-property (in total) -- am a Neo-Communist.
Basically, you drop a blatent non-sequitur on/.; get modded +1 insightful, and I am amazed at both the moderator and yourself for not being able to recognize an argument beyond the skill of an 8th grade debate team, and I welcome the Anti-Communist bigotry that I will illicit.
*You certainly wasted my time with your narrow and skewed world-view -- how did you enjoy my wasting yours with mine?
...but Corel gave up quickly after the distro was released...
More like Microsoft told them to get out of the Linux market or they wouldnt invest in them (or hire their services).
Corel isnt in the Linux business because MS didnt want Corel Office / Corel Draw etc to start targetting Linux because their was no room for them on Windows. It would have helped prove that MS stiffles the PC software world && help GNU/Linux bust onto the desktop.
Should I mention that MS owns (still?) a big chunk of Apple stock...
MS controls Apple and MS put the screws to Corel.
I enjoy a good conspiracy as much as the next guy, but please, think about what Ive said here and
*
Via Office && Explorer: Imagine Wall Street's panick over AAPL if MS announced a discontinuation of these apps. Moderate Apple users would also flee.
Via their 'Non-voting shares': Wouldnt dumping the shares also cause a decrease in AAPLE, and a further decrease due to Wall Street jitters about Apple becoming a target for MS.
Apple && MS are quite cozy. Without Apple, who would MS prop up as their competition. And Corel, well they were sinking anyway -- MS made them an offer ($$$) they were in no position to refuse.
That just shows how screwed-up the American mentality has become.
As I see it, being a *very* left leaning Canadian living in Windsor, Ontario this is how I see it:
Americans Live to work *NOT* Work to Live. Simple. Life is about their Job. Their Car. Their money, their House. Getting "paid" is a goal un-to itself, and no concessions are made to those who are not interested in this pursuit.
Competition is a Religion. People are distrustful and selfish. Government is the enemy, it is seen as serving the needs other than those exactly specified by each individual, "'Greater Good'? who needs it? I want 'ZYX'" is the mantra. Cooperation (healthcare, social programs, education) are seen as a method for "others" to take from the individual.
Are these opinions "true"? I dont know, I am simply one man, with one opinion. Do I have pre-disposed bias? Sure. Am i flatly wrong? No, it is doubtful. There is ample evidence of this characterization. It is, at-best, unflattering - and I am certain to be modded off as flame or somesuch, but I can tell you that people *outside* the US understand this description.. if Americans would look past their jingoism, myopia and ethno-centrism -- just a *little* -- they could really begin to grow again.
What's the alternative? Pay them $20 and hour and let them come and go as they please, or stop the line whenever they want to chat about their weekend? How willing are you to pay $500 for a printer that currently costs $125?
I knew it was only a matter of time until this albatross argument arrived. You are flatly out to lunch.
According to this articleMrs.Fiorina made $69.4 Million Dollars last year, further, according to this blurb at hp.com in 2000 hp had 88,000 employees.
So, 6,9400,000 / 88,000 == $788.63. Our kind friends in the article, working for HP's bottom line, "pull in around $1000" per month.
For all the "wealth" created by HP, a single person, the CEO earns 75% of a month salary for EVERY EMPLOYEE*.
What is it that Carly Fiorina does that affords her such phenomenal wealth and security? Why is she afforded the kind of kingly existence of comfort and un-imaginable security while those who MAKE THE WEALTH are forced to earn a pittance with zero security. Remember, it is not only the low wages that people have to contend with but the risk of being instantly unemployed without provocation.
I cannot fully explain the rage I feel at this situation, it exists all around us (and the world) -- this is the reality of Capitalism -- left unchanged it is guaranteed to get worse.
The world is in an uncomfortable place at the moment, out of control and heading in the absolutely wrong direction.. and most people of conscience recognize change is necessary. Sweeping, fundamental changes to the economic systems we employ.
Without a democratic solution to economic problems, (economically) powerless people will eventually revolt. It is not a debate of *if* but when, history has proven this -- and we are destined to allow it to repeat. Sad, very very sad.
So, explain now, what does paying equitable salary have to do with the choice you mentioned? It is simply a non-issue.
*i recognize that temps are not included in the 88k number, and therefore would be a smaller portion of Mrs.Fiorina's salary... but it really has no bearing on the concept.
Also, im not surprised at the complete lack of understanding of the reality of this situation displayed in this forum. People have been so overwhelmed by the rhetoric and dogma of Capitalism, Freedom and America that they are absolutely blind to the massive problems with the present system -- and our ability to build a better alternative for everyone.
Che left Cuba because he was a meglomaniac nutcase who was unsatisfied with being revolutionary number two and would prefer to rule south and central America (at least).
Fucking bs.
Someome please mod this guy as (-1 McCarthyite Flaimbait).
1) Steve Miller Band: Your RIAA list proves nothing. Look at the top part of the list. Music sales != good music.
So you agree with me? I was disagreeing with you that Shaggy has had way more 'hits' than them... they are basically one hit wonders definition of artistic value... thats how *you* defined it until i presented the RIAA list, at which time you changed your mind about what 'success' is. Holy shit man, you cant argue by agreeing with me.
2) So classic rock, and only classic rock is the true music?
No, who said it was?
Most artists are about selling their product...No, publishers are about selling a product. Being an "artist" means you are compelled to create by your very existence. An "Artist" doesnt care to sell millions of units, sure, he likes to eat (as do us all), but he wont stop being an artist if it ceased being 'profitable'. If he did, he wouldnt have been an "artist" in the first place.
Tupac for example has some of the most profound things to say about society, that I've ever heard. I guess it's a matter of listening and not judging until you hear it.
Agreed. Ive never listened to Tupac. I have no opinion of the lyrics (or music). This is why i said "there are exceptions..".
3) Vanilla Ice was sued because he ripped off the beat. He claimed that it was different because he, or someone, added on beat every X seconds or whatever. Other artists that sample give full credit, and the record company gives 'points' on the album sales to compensate the 'rip'.
I believe that the legal issue had not been made of rap-sampling until this(??) test case. After this(??) test case a rap-sampler was required to pay royalties to the original copy-right owner.. again.. Compulsory license of music, for the purpose of rap-sampling was created.
4) If you haven't noticed there is a huge business behind all that music you hear.
you dont know what kind of music I listen to... Ill just tell you that your wrong. I dont pay for music that has been time-shifted (i copy it all from friends and dload mp3s). I also listen to allot of self-published artists.
Plenty of times rappers come up [to stardom] with only lyrics. When they hit the RIAA-fan some white guy in a suit thinks that it would be cool to use the twangs from Stairway to Heaven.
What kind of racist crap is that? Hey man, WTF is this "white guy with suits" bullshit. That is pretty fucking racist, IMHO. Or, are you trolling.. hmmm.
5) Yes, I'm defensive. When I hear this 'rip-off' argument it's being produced by some racist piece of shit.
Suggesting the music is 'ripped off' doesnt make the guy a racist. If the guy is racist it doesnt make the music *not* riped off. There is no relationship. Also, the 'ripping off' argument in music is worthless, mostly done by self-congratulatory music-wonks trying to pull a turf-pissing match with a commoner. Art can be the inspiration for other works, only when you involve capitalist-copy-right && $ does this become an issue.. the whole idea is bunk.
All in all, I'm still a good classic rock fan. Just keep that Steve Miller bullshit away from me.
...again, your jerking your knee, when i explicitly said "im not a fan".
what you're saying is that once something has been created once, that because we are capable of copying it, that the creator can not reasonably expect to be rewarded for his work.
Yes, that is what i am saying. If I write a song. only the activity of writing it should be compensated - not the use of it after it has been performed/written. The *act* of creation should be compensated. Simple. If i was a carpenter, would I collect a fee for every comfy-night you spend in bed??? NO!
It is exactly the same, patents and copy-written material are not magic. If they exist then the work required to create them has ceased. It is in the past -- what makes these things so special that their control, and the 'right' of the builder causes such a pile of ill-logic and nonsense as copyright and patent law?
You sir are a LEECH.
And you excrete dogma without a mite of critical thought. You are a PUPPET.
It's precisely this sort of attitude that Copyright is designed to thwart.
No, copyrights were granted to people to protect them from printing press owners. Copyright was granted to a person so he could sell his works. Capitalists have, by making themselves legal-persons (amongst other plutocratic-borne legislation in the USA), granted themselves copyrights... the concept was built to protect a person from publishers. Not publishers from people. Dont try and pretend this is not the case, it is indisputable and intellectually dishonest to suggest otherwise. This discussion is not a debate -- as in public debate as an exercise -- are you honestly presenting this as your opinion?
removing the incentives and rewards of creating will lead to a decline in creation.
Untrue. Intellectual Property was created all through time -- it is society itself... without copyright and patents the mechanisms through which people would have incentive would change. Was Matisse given a copyright? Mozart?
RIAA is trying to protect itself, and it's monopoly on the distribution of music, they're not attempting to foster the creation of music.
Agreed.
but that doesen't justify deliberately flaunting the law, nor taking away from the creators the rightful earnings.
Actually it does. Civil disobedience is an act of a free society. If 50%+1 of the population decides to ignore a law it should be changed - the consequences are ours to reap. If it proved true that creation ceased when copyright ended (it wouldnt) then the people would pay the consequence -- or make a new offer to potential producers. Not being a 'producer' in this dynamic doesnt mean we are with out rights. If the persons (like yourself) willing to accept this construct + the creators ("artists" (or RIAA)) But that is how (im sure you would agree) a democratic and free society should work. Im not suggesting the USA is this place, but that is another issue, and a much bigger problem.
When you say "I copy all my music CDs", you're committing piracy plain and simple.
No, by law, in Canada I am fully entitled to do this. My government has changed the construct of copyright to encourage the act. It is not "piracy".
If you don't PAY for it, and you don't get it via available LEGAL means, you're still not entitled to STEAL it.
Life is not about money. Watching a movie or listening to music has zero effect on the producer (no incremental cost) - what part of this basic problem with the capitalist-economics of copyright are you not understanding?
Steve Miller Band? Come on! Shaggy has had way more 'hits' than them... they are basically one hit wonders.
The fucking-asshole-RIAA has this to say about your delusion: Tell me, where is 'shaggy' on this list compared to Steve Miller Band? For the record, Im not a Steve Miller fan. I just feel that 'rap and hip hop' is to the art of music as as television commercials are to the art of theatre. The sole reason for its existence is to sell a product (which the performers are in-and-of-themselves) such as Shaggy, Backside Boys, 2Pac or Brittany Spears. This is not art, its a catchy jingle for the performer-as-artist-product.
you should know that the only Rap song that didn't pay to use the beat [etc] is Ice Ice Baby.
If i recall correctly there was a lawsuit sometime-ago that made sampling legal via compulsory licensing... where ice-ice-baby fits in this is im not sure.
People get paid... this isn't a rip off, it's business.
What? How does 'business' end up being a justification for an act... as if it is self-evident and natural? Give me a break pal.
Take your racism somewhere else. && It's copyrights and since you are obviously a racist
Wow, a little defensive arent we?
It's a good song if you listen to the lyrics. If you don't like it, I'm sure there are other reasons
Not to sound to harsh, im sure there must be some merit and talent somewhere in the rap/hip-hop world... just that 99% of it is blatant pap...here are always exceptions to the rule...
For the Record
Posted January 16, 2002
The following memo was written to Embedded and Personal Systems (EPS)
employees from EPS President Iain Morris to set the record straight
regarding recent press reports on the future of Hewlett-Packard's PC
business.
Dear All,
I would like to wish each of you a happy and productive 2002.
I'm writing to you to set the record straight regarding recent press reports
on the future of our PC business. You may have seen an article this Monday
in USA Today which claims that Carly "warned that, should it [the merger]
fail, HP's vaunted printer and imaging businesses would be damaged and HP
might have to shut down its personal computer division."
This is not the first time the press has zeroed in on the notion that we
should exit the PC business. Rather than suggesting we exit PCs, Carly was
explaining the importance of the merger -- in the context of a range of
strategic alternatives -- as a way to fix our PC business. She was also
responding to Walter Hewlett's assertion that PCs are a challenging business
(yet he fails to offer any thoughts on how to improve it).
According to the full transcript of the interview, what Carly said was: "It
[the merger] allows us to fix our PC business. We can't get out of our PC
business. If I didn't care about laying off people, I could just shut it
down. But if I shut it down, I'd have to lay off a lot more than 15,000
people across two companies over several years. So, we have to fix our PC
business. And fixing our PC business requires volume and distribution
capability."
To further clarify her remarks, the 15,000 figure has been included in our
filings with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. It refers to the
estimated number of employee reductions of the combined HP and Compaq
workforce, which will total about 15,000 people. It does not specifically
refer to the PC business. The reductions are expected to occur during the
first two years after the merger closes and will be achieved through a
combination of targeted job reductions and attrition.
It is important for you to know that HP remains committed to the PC
business. By merging with Compaq, we believe the cost-savings from the
anticipated synergies and economies of scale will lower the cost structure
of our combined PC business and have a positive impact on margins. We will
also be able to leverage the significant progress Compaq has made developing
its direct distribution capabilities to create a more flexible distribution
model for the combined company and help us address this important industry
issue.
By combining HP's strength in the consumer PC business and Compaq's strength
in the commercial PC business, we will create a more balanced industry
leader. We also intend to create sustainable value in our PC and other
personal systems businesses by innovating across emerging categories and
delivering a new generation of connected access and embedded devices.
The merger also will provide important benefits to HP's imaging and printing
franchise (also mentioned in the USA Today article). By improving operating
margins in our other business segments, we expect to increase our investment
in core IPS research and development and new IPS initiatives such as digital
imaging and digital publishing - investments that are crucial to maintaining
our leadership in the IPS business. According to Carly: "Imaging and
Printing is not a cash cow. It is a growth engine that has to be invested in
if we're to capture the real growth opportunities in Imaging and Printing
going forward."
Our vision is to become a premier provider of the end-to-end solutions our
customers now demand. That requires us to be a leader in imaging and
printing and computing and services. It requires us to be a leader in both
the enterprise and the consumer space. PCs remain an important part of the
end-to-end solutions we provide.
In closing, let me thank all of you again for staying focused on the
business at hand, and for continuing to help HP emerge an even stronger
competitor when the economy rebounds. Here's to delighting our customers,
delivering results and beating the competition.
Thank you,
Iain
(to force the advertising down the punters' throats).
I live in Canada, and read allot of British press online, can you offer me a hand? What does the 'slang' term "punter" mean? I have been unable to quite figure it out. As best I can reason it is analogous to 'person' or 'guy'... but im sure there is more to it than that...
it's amazing that the _protection and preservation one's rightful property_ transformed overnight from an inalienable human right acknowledged by almost every society (though not by every political system) throughout time, into an "obsolete business practice."
Intellectual Property is a fiction, it is not property (as in tangible asset) at all. The act of creation ceases when the work is born, only in the 'intellectual property world" does a producer feel the right to control a work once he has borne it. Does a plumber call you and ask for a fee every time you flush your toilet? No, neither should a musician, actor, author or inventor ask for fees to exercise the purpose of their past creation. Meaning, that by its regular availability, the thing *has been created* and no further compensation is necessary.
If I copy a book, I am creating a book. The original author was not present or required to make my copy - why should he be compensated? If a creator feels he needs to reach some artificial economics of scale to make his time worthwhile, thats his issue -- i refuse to have *MY* liberties eroded to enforce a concept of capitalist business practice. The creator has no business telling me what I may or may not do with my own time and equipment.
Intellectual Property, (Copyright, Trademarks and Patents) have no place in an intellectually free society. Intellectual Property is a tool of economics and not a 'rightful property by inalienable human right' -- to suggest such is absolutely ridiculous. It is neither a 'right' nor a natural, self-evident thing. It is a concept, a construct, an agreement... and those who would use it as a economic hammer are no longer entitled to it.
I no longer purchase any item that would re-enforce this system. I copy all my music CDs*, I download movies and use the library for all books and magazines. I also advocate the rest of us do as well.
Ideas dont exist in a vacuum, and to suggest that a creation of the mind has a sole creator with inalienable right to then control it is offensive to the rest of us.
* Canadians, because our government collects a fee for the RIAA types with every CDR sold, are legally allowed to make copies of Music CDs OTHERS have bought at record stores. Stop buying and burn those discs!
worst in America 5 years running btw) and there is a simple reason I do it. MARTA (Metro Atlanta Rail Transit Authority--I think) is not safe.
but for my money, and safety, I will stick to my car.
I dont even have to look at the safety record of MARTA, but I would bet my left nut that it is most certainly safer than your car.
Further, public transport; light rail subway, buses, streetcar --maybe even this-- would be a far better choice for the individual, and community economically. Contrary to American Plutocratic propaganda, sharing and co-operation is imminently more efficient than selfish competition... tell me, what good is your $40,000 car doing you right now while you sit at your computer? Would it not make more sense to share it with your neighbour who works midnights???? I mean really, I would rather toss all private vehicles off the streets of a city and have it replaced with a swarm of electric streetcars and 'streetcar' stations. It would be A) Cheaper*, B) Safer and C) Environmentally Rewarding.
*not to mention that the city could have fewer asphalt paved areas (parking lots and surface streets).. imagine trees, grass and plants in front of your house instead of a roadway - THATS a worthy goal for ANY city council.
Slashdot Mirror
Its Miguel's company, and in the free market he's free
Ummmm - what part of the idea behind GNU dont you understand? Shared, Co-Operative, Democratic (like) development.
Since when did "free markets" mean fucking anything in GNU? This is not about corporate profit friend. Its kind of fitting that RMS was at the World Social Forum, GNU is *exactly* about removing top-down, corporate domination.
RMS, being a (more) equal member of the GNU Community, has every right to ask Miguel what he's up to...
"...and those who protect their property are wrong..."
/.; get modded +1 insightful, and I am amazed at both the moderator and yourself for not being able to recognize an argument beyond the skill of an 8th grade debate team, and I welcome the Anti-Communist bigotry that I will illicit.
Thanks for the waste of time.*
Without going into too much detail -- that you are obviously aware (otherwise you couldnt skillfully troll in such a way) -- your rabid 'property' assertion is malformed.
Intellectual "property" is not "property": it doesnt exist. It is an agreement, an artificial construct -- not a real thing . Now, outside of the "Get off my Property or Ill shoot you" United States, there is not such a radical concept of "personal property", in fact, allot of nations manage to share a great deal in their civil society.
So, really, you are making a very contentious point, failing to realize that your bias and pre-disposed perspective is not shared by all people (that 'intellectual property' exists && an individuals property is the most precious and unquestionable 'right' (the former was born by plutocrats && the latter by McCarthyism (+ unnatural adherence to the US Constitution without critical analysis (read: "American Democracy as a Religion))) but i digress).
So, where does that leave your post, and my ill-prepared retort? Nowhere, from my perspective you are a slave to your myopia and I -- who doesnt agree with ultimate-right of personal property or intellectual-property (in total) -- am a Neo-Communist.
Basically, you drop a blatent non-sequitur on
*You certainly wasted my time with your narrow and skewed world-view -- how did you enjoy my wasting yours with mine?
Note to troll moderators: Ive got tonnes of karma to burn.
"...and those who protect their property are wrong..."
/.; get modded +1 insightful, and I am amazed at both the moderator and yourself for not being able to recognize an argument beyond the skill of an 8th grade debate team, and I welcome the Anti-Communist bigotry that I will illicit.
Thanks for the waste of time.*
Without going into too much detail -- that you are obviously aware (otherwise you couldnt skillfully troll in such a way) -- your rabid 'property' assertion is malformed.
Intellectual "property" is not "property": it doesnt exist. It is an agreement, an artificial construct -- not a real thing . Now, outside of the "Get off my Property or Ill shoot you" United States, there is not such a radical concept of "personal property", in fact, allot of nations manage to share a great deal in their civil society.
So, really, you are making a very contentious point, failing to realize that your bias and pre-disposed perspective is not shared by all people (that 'intellectual property' exists && an individuals property is the most precious and unquestionable 'right' (the former was born by plutocrats && the latter by McCarthyism (+ unnatural adherence to the US Constitution without critical analysis (read: "American Democracy as a Religion))) but i digress).
So, where does that leave your post, and my ill-prepared retort? Nowhere, from my perspective you are a slave to your myopia and I -- who doesnt agree with ultimate-right of personal property or intellectual-property (in total) -- am a Neo-Communist.
Basically, you drop a blatent non-sequitur on
*You certainly wasted my time with your narrow and skewed world-view -- how did you enjoy my wasting yours with mine?
Should DNA be Patentable?
No.
Ok, whats the next ridiculous question...
Also see:
http://webvcr.sourceforge.net/
http://www.tivo.com/linux/index.html
It It sure would be terrific if some capable hackers did a 'PVR GNU/Linux Distro' - JUST for this purpose...
http://k-tai.impress.co.jp/cda/article/stapa/0,161 6,4140,00.html
Everyone thank our friends at google for this link. Not a mirror, but a start.
DPKG and RPM are not mutually exclusive, you can have both packaging systems at once.
Wont they step all over one another? If i rpm -i xyz-1.0.0.rpm && apt-get install xyz; Who's to say I wont kill a dep. for xyz1.0.0?
Why dont you can Katz and give Cringley a job?
I wonder what the ratio of katz-ignoring-slashdotters vs cringley-article-hits is.
PostgreSQL is nice but will *never* replace Oracle
Yes, and GNU/Linux will never replace HPUX, Solaris, AIX, IRIX or SCO.
whoops, never mind that last one.
More like Microsoft told them to get out of the Linux market or they wouldnt invest in them (or hire their services).
Corel isnt in the Linux business because MS didnt want Corel Office / Corel Draw etc to start targetting Linux because their was no room for them on Windows. It would have helped prove that MS stiffles the PC software world && help GNU/Linux bust onto the desktop.
Should I mention that MS owns (still?) a big chunk of Apple stock...
MS controls Apple and MS put the screws to Corel.
I enjoy a good conspiracy as much as the next guy, but please, think about what Ive said here and
*
Via Office && Explorer: Imagine Wall Street's panick over AAPL if MS announced a discontinuation of these apps. Moderate Apple users would also flee.
Via their 'Non-voting shares': Wouldnt dumping the shares also cause a decrease in AAPLE, and a further decrease due to Wall Street jitters about Apple becoming a target for MS.
Apple && MS are quite cozy. Without Apple, who would MS prop up as their competition. And Corel, well they were sinking anyway -- MS made them an offer ($$$) they were in no position to refuse.
WILL KILL INNOCENT PEOPLE ON PURPOSE.
Goto Chiapas, Guatemala, Panama, Iran, Iraq, Somalia, Philippines, Afghanistan, Vietnam, Korea, Cuba,..,..., tell *them* that.
Ever hear of the School of Americas? Its your own little Terrorist Training Camp.
Have you ever read this gem? http://www.antioffline.com/uscuba.html
Wow, imagine that - a pre-fabricated excuse for aggression, America(TM) would *never* do anything like that...?
The ignorance and myopia caused by America Jingoism is amazing -- and scary.
America is a Rogue Nation Out of Control.
That just shows how screwed-up the American mentality has become.
As I see it, being a *very* left leaning Canadian living in Windsor, Ontario this is how I see it:
Americans Live to work *NOT* Work to Live. Simple. Life is about their Job. Their Car. Their money, their House. Getting "paid" is a goal un-to itself, and no concessions are made to those who are not interested in this pursuit.
Competition is a Religion. People are distrustful and selfish. Government is the enemy, it is seen as serving the needs other than those exactly specified by each individual, "'Greater Good'? who needs it? I want 'ZYX'" is the mantra. Cooperation (healthcare, social programs, education) are seen as a method for "others" to take from the individual.
Are these opinions "true"? I dont know, I am simply one man, with one opinion. Do I have pre-disposed bias? Sure. Am i flatly wrong? No, it is doubtful. There is ample evidence of this characterization. It is, at-best, unflattering - and I am certain to be modded off as flame or somesuch, but I can tell you that people *outside* the US understand this description.. if Americans would look past their jingoism, myopia and ethno-centrism -- just a *little* -- they could really begin to grow again.
What's the alternative? Pay them $20 and hour and let them come and go as they please, or stop the line whenever they want to chat about their weekend? How willing are you to pay $500 for a printer that currently costs $125?
.
I knew it was only a matter of time until this albatross argument arrived. You are flatly out to lunch.
According to this articleMrs.Fiorina made $69.4 Million Dollars last year, further, according to this blurb at hp.com in 2000 hp had 88,000 employees.
So, 6,9400,000 / 88,000 == $788.63. Our kind friends in the article, working for HP's bottom line, "pull in around $1000" per month.
For all the "wealth" created by HP, a single person, the CEO earns 75% of a month salary for EVERY EMPLOYEE*
What is it that Carly Fiorina does that affords her such phenomenal wealth and security? Why is she afforded the kind of kingly existence of comfort and un-imaginable security while those who MAKE THE WEALTH are forced to earn a pittance with zero security. Remember, it is not only the low wages that people have to contend with but the risk of being instantly unemployed without provocation.
I cannot fully explain the rage I feel at this situation, it exists all around us (and the world) -- this is the reality of Capitalism -- left unchanged it is guaranteed to get worse.
The world is in an uncomfortable place at the moment, out of control and heading in the absolutely wrong direction.. and most people of conscience recognize change is necessary. Sweeping, fundamental changes to the economic systems we employ.
Without a democratic solution to economic problems, (economically) powerless people will eventually revolt. It is not a debate of *if* but when, history has proven this -- and we are destined to allow it to repeat. Sad, very very sad.
Interesting Reading: The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles.
So, explain now, what does paying equitable salary have to do with the choice you mentioned? It is simply a non-issue.
*i recognize that temps are not included in the 88k number, and therefore would be a smaller portion of Mrs.Fiorina's salary... but it really has no bearing on the concept.
Also, im not surprised at the complete lack of understanding of the reality of this situation displayed in this forum. People have been so overwhelmed by the rhetoric and dogma of Capitalism, Freedom and America that they are absolutely blind to the massive problems with the present system -- and our ability to build a better alternative for everyone.
Just remember, Adolf Hitler was a socialist.
Yes, and your point? Timothy McVeigh (whatever) was a Christian, Oliver North was is a Republican and John Locke was an Anarcho-Syndicalist.
Che left Cuba because he was a meglomaniac nutcase who was unsatisfied with being revolutionary number two and would prefer to rule south and central America (at least).
Fucking bs.
Someome please mod this guy as (-1 McCarthyite Flaimbait).
an you name a single Communist nation that you would hold up as a shining beacon to the rest of the world?
Cuba.
work (that wouldn't be GPL) go on top of the rest of the OS
I dont know, they are doing a good job with mozilla...
That was very lucid and compelling. Thank you. I will consider it.
1) Steve Miller Band: Your RIAA list proves nothing. Look at the top part of the list. Music sales != good music.
So you agree with me? I was disagreeing with you that Shaggy has had way more 'hits' than them... they are basically one hit wonders definition of artistic value... thats how *you* defined it until i presented the RIAA list, at which time you changed your mind about what 'success' is. Holy shit man, you cant argue by agreeing with me.
2) So classic rock, and only classic rock is the true music?
No, who said it was?
Most artists are about selling their product...No, publishers are about selling a product. Being an "artist" means you are compelled to create by your very existence. An "Artist" doesnt care to sell millions of units, sure, he likes to eat (as do us all), but he wont stop being an artist if it ceased being 'profitable'. If he did, he wouldnt have been an "artist" in the first place.
Tupac for example has some of the most profound things to say about society, that I've ever heard. I guess it's a matter of listening and not judging until you hear it.
Agreed. Ive never listened to Tupac. I have no opinion of the lyrics (or music). This is why i said "there are exceptions..".
3) Vanilla Ice was sued because he ripped off the beat. He claimed that it was different because he, or someone, added on beat every X seconds or whatever. Other artists that sample give full credit, and the record company gives 'points' on the album sales to compensate the 'rip'.
I believe that the legal issue had not been made of rap-sampling until this(??) test case. After this(??) test case a rap-sampler was required to pay royalties to the original copy-right owner.. again.. Compulsory license of music, for the purpose of rap-sampling was created.
4) If you haven't noticed there is a huge business behind all that music you hear.
you dont know what kind of music I listen to... Ill just tell you that your wrong. I dont pay for music that has been time-shifted (i copy it all from friends and dload mp3s). I also listen to allot of self-published artists.
Plenty of times rappers come up [to stardom] with only lyrics. When they hit the RIAA-fan some white guy in a suit thinks that it would be cool to use the twangs from Stairway to Heaven.
What kind of racist crap is that? Hey man, WTF is this "white guy with suits" bullshit. That is pretty fucking racist, IMHO. Or, are you trolling.. hmmm.
5) Yes, I'm defensive. When I hear this 'rip-off' argument it's being produced by some racist piece of shit.
Suggesting the music is 'ripped off' doesnt make the guy a racist. If the guy is racist it doesnt make the music *not* riped off. There is no relationship. Also, the 'ripping off' argument in music is worthless, mostly done by self-congratulatory music-wonks trying to pull a turf-pissing match with a commoner. Art can be the inspiration for other works, only when you involve capitalist-copy-right && $ does this become an issue.. the whole idea is bunk.
All in all, I'm still a good classic rock fan. Just keep that Steve Miller bullshit away from me.
...again, your jerking your knee, when i explicitly said "im not a fan".
Like shooting fish in a barrel.
what you're saying is that once something has been created once, that because we are capable of copying it, that the creator can not reasonably expect to be rewarded for his work.
d s
Yes, that is what i am saying. If I write a song. only the activity of writing it should be compensated - not the use of it after it has been performed/written. The * act * of creation should be compensated. Simple. If i was a carpenter, would I collect a fee for every comfy-night you spend in bed??? NO!
It is exactly the same, patents and copy-written material are not magic. If they exist then the work required to create them has ceased. It is in the past -- what makes these things so special that their control, and the 'right' of the builder causes such a pile of ill-logic and nonsense as copyright and patent law?
You sir are a LEECH.
And you excrete dogma without a mite of critical thought. You are a PUPPET.
It's precisely this sort of attitude that Copyright is designed to thwart.
No, copyrights were granted to people to protect them from printing press owners. Copyright was granted to a person so he could sell his works. Capitalists have, by making themselves legal-persons (amongst other plutocratic-borne legislation in the USA), granted themselves copyrights... the concept was built to protect a person from publishers. Not publishers from people. Dont try and pretend this is not the case, it is indisputable and intellectually dishonest to suggest otherwise. This discussion is not a debate -- as in public debate as an exercise -- are you honestly presenting this as your opinion?
removing the incentives and rewards of creating will lead to a decline in creation.
Untrue. Intellectual Property was created all through time -- it is society itself... without copyright and patents the mechanisms through which people would have incentive would change. Was Matisse given a copyright? Mozart?
RIAA is trying to protect itself, and it's monopoly on the distribution of music, they're not attempting to foster the creation of music.
Agreed.
but that doesen't justify deliberately flaunting the law, nor taking away from the creators the rightful earnings.
Actually it does. Civil disobedience is an act of a free society. If 50%+1 of the population decides to ignore a law it should be changed - the consequences are ours to reap. If it proved true that creation ceased when copyright ended (it wouldnt) then the people would pay the consequence -- or make a new offer to potential producers. Not being a 'producer' in this dynamic doesnt mean we are with out rights. If the persons (like yourself) willing to accept this construct + the creators ("artists" (or RIAA))
But that is how (im sure you would agree) a democratic and free society should work. Im not suggesting the USA is this place, but that is another issue, and a much bigger problem.
When you say "I copy all my music CDs", you're committing piracy plain and simple.
No, by law, in Canada I am fully entitled to do this. My government has changed the construct of copyright to encourage the act. It is not "piracy".
http://www.cdrfaq.org/faq03.html#S3-33-2
http://neil.eton.ca/copylevy.shtml#copy_for_frien
If you don't PAY for it, and you don't get it via available LEGAL means, you're still not entitled to STEAL it.
Life is not about money. Watching a movie or listening to music has zero effect on the producer (no incremental cost) - what part of this basic problem with the capitalist-economics of copyright are you not understanding?
Steve Miller Band? Come on! Shaggy has had way more 'hits' than them... they are basically one hit wonders.
The fucking-asshole-RIAA has this to say about your delusion: Tell me, where is 'shaggy' on this list compared to Steve Miller Band? For the record, Im not a Steve Miller fan. I just feel that 'rap and hip hop' is to the art of music as as television commercials are to the art of theatre. The sole reason for its existence is to sell a product (which the performers are in-and-of-themselves) such as Shaggy, Backside Boys, 2Pac or Brittany Spears. This is not art, its a catchy jingle for the performer-as-artist-product.
you should know that the only Rap song that didn't pay to use the beat [etc] is Ice Ice Baby.
If i recall correctly there was a lawsuit sometime-ago that made sampling legal via compulsory licensing... where ice-ice-baby fits in this is im not sure.
People get paid... this isn't a rip off, it's business.
What? How does 'business' end up being a justification for an act... as if it is self-evident and natural? Give me a break pal.
Take your racism somewhere else. && It's copyrights and since you are obviously a racist
Wow, a little defensive arent we?
It's a good song if you listen to the lyrics. If you don't like it, I'm sure there are other reasons
Not to sound to harsh, im sure there must be some merit and talent somewhere in the rap/hip-hop world... just that 99% of it is blatant pap...here are always exceptions to the rule...
For the Record
Posted January 16, 2002
The following memo was written to Embedded and Personal Systems (EPS)
employees from EPS President Iain Morris to set the record straight
regarding recent press reports on the future of Hewlett-Packard's PC
business.
Dear All,
I would like to wish each of you a happy and productive 2002.
I'm writing to you to set the record straight regarding recent press reports
on the future of our PC business. You may have seen an article this Monday
in USA Today which claims that Carly "warned that, should it [the merger]
fail, HP's vaunted printer and imaging businesses would be damaged and HP
might have to shut down its personal computer division."
This is not the first time the press has zeroed in on the notion that we
should exit the PC business. Rather than suggesting we exit PCs, Carly was
explaining the importance of the merger -- in the context of a range of
strategic alternatives -- as a way to fix our PC business. She was also
responding to Walter Hewlett's assertion that PCs are a challenging business
(yet he fails to offer any thoughts on how to improve it).
According to the full transcript of the interview, what Carly said was: "It
[the merger] allows us to fix our PC business. We can't get out of our PC
business. If I didn't care about laying off people, I could just shut it
down. But if I shut it down, I'd have to lay off a lot more than 15,000
people across two companies over several years. So, we have to fix our PC
business. And fixing our PC business requires volume and distribution
capability."
To further clarify her remarks, the 15,000 figure has been included in our
filings with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. It refers to the
estimated number of employee reductions of the combined HP and Compaq
workforce, which will total about 15,000 people. It does not specifically
refer to the PC business. The reductions are expected to occur during the
first two years after the merger closes and will be achieved through a
combination of targeted job reductions and attrition.
It is important for you to know that HP remains committed to the PC
business. By merging with Compaq, we believe the cost-savings from the
anticipated synergies and economies of scale will lower the cost structure
of our combined PC business and have a positive impact on margins. We will
also be able to leverage the significant progress Compaq has made developing
its direct distribution capabilities to create a more flexible distribution
model for the combined company and help us address this important industry
issue.
By combining HP's strength in the consumer PC business and Compaq's strength
in the commercial PC business, we will create a more balanced industry
leader. We also intend to create sustainable value in our PC and other
personal systems businesses by innovating across emerging categories and
delivering a new generation of connected access and embedded devices.
The merger also will provide important benefits to HP's imaging and printing
franchise (also mentioned in the USA Today article). By improving operating
margins in our other business segments, we expect to increase our investment
in core IPS research and development and new IPS initiatives such as digital
imaging and digital publishing - investments that are crucial to maintaining
our leadership in the IPS business. According to Carly: "Imaging and
Printing is not a cash cow. It is a growth engine that has to be invested in
if we're to capture the real growth opportunities in Imaging and Printing
going forward."
Our vision is to become a premier provider of the end-to-end solutions our
customers now demand. That requires us to be a leader in imaging and
printing and computing and services. It requires us to be a leader in both
the enterprise and the consumer space. PCs remain an important part of the
end-to-end solutions we provide.
In closing, let me thank all of you again for staying focused on the
business at hand, and for continuing to help HP emerge an even stronger
competitor when the economy rebounds. Here's to delighting our customers,
delivering results and beating the competition.
Thank you,
Iain
(to force the advertising down the punters' throats).
I live in Canada, and read allot of British press online, can you offer me a hand? What does the 'slang' term "punter" mean? I have been unable to quite figure it out. As best I can reason it is analogous to 'person' or 'guy'... but im sure there is more to it than that...
it's amazing that the _protection and preservation one's rightful property_ transformed overnight from an inalienable human right acknowledged by almost every society (though not by every political system) throughout time, into an "obsolete business practice."
Intellectual Property is a fiction, it is not property (as in tangible asset) at all. The act of creation ceases when the work is born, only in the 'intellectual property world" does a producer feel the right to control a work once he has borne it. Does a plumber call you and ask for a fee every time you flush your toilet? No, neither should a musician, actor, author or inventor ask for fees to exercise the purpose of their past creation. Meaning, that by its regular availability, the thing *has been created* and no further compensation is necessary.
If I copy a book, I am creating a book. The original author was not present or required to make my copy - why should he be compensated? If a creator feels he needs to reach some artificial economics of scale to make his time worthwhile, thats his issue -- i refuse to have *MY* liberties eroded to enforce a concept of capitalist business practice. The creator has no business telling me what I may or may not do with my own time and equipment.
Intellectual Property, (Copyright, Trademarks and Patents) have no place in an intellectually free society. Intellectual Property is a tool of economics and not a 'rightful property by inalienable human right' -- to suggest such is absolutely ridiculous. It is neither a 'right' nor a natural, self-evident thing. It is a concept, a construct, an agreement... and those who would use it as a economic hammer are no longer entitled to it.
I no longer purchase any item that would re-enforce this system. I copy all my music CDs*, I download movies and use the library for all books and magazines. I also advocate the rest of us do as well.
Ideas dont exist in a vacuum, and to suggest that a creation of the mind has a sole creat or with inalienable right to then control it is offensive to the rest of us.
* Canadians, because our government collects a fee for the RIAA types with every CDR sold, are legally allowed to make copies of Music CDs OTHERS have bought at record stores. Stop buying and burn those discs!
worst in America 5 years running btw) and there is a simple reason I do it. MARTA (Metro Atlanta Rail Transit Authority--I think) is not safe.
but for my money, and safety, I will stick to my car.
I dont even have to look at the safety record of MARTA, but I would bet my left nut that it is most certainly safer than your car.
Further, public transport; light rail subway, buses, streetcar --maybe even this-- would be a far better choice for the individual, and community economically. Contrary to American Plutocratic propaganda, sharing and co-operation is imminently more efficient than selfish competition... tell me, what good is your $40,000 car doing you right now while you sit at your computer? Would it not make more sense to share it with your neighbour who works midnights???? I mean really, I would rather toss all private vehicles off the streets of a city and have it replaced with a swarm of electric streetcars and 'streetcar' stations. It would be A) Cheaper*, B) Safer and C) Environmentally Rewarding.
*not to mention that the city could have fewer asphalt paved areas (parking lots and surface streets).. imagine trees, grass and plants in front of your house instead of a roadway - THATS a worthy goal for ANY city council.