They reason they are going public is because the owners are selling the company. Period. The type of business this is doesn't need huge influxes of capital to grow.
p.s. I just hope they don't become a huge impersonal amoral company, like Google did when it went public.
Then you have to change society. And do it without the use of government force. The main reason society has morals is not religion, but because they are necessary for the health of the society. It's not about orange hats or discussing politics in the workplace. There's a reason nearly every society in history had marriage, every society rejects dishonesty and promotes honor, and every society encourages conformity.
Nothing is stopping you from forming your OWN society. If you are unable to mold society into your own image, you will have to start one you can. Nonconformists throughout history did this. It's the number one reason North America got colonized by Europe (and I greatly suspect the Amerindians started off as Asian nonconformists as well). Communes are common in US history, all started by people who didn't want to be a part of the mainstream: Amana, Kaweah, etc. Heck, we have an entire state that was founded by a group of people who didn't like the idea of monogamy!
Instead of bitching about how horrible everything is, be thankful you're living in the most tolerant culture the world has ever seen.
You are correct in that we should not be exanding government power. But that does not mean we should completely abandon security entirely.
Saying they hate us because of our freedom is correct, though not a complete answer. They hate us because our women have the freedom to wear bathing suits. They hate us because we have the freedom to worship (or not) as we choose. They hate us because we allow Jews to live freely in our land.
Earlier terrorist ideologies may have been based in warped varieties of Marxism, but the current terrorist ideology is based on a warped variety of Islam. One of their central tenets is universal obedience to a theocratic state.
No, I won't replace the word. Law IS NOT morality! They are two different concepts. Do not mistake me for a leftist who seeks to ban all they find unacceptable. Government is not society. There are acts that a society may choose to not accept, yet not make those acts crimes. If you have trouble understanding this, then you are confusing law with morality.
Just because something is legal does not mean it is moral.
We need a society... holds all other things not only legal, but acceptable.
The problem with your viewpoint is that it equates legality with morality. You're not much different from those that would legislate morality. But instead of expanding the law to encompass all of morality, you're shrinking morality to fit within the narrow confines of the law. Both are wrong.
I can agree with the idea that the government should not be banning non-violent actions, but as for accepting them, that's going too far. There are a great many actions that should be legal, but not socially acceptable. Drug use, for example. Go fry your brain out with chemicals all you want, but don't expect me to accept you.
It's not much different from the so-called liberals, who can tolerate no disagreement. If you didn't vote for Kerry it must be because you are Bush's love slave. If you were in favor of the Iraqi invasion then it stands to reason that you're in total agreement with every one of Bush's domestic policies. If you're suspicious of claims that reporters critical of the Bush administration are being shipped off to the Gitmo abattoir, then it's obvious you're a redneck hick from a red county in a red state who probably even goes to church occasionally, and you don't deserve to breed. Freedom of speech and press only extends to ideologically pure progressives, everything else must be banned as hate speech.
An irrational rant? Of course it is! But so was the parent post. For every conservative you can find that matches Valar's post, I can find one liberal that matches mine.
If terrorists attack your home town, it will not be because someone in power provoked them, it will be because if what the terrorists did! The goal of islamist terrorism is world domination. We did not provoke them for 9/11, but they did it anyway. Why did they attack? Because of who we are. Because we are not Wahabbist Muslims. Because our females wear bathing suits. Because we have freedom of religion. Because we are a wealthy society. Because we value individualism, democracy and freedom.
So you're saying we should ignore terrorism just because it doesn't kill all that many people, relatively speaking? Hell, by that logic would should stop paying attention to airline safety, because so few people die in airplane crashes!
You must weigh the costs of the additional protective measures against the risk. Some measures are clearly too costly. But forbidding newspapers from publishing classified materials? Don't make me laugh! They shouldn't be doing that anyways, regardless of the terrorism threat.
The Constitution gets violated every day of the week, and it has been since the day it was ratified. Yet no one ever bothered to complain about it until Bush got elected.
You can't use your free speech to endanger people. This has been ruled on numerous times. Yell "fire" in a crowded theater and you go to jail. How come no one ever complains about that? Engage in libel and slander, and you place yourself in legal jeopardy, regardless of what you think about the first ammendment. Publish the names of those in the witness protection program, and you are clearly violating the law.
Gonzalez didn't make up this policy, it's been around for at least a century, if not longer. But it wasn't until TODAY that anyone complained about it.
The problem is, banning guns is like banning Perl. It only stops the law adiding citizen. Criminals do not obey the law, that's why they are criminals.
The purpose of handguns may be to shoot people, but it's shooting for the purpose of defense, and not the perpetration of crime. There are also many legal and moral secondary purposes for guns that do not involve crime (or even shooting people).
Thus it is the same argument as hammers. If guns can be banned because they *could* be used to commit a crime, then why not hammers? Or Perl?
If it's a classified network, of course they won't. Don't be stupid.
Do you want to guarantee you can't get outsourced? Be a US citizen working for a US company that does work for the US govenrment requiring security clearances. Foreign firms can get security clearances, but it's much harder than for domestic firms.
If it's easier for citizens to get a security clearance than foreign nationals, why would anyone think the same should not apply to computers? When you have a multitude of domestic companies to buy from, why choose a Chinese company?
Evolution proceeds by mutation, not by normal species variance. At least according to most modern theories. While a mutation falls far short of defining a new species, it is still a measurable discrete event and thus not at all analogous to Zeno's paradox.
My story is remarkable similar, even down to the FDA approval. Except that we were doing realtime embedded Unix in C/C++, and management wanted us to do realtime embedded Windows XP Pro in C#/.NET. It was decided (by non-engineers) that it would be easier to port over the Unix/C++ code to WinXP/C#, than to start from scratch. This was five years ago. We still don't have a new product out.
p.s. An hour ago as I was walking to lunch, I overheard one of upper management on his cell phone saying, "they're all old school Unix people, they don't know how to use Windows tools." I have no idea if he was excusing or blaming us, but I suspect the latter.
Developers who don't want a copy of their code closed, should not be contributing to popular BSD/MIT licensed projects. It's no big deal.
What is a big deal, is when you start telling other people where the should or should not contribute. Do what ever you want to do and I'll be happy, but when you start telling me what to do, you've crossed over the line into rudeness. There is a fine line between freedom and speech and freedom to be an asshole.
Funny you should say this. Forty years ago a student at my alma mater had the ability to hear a song once and then accurately transcribe the complete score. As a large part of a school band's expenses go towards sheet music, the band directory happily used his ability. So for a couple of years, every time a new hit song came on the radio (and in the 60's, most hit songs were actually good as well) the band would be playing it at the next football games halftime show. A decade and some later when I was in high school band, they still had a lot of his transcribed scores of "classic" 60's hits.
But then ASCAP (the RIAA's little brother), found out about it and sued. But they quickly settled, because the school was an dues paying ASCAP member. The school had to stop the practice, but that was it. Unlike the RIAA, the ASCAP knew that if it sued every school band who wasn't 100% in compliance would cause massive negative publicity.
The problem was that for those two hundred plus years, a social conservative was nothing more than a traditionalist. But in the last fifteen years or so, big government populism has overtaken social conservatives. The big debate is no longer between big government versus small government, it's between left leaning big government and right leaning big government. Small government proponents have been shouted down on BOTH sides of the spectrum.
Yesterday I was at Fry's with a Mac friend. Fry's had a shrink wrap bundle of three boxes: a popular firewall, a popular anti-virus, and a popular anti-spyware. My friend picked up up, looked at the covers, turned it over and looked at the back, and finally asked: "What does it do?"
Slashdot Mirror
Nonsense. Trolltech cannot make Qt less free, according to a legal guarantee they made with KDE. http://www.kde.org/whatiskde/kdefreeqtfoundation.p hp
They reason they are going public is because the owners are selling the company. Period. The type of business this is doesn't need huge influxes of capital to grow.
p.s. I just hope they don't become a huge impersonal amoral company, like Google did when it went public.
I'm saying we should change that.
Then you have to change society. And do it without the use of government force. The main reason society has morals is not religion, but because they are necessary for the health of the society. It's not about orange hats or discussing politics in the workplace. There's a reason nearly every society in history had marriage, every society rejects dishonesty and promotes honor, and every society encourages conformity.
Nothing is stopping you from forming your OWN society. If you are unable to mold society into your own image, you will have to start one you can. Nonconformists throughout history did this. It's the number one reason North America got colonized by Europe (and I greatly suspect the Amerindians started off as Asian nonconformists as well). Communes are common in US history, all started by people who didn't want to be a part of the mainstream: Amana, Kaweah, etc. Heck, we have an entire state that was founded by a group of people who didn't like the idea of monogamy!
Instead of bitching about how horrible everything is, be thankful you're living in the most tolerant culture the world has ever seen.
You are correct in that we should not be exanding government power. But that does not mean we should completely abandon security entirely.
Saying they hate us because of our freedom is correct, though not a complete answer. They hate us because our women have the freedom to wear bathing suits. They hate us because we have the freedom to worship (or not) as we choose. They hate us because we allow Jews to live freely in our land.
Earlier terrorist ideologies may have been based in warped varieties of Marxism, but the current terrorist ideology is based on a warped variety of Islam. One of their central tenets is universal obedience to a theocratic state.
So, then, Nixon should have served out the remainder of his term without anyone knowing about Watergate?
That's a complete non-sequitur. There is a universe of difference between investigating a break-in and exposing field agents.
No, I won't replace the word. Law IS NOT morality! They are two different concepts. Do not mistake me for a leftist who seeks to ban all they find unacceptable. Government is not society. There are acts that a society may choose to not accept, yet not make those acts crimes. If you have trouble understanding this, then you are confusing law with morality.
Just because something is legal does not mean it is moral.
No, merely that an ideology should appoint spokesmen from the mainstream, not the radical fringes.
We need a society ... holds all other things not only legal, but acceptable.
The problem with your viewpoint is that it equates legality with morality. You're not much different from those that would legislate morality. But instead of expanding the law to encompass all of morality, you're shrinking morality to fit within the narrow confines of the law. Both are wrong.
I can agree with the idea that the government should not be banning non-violent actions, but as for accepting them, that's going too far. There are a great many actions that should be legal, but not socially acceptable. Drug use, for example. Go fry your brain out with chemicals all you want, but don't expect me to accept you.
they want perform blanket surveillance on all American citizens; to listen to all our calls, all the time.
You've just gone over the deep end, sir. Do you want someone to throw you a floatation device?
It's not much different from the so-called liberals, who can tolerate no disagreement. If you didn't vote for Kerry it must be because you are Bush's love slave. If you were in favor of the Iraqi invasion then it stands to reason that you're in total agreement with every one of Bush's domestic policies. If you're suspicious of claims that reporters critical of the Bush administration are being shipped off to the Gitmo abattoir, then it's obvious you're a redneck hick from a red county in a red state who probably even goes to church occasionally, and you don't deserve to breed. Freedom of speech and press only extends to ideologically pure progressives, everything else must be banned as hate speech.
An irrational rant? Of course it is! But so was the parent post. For every conservative you can find that matches Valar's post, I can find one liberal that matches mine.
If terrorists attack your home town, it will not be because someone in power provoked them, it will be because if what the terrorists did! The goal of islamist terrorism is world domination. We did not provoke them for 9/11, but they did it anyway. Why did they attack? Because of who we are. Because we are not Wahabbist Muslims. Because our females wear bathing suits. Because we have freedom of religion. Because we are a wealthy society. Because we value individualism, democracy and freedom.
So you're saying we should ignore terrorism just because it doesn't kill all that many people, relatively speaking? Hell, by that logic would should stop paying attention to airline safety, because so few people die in airplane crashes!
You must weigh the costs of the additional protective measures against the risk. Some measures are clearly too costly. But forbidding newspapers from publishing classified materials? Don't make me laugh! They shouldn't be doing that anyways, regardless of the terrorism threat.
The Constitution trumps everything
The Constitution gets violated every day of the week, and it has been since the day it was ratified. Yet no one ever bothered to complain about it until Bush got elected.
You can't use your free speech to endanger people. This has been ruled on numerous times. Yell "fire" in a crowded theater and you go to jail. How come no one ever complains about that? Engage in libel and slander, and you place yourself in legal jeopardy, regardless of what you think about the first ammendment. Publish the names of those in the witness protection program, and you are clearly violating the law.
Gonzalez didn't make up this policy, it's been around for at least a century, if not longer. But it wasn't until TODAY that anyone complained about it.
The problem is, banning guns is like banning Perl. It only stops the law adiding citizen. Criminals do not obey the law, that's why they are criminals.
The purpose of handguns may be to shoot people, but it's shooting for the purpose of defense, and not the perpetration of crime. There are also many legal and moral secondary purposes for guns that do not involve crime (or even shooting people).
Thus it is the same argument as hammers. If guns can be banned because they *could* be used to commit a crime, then why not hammers? Or Perl?
It's a laptop. Why the heck would anyone want to fun games on it?
If it's a classified network, of course they won't. Don't be stupid.
Do you want to guarantee you can't get outsourced? Be a US citizen working for a US company that does work for the US govenrment requiring security clearances. Foreign firms can get security clearances, but it's much harder than for domestic firms.
If it's easier for citizens to get a security clearance than foreign nationals, why would anyone think the same should not apply to computers? When you have a multitude of domestic companies to buy from, why choose a Chinese company?
Evolution proceeds by mutation, not by normal species variance. At least according to most modern theories. While a mutation falls far short of defining a new species, it is still a measurable discrete event and thus not at all analogous to Zeno's paradox.
My story is remarkable similar, even down to the FDA approval. Except that we were doing realtime embedded Unix in C/C++, and management wanted us to do realtime embedded Windows XP Pro in C#/.NET. It was decided (by non-engineers) that it would be easier to port over the Unix/C++ code to WinXP/C#, than to start from scratch. This was five years ago. We still don't have a new product out.
p.s. An hour ago as I was walking to lunch, I overheard one of upper management on his cell phone saying, "they're all old school Unix people, they don't know how to use Windows tools." I have no idea if he was excusing or blaming us, but I suspect the latter.
Developers who don't want a copy of their code closed, should not be contributing to popular BSD/MIT licensed projects. It's no big deal.
What is a big deal, is when you start telling other people where the should or should not contribute. Do what ever you want to do and I'll be happy, but when you start telling me what to do, you've crossed over the line into rudeness. There is a fine line between freedom and speech and freedom to be an asshole.
Funny you should say this. Forty years ago a student at my alma mater had the ability to hear a song once and then accurately transcribe the complete score. As a large part of a school band's expenses go towards sheet music, the band directory happily used his ability. So for a couple of years, every time a new hit song came on the radio (and in the 60's, most hit songs were actually good as well) the band would be playing it at the next football games halftime show. A decade and some later when I was in high school band, they still had a lot of his transcribed scores of "classic" 60's hits.
But then ASCAP (the RIAA's little brother), found out about it and sued. But they quickly settled, because the school was an dues paying ASCAP member. The school had to stop the practice, but that was it. Unlike the RIAA, the ASCAP knew that if it sued every school band who wasn't 100% in compliance would cause massive negative publicity.
The problem was that for those two hundred plus years, a social conservative was nothing more than a traditionalist. But in the last fifteen years or so, big government populism has overtaken social conservatives. The big debate is no longer between big government versus small government, it's between left leaning big government and right leaning big government. Small government proponents have been shouted down on BOTH sides of the spectrum.
Yesterday I was at Fry's with a Mac friend. Fry's had a shrink wrap bundle of three boxes: a popular firewall, a popular anti-virus, and a popular anti-spyware. My friend picked up up, looked at the covers, turned it over and looked at the back, and finally asked: "What does it do?"
My answer was, "It makes Windows work."
On the other hand, there are a ton of forks off of Mozilla.