Your reply seems to indicate that you subscribe to the proposition that creating a copy for personal backup use of an item that you have already bought and paid for constitutes "abuse" that must be compensated.
It doesn't compensate for any copyright infringements per se - it simply compensates for the "losses" induced when they can't force you to buy a new record for a backup instead.
So, the levy is there to compensate them for not being able to make me pay twice for something I already paid once for? Never mind the idiocy of that - how does this argument square with attempts to make CDs "copyright-proof"? Isn't that, yet again, a contradiction?
Levy *and* copyright infringement
on
Dutch Pass iPod Tax
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
There's a similar levy on blank media, in my native Denmark.
But, I honestly don't see how they can justify having a levy on media that can be used for assumed copyright infringement, and at the same time seek redress for copyright infringement - isn't the levy supposed to be a sort of "shared" payment for the copyright infringement that occurs?
I mean, they can't have both. Either they have un-levied media, and sue copyright infringers. Or the other way around. Having both is getting paid twice for the same supposed loss.
No, we're talking about the terminal wa that attaches to copula desu, and specifically appears in feminine speech modes in hyojungo. Not standing alone, mind you, but attached to a number of other feminine speech patterns, this has a rather comical effect when uttered by a forty-year-old male.
I'm well aware that you can almost always find a dialect somewhere in Japan which contains a speech pattern which, when considered in the context of hyojungo, appears ridiculous - even though I am far from familiar with all of these dialects. I can usually tell the most well-known and distinctive dialects apart, though...
This is a waste of effort, but I'll give it one last shot, anyway.
I am not defending Islam or depriving you of your right to have a religious opinion, in any way. None of those items are on my agenda.
My agenda, such as it is, is merely to point out that you, the one who started talking of things being "offensive", were in fact guilty of precisely the same thing that you were accusing others of.
Naturally, you failed to perceive that point. In your narrow-minded world, there is no room for people who believe in balanced views, respecting both sides equally. You have your view of the world, and are uninterested in any others.
You, sir, have failed the fundamental test of geekhood - intelligent curiosity. Therefore, you are in no way a geek. Go away, Slashdot is not for you.
Good for you, cassidyc, but the question wasn't asked of "you"-in-general, but specifically of michaelmalak, the original (and obviously "un-geek-ly" religiously biased) poster - who used the term "invented" for Islam in the first place.
As a geek first and foremost, I abhor religious closedmindedness and double standards - and that post of his exhibited indications of both.
...the result is that you'll sound like a teenage girl.
Oh, yes, this is a very real danger. An acquaintance of mine once tried to show off his "Japanese skills" to me. As he started talking in the feminine mode, with plenty of the affected speech patterns so typical of ojou-san types in anime, it didn't take me long to divine the origins of his "skills". The clincher was his consistent use of the soft feminine wa to terminate sentences.
Learning by rote, i.e. parroting the phrases you hear in TV or films, is no substitute for actually sitting down and learning the language - in all its idiomatic splendor.
Of course, if you do know the language sufficiently well already, there's a lot of practical experience to be gained from anime - just be careful. When the subject comes up in conversation, I usually point out that you don't want to learn Japanese primarily from anime, any more than you want to learn English from Looney Tunes cartoons. In real life, nobody says "I thought I taw a puddy tat" - except as a joke, of course.
If you're going to be needlessly touchy about "offensive" words, then I should point out that it is "offensive" to say that Islam was "invented".
Would you use that term for Christianity, or would you use "revealed" or "introduced" or some other term that doesn't rudely imply that the religion in question is a human creation, and not the product of genuine divine inspiration.
If you think Bendtsen is an idiot presently, try reading this: Minutes, meeting of the Folketing's EU Affairs Committee, June 23 2004. Bendtsen is just about the most arrogantly ignorant idiot you can imagine, and this really shows him off as what he is. Note his condescending tone...
In response to the several posters who have urged me to vote "Yes" because, in their estimation, a vote against the new treaty merely supports the undemocratic nature of the EU, I can only say that they obviously have not read the treaty text.
The "new EU" is by no means any more democratic than the present. In fact, it retains the current system whereby the unelected council dominates the political process. Since it also takes away veto rights of individual (democratically-elected) national parliaments, I consider it a step backwards for democracy in the EU. The present mess has only convinced me that it is a proud and noble thing to vote "No".
I've been fundamentally opposed to the EEC/EU for as long as I've been an adult voter. I first voted "No" to a proposal to expand EEC powers in 1986, and I've consistently followed this path, ever since.
In recent years, however, I had been considering a number of arguments in favour of the EU, and I was actually leaning towards voting in favour of the new constitutional treaty, at the upcoming referendum (in my native Denmark).
Not any longer.
If I had any doubts about voting "No" at the upcoming referendum, this situation has removed them. The process has revealed a complete disinterest in democracy at the highest levels of the EU - and a servility towards "business interests" (for which read: certain major corporations and their vested interests in maintaining their monopolistic powers) that borders on the shameful.
The autumn, I will go to the polls and vote "No". I urge any Europeans with similar concerns to adopt the same position.
... or is it hilarious to see the pop-up ads that are linked to words like "radio", "satellite" and "software"? Their content is so commercial, and so divorced from relation to the scientific news of the article, that instead of being ads, they become parodies of themselves.
Du kan jo give en øl hjemme - der kommer jeg jo alligevel.
Som sagt, gerne - hvis Dansk Folkeparti holder fast i deres nej.
Det tror jeg ikke, de gør - de har større fisk at fange. Husk på at Camre er lidt hen i retning af én af "landsbytosserne" i partiet. Han er ikke i toppen af partiet, og toppen har en anden hoveddagsorden, én der i det væsentligste er indenrigspolitisk.
Nåmenaltså: Vi sér på det igen, efter det er afgjort nede i EU. Hvis Fogh Rasmussens rædselsregimente har været nødt til at indtage en anti-softwarepatent-position p.gr.af DF, så skylder jeg dig helt klart en pils i Caféen?. Det er også længe siden, jeg sidst har været der.
OT: Forresten så jeg lige, at gode gamle Jens-Martin Knudsen var død, 74 år gammel. Hvor trist.:-(
All right, I'll admit you've done more research than I credited you for - and I'll give you a full apology if and only if the Danish People's Party actually opposes the VK government on this issue.
However, I find it unlikely that this is going to be the case. The DPP is far more interested in its core party platform of xenophobia than in a fairly esoteric matter such as this one. It is highly probable that they will give in on their resistance, in return for government support for one of their core issues.
However, if they do vote against, drop me a message, and I'll be glad to stand you to a beer somewhere in Copenhagen (seeing that you study physics at KU, we probably have an overlapping circle of frineds and acquaintances). Although I'll admit that it will feel funny celebrating the DPP having done something right, for once in their misbegotten existence.
The social democrats control whether software patents have a majority or not in the danish parliament.
Be honest: you just invented that little "fact", right? You pulled it out of thin air and, without bothering to check it in any way, offered it up as truth.
If you'd bothered to check, you'd have learned that the Social Democrats, in fact, have no such majority. The current government of Denmark is composed of PM Anders Fogh Rasmussen's party, Venstre (literally, "Left", though this is an historical holdover - the party platform is laissez-faire capitalist) and the Danish Conservative Party.
Together, these two parties do not have a majority in the Folketing, the Danish parliament, but with the support of their allies, the extreme-right xenophobic Danish People's Party, they can muster an absolute majority in the Folketing.
The Social Democrats are helpless to do anything about that. They don't "control" anything, sadly.
Your hommage to Monty Python aside, it might interest you to know that this particular phrase echoes an event in Danish history when, yes indeedy, the Danish government caved in to strong-arm tactics.
In 1801, a British fleet under Admiral Hyde Parker and Admiral Horatio Nelson met the Danish fleet in the Battle of the Roadstead of Copenhagen. The battle was hard-fought on both sides, but the British were slowly gaining the upper hand. Not fast enough to satisfy Nelson, though. He was under pressure of time, having already been signalled by his superior, Admiral Hyde Parker, to cease hostilities - an order he (in)famously ignored, by placing the telescope to his blind eye, thus pointedly not seeing the signal flags.
Nelson sent a message to the Danish Prince Regent (the later Frederik VI) who was observing the battle from a vantage point near the harbour. The letter (which is in the Danish royal archives) told the Prince Regent in no uncertain terms that, unless the Danes immediately gave up the battle, Nelson would order the burning of the Danish batteries (ships being used as fixed gun emplacements, partially submerged in the harbourmouth) which had been taken as prizes during the battle.
The battery ships in question had been outfitted with British skeleton crews, and the Danish sailors had been chained belowdecks.
In effect, Nelson was offering the Prince a threat that he would murder several hundred helpless POWs, in the most vicious manner conceivable, if the Prince didn't give in.
It took me about ten seconds after posting for a little niggling voice at the back of my mind to tell me that I'd better check my facts. The following paragraph in my preceding post is completely wrong:
The "true hero", as such, of the evacuation was not, in fact, a Dane - it was SS-Obergruppenführer Dr. Werner Best, the German administrator in charge of "cooperation" with the Danish government. When he learned of the plan to seize the Danish Jews (who had previously been left alone, to avoid antagonizing the Danes), he surreptitiously gave warning to his Danish contacts, who passed the word along. The entire evacuation operation was carried out largely without any government participation. I know it seems strange, even fantastic, to consider an SS man the "hero" of any situation - but nevertheless, such is the case.
Turns out, my memory had played a trick on me and I'd swapped a couple of names. True to the classic image of SS men, Werner Best was not a good guy. In fact, he was the individual who recommended implementing the "resolution of the Jewish problem in Denmark". Although his overall behaviour with regard to occupied Denmark was lenient, he certainly was not a good guy.
The actual hero of the day was Georg Duckwitz, of the German Embassy in Copenhagen. He was responsible for matters dealing with shipping, and he gave warning of the impending operation to Danish contacts.
*sigh*
Oh well, I suppose that mess-up sort of undermines my credibility - though I do think that I should get credit for issuing an immediate correction.
In any case, this little historical quibble has no bearing on the actual matter of Fogh Rasmussen's likely response to MS strong-arm tactics. But then again, you probably don't need me to tell you that politicians tend to cave in to pressure from big business...
Just to get the preliminaries out of the way: I am a Dane and an historian. That means that, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, you should assume that I know what I'm talking about here.
Now, the parent of this thread presents several hypothetical ideas regarding this (although they look more like assertions, given the tone of the post):
1) One would expect Microsoft's ploy to "blow up in their faces".
2) The Danish PM Anders Fogh Rasmussen could respond by adopting non-MS software in government departments, as a retaliatory measure.
3) Anders Fogh Rasmussen might conceivably do so.
4) "Danes are not noted for caving in to agressive ultimatums".
Those are the points I'm going to address.
Short version:
No. Never in a million years. Forget it. End of story.
Long version:
The flights of fancy presented above represent a glorious mix of misinformed wishful thinking. While I suppose I ought to be quite flattered by the picture they paint of Danes, the fact is that they are, historically and contemporarily/politically, simply untrue.
Let me respond to each of these points individually:
1) One would expect Microsoft's ploy to "blow up in their faces".
Why? When has Microsoft (or any other major corporation) ever suffered a serious and permanent backlash from using strong-arm tactics? Small setbacks, yes - but what reason would Bill Gates have for believing that such an outcome is in any way likely?
2) The Danish PM Anders Fogh Rasmussen could respond by adopting non-MS software in government departments, as a retaliatory measure.
No. The Danish PM doesn't have that sort of comprehensive influence over government purchasing policies. Certainly, he could push for legislation in such matters, and instruct his cabinet to push for adoption of non-MS solutions within their ministries, but even if he were likely to do so (which he isn't, see point 3) the time frame for a switch-over would be long. The wheels of bureaucracy grind slowly.
3) Anders Fogh Rasmussen might conceivably do so.
No, he wouldn't. In fact, I don't hesitate to use the word "inconceivable" in that context. Rasmussen is a liberal-right ("liberal" in the Danish context meaning "laissez-faire capitalist") politician, and his entire political career is built on the conviction that free market forces and less government are the panaceas whereby all economic and social evils will be eradicated. In fact, I think he actually believes that. For ideological reasons alone, it is highly improbable that he would do so.
Leaving aside the ideology, Fogh Rasmussen would be a pretty irresponsible public official if he chose the path of outright confrontation. Such a move could (and would) be interpreted by the U.S. as a form of protectionism, and become the opening move in a trade war. No responsible PM would involve his country in such a situation. He'd be more likely to knuckle under.
4) "Danes are not noted for caving in to agressive ultimatums".
It pains me to say this, but this is relatively untrue. Although Denmark has sometimes resisted ultimatums (such as the British demand that Denmark surrender her navy in 1801), the fact is that any confrontation has eventually led to the Danes capitulating and giving the foe what he wanted. We didn't invent the term "appeasement", but by damn, we live it.
The parent post cites the Danish evacuation of the Jews in 1943 as an example of Danish refusal to cave in - but the evacuation was largely carried out by private individuals. The government was not involved in any significant degree. In fact, when Denmark was invaded in 1940, the government rapidly chose to capitulate and enter into a policy of cooperation with the Nazis. Honestly, the only reason Denmark was not treated as a collaborator nation after t
Hell, just take a look at my handle. I've had it for years, incidentally, and I plan to still be using it a century from now. Assuming handles are anything as simple as brief text strings, by then.
I want to live forever. I want to see long-term geological changes occur; I want to see evolution produce new and interesting solutons to age-old problems; I want millennia-long vacations ("I'll just pop off to the Lesser Magellanic Cloud for a quick jaunt - back in a while..."); I want all of these, and many more benefits that I can't imagine yet.
I want my life-span to be so long that it is only terminated with the end of the universe, assuming we haven't found a solution to that problem when it rolls around.
I can match that story with one of my own. On a serious forum for discussing anime (Yeah, I know, I know - are you done laughing? Can I get on with my story now?), a new user posted a borderline legible post in the introduction, only to be taken to task for this by one of the staff.
The new user replied predictably. Here's my reply, with included quotes from the other posts - all usernames have been replaced as appropriate, but if you're really curious, Google for it.
----
grammarchallenged wrote:
loosen up this is the net.:p a place to relax and not worry about things. anime should be your greatest concern not how bad my spelling and grammar are.:p place for that and it's called school.
No, grammarchallenged, you are wrong. If you can't be bothered to maintain a minimum of courtesy (and that includes the basic niceties of spelling and grammar), then why should we consider your conversation worth our time?
And if an appeal to common courtesy doesn't convince you (as I suspect it may not), then I urge you to read the rules of this forum.
Among other things, they clearly state:
2) This forum is an English-language forum. All users are expected to have a working knowledge of proper English. We are not an IM chatroom; we expect proper grammar, spelling, and punctuation. If English is your Second Language, please say so in your first post.
As staffguy quite correctly said,
A college freshman should know that letter "I" and the first letter in every sentence should be in UPPER CASE, and each sentence should end with a period.
Unless you have pretensions to be a modern e.e. cummings, don't use all-lower-case text, please.
By the way, whoever told you the net was a place where no rules applied was either immature or lying.
----
As you can see, this is a near-textbook case of the same mechanic in operation. It's as if people sincerely believe this hogwash about the internet being a "no-fly zone", in terms of grammar and spelling.
I have to ask of all of you: has anyone, in all the time you've been 'net users, authoritatively informed you that you didn't have to use correct grammar or spelling on the internet?
No? I didn't think so.
Where do these people get this idea from? How does this moron-meme propagate?
Slashdot Mirror
Your reply seems to indicate that you subscribe to the proposition that creating a copy for personal backup use of an item that you have already bought and paid for constitutes "abuse" that must be compensated.
I can't accept this as valid.
It doesn't compensate for any copyright infringements per se - it simply compensates for the "losses" induced when they can't force you to buy a new record for a backup instead.
So, the levy is there to compensate them for not being able to make me pay twice for something I already paid once for? Never mind the idiocy of that - how does this argument square with attempts to make CDs "copyright-proof"? Isn't that, yet again, a contradiction?
There's a similar levy on blank media, in my native Denmark.
But, I honestly don't see how they can justify having a levy on media that can be used for assumed copyright infringement, and at the same time seek redress for copyright infringement - isn't the levy supposed to be a sort of "shared" payment for the copyright infringement that occurs?
I mean, they can't have both. Either they have un-levied media, and sue copyright infringers. Or the other way around. Having both is getting paid twice for the same supposed loss.
And that looks like fraud to me.
No, we're talking about the terminal wa that attaches to copula desu, and specifically appears in feminine speech modes in hyojungo. Not standing alone, mind you, but attached to a number of other feminine speech patterns, this has a rather comical effect when uttered by a forty-year-old male.
I'm well aware that you can almost always find a dialect somewhere in Japan which contains a speech pattern which, when considered in the context of hyojungo, appears ridiculous - even though I am far from familiar with all of these dialects. I can usually tell the most well-known and distinctive dialects apart, though...
This is a waste of effort, but I'll give it one last shot, anyway.
I am not defending Islam or depriving you of your right to have a religious opinion, in any way. None of those items are on my agenda.
My agenda, such as it is, is merely to point out that you, the one who started talking of things being "offensive", were in fact guilty of precisely the same thing that you were accusing others of.
Naturally, you failed to perceive that point. In your narrow-minded world, there is no room for people who believe in balanced views, respecting both sides equally. You have your view of the world, and are uninterested in any others.
You, sir, have failed the fundamental test of geekhood - intelligent curiosity. Therefore, you are in no way a geek. Go away, Slashdot is not for you.
Good for you, cassidyc, but the question wasn't asked of "you"-in-general, but specifically of michaelmalak, the original (and obviously "un-geek-ly" religiously biased) poster - who used the term "invented" for Islam in the first place.
As a geek first and foremost, I abhor religious closedmindedness and double standards - and that post of his exhibited indications of both.
Oh, yes, this is a very real danger. An acquaintance of mine once tried to show off his "Japanese skills" to me. As he started talking in the feminine mode, with plenty of the affected speech patterns so typical of ojou-san types in anime, it didn't take me long to divine the origins of his "skills". The clincher was his consistent use of the soft feminine wa to terminate sentences.
Learning by rote, i.e. parroting the phrases you hear in TV or films, is no substitute for actually sitting down and learning the language - in all its idiomatic splendor.
Of course, if you do know the language sufficiently well already, there's a lot of practical experience to be gained from anime - just be careful. When the subject comes up in conversation, I usually point out that you don't want to learn Japanese primarily from anime, any more than you want to learn English from Looney Tunes cartoons. In real life, nobody says "I thought I taw a puddy tat" - except as a joke, of course.
You're both wrong - it's Phpiladelphpia.
If you're going to be needlessly touchy about "offensive" words, then I should point out that it is "offensive" to say that Islam was "invented".
Would you use that term for Christianity, or would you use "revealed" or "introduced" or some other term that doesn't rudely imply that the religion in question is a human creation, and not the product of genuine divine inspiration.
People in glass houses, etc.
If you think Bendtsen is an idiot presently, try reading this: Minutes, meeting of the Folketing's EU Affairs Committee, June 23 2004. Bendtsen is just about the most arrogantly ignorant idiot you can imagine, and this really shows him off as what he is. Note his condescending tone...
In response to the several posters who have urged me to vote "Yes" because, in their estimation, a vote against the new treaty merely supports the undemocratic nature of the EU, I can only say that they obviously have not read the treaty text.
The "new EU" is by no means any more democratic than the present. In fact, it retains the current system whereby the unelected council dominates the political process. Since it also takes away veto rights of individual (democratically-elected) national parliaments, I consider it a step backwards for democracy in the EU. The present mess has only convinced me that it is a proud and noble thing to vote "No".
I've been fundamentally opposed to the EEC/EU for as long as I've been an adult voter. I first voted "No" to a proposal to expand EEC powers in 1986, and I've consistently followed this path, ever since.
In recent years, however, I had been considering a number of arguments in favour of the EU, and I was actually leaning towards voting in favour of the new constitutional treaty, at the upcoming referendum (in my native Denmark).
Not any longer.
If I had any doubts about voting "No" at the upcoming referendum, this situation has removed them. The process has revealed a complete disinterest in democracy at the highest levels of the EU - and a servility towards "business interests" (for which read: certain major corporations and their vested interests in maintaining their monopolistic powers) that borders on the shameful.
The autumn, I will go to the polls and vote "No". I urge any Europeans with similar concerns to adopt the same position.
Those "tooltips" are the popups I was referring to.
... or is it hilarious to see the pop-up ads that are linked to words like "radio", "satellite" and "software"? Their content is so commercial, and so divorced from relation to the scientific news of the article, that instead of being ads, they become parodies of themselves.
Du kan jo give en øl hjemme - der kommer jeg jo alligevel.
Som sagt, gerne - hvis Dansk Folkeparti holder fast i deres nej.
Det tror jeg ikke, de gør - de har større fisk at fange. Husk på at Camre er lidt hen i retning af én af "landsbytosserne" i partiet. Han er ikke i toppen af partiet, og toppen har en anden hoveddagsorden, én der i det væsentligste er indenrigspolitisk.
Nåmenaltså: Vi sér på det igen, efter det er afgjort nede i EU. Hvis Fogh Rasmussens rædselsregimente har været nødt til at indtage en anti-softwarepatent-position p.gr.af DF, så skylder jeg dig helt klart en pils i Caféen?. Det er også længe siden, jeg sidst har været der.
OT: Forresten så jeg lige, at gode gamle Jens-Martin Knudsen var død, 74 år gammel. Hvor trist. :-(
All right, I'll admit you've done more research than I credited you for - and I'll give you a full apology if and only if the Danish People's Party actually opposes the VK government on this issue.
However, I find it unlikely that this is going to be the case. The DPP is far more interested in its core party platform of xenophobia than in a fairly esoteric matter such as this one. It is highly probable that they will give in on their resistance, in return for government support for one of their core issues.
However, if they do vote against, drop me a message, and I'll be glad to stand you to a beer somewhere in Copenhagen (seeing that you study physics at KU, we probably have an overlapping circle of frineds and acquaintances). Although I'll admit that it will feel funny celebrating the DPP having done something right, for once in their misbegotten existence.
The social democrats control whether software patents have a majority or not in the danish parliament.
Be honest: you just invented that little "fact", right? You pulled it out of thin air and, without bothering to check it in any way, offered it up as truth.
If you'd bothered to check, you'd have learned that the Social Democrats, in fact, have no such majority. The current government of Denmark is composed of PM Anders Fogh Rasmussen's party, Venstre (literally, "Left", though this is an historical holdover - the party platform is laissez-faire capitalist) and the Danish Conservative Party.
Together, these two parties do not have a majority in the Folketing, the Danish parliament, but with the support of their allies, the extreme-right xenophobic Danish People's Party, they can muster an absolute majority in the Folketing.
The Social Democrats are helpless to do anything about that. They don't "control" anything, sadly.
Prime Minister: Set fire to them?
Your hommage to Monty Python aside, it might interest you to know that this particular phrase echoes an event in Danish history when, yes indeedy, the Danish government caved in to strong-arm tactics.
In 1801, a British fleet under Admiral Hyde Parker and Admiral Horatio Nelson met the Danish fleet in the Battle of the Roadstead of Copenhagen. The battle was hard-fought on both sides, but the British were slowly gaining the upper hand. Not fast enough to satisfy Nelson, though. He was under pressure of time, having already been signalled by his superior, Admiral Hyde Parker, to cease hostilities - an order he (in)famously ignored, by placing the telescope to his blind eye, thus pointedly not seeing the signal flags.
Nelson sent a message to the Danish Prince Regent (the later Frederik VI) who was observing the battle from a vantage point near the harbour. The letter (which is in the Danish royal archives) told the Prince Regent in no uncertain terms that, unless the Danes immediately gave up the battle, Nelson would order the burning of the Danish batteries (ships being used as fixed gun emplacements, partially submerged in the harbourmouth) which had been taken as prizes during the battle.
The battery ships in question had been outfitted with British skeleton crews, and the Danish sailors had been chained belowdecks.
In effect, Nelson was offering the Prince a threat that he would murder several hundred helpless POWs, in the most vicious manner conceivable, if the Prince didn't give in.
Predictably, the Prince did.
It took me about ten seconds after posting for a little niggling voice at the back of my mind to tell me that I'd better check my facts. The following paragraph in my preceding post is completely wrong:
Turns out, my memory had played a trick on me and I'd swapped a couple of names. True to the classic image of SS men, Werner Best was not a good guy. In fact, he was the individual who recommended implementing the "resolution of the Jewish problem in Denmark". Although his overall behaviour with regard to occupied Denmark was lenient, he certainly was not a good guy.
The actual hero of the day was Georg Duckwitz, of the German Embassy in Copenhagen. He was responsible for matters dealing with shipping, and he gave warning of the impending operation to Danish contacts.
*sigh*
Oh well, I suppose that mess-up sort of undermines my credibility - though I do think that I should get credit for issuing an immediate correction.
In any case, this little historical quibble has no bearing on the actual matter of Fogh Rasmussen's likely response to MS strong-arm tactics. But then again, you probably don't need me to tell you that politicians tend to cave in to pressure from big business...
All right, this is where I step in...
Just to get the preliminaries out of the way: I am a Dane and an historian. That means that, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, you should assume that I know what I'm talking about here.
Now, the parent of this thread presents several hypothetical ideas regarding this (although they look more like assertions, given the tone of the post):
1) One would expect Microsoft's ploy to "blow up in their faces".
2) The Danish PM Anders Fogh Rasmussen could respond by adopting non-MS software in government departments, as a retaliatory measure.
3) Anders Fogh Rasmussen might conceivably do so.
4) "Danes are not noted for caving in to agressive ultimatums".
Those are the points I'm going to address.
Short version:
No. Never in a million years. Forget it. End of story.
Long version:
The flights of fancy presented above represent a glorious mix of misinformed wishful thinking. While I suppose I ought to be quite flattered by the picture they paint of Danes, the fact is that they are, historically and contemporarily/politically, simply untrue.
Let me respond to each of these points individually:
1) One would expect Microsoft's ploy to "blow up in their faces".
Why? When has Microsoft (or any other major corporation) ever suffered a serious and permanent backlash from using strong-arm tactics? Small setbacks, yes - but what reason would Bill Gates have for believing that such an outcome is in any way likely?
2) The Danish PM Anders Fogh Rasmussen could respond by adopting non-MS software in government departments, as a retaliatory measure.
No. The Danish PM doesn't have that sort of comprehensive influence over government purchasing policies. Certainly, he could push for legislation in such matters, and instruct his cabinet to push for adoption of non-MS solutions within their ministries, but even if he were likely to do so (which he isn't, see point 3) the time frame for a switch-over would be long. The wheels of bureaucracy grind slowly.
3) Anders Fogh Rasmussen might conceivably do so.
No, he wouldn't. In fact, I don't hesitate to use the word "inconceivable" in that context. Rasmussen is a liberal-right ("liberal" in the Danish context meaning "laissez-faire capitalist") politician, and his entire political career is built on the conviction that free market forces and less government are the panaceas whereby all economic and social evils will be eradicated. In fact, I think he actually believes that. For ideological reasons alone, it is highly improbable that he would do so.
Leaving aside the ideology, Fogh Rasmussen would be a pretty irresponsible public official if he chose the path of outright confrontation. Such a move could (and would) be interpreted by the U.S. as a form of protectionism, and become the opening move in a trade war. No responsible PM would involve his country in such a situation. He'd be more likely to knuckle under.
4) "Danes are not noted for caving in to agressive ultimatums".
It pains me to say this, but this is relatively untrue. Although Denmark has sometimes resisted ultimatums (such as the British demand that Denmark surrender her navy in 1801), the fact is that any confrontation has eventually led to the Danes capitulating and giving the foe what he wanted. We didn't invent the term "appeasement", but by damn, we live it.
The parent post cites the Danish evacuation of the Jews in 1943 as an example of Danish refusal to cave in - but the evacuation was largely carried out by private individuals. The government was not involved in any significant degree. In fact, when Denmark was invaded in 1940, the government rapidly chose to capitulate and enter into a policy of cooperation with the Nazis. Honestly, the only reason Denmark was not treated as a collaborator nation after t
So would I. In fact, I plan to do so.
Hell, just take a look at my handle. I've had it for years, incidentally, and I plan to still be using it a century from now. Assuming handles are anything as simple as brief text strings, by then.
I want to live forever. I want to see long-term geological changes occur; I want to see evolution produce new and interesting solutons to age-old problems; I want millennia-long vacations ("I'll just pop off to the Lesser Magellanic Cloud for a quick jaunt - back in a while..."); I want all of these, and many more benefits that I can't imagine yet.
I want my life-span to be so long that it is only terminated with the end of the universe, assuming we haven't found a solution to that problem when it rolls around.
I want to live forever.
star trek.. the source for scientific resources!
Awww... I was going to say that, and you beat me to it. *pouts*
I wished for a Heisenberg compensator for my teleporter, this Christmas - but all I got was a crummy cat in a box.
...as opposed to Slashdotters, who have enough time on their hands to waste it on reading your pointless posts (and mine)?
I can match that story with one of my own. On a serious forum for discussing anime (Yeah, I know, I know - are you done laughing? Can I get on with my story now?), a new user posted a borderline legible post in the introduction, only to be taken to task for this by one of the staff.
The new user replied predictably. Here's my reply, with included quotes from the other posts - all usernames have been replaced as appropriate, but if you're really curious, Google for it.
----
grammarchallenged wrote:
No, grammarchallenged, you are wrong. If you can't be bothered to maintain a minimum of courtesy (and that includes the basic niceties of spelling and grammar), then why should we consider your conversation worth our time?
And if an appeal to common courtesy doesn't convince you (as I suspect it may not), then I urge you to read the rules of this forum.
Among other things, they clearly state:
As staffguy quite correctly said,
Unless you have pretensions to be a modern e.e. cummings, don't use all-lower-case text, please.
By the way, whoever told you the net was a place where no rules applied was either immature or lying.
----
As you can see, this is a near-textbook case of the same mechanic in operation. It's as if people sincerely believe this hogwash about the internet being a "no-fly zone", in terms of grammar and spelling.
I have to ask of all of you: has anyone, in all the time you've been 'net users, authoritatively informed you that you didn't have to use correct grammar or spelling on the internet?
No? I didn't think so.
Where do these people get this idea from? How does this moron-meme propagate?
When mail receiving
and grammar, spelling poorly
seek oneness with Tao.
Newsflash: In corporate AMERICA, English is required learning.
Newsflash 2: People who speak English as a second language are often better at correct grammar then native English-speakers.
The solution is obvious: outsource spelling and grammar. Millions of Indians are waiting to conjugate your verbs for pennies.