I agree that some (perhaps many) modern firms are amazingly short sighted. I think that painting capitalism itself with the same brush is going a bit far, though. The market still works the same way; those companies that are short sighted will be short lived.
OK, my fault for not being more clear what I mean by "maximizing profits". Obviously a company can have a higher local maximum profit by firing everyone and selling current inventory. Their long term maximum, however, would be rather significantly reduced.
Likewise, only hiring people willing to work for no benies and $5 an hour also might cause a local spike in profits, but long term profits would be low because of competition by firms willing to invest more to get a better product to sell.
I'm the first to admit that I have much to learn. When I run out of things to learn I'll run out of reasons to live. Educate me. What factors (that don't lead to long-term maximization of profit) am I missing?
Then your management isn't as competant as they could be. Fine. So what.
Focus on profit doesn't imply heartlessness. In fact the total benefit to the economy (of wich we are all a part) is much greater when a business maximizes its profits.
Note that it often is necessary to treat your emplyees damn well to maximize your profits. If you don't, you may lose them to a competitor or another industry. It's hard to make profits without product.
Yup. Was lower-middle class as a kid. Now am middle class. Will be upper middle class someday, if not better, unless I'm not.
You can draw your line wherever you want, but the fact still remains that an individual can improve their lot. Not infinatly, and not without cost (in hard work and time that could be spent in other ways).
For example, barring some chance event, I'll never be rich. Can't happen. I started applying basic economics to my life to late to catch up. But my lot has improved greately because of my hard work and rational application of basic economics. I believe that it will improve more over time, as well.
So, a person who is poor today will not be rich tomorrow. But they can, over time, become better off than they are. Perhaps even reach lower middle class. And if they pass on to their children the wisdom they have gained and the work ethic thy used in applying that wisdom, their kids can do better still.
The number of bulshit statements in your post lead me to believe that either you are a troll, a moron or simply ignorant. I'm going to assume the latter, though I'm bound to regret it.
"People cannot form unions since our pseudogovernment has completely undermined them."
Unions have undermined themselves. The reality is that unions are mostly superfluous. If people were not such sheep, and if (possibly well meaning) politicians would stop interfering with the market, this whole issue would sort itself out.
"Public education is a malformed joked, being actively disassembled by conservative treachery and liberal stupidity."
While I agree that public education is rapidly becoming a bad joke, it is only because of the lack of market forces that this is so. If people could vote with their feet (and cash), shools would have to compete for students in order to stay in business. If they provided inferior product, people could go elsewhere. Of course, that assumes that the parents would have any clue as to how well little Jonney or Jenny is being educated. But that's their responsibility.
"You can't make a decent living doing honest work."
I can't! Damn. Guess I'll just go home then. I came from a lower middle-class family. Only got two years of post-HS education (no degree). I worked blue collar jobs for about half my working life. Yet I'm doing ok (our household income is in the $90K - $120K+ range).
"You can't get an education unless you come from an already fairly affluent family."
Huh. Again, I suppose I should go home now. I must not actually know all the programming languages I'm using. I must not have the problem solving skills I need every day to get my job done. I must not have the communications skills that are necessary to interact with all the people I need to interact with daily. Hell, I may as well just go apply for wellfare now. After all, as I said before, my family was barlely middle class; certainly not affluent. And when the scolarship that I received from the construction company my dad works for (as a lobor forman) ran out, I chose to quit school because I didn't have the motivation and wisdom to find another way to get the money. Yet I work on an peer basis with folks who have their MS. Why? Because I chose to educate myself. I'm reasonably intellegent, and it didn't take me all that long to get pretty good at programming, network design, etc. It was hard work to get into the field, but hey, hard work pays off.
"So...if you are not already comfortable...you can't get comfortable."
Hmm. I was a broom pusher, a floor machine operator, a "would you like fries with that?" guy, a forklift driver, a truck unloader. Max wage was approx $12 during that time. Not overly comfortable. Yet now I'm a well paid computer profesional. How can that be? According to you, it cannot be.
" Wasn't the great game of America supposed to be social mobility?"
Nope. opportunity for said social mobility, on the other hand, is the "great game of America". But opportunity is not a free ride; it means you are free to reach for the brass ring, but if you areen't willing to hang on tight enough, or werent' willing to build yourself a ladder to be able to reach it, or fail for some other reason, too bad. Thank you for playing. Please try again soon!
"Guess what, tough guy, my family was already well off when I was educated. I'll bet my life yours was too."
Don't make that bet. Depending upon your definition of "well off", you'd lose. Again, we didn't starve, we had clothes on our backs and a roof over our heads. Hell, we did allright. But I had no monetary support (other than a few small loans, a few hundred dollars at a time) after highschool. Yet I'm doing ok. Please explain that.
Saftey standards? How does that even apply. It's not like a few (or even many) paper-cuts are a saftey issue.
This sounds like a perfect opportunity for an invention. These workers need gloves tough enough to protect their hands from paper cuts, but thin and slightly tacky, so they can open the plastic bags. Perhaps some type of latex? Either that, or the plastic bags could be dispensed by a machine that gives a little puff of air to pop them open as they are dispensed, perhaps with a bit of corn starch to keep it seperated. Probably not even all that expensive a machine to build.
The whole point of business is the bottom line. Companies that are not primarily focused on turning a profit have a special name: failed. How much good does a failed company do for the economy?
If you are easily replaceable, that's your own damn fault. The fact that there are those willing to replace you means that the job, however foul to you, is desirable to others. If you want a job that is more palatable to you, do what it takes to get one. Learn a skill, learn a trade, start your own business; whatever it takes. If you choose not to take the steps necessary to improve your lot, you have only yourself to blame.
As for your comment about production line automation, I cannot remember a time that production line automation came to a plant that formerly employed human labor to do the job that didn't result in much wailing and gnashing of teeth when said workers were laid off. How does replacing workers help them?
Or are you suggesting that the firm should automate the line, then keep the workers on as paid spectators?
I'm glad you now have a more skilled position; it's nice to improve your lot, isn't it?
Should the US prohibit the export of high-encryption software? Here is a case where the default values (40 bit) clearly helped recover valuable information from a system.
By that logic we should ban all encryption, because obviously it would be even easier to recover valuable information from systems. Even better, keep low-strength encryption, but require all communications and OS sotfware to forward all encrypted messages to a government repository. The govt. copy obviously be encrypted using a different key so that the proper officials can access the plain text.
I wish the dager inherent in that kind of logic were obvious to more people, but in the post 9/11 US everyone seems to be competing to see who can give up the most liberty in the pursuit of saftey.
Furthermore, the export vs. domestic distiction is worthless. How hard is it to just have someone in the US purchase a domestic copy (using cash, even), then send it to a foreign mail drop? For that matter, it's not like encryption only exists inside the US borders.
Bottom line: While I have no magic answer to being able to catch all the bad guys, I strongly oppose misguided disposal of our liberties.
On the one hand, it's a simple fact that a company cannot afford to support a product line in perpetuity. We "End of Life" old products eventually, but we do it over a reasonable period of time. Our users get something like five years fair warning. Even then, it's not like the stuff stops working; we simply stop supporting it (unless a special support contract has been arranged for) and stop updating the sw & fw.
It's a simple matter of focus. We cannot provide the high level of support we want to if we spread our support staff too thinly. Neither can we create new and better product if our engineering cycles are stuck frobbing and tweaking the old stuff.
Granted, by the time EoF is reached, the product pretty much just works. And no one is stopping anyone from using it forever. But a company can only keep its left foot so far behind its right foot before it falls on its ass. Ok, strained metaphore, but the point is still valid, IMHO.
On the other hand, sw or hw that just stops working (or starts extorting) after a period of time is just wrong. Again, dropping support (including things like anti-virus updates) after a while is just fine. Many products really do need to evolve. Using sw to hold your customer hostage, on the other hand...
Imagine a word processor that, at the designated EoL, would only come up and say "I'm sorry, Dave. I don't think I can do that. Please see your software retailer for the latest version of WordFrob, which may well allow you to open your old files, if you hurry!". Or a mail server that, when EoL is reached, sends a message to the BSA when you try to send mail with it, resulting in jack-booted thugs at your door shortly later.
Anyway, though I think some of what was mentioned in the artical was iffy, most of it was perfectly understandable. Much of the whining, bitching and moaning here is just uninformed tripe. Though I concede that there are companies out there that really do their best to keep users on an upgrade treadmill, most companies just want to put out new and better product. I wish that at some point Intel would have grown a pair and pulled the plug on many of the crap in their processor design that's only there for backwards compatability. Not all at once, of course, but a sliding window of support makes perfect sense, both economically and technically.
#include// my opinions are my own, not my employer's and all that
Where the hell do you get off? It isn't your time or resources the developers are using. Did you stop for a moment to think that perhaps those responsible are doing it because it would be usefull for them? For that matter, maybe they're doing it because they can?
Personally, I think they're doing it so that they can watch all the whining little leaches get their panties in a bunch over it.
Stallman wants to save me from myself. Thanks, but no thanks. He's got as much right as anyone else to run for the board, but I (as a Gnome user) really hope he doesn't get elected.
Free software is a grand thing. I use it, and contribute occasionally. I also have no ethical problem with proprietary software. I personally avoid it, mostly because of two reasons, both practical:
1. If I have the source, I can fix and/or extend the code w/o waiting for the upstream vendor. And yes, I do use that freedom -- often enough to not want to do w/o it.
2. If I have the source, I'm not screwed when the upstream vendor loses interest, goes out of business or takes the code in some really spactacularly stupid direction.
After reading rms's screed about how I shouldn't be able to choose the license for my code, since after all, it isn't really my code at all. It's "the community's" code, right?
ATI fucked up. I didn't realize they had messed with the visuals. It's one thing to optimize for the/a common case, another alltogether to give low quality when high quality was explicitly requested.
That's just wrong.
Thank you (and the others) for the correction.
And rms vanished in a puff of logic ...
on
Freedom or Power?
·
· Score: 1
Jesus H. Christ on a popsicle stick. I've always known that rms was a bit left of center, but wow. No really, I mean wow.
IMO, any exchange that doesn't represent a value for value transaction is inherently harmfull to both parties. If I choose to give code I wrote to another, gratis, that's great. As long as I can honestly say that I'm getting a fair trade, that is. My "payment" may be in the ego stroke of seeing someone else getting value from my work, the gratitude of that other person, or even just the relief of seeing that I didn't waste my time creating the software.
Now, if I find that I'm giving my software away, but getting no return, there's a problem. It doesn't matter why I'm making the "sacrifice"; it only matters that it is harmfull. Regardless whether I do it because I'm pathetic enough to give in to "peer pressure", or if I'm forced to by Stallman's brown shirts someday in the future when we all get the great pleasure of living in rms's "utopia", it's causing me harm. And, when the other person gets "something for nothing", it fundamentally causes them harm; by not requiring them to return value for value, they are weakend. They become a little less autonomous, a little less independant, and, frankly, a little less free.
I've got nothing against the idea of free software ; in fact I do my best to use nothing else. However, I always do my best to make it a value for value proposition. Sometimes I pay for the free software, sometimes I offer bug fixes, sometimes I only offer bug reports (though I try to make them usefull) and sometimes I only return the value through praise and promotion; regardless, I do my best to hold up my end of the transaction.
Stallman and Co. are trying to rob me of my freedom by making me dependant upon others. By them preventing me of placing value on my creations, the would rob me of the ability to enter honestly into transactions with other. From each according to their ability, to each according to their need is bullshit. From each according to their will, to each according to their ability to match value for value. That works in the real world, and is healthy for all involved. Bottom line: enlightened self interest is good.
Bah. This whole argument tires me. Stallman can think and do what he wants, and I certainly appreciate his "gifts". However, I reject his moral superiority, and I reject (and will defend myself against) his attempts at stealing from me the fundamental right to trade value for value with others.
Let me get this straight. ATI takes the time to create optimizations in their drivers that make Quake III run faster, and people are unhappy about it?
I'm not implying that ATI did it in a selfless manner; enlightened self interest is a good thing. ATI does well in reviews and Quake III players that buy ATI cards get faster operation. Other than the competition, who loses here?
It's not as if ATI contracted with id to make other games slower. They just chose to optimize for the common case. There's a phrase to describe that type of choice: Good engineering.
There's another as well, that I suspect may be a part of the "controversy" here: Good business. And as we all know, business is bad.
<sigh>
Maybe I'm wrong, and folks just haven't taken the time to think about this issue and instead are reacting w/o understanding. Frankly, I'm not sure which thought depresses me more.
This just further illustrates the strength of an open development process. There was a problem, and that fact was discussed openly and pointedly. That scares many people. I don't get why. It's code, not a person. It doesn't look like Rik is taking it very hard, at least as far as his posting on lkml shows.
I like to think of Linux development as sort of a modified IETF style: rough consensus and running code, with a sprinkle of holy penguin pee when Linus thinks it's ready to ship. Linus saw a problem, had a solution presented to him, and just went for it. Alan thought it was a bit insane to switch horses in midstream. I would normally agree with Alan; better to try to get the horse you're on to do the job than try to jump to another one. Worry about getting a newer, better horse once you're safely on the other bank.
Given the time frame for 2.5/2.6, though, and given the seriousness of the VM issues, I can see why Linus decided to take the risk. Apparently so does Alan. I'm kindof anal about release numbers, so I'd probably have started a 2.5 branch to test the new VM in, and refused any other changes, then released 2.6 with the new VM. That fundamental a change should probably get a point increase in version number.
Regardless, the short version is that this is much to do about nothing. The rest of the industry just isn't used to seeing this sort of thing happen in plain view. It normally happens behind the scenes, with a carefully scripted spin put on it by marketing. Maybe if they see the process work enough times people will become comfortable with it. I doubt it.
Ok, smartass comments aside, your news is bitter sweet.
On sweet side, HP calculators rock beyond human reckoning, and it's great to hear they're still making them. My last one was stolen about a year ago. The only reason I've not purchased a new one is because they don't make one I really want.
Which brings me to the bitter side. What I really want is a brand new 16C. I've been hoping that someday HP would answer my prayers and reintroduce the old 16C. I love the horizontal format, the adjustable word size, and the *click* keys. A new one with even larger word sizes and a real alpha-numeric display (as long as it's crispy sharp), perhaps even two line, would make me a very happy geek.
Ok, that's not likely to happen. <sigh> I guess it's of to EBay I go, then.
In a "corporate-run" world, taxes still go to the govt, who continues to spend the money inefficiently. Lots and lots of those tax dollars come from those corporations. The money that the corporations make does flow back to the public, through wages, dividends on stocks, charitable giving for PR reasons, and, if the corporation gets successfull enough, they even go to massive infrastructure investments (i.e. communications, transportation and power distribution).
The real difference is: when a corporation gets really big and it is no longer in your best interest to "support" them with your hard earned dollars, you can choose not to. Try that with the government.
The fact is that neither corporations nor govt is inherently evil. They are both made up of people. Hopefully most of those people are driven by enlightened self interest. It's when the balance falls too much toward either "enlightenment" or self interest that things tend to go all to hell.
I'm serious. I don't understand what else it could be. Saying that their music sucks is one thing. That's a matter of taste and if, like me, you just don't like their music, then fine. I get that.
But WTF is up with the whole "corporate sellout" thing? Why do you care?
I wish I had enough money to tak out a few newspaper adds against him.
Well do it while you legally can, boyo. If Feingold, McCain and all their (possibly well meaning but still dangerous) followers succede in getting "campain finance reform" passed, you won't be able to spend your money on those adds. That's ok, I'm sure the media will get all the information out w/o bias. Yup, sure they will, because, as we all know, our media in this country have no agenda or bias at all.
Slashdot Mirror
I agree that some (perhaps many) modern firms are amazingly short sighted. I think that painting capitalism itself with the same brush is going a bit far, though. The market still works the same way; those companies that are short sighted will be short lived.
Likewise, only hiring people willing to work for no benies and $5 an hour also might cause a local spike in profits, but long term profits would be low because of competition by firms willing to invest more to get a better product to sell.
I'm the first to admit that I have much to learn. When I run out of things to learn I'll run out of reasons to live. Educate me. What factors (that don't lead to long-term maximization of profit) am I missing?
I think a good place to start would be by naming one of my "faulty preconceptions".
Focus on profit doesn't imply heartlessness. In fact the total benefit to the economy (of wich we are all a part) is much greater when a business maximizes its profits.
Note that it often is necessary to treat your emplyees damn well to maximize your profits. If you don't, you may lose them to a competitor or another industry. It's hard to make profits without product.
You can draw your line wherever you want, but the fact still remains that an individual can improve their lot. Not infinatly, and not without cost (in hard work and time that could be spent in other ways).
For example, barring some chance event, I'll never be rich. Can't happen. I started applying basic economics to my life to late to catch up. But my lot has improved greately because of my hard work and rational application of basic economics. I believe that it will improve more over time, as well.
So, a person who is poor today will not be rich tomorrow. But they can, over time, become better off than they are. Perhaps even reach lower middle class. And if they pass on to their children the wisdom they have gained and the work ethic thy used in applying that wisdom, their kids can do better still.
Bottom line is: TANSTAAFL.
This sounds like a perfect opportunity for an invention. These workers need gloves tough enough to protect their hands from paper cuts, but thin and slightly tacky, so they can open the plastic bags. Perhaps some type of latex? Either that, or the plastic bags could be dispensed by a machine that gives a little puff of air to pop them open as they are dispensed, perhaps with a bit of corn starch to keep it seperated. Probably not even all that expensive a machine to build.
Or they could whine about it.
Which sounds more likely to solve the problem?
If you are easily replaceable, that's your own damn fault. The fact that there are those willing to replace you means that the job, however foul to you, is desirable to others. If you want a job that is more palatable to you, do what it takes to get one. Learn a skill, learn a trade, start your own business; whatever it takes. If you choose not to take the steps necessary to improve your lot, you have only yourself to blame.
As for your comment about production line automation, I cannot remember a time that production line automation came to a plant that formerly employed human labor to do the job that didn't result in much wailing and gnashing of teeth when said workers were laid off. How does replacing workers help them?
Or are you suggesting that the firm should automate the line, then keep the workers on as paid spectators?
I'm glad you now have a more skilled position; it's nice to improve your lot, isn't it?
By that logic we should ban all encryption, because obviously it would be even easier to recover valuable information from systems. Even better, keep low-strength encryption, but require all communications and OS sotfware to forward all encrypted messages to a government repository. The govt. copy obviously be encrypted using a different key so that the proper officials can access the plain text.
I wish the dager inherent in that kind of logic were obvious to more people, but in the post 9/11 US everyone seems to be competing to see who can give up the most liberty in the pursuit of saftey.
Furthermore, the export vs. domestic distiction is worthless. How hard is it to just have someone in the US purchase a domestic copy (using cash, even), then send it to a foreign mail drop? For that matter, it's not like encryption only exists inside the US borders.
Bottom line: While I have no magic answer to being able to catch all the bad guys, I strongly oppose misguided disposal of our liberties.
Well, more accurately, cockroaches and Dick Clark's hair.
It's a simple matter of focus. We cannot provide the high level of support we want to if we spread our support staff too thinly. Neither can we create new and better product if our engineering cycles are stuck frobbing and tweaking the old stuff.
Granted, by the time EoF is reached, the product pretty much just works. And no one is stopping anyone from using it forever. But a company can only keep its left foot so far behind its right foot before it falls on its ass. Ok, strained metaphore, but the point is still valid, IMHO.
On the other hand, sw or hw that just stops working (or starts extorting) after a period of time is just wrong . Again, dropping support (including things like anti-virus updates) after a while is just fine. Many products really do need to evolve. Using sw to hold your customer hostage, on the other hand ...
Imagine a word processor that, at the designated EoL, would only come up and say "I'm sorry, Dave. I don't think I can do that. Please see your software retailer for the latest version of WordFrob, which may well allow you to open your old files, if you hurry!". Or a mail server that, when EoL is reached, sends a message to the BSA when you try to send mail with it, resulting in jack-booted thugs at your door shortly later.
Anyway, though I think some of what was mentioned in the artical was iffy, most of it was perfectly understandable. Much of the whining, bitching and moaning here is just uninformed tripe. Though I concede that there are companies out there that really do their best to keep users on an upgrade treadmill, most companies just want to put out new and better product. I wish that at some point Intel would have grown a pair and pulled the plug on many of the crap in their processor design that's only there for backwards compatability. Not all at once, of course, but a sliding window of support makes perfect sense, both economically and technically.
#include // my opinions are my own, not my employer's and all that
Personally, I think they're doing it so that they can watch all the whining little leaches get their panties in a bunch over it.
Apparently they're already successfull.
Free software is a grand thing. I use it, and contribute occasionally. I also have no ethical problem with proprietary software. I personally avoid it, mostly because of two reasons, both practical:
1. If I have the source, I can fix and/or extend the code w/o waiting for the upstream vendor. And yes, I do use that freedom -- often enough to not want to do w/o it.
2. If I have the source, I'm not screwed when the upstream vendor loses interest, goes out of business or takes the code in some really spactacularly stupid direction.
After reading rms's screed about how I shouldn't be able to choose the license for my code, since after all, it isn't really my code at all. It's "the community's" code, right?
<sigh>
ATI fucked up. I didn't realize they had messed with the visuals. It's one thing to optimize for the/a common case, another alltogether to give low quality when high quality was explicitly requested.
That's just wrong.
Thank you (and the others) for the correction.
IMO, any exchange that doesn't represent a value for value transaction is inherently harmfull to both parties. If I choose to give code I wrote to another, gratis, that's great. As long as I can honestly say that I'm getting a fair trade, that is. My "payment" may be in the ego stroke of seeing someone else getting value from my work, the gratitude of that other person, or even just the relief of seeing that I didn't waste my time creating the software.
Now, if I find that I'm giving my software away, but getting no return, there's a problem. It doesn't matter why I'm making the "sacrifice"; it only matters that it is harmfull. Regardless whether I do it because I'm pathetic enough to give in to "peer pressure", or if I'm forced to by Stallman's brown shirts someday in the future when we all get the great pleasure of living in rms's "utopia", it's causing me harm. And, when the other person gets "something for nothing", it fundamentally causes them harm; by not requiring them to return value for value, they are weakend. They become a little less autonomous, a little less independant, and, frankly, a little less free.
I've got nothing against the idea of free software ; in fact I do my best to use nothing else. However, I always do my best to make it a value for value proposition. Sometimes I pay for the free software, sometimes I offer bug fixes, sometimes I only offer bug reports (though I try to make them usefull) and sometimes I only return the value through praise and promotion; regardless, I do my best to hold up my end of the transaction.
Stallman and Co. are trying to rob me of my freedom by making me dependant upon others. By them preventing me of placing value on my creations, the would rob me of the ability to enter honestly into transactions with other. From each according to their ability, to each according to their need is bullshit. From each according to their will, to each according to their ability to match value for value. That works in the real world, and is healthy for all involved. Bottom line: enlightened self interest is good.
Bah. This whole argument tires me. Stallman can think and do what he wants, and I certainly appreciate his "gifts". However, I reject his moral superiority, and I reject (and will defend myself against) his attempts at stealing from me the fundamental right to trade value for value with others.
I was just about to ebay mine. Now I have to wait until they get harder to find so I can get a few bucks for it.
I'm not implying that ATI did it in a selfless manner; enlightened self interest is a good thing. ATI does well in reviews and Quake III players that buy ATI cards get faster operation. Other than the competition, who loses here?
It's not as if ATI contracted with id to make other games slower. They just chose to optimize for the common case. There's a phrase to describe that type of choice: Good engineering.
There's another as well, that I suspect may be a part of the "controversy" here: Good business. And as we all know, business is bad.
<sigh>
Maybe I'm wrong, and folks just haven't taken the time to think about this issue and instead are reacting w/o understanding. Frankly, I'm not sure which thought depresses me more.
No. I don't.
If I took the time to research every unsubstantiated claim made here on /., I wouldn't get any code written. Nor have time for much of anything else.
Given that the linked page specifically contraticted the poster's claims I don't think it's unreasonable to request substantiation of those claims.
I'll grant that I could have been "nicer" about it. So what. I could have turned the torch up much higher, as well.
You claim Apple has since updated their policy WRT this patent. Offer up a link or admit you're simply acting as an appologist for Apple and STFU.
BTW, if you can offer a link showing that Apple has changed their stance on this pantent, then it's (once again) /. that should STFU.
I like to think of Linux development as sort of a modified IETF style: rough consensus and running code, with a sprinkle of holy penguin pee when Linus thinks it's ready to ship. Linus saw a problem, had a solution presented to him, and just went for it. Alan thought it was a bit insane to switch horses in midstream. I would normally agree with Alan; better to try to get the horse you're on to do the job than try to jump to another one. Worry about getting a newer, better horse once you're safely on the other bank.
Given the time frame for 2.5/2.6, though, and given the seriousness of the VM issues, I can see why Linus decided to take the risk. Apparently so does Alan. I'm kindof anal about release numbers, so I'd probably have started a 2.5 branch to test the new VM in, and refused any other changes, then released 2.6 with the new VM. That fundamental a change should probably get a point increase in version number.
Regardless, the short version is that this is much to do about nothing. The rest of the industry just isn't used to seeing this sort of thing happen in plain view. It normally happens behind the scenes, with a carefully scripted spin put on it by marketing. Maybe if they see the process work enough times people will become comfortable with it. I doubt it.
Ok, smartass comments aside, your news is bitter sweet.
On sweet side, HP calculators rock beyond human reckoning, and it's great to hear they're still making them. My last one was stolen about a year ago. The only reason I've not purchased a new one is because they don't make one I really want.
Which brings me to the bitter side. What I really want is a brand new 16C. I've been hoping that someday HP would answer my prayers and reintroduce the old 16C. I love the horizontal format, the adjustable word size, and the *click* keys. A new one with even larger word sizes and a real alpha-numeric display (as long as it's crispy sharp), perhaps even two line, would make me a very happy geek.
Ok, that's not likely to happen. <sigh> I guess it's of to EBay I go, then.
Can we please let the whole "Eskimo" words for snow myth dye?
Please?
Actually, no, that's wrong.
In a "corporate-run" world, taxes still go to the govt, who continues to spend the money inefficiently. Lots and lots of those tax dollars come from those corporations. The money that the corporations make does flow back to the public, through wages, dividends on stocks, charitable giving for PR reasons, and, if the corporation gets successfull enough, they even go to massive infrastructure investments (i.e. communications, transportation and power distribution).
The real difference is: when a corporation gets really big and it is no longer in your best interest to "support" them with your hard earned dollars, you can choose not to. Try that with the government.
The fact is that neither corporations nor govt is inherently evil. They are both made up of people. Hopefully most of those people are driven by enlightened self interest. It's when the balance falls too much toward either "enlightenment" or self interest that things tend to go all to hell.
Is the envy that bad?
I'm serious. I don't understand what else it could be. Saying that their music sucks is one thing. That's a matter of taste and if, like me, you just don't like their music, then fine. I get that.
But WTF is up with the whole "corporate sellout" thing? Why do you care?
Well do it while you legally can, boyo. If Feingold, McCain and all their (possibly well meaning but still dangerous) followers succede in getting "campain finance reform" passed, you won't be able to spend your money on those adds. That's ok, I'm sure the media will get all the information out w/o bias. Yup, sure they will, because, as we all know, our media in this country have no agenda or bias at all.