And just an additional point: . "Well, we never were able to confirm Mr. Smith's identity, so tag him as John Doe, and send him to the morgue." . Ahhh, the future, so bright and promising!:)
...Mr. Smith, but we can't get you into surgery until we can confirm that you are who you say you are with your insurance company's new ID Theft prevention device. Yes, I know you're having a heart attack, but until you relax and let your heart beat normally, there's nothing we can do. It's standard procedure, and we entail great risk if we don't confirm that you are who you are, and use a similar device to unlock your current medical records as well. It's all part of that new "privacy act" they just passed. Yes, the one that requires you to explicitly give permission to share your medical information with the companies that are most likely to use your medical records against you, or else they won't cover your medical expenses. . Mr. Smith? Mr. Smith? Darn, lost another one to Geico!:) . (I don't have anything against Geico, it just works well with the Ditech theme.)
It's actually a pretty good tactic, at least in the short term. First, an aggressive attack tends to make even the stronger group (the EU, for this example) flinch and get defensive, buying the aggressive attackers a moment to regroup. Second, from a more political point, it tends to make the stronger group feel like the weaker group "doesn't get it", and the stronger group will expend more time and energy trying to explain it to the "confused" weaker side.
In doing this, MS is trying to force the EU commission to spend more of it's time and resources explaining to journalists and members that it's not actually picking on MS, that this is just something MS is creating to boost their image. It's also forcing the EU to go back and review their communications with MS, to clarify points that MS is pretending to be confused about. In the meantime, MS doesn't have to do anything more than keep spewing statements like this, and can spend the rest of it's efforts on finding a loophole to exploit.
Of course, the downside of doing this is that it only works for so long. Eventually they will have to come up with a means of escaping the mess, because once you use this kind of tactic, you make it real unlikely that the other side will be willing to accept a deal at the same level as they might have before. In fact, it's more likely that the other side won't accept anything less than total surrender, if it goes on long enough. However, it can be a signal of capitulation, if the weaker side simply want's to threaten to do as much damage as possible before the inevitable ending, something of a bargaining chip.
It all depends on how deeply MS tries to wound, and how long they play this game, but I agree, it's not a good sign for MS. If they were simply being "picked on", they would be able to toss up examples of other companies that do the same thing, and most people would agree, and it wouldn't be much of a debate.
Though it might be a bad comparison, it's still interesting to think of it in terms of MS being the Japanese army in WWII, and the Allies as the EU. The Japanese army at least seemed to be willing to fight to the last soldier, and the allies were gearing up for a gruesome fight. The Japanese simply didn't have the resources to fight every single allied soldier, so the tactic was to wear them down, create too many casualties to continue, as we've seen in wars since that time. However, I think MS can't fight a guerilla war like this, simply because the EU probably has a few nukes at their disposal as well, and MS is simply too big an entity to fight a guerilla war properly. At a fundamental level, despite their attacks on the EU, MS needs the EU's business and support, so fighting too hard may do more harm than just tempering the EU's attempt to balance the market. One thing MS doesn't need to do is inspire european nationalistic tendencies, as it did when it received it's non-punishment from the USDOJ.
I don't know about "forced to settle", but I think it's possible that in the long run, it might have been better for MS to admit they'd abused their power, accept some punishment that at least appeared to be a little harsh at the time (before Linux was as desktop friendly, and Apple was still trying to get it's house in order), and twist that into some sort of PR benefit. Getting a slap on the hand might have helped them retain their power at the time, but it also implied that they'd bought off the US government in some way, or just as damning, that the US government sees the established base of MS PC's overseas as an intelligence resource worth maintaining, regardless of MS's abuses.
In other words, by gaming the US system, MS simply brought out nationalistic tendencies in the countries they're desperately trying to increase their base in, and perked the ears of any country that might not want the US to have access to all their information. Instead of appearing to be an innocent company "picked on" by the US government, they simply confirmed that they're a company that will do anything to win. In doing so, they all but "dared" other countries to try and punish them. Unfortunately for MS, there are far too many countries out there who are more than willing to punish large US companies, especially in Europe.
It's just speculation, and in retrospect, nonetheless, but it's still an interesting idea, to me.
On the upside, it might mean that asteroids are getting smaller, as nuclear stockpiles aren't anywhere where they used to be during the cold war, due to lack of incentive and degradation over time.
Besides, who really knows the effect of all those things going off? It seems awfully unscientific to proclaim such things without setting off all the world's nuclear weapons to establish a control baseline.:)
Ah, if it were only that long. About 3 billion years from now, Andromeda will collide with the Milky way, and over the course of the next 500 million+ years, the two will interact, until they combine into a larger system. The best part? Some of the more intricate simulations have our solar system being launched directly into the center of the combined system. I.e., we're going to have to get a whole lot further away than a few solar systems, because our region of the galaxy is gonna find out what really happens when you enter a black hole. Not that that will matter much anyway, as the increased radiation from the center of the galaxy, or collision with another solar system will have already done us in by that time.
On the upside, at least we dealt with that Janet Jackson Super Bowl problem.:)
Are you kidding? At Hollywood's rate of increasing greed, by 2100+, they'll not only have DRM cracking worthy of capital punishment, but they'll have implemented both DNA replication for actors as well. No sense only being able to replicate copyrights like Mickey Mouse, might as well have the "DNA rights" to Bruce Willis and others, too. Of course, they'll have to appease the fundamentalist christians, and make sure that their clones aren't "real people", which will have the added benefit of not having to pay the clones, either.
Of course, if NASA wants to borrow "New Bruce", it'll cost them a hefty penny, and Hollywood will retain all rights to the project, including any technology used to save the planet. Ah, what a fine future for our children...:)
I like how they'd like to stop using the Torino scale, because it might alarm people. Isn't that kind of the purpose, to indicate varying levels of worry?
>>If it hits Australia, well, not much impact on earth population.
Well, aside from the possibility of tsunamis whipping across the Pacific and wiping out Chinese/Indian coastal cities anyway, I'd hazard a guess that Australians probably think the impact on earth's population would be pretty severe...
Sorry, just had an image of a guy sitting there saying, "not yet...wait...98%, 99%, 100! Okay folks, now that we know it's going to hit, we should get to work on this problem.":)
Nah, you're confusing inflation and wages. The walmart worker will still bring home minimum wage, net ~$200, the only difference will be that minimum-wage living expenses, once ~$200, will now be around $900. Of course, they'll still be able to survive, it's just that the difference will be paid by government programs, with an appropriate premium, as with all government run programs. (I.e., rent won't cost actually cost much more, but the bureaucracy will have forced it several fold higher.) Everyone will cheer, because the increases will go to the largest wall street companies, an nobody will care much about smaller companies getting the shaft. . In other words, it'll be the late 90's "boom" again!:)
>>"a spoiled MSCE admin" . You mean like the kid I worked with a couple years back that decided he wasn't going to do his job until the company paid for his W2k certs? (Didn't seem to matter that it was maybe two weeks after W2k was released, and we hadn't even considered upgrading at that point.) Once he'd whined enough to acquire the classes, testing and certs he wanted, he then decided he was above working on "old junk". Then MS Office, etc., until finally even his uncle had enough of his antics and told him if he wanted to stay with the company, he could push a broom. (In considerably louder, less polite terms, and yes, you could almost hear people clapping.) Unfortunately, it took a major failure and realization that he had decided he was above doing "menial" backups before it came to that point. . At least we'd paid enough attention to do our own backups, though. Somehow, in all those classes he took, they never mentioned that your coworkers always have the option of giving you enough rope to hang yourself.:)
For future reference, you should know that on Slashdot, "my uncle's, neighbor's, sister's, best friend's, garbage man's, psychic", carries much more weight than "my father", regardless of the context.:)
Agreed, and while larger organizations might have more layers to pass through, often these approvals are more difficult in smaller companies, simply because there is less room to pass the buck if something goes wrong. Having licenses that are common and well understood, in the sense that once you read the GPL/LGPL/etc. you know what you are working with, is a tremendous asset in getting approval. . As far as testing software prior to approval, there is much to be said for loading the software onto a test system (even a laptop), and having it available for demonstration at the same time that you are trying to get the needed approvals. It's far more powerful to demonstrate the system in a working simulation, as it tends to show the client/boss that you are serious about the new item, simply because the people who deal with these issues are so used to marketing speak that they are all but numb to the "I think it would really help us!" argument, and seeing exactly how it will work, and being able to ask questions and have their concerns dealt with immediately allow them to feel more comfortable with such approvals. . While closed-source demos can act in a similar way, F/OSS has two advantages over it. One, "trial" software tends to be limited, either lacking important features (which are often blatently marked by greyed out options or similar means) leaving an unsatisfactory feeling to most people. Two, it's one thing to say how flexible the software is, but there is nothing quite like the sense of confidence you convey when you casually open a source file and say, "And in addition to what it's already capable of, I think we could save a lot of time and money if we added [an additional data item] into the source code here, thereby making [a department or process] more efficient". . If nothing else, you'll have an advantage over most salesfolk, who often barely know anything about the software outside of their marketing literature, as well as an added advantage when the decision maker talks to others, as it's unlikely the closed-source competition will be able or willing to do the same. (In fact, if the decision maker asks the closed-source company about alterations to their product, chances are they will be quoted a considerable sum, without even knowing they are quoting against F/OSS.) Most importantly, you can do this for any member of the decision making team, be it management, accounting, or a parent company or customer. . These issues never seem to come up in TCO arguments, however.:)
Just more proof that you can always find problems with things that you want to find problems with. Oddly enough, if it weren't for the existance of F/OSS, this individual might not have had the opportunity to attack the work of people who volunteer their time and effort to creating software that helps others work easier. So, if you think about it, F/OSS added to the poster's quality of life, in an odd, twisted sort of way. . In fact, it may have even saved many such people's lives, because they might otherwise find entertainment standing outside a Habitat for Humanity site, complaining about the "shoddy" work on the new house, until they end up with a claw hammer stuck in their skull:)
Slashdot Mirror
No problem, hold your breath for five minutes, and your password will reset automatically. :)
And just an additional point: :)
.
"Well, we never were able to confirm Mr. Smith's identity, so tag him as John Doe, and send him to the morgue."
.
Ahhh, the future, so bright and promising!
...Mr. Smith, but we can't get you into surgery until we can confirm that you are who you say you are with your insurance company's new ID Theft prevention device. Yes, I know you're having a heart attack, but until you relax and let your heart beat normally, there's nothing we can do. It's standard procedure, and we entail great risk if we don't confirm that you are who you are, and use a similar device to unlock your current medical records as well. It's all part of that new "privacy act" they just passed. Yes, the one that requires you to explicitly give permission to share your medical information with the companies that are most likely to use your medical records against you, or else they won't cover your medical expenses. :)
.
Mr. Smith? Mr. Smith? Darn, lost another one to Geico!
.
(I don't have anything against Geico, it just works well with the Ditech theme.)
>>>I'm convinced Slashdot has been targetted by Microsoft in a PR offensive.
:)
Wow, they really are scraping the bottom of the barrel, huh?
It's actually a pretty good tactic, at least in the short term. First, an aggressive attack tends to make even the stronger group (the EU, for this example) flinch and get defensive, buying the aggressive attackers a moment to regroup. Second, from a more political point, it tends to make the stronger group feel like the weaker group "doesn't get it", and the stronger group will expend more time and energy trying to explain it to the "confused" weaker side.
In doing this, MS is trying to force the EU commission to spend more of it's time and resources explaining to journalists and members that it's not actually picking on MS, that this is just something MS is creating to boost their image. It's also forcing the EU to go back and review their communications with MS, to clarify points that MS is pretending to be confused about. In the meantime, MS doesn't have to do anything more than keep spewing statements like this, and can spend the rest of it's efforts on finding a loophole to exploit.
Of course, the downside of doing this is that it only works for so long. Eventually they will have to come up with a means of escaping the mess, because once you use this kind of tactic, you make it real unlikely that the other side will be willing to accept a deal at the same level as they might have before. In fact, it's more likely that the other side won't accept anything less than total surrender, if it goes on long enough. However, it can be a signal of capitulation, if the weaker side simply want's to threaten to do as much damage as possible before the inevitable ending, something of a bargaining chip.
It all depends on how deeply MS tries to wound, and how long they play this game, but I agree, it's not a good sign for MS. If they were simply being "picked on", they would be able to toss up examples of other companies that do the same thing, and most people would agree, and it wouldn't be much of a debate.
Though it might be a bad comparison, it's still interesting to think of it in terms of MS being the Japanese army in WWII, and the Allies as the EU. The Japanese army at least seemed to be willing to fight to the last soldier, and the allies were gearing up for a gruesome fight. The Japanese simply didn't have the resources to fight every single allied soldier, so the tactic was to wear them down, create too many casualties to continue, as we've seen in wars since that time. However, I think MS can't fight a guerilla war like this, simply because the EU probably has a few nukes at their disposal as well, and MS is simply too big an entity to fight a guerilla war properly. At a fundamental level, despite their attacks on the EU, MS needs the EU's business and support, so fighting too hard may do more harm than just tempering the EU's attempt to balance the market. One thing MS doesn't need to do is inspire european nationalistic tendencies, as it did when it received it's non-punishment from the USDOJ.
If that were true, MS couldn't write it's own quality products.
:)
Oh, wait...
I don't know about "forced to settle", but I think it's possible that in the long run, it might have been better for MS to admit they'd abused their power, accept some punishment that at least appeared to be a little harsh at the time (before Linux was as desktop friendly, and Apple was still trying to get it's house in order), and twist that into some sort of PR benefit. Getting a slap on the hand might have helped them retain their power at the time, but it also implied that they'd bought off the US government in some way, or just as damning, that the US government sees the established base of MS PC's overseas as an intelligence resource worth maintaining, regardless of MS's abuses.
In other words, by gaming the US system, MS simply brought out nationalistic tendencies in the countries they're desperately trying to increase their base in, and perked the ears of any country that might not want the US to have access to all their information. Instead of appearing to be an innocent company "picked on" by the US government, they simply confirmed that they're a company that will do anything to win. In doing so, they all but "dared" other countries to try and punish them. Unfortunately for MS, there are far too many countries out there who are more than willing to punish large US companies, especially in Europe.
It's just speculation, and in retrospect, nonetheless, but it's still an interesting idea, to me.
On the upside, it might mean that asteroids are getting smaller, as nuclear stockpiles aren't anywhere where they used to be during the cold war, due to lack of incentive and degradation over time.
:)
Besides, who really knows the effect of all those things going off? It seems awfully unscientific to proclaim such things without setting off all the world's nuclear weapons to establish a control baseline.
Ah, if it were only that long. About 3 billion years from now, Andromeda will collide with the Milky way, and over the course of the next 500 million+ years, the two will interact, until they combine into a larger system. The best part? Some of the more intricate simulations have our solar system being launched directly into the center of the combined system. I.e., we're going to have to get a whole lot further away than a few solar systems, because our region of the galaxy is gonna find out what really happens when you enter a black hole. Not that that will matter much anyway, as the increased radiation from the center of the galaxy, or collision with another solar system will have already done us in by that time.
:)
On the upside, at least we dealt with that Janet Jackson Super Bowl problem.
Are you kidding? At Hollywood's rate of increasing greed, by 2100+, they'll not only have DRM cracking worthy of capital punishment, but they'll have implemented both DNA replication for actors as well. No sense only being able to replicate copyrights like Mickey Mouse, might as well have the "DNA rights" to Bruce Willis and others, too. Of course, they'll have to appease the fundamentalist christians, and make sure that their clones aren't "real people", which will have the added benefit of not having to pay the clones, either.
:)
Of course, if NASA wants to borrow "New Bruce", it'll cost them a hefty penny, and Hollywood will retain all rights to the project, including any technology used to save the planet. Ah, what a fine future for our children...
I like how they'd like to stop using the Torino scale, because it might alarm people. Isn't that kind of the purpose, to indicate varying levels of worry?
>>If it hits Australia, well, not much impact on earth population.
Well, aside from the possibility of tsunamis whipping across the Pacific and wiping out Chinese/Indian coastal cities anyway, I'd hazard a guess that Australians probably think the impact on earth's population would be pretty severe...
Hmmm, so this is what it's like to be Darl McBride. Interesting. :)
I really don't want to post this, but I can't help it...
:(
I wouldn't start panicking until Uranus starts burning...
Sorry folks...
On the upside, if the plan requires us to embed ion engines deeply into the surface of the asteroid, NASA already has the software written for that. :)
Obligatory Underwear Gnomes reference:
1) Build great big spaceships, using all natural resources up in the process.
2) ???
3) Prosper!!!
Sorry, just had an image of a guy sitting there saying, "not yet...wait...98%, 99%, 100! Okay folks, now that we know it's going to hit, we should get to work on this problem." :)
Come on now, give AC a break, he/she/it probably just realized MSN wasn't the only search engine... :)
...if your battery goes dead. Of course, you can always pry the hood off the vehicle to recharge the battery, to open the doors. :)
Nah, you're confusing inflation and wages. The walmart worker will still bring home minimum wage, net ~$200, the only difference will be that minimum-wage living expenses, once ~$200, will now be around $900. Of course, they'll still be able to survive, it's just that the difference will be paid by government programs, with an appropriate premium, as with all government run programs. (I.e., rent won't cost actually cost much more, but the bureaucracy will have forced it several fold higher.) Everyone will cheer, because the increases will go to the largest wall street companies, an nobody will care much about smaller companies getting the shaft. :)
.
In other words, it'll be the late 90's "boom" again!
Hey, those are features! After all, if you pay handsomely for complicated software, you need to have it feel complicated when you use it, don't you? :)
>>"a spoiled MSCE admin" :)
.
You mean like the kid I worked with a couple years back that decided he wasn't going to do his job until the company paid for his W2k certs? (Didn't seem to matter that it was maybe two weeks after W2k was released, and we hadn't even considered upgrading at that point.) Once he'd whined enough to acquire the classes, testing and certs he wanted, he then decided he was above working on "old junk". Then MS Office, etc., until finally even his uncle had enough of his antics and told him if he wanted to stay with the company, he could push a broom. (In considerably louder, less polite terms, and yes, you could almost hear people clapping.) Unfortunately, it took a major failure and realization that he had decided he was above doing "menial" backups before it came to that point.
.
At least we'd paid enough attention to do our own backups, though. Somehow, in all those classes he took, they never mentioned that your coworkers always have the option of giving you enough rope to hang yourself.
For future reference, you should know that on Slashdot, "my uncle's, neighbor's, sister's, best friend's, garbage man's, psychic", carries much more weight than "my father", regardless of the context. :)
Agreed, and while larger organizations might have more layers to pass through, often these approvals are more difficult in smaller companies, simply because there is less room to pass the buck if something goes wrong. Having licenses that are common and well understood, in the sense that once you read the GPL/LGPL/etc. you know what you are working with, is a tremendous asset in getting approval. :)
.
As far as testing software prior to approval, there is much to be said for loading the software onto a test system (even a laptop), and having it available for demonstration at the same time that you are trying to get the needed approvals. It's far more powerful to demonstrate the system in a working simulation, as it tends to show the client/boss that you are serious about the new item, simply because the people who deal with these issues are so used to marketing speak that they are all but numb to the "I think it would really help us!" argument, and seeing exactly how it will work, and being able to ask questions and have their concerns dealt with immediately allow them to feel more comfortable with such approvals.
.
While closed-source demos can act in a similar way, F/OSS has two advantages over it. One, "trial" software tends to be limited, either lacking important features (which are often blatently marked by greyed out options or similar means) leaving an unsatisfactory feeling to most people. Two, it's one thing to say how flexible the software is, but there is nothing quite like the sense of confidence you convey when you casually open a source file and say, "And in addition to what it's already capable of, I think we could save a lot of time and money if we added [an additional data item] into the source code here, thereby making [a department or process] more efficient".
.
If nothing else, you'll have an advantage over most salesfolk, who often barely know anything about the software outside of their marketing literature, as well as an added advantage when the decision maker talks to others, as it's unlikely the closed-source competition will be able or willing to do the same. (In fact, if the decision maker asks the closed-source company about alterations to their product, chances are they will be quoted a considerable sum, without even knowing they are quoting against F/OSS.) Most importantly, you can do this for any member of the decision making team, be it management, accounting, or a parent company or customer.
.
These issues never seem to come up in TCO arguments, however.
Just more proof that you can always find problems with things that you want to find problems with. Oddly enough, if it weren't for the existance of F/OSS, this individual might not have had the opportunity to attack the work of people who volunteer their time and effort to creating software that helps others work easier. So, if you think about it, F/OSS added to the poster's quality of life, in an odd, twisted sort of way. :)
.
In fact, it may have even saved many such people's lives, because they might otherwise find entertainment standing outside a Habitat for Humanity site, complaining about the "shoddy" work on the new house, until they end up with a claw hammer stuck in their skull