PC builder X makes deal with microsoft to put windows on every machine. benefits X (cheaper cost for windows) benefits microsoft (more total sales $)
surt buys computer from X, doesn't want microsoft windows, pays for it anyway because no reputable computer maker sells computer without windows installed (due to deals above). surt participates in the transaction because he will benefit more from the computer than he will be harmed by having his money wasted on microsoft.
surt in no way benefits from x's decision, in fact, surt is harmed by it. when evaluating how things work in the real world, you have to give some consideration to the net. the net from microsoft's very existence is negative.
Total assets isn't fair at all. How about measuring out of net after necessities (food, clothing, shelter)? After all, it's not like giving half of his fortune is even close to an inconvenience for Bill, whereas I give more than half, and I can't even afford a home (while after his 'healthy' giving Bill could still afford to buy the entire town I live in). Bill Gates lives in a mansion. I scoff at his 'generosity'.
My apologies, my memory failed me. I had Sam Wall as his name in my head for some reason. You are correct. Hopefully it is still clear in my post that I was referring to the family responsible for Walmart.
He guided the company during the monopolistic years. To me that's the definition. If it's necessary to clarify: Microsoft, under the guidance of Bill Gates, was found guilty of monopolistic practices.
I give a much higher percentage of my legally earned salary than does bill gates, and I cast scorn on him.
When you factor in post basic needs (lets say you allow both me and bill to pay rent, buy our own food sufficient to survive, pay up to say $200 / month in assorted bills) then I look even better.
We all hate walmart and the Wall family too. They're all about equally deserving of scorn, but bill/microsoft's practices have hurt us (slashdot readers) much more than walmart's practices. Its much more personal, and that's always a bigger motivator, even if maybe it shouldn't be.
It would be hard because it would require a change in the way the game plays, otherwise the person in question could use a keymapper (which surely he must already use for virtually every other application he makes use of).
Of course since his wealth is the product of a crime, it's like robbing a bank, giving away half of what you stole, and demanding that people applaud you. I guess in some sense he is like robin hood: he steals from the wealthy (those who can afford computer software) and gives to the poor (people who can't afford mosquito repellant). Except in the story of robin hood, those he was stealing from were a little easier to hate.
Of course, since he is a convicted monopolist, it's like using the fruits of a crime to buy positive publicity. You can't hold me up on a streetcorner, give 3/4 of my money to a bum in the nearby alley, and expect me to applaud you for it.
Obviously, since there have been several 100 million + movies this year. Billion would be approximately right (though still a little low, they topped 8 billion a couple of years ago).
Exactly. I think the point that many people miss is that the key word is secure (implying that the rights exist, but need protection). Many lawyers in particular seems to think that instead the law is to create our rights (assuming that the rights do not exist until the law makes them).
I thought it would be clear, but of course I meant on average. And of course I actually believe that older workers with well developed skills are in fact quite a bit more valuable than raw grads, but I also believe that is not the way most management thinks.
I'll assume you meant that the other way around, as char* preceded CString. Note that actually following through with that advice might actually yield a performance improvement thanks to a lot of smart logic in CString. On the downside of course, you've broken anything that was using char* as data other than NTS, so you do need some brains around that conversion.
You make it a tough choice. On the one hand I could have an assembly hacker who doesn't know how to work with the newer technologies we're deploying, and is inflexible about learning, and on the other hand I can have a nice moldable young IT worker already familiar with what I need to build, and most likely still eager to learn.
Slashdot Mirror
That's great logic except:
PC builder X makes deal with microsoft to put windows on every machine. benefits X (cheaper cost for windows) benefits microsoft (more total sales $)
surt buys computer from X, doesn't want microsoft windows, pays for it anyway because no reputable computer maker sells computer without windows installed (due to deals above). surt participates in the transaction because he will benefit more from the computer than he will be harmed by having his money wasted on microsoft.
surt in no way benefits from x's decision, in fact, surt is harmed by it. when evaluating how things work in the real world, you have to give some consideration to the net. the net from microsoft's very existence is negative.
In all fairness, the hitler comparisons were on at least 2 hours ago. I was really just stealing. ;-)
Total assets isn't fair at all. How about measuring out of net after necessities (food, clothing, shelter)? After all, it's not like giving half of his fortune is even close to an inconvenience for Bill, whereas I give more than half, and I can't even afford a home (while after his 'healthy' giving Bill could still afford to buy the entire town I live in). Bill Gates lives in a mansion. I scoff at his 'generosity'.
My apologies, my memory failed me. I had Sam Wall as his name in my head for some reason. You are correct. Hopefully it is still clear in my post that I was referring to the family responsible for Walmart.
Indeed, it seems clear to me that Bill Gates is as worthy of this 'honor' as Hitler.
Oh come on mods, overrated on an unmoderated post? Don't make me come back there!
He guided the company during the monopolistic years. To me that's the definition. If it's necessary to clarify: Microsoft, under the guidance of Bill Gates, was found guilty of monopolistic practices.
I give a much higher percentage of my legally earned salary than does bill gates, and I cast scorn on him.
When you factor in post basic needs (lets say you allow both me and bill to pay rent, buy our own food sufficient to survive, pay up to say $200 / month in assorted bills) then I look even better.
Bill Gates is a shmuck.
We all hate walmart and the Wall family too. They're all about equally deserving of scorn, but bill/microsoft's practices have hurt us (slashdot readers) much more than walmart's practices. Its much more personal, and that's always a bigger motivator, even if maybe it shouldn't be.
I was being generous for purposes of making it clear that no matter how high a percentage he gives, it's not worthy of our applause.
It would be hard because it would require a change in the way the game plays, otherwise the person in question could use a keymapper (which surely he must already use for virtually every other application he makes use of).
People by and large aren't that bright or well educated. Remember, nearly a quarter of the people in this country elected our current president.
I'm pretty sure it takes a fortune the size of bill's to endure being married to Melinda at all, regardless of who she's sleeping with.
Of course since his wealth is the product of a crime, it's like robbing a bank, giving away half of what you stole, and demanding that people applaud you. I guess in some sense he is like robin hood: he steals from the wealthy (those who can afford computer software) and gives to the poor (people who can't afford mosquito repellant). Except in the story of robin hood, those he was stealing from were a little easier to hate.
Of course, since he is a convicted monopolist, it's like using the fruits of a crime to buy positive publicity. You can't hold me up on a streetcorner, give 3/4 of my money to a bum in the nearby alley, and expect me to applaud you for it.
Thank you, that was exactly the point. I don't think anyone got it (or at least no mods).
Obviously, since there have been several 100 million + movies this year. Billion would be approximately right (though still a little low, they topped 8 billion a couple of years ago).
I used google to find the wikipedia article, as well as the other.
Also ATTFA, the wiki was found to be more accurate on a per-fact basis, which to me is far more important than per-article.
Bad moderators, not redundant, first post of its kind in the topic!
Nevertheless, it has additional links for the interested on this particular topic, and its accuracy is as good as Britannicas.
Ah I see, a contradiction for being more familiar with new techniques. I misunderstood, and wow is that a scary programmer.
Exactly. I think the point that many people miss is that the key word is secure (implying that the rights exist, but need protection). Many lawyers in particular seems to think that instead the law is to create our rights (assuming that the rights do not exist until the law makes them).
I thought it would be clear, but of course I meant on average. And of course I actually believe that older workers with well developed skills are in fact quite a bit more valuable than raw grads, but I also believe that is not the way most management thinks.
I'll assume you meant that the other way around, as char* preceded CString. Note that actually following through with that advice might actually yield a performance improvement thanks to a lot of smart logic in CString. On the downside of course, you've broken anything that was using char* as data other than NTS, so you do need some brains around that conversion.
You make it a tough choice. On the one hand I could have an assembly hacker who doesn't know how to work with the newer technologies we're deploying, and is inflexible about learning, and on the other hand I can have a nice moldable young IT worker already familiar with what I need to build, and most likely still eager to learn.
Hmmm.
Let me get back to you.