That's what he's saying. However, it's quite likely that he's wrong. He seems to be falling for one of the classic traps of conspiracy theorists: failing to apply Occam's Razor.
There's a story about a guy being denied tenure because he wrote a creationist book, except he was denied tenure for the same reasons that any other professor would be denied tenure: Not bringing in grants, not graduating students, not publishing papers. The book he wrote actually would have worked in favour if he hadn't slacked off on everything else to write it.
Similarly the rest of his persecutions consist of people with a sense of entitlement blaming all of their failures on creationist persecution.
Why don't creationists put together an investment fund, where people pay in and the stake is used as venture capital for things like oil and mineral rights? If "Flood geology" is really a better theory, then it should make better predictions about where raw materials are than standard geology does. The profits from such a venture could pay for a lot of evangelism. Why isn't anyone doing this? Actually, they do. None of them have been successful in any way, and that's probably why you haven't heard of it. I only know about this because it was part of one of the CBC's Tapestry shows.
Frankly, I don't believe you. Your story sounds made up to justify your position and I don't really care whether you made it up, or someone else made it up and you're repeating it. Please provide some evidence to support your claims or stop posting them.
Too true. Every version of windows since XP has been originally announced as "breaking backwards compatibility" usually with a "revolutionary new file system" that will be "a fully functional relational database".
Yawn.
Microsoft will, most likely, bow to the demands of their customer base and not break backwards compatibility. They'll release another half-done operating system that's a major drop in performance over the last version but has a few new bells and whistles bolted on to make it look like it's not a total failure.
Your critics have (correctly) understood that there is no functional difference between a condom and a morning after pill.
The only difference is in the mystical view point over when it is a baby and when it is not. All eggs and all sperm have the potential to eventually become a person. Fertilization is just one of many steps on the road of development. You obviously don't consider an unfertilized egg to be a person. Why not?
I mean, in reality, if every fertilized egg were truly a person, well then God must be the biggest mass murderer in history, because last time I checked, the stats said somewhere over 66% of all fertilized eggs fail to implant correctly. That means that over two thirds of all people are never born. That's just not right. I submit the problem is your defining something as a person long before you should. It's common practice among women (and you might not know this), to not discuss a pregnancy (except with a doctor/midwife) before the first trimester is over. Mostly it's to avoid making the devastation of a miscarriage any worse than it already is. They're that common, that most of the time, if a woman miscarries, you would never even know about it.
Now, to me, it doesn't make any sense to refer to a fetus as a baby, or consider it worthy of having human rights, until it has a functional brain. Once the brain is there are working, it is now possible for it to sustain life and become a person. There's a certain symmetry there between life and death. You're not alive until you have a brain, and not alive after you've lost it.
Yeah, and it'll stay that way until someone figures out how to fix the gerrymandering problem. As long as the parties decide who gets the safe seats, they'll pick the people who can raise the most money and avoid the people who have a spine.
Frankly, I had little respect for ISO processes before this. Now, I know ISO standardization is utterly worthless. I mean, we're just finding out about this now because OpenXML is an issue of interest to us. The process has likely been bought before, just by people who know the meaning of the word "subtlety".
To me, this clearly shows that ISO, as an organization, is a useless rubber stamp.
On contrary, my good man, I've been around. I know how things work. I've seen great products become rubbish because marketing people were allowed to re-design it. I've seen many things come and go, and you know the ones that work great and are still here? All too often they are the open source products that are released so everyone can use them and modify them. Closed source is fine, but you always have to be aware that if your provider goes away, you are simply out of luck. This is not a small risk.
Apart from that your doomsday scenarios are, simply put, woefully ignorant. I write software for a living, you know. I think I understand the mindset of at least some of those of us who do so. I do demand the freedom to modify the code I use. You don't have to meet my demand, I'm no king. I don't set the laws the land. I don't compel people to do as I say. However, if you do not give me the freedom to modify your code, I do not use your code. I do not pay you money. I do not do business with you. Why? Because I'm tired of being trapped in dead-end software hell. I'm tired of upgrades that are downgrades. I'm tired of people trying to wring that little extra bit of money from me.
As far as I'm concerned, open source software is the future. Closed source may have it's place, but increasingly it's only on the bleeding edge of software. You want first mover advantage? Then you pay for it and keep your software closed source for your own advantage. However, sooner or later an open source competitor will turn your cutting edge into common property. That's the beauty of open source, it forces the closed source venders to keep making better and different software instead of selling the same old tired applications over and over again. Frankly, if you don't understand why that's a good thing, then you don't have a clue about technology, the economy and progress.
Lastly, when you make claims about who writes most of the "good software", please back up your assertions with some facts, because you really look like an ignorant twit when you make claims like that with no supporting evidence.
You're not thinking things through. Without needed features you have nothing. However, with freedom you can ensure you always have the needed features. The freedom empowers you, that's why it's important. Without freedom, you're always just a couple of bad quarters away from having nothing again.
This in itself is not illegal. Actually, it is illegal if you have a monopoly. And no, it's not ridiculous to assign human characteristics to groups of people. People exhibit human characteristics in groups. Even corporations, which are merely groups of people with some legal protections against liability, are often aptly described by human labels and human characteristics. The other side of the equation is that the "personality" of a corporation is even less stable than that of your average person. Changes to leadership at the corporation mean big changes to the "personality".
As for your other relativist hog wash, it's hog wash.
To put it simply: Microsoft spends a lot of money to make sure the Windows Monopoly continues as long as it possibly can. They still have discriminatory pricing on Windows, they've just gussied it up to hide the fact that they're doing that. It's pretty rare to find a big computer retailers that offers Linux as an OS. That's because it's cheaper for the retailers to charge everyone for Windows, even if they don't want it.
Microsoft still spends millions of dollars in false advertising and fake "get the facts" campaign to hide the cost of Windows. Then there's the developer lock-in that they established after the first round of competitor executions. Companies develop software for Windows because everyone has Windows, but everyone has Windows because companies develop software for Windows. If you asked someone to switch to an OS that's not Windows, usually the first thing that gets asked is "Will [some program] work in Linux". This the network effect that reinforces itself. And it's a deliberate strategy on Microsoft's part. It's why they're busy subverting the standards process for OOXML. It why they tried to sabotage Java and made their own Java clone. It's why they developed Silverlight as a Windows IIS+Internet Explorer exclusive alternative to flash.
Make no mistake, their success is based on dirty tricks and broken laws. Their continued existence is mostly based on inertia, lock-in, and having a giant pile of cash.
Not exactly. Microsoft became a monopoly through a series of illegal activities. Sure, they didn't hold a gun to anyone head to force them to use Windows, but they did slander and sabotage the competition. They did use their early monopoly power (when they were the only OS for IBM PCs) to sign exclusionary deals with computer vendors to ensure that no other OS could compete. They have practiced discriminatory pricing against any retailer who dared to carry non-MS OSes with the clear intent of driving them out of business for defying Microsoft. They conquered the office suite marketplace by burning it to the ground, and using their OS monopoly rents to outlast their competition. They have a various times deliberately modified their operating system to prevent competitors products from functioning properly in Windows.
In every market that Microsoft has won, they won by being the only choice left.
Frankly, they're looking for evidence that will allow Bush to be convicted on criminal charges for some of the administrations actions. So far, the administration has done a pretty good job of getting rid of any evidence that would directly tie Bush to his crimes.
E) Form a comittee to investigate why your arse is on fire F) Conclude that the fire couldn't possibly be man-made and therefore decide not to interfere in the natural burning process.
It is cheaper for now. China's got problems, possibly big problems. They got huge pollution problems, and they've got run away inflation, plus the standard of living is rising in the cities. Effectively the cost advantage of "Made in China" is rapidly eroding. Some of the cheap manufacturers are now looking to relocate to different Asian countries where the labour costs are now lower than China.
I think you need to put your prejudices down for a second a take a clear look at the situation. The administration is actively partisan and hostile to the Democrats. The Democrats have something along the lines of 51% of the Congress. They can't override a veto without a significant portion of the Republicans breaking ranks to do so, and there's very little chance of them doing so on any issue. Any issue of substance that they could pass a bill will either a) serve Bush's (and Republican) interests or b) get Vetoed. So the essence is, there really isn't anything they can accomplish.
They're biding their time until they face a less hostile president, but while doing so, Republican media assets are accusing them of being a "do nothing congress", so they're working on useless projects that they know are useless but look better than doing nothing.
1) Because the ACID tests show clearly and concisely that it is Microsoft who is doing it wrong. 2) Because Firefox has been eating into their market share. 3) Because it's embrace and extend to extinguish the competition. 4) Because the Acid tests won't check for new, non-standard features that Microsoft introduces (Hello Silverlight!) 5) Because the Microsoft apologists who scream "It's Microsoft therefore it is the standard!" are ignored. 6) Because people are starting to deploy advanced features that say "Doesn't work in IE. Try using a modern browser, please". 7) Because being seen as the company with the worst web browser is bad for the Microsoft brand.
I'm sure there are other reasons, but those are very good self interested reasons why Microsoft would want to implement the standards.
Indeed, you can. I went to Waterloo and got through without taking out any loans, and I didn't, generally speaking, have the top marks in my classes. It's actually pretty easy to do, if you budget reasonably.
Sorry, that was the entire point, they're not a majority of the voters and especially not a majority of the population. Not caring about an issue is merely one aspect of voter apathy. There's also the disenfranchised people who really don't think their vote counts for anything, the people who believe the system is corrupt and don't vote because it's therefore futile, the people who don't know about the issue, the people who don't understand the issue, and the people who are legally barred from voting. There can be other groups as well.
The Christian Right, is very good at motivating their people to go and vote by framing issues in terms right and wrong. Of course, the accuracy of their interpretation of right and wrong is very much open for debate.
But as I was saying, it only takes a tiny minority of organized and interested voters to take control of a voting system with low turnout. It is therefore relatively easy for any motivated group to amplify their importance and cow politicians into working towards the group's goals instead of the populations.
The religious right doesn't represent a majority, except perhaps a majority of voters, even then it's doubtful. They're what is properly called a significant minority.
Suppose for an instance that 30% of voters belonged to the religious right movement. Assume a new law comes up for a vote on it. As long as the law isn't only of interest to the religious right, even at 30% of the actual voters (not eligible) they essentially have the power to pass or fail the bill. To thwart them, you'd need at least 72% of all other voters to disagree with them.
So the moral is the religious right doesn't need to a majority to push their agenda. They just need to have a small but motivated voting body. Voter apathy is actually what allows them to push the rest of you around. When the turn out at an election is 30% of the population, as little as 9% of the population can effectively force their rules on the rest of you.
If the U.S. was fully capitalist the country would be a crumbling has been where millions of people are trapped in the eternal poverty of corporate towns where the corporations owns the buildings, the stores, and the job market. You'd work for the same company that rents you your house and sells you your food, and they'd know exactly how much you can afford for both and price accordingly so that over your lifetime, every luxury just digs you deeper into debt. Debt which would be transferrable to your children because somebody's got to pay it.
Why? Because that's just one of the many nasty abuses of "Free Market Capitalism" that the U.S. government has outlawed. The libertarian response is really that you shouldn't be stupid enough to get caught in something like that. Of course, with no public education I'm not sure how the majority of people are supposed to learn about interest rates, mathematics, and history.
Bah. Libertarians are just communists with a different theory...
No seriously, the founders of the libertarian organizations were mostly former communists who became disillusioned by Stalin, they simply jumped from one extreme to the other without learning a damn thing.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm sorry, did someone forget to tell you that the New York Times isn't a scientific journal, and is, in fact, a newspaper staffed by journalists?
That's what he's saying. However, it's quite likely that he's wrong. He seems to be falling for one of the classic traps of conspiracy theorists: failing to apply Occam's Razor.
There's a story about a guy being denied tenure because he wrote a creationist book, except he was denied tenure for the same reasons that any other professor would be denied tenure: Not bringing in grants, not graduating students, not publishing papers. The book he wrote actually would have worked in favour if he hadn't slacked off on everything else to write it.
Similarly the rest of his persecutions consist of people with a sense of entitlement blaming all of their failures on creationist persecution.
Most of them go bankrupt and financially ruin their investors, a few of them are simply fraudulent from start to end, and there's one or two that employ actual geologists, but still aren't very successful.
http://www.motherjones.com/news/feature/2008/01/let-there-be-light-crude.html
Although, I do find it amusing that religious groups are calling scientists dogmatic.
{{Citation Needed}}
Frankly, I don't believe you. Your story sounds made up to justify your position and I don't really care whether you made it up, or someone else made it up and you're repeating it. Please provide some evidence to support your claims or stop posting them.
Too true. Every version of windows since XP has been originally announced as "breaking backwards compatibility" usually with a "revolutionary new file system" that will be "a fully functional relational database".
Yawn.
Microsoft will, most likely, bow to the demands of their customer base and not break backwards compatibility. They'll release another half-done operating system that's a major drop in performance over the last version but has a few new bells and whistles bolted on to make it look like it's not a total failure.
Your critics have (correctly) understood that there is no functional difference between a condom and a morning after pill.
The only difference is in the mystical view point over when it is a baby and when it is not. All eggs and all sperm have the potential to eventually become a person. Fertilization is just one of many steps on the road of development. You obviously don't consider an unfertilized egg to be a person. Why not?
I mean, in reality, if every fertilized egg were truly a person, well then God must be the biggest mass murderer in history, because last time I checked, the stats said somewhere over 66% of all fertilized eggs fail to implant correctly. That means that over two thirds of all people are never born. That's just not right. I submit the problem is your defining something as a person long before you should. It's common practice among women (and you might not know this), to not discuss a pregnancy (except with a doctor/midwife) before the first trimester is over. Mostly it's to avoid making the devastation of a miscarriage any worse than it already is. They're that common, that most of the time, if a woman miscarries, you would never even know about it.
Now, to me, it doesn't make any sense to refer to a fetus as a baby, or consider it worthy of having human rights, until it has a functional brain. Once the brain is there are working, it is now possible for it to sustain life and become a person. There's a certain symmetry there between life and death. You're not alive until you have a brain, and not alive after you've lost it.
Yeah, and it'll stay that way until someone figures out how to fix the gerrymandering problem. As long as the parties decide who gets the safe seats, they'll pick the people who can raise the most money and avoid the people who have a spine.
Actually, it's more like "Only if and when it will get them votes".
Frankly, I had little respect for ISO processes before this. Now, I know ISO standardization is utterly worthless. I mean, we're just finding out about this now because OpenXML is an issue of interest to us. The process has likely been bought before, just by people who know the meaning of the word "subtlety".
To me, this clearly shows that ISO, as an organization, is a useless rubber stamp.
On contrary, my good man, I've been around. I know how things work. I've seen great products become rubbish because marketing people were allowed to re-design it. I've seen many things come and go, and you know the ones that work great and are still here? All too often they are the open source products that are released so everyone can use them and modify them. Closed source is fine, but you always have to be aware that if your provider goes away, you are simply out of luck. This is not a small risk.
Apart from that your doomsday scenarios are, simply put, woefully ignorant. I write software for a living, you know. I think I understand the mindset of at least some of those of us who do so. I do demand the freedom to modify the code I use. You don't have to meet my demand, I'm no king. I don't set the laws the land. I don't compel people to do as I say. However, if you do not give me the freedom to modify your code, I do not use your code. I do not pay you money. I do not do business with you. Why? Because I'm tired of being trapped in dead-end software hell. I'm tired of upgrades that are downgrades. I'm tired of people trying to wring that little extra bit of money from me.
As far as I'm concerned, open source software is the future. Closed source may have it's place, but increasingly it's only on the bleeding edge of software. You want first mover advantage? Then you pay for it and keep your software closed source for your own advantage. However, sooner or later an open source competitor will turn your cutting edge into common property. That's the beauty of open source, it forces the closed source venders to keep making better and different software instead of selling the same old tired applications over and over again. Frankly, if you don't understand why that's a good thing, then you don't have a clue about technology, the economy and progress.
Lastly, when you make claims about who writes most of the "good software", please back up your assertions with some facts, because you really look like an ignorant twit when you make claims like that with no supporting evidence.
You're not thinking things through. Without needed features you have nothing. However, with freedom you can ensure you always have the needed features. The freedom empowers you, that's why it's important. Without freedom, you're always just a couple of bad quarters away from having nothing again.
As for your other relativist hog wash, it's hog wash.
To put it simply: Microsoft spends a lot of money to make sure the Windows Monopoly continues as long as it possibly can. They still have discriminatory pricing on Windows, they've just gussied it up to hide the fact that they're doing that. It's pretty rare to find a big computer retailers that offers Linux as an OS. That's because it's cheaper for the retailers to charge everyone for Windows, even if they don't want it.
Microsoft still spends millions of dollars in false advertising and fake "get the facts" campaign to hide the cost of Windows. Then there's the developer lock-in that they established after the first round of competitor executions. Companies develop software for Windows because everyone has Windows, but everyone has Windows because companies develop software for Windows. If you asked someone to switch to an OS that's not Windows, usually the first thing that gets asked is "Will [some program] work in Linux". This the network effect that reinforces itself. And it's a deliberate strategy on Microsoft's part. It's why they're busy subverting the standards process for OOXML. It why they tried to sabotage Java and made their own Java clone. It's why they developed Silverlight as a Windows IIS+Internet Explorer exclusive alternative to flash.
Make no mistake, their success is based on dirty tricks and broken laws. Their continued existence is mostly based on inertia, lock-in, and having a giant pile of cash.
Not exactly. Microsoft became a monopoly through a series of illegal activities. Sure, they didn't hold a gun to anyone head to force them to use Windows, but they did slander and sabotage the competition. They did use their early monopoly power (when they were the only OS for IBM PCs) to sign exclusionary deals with computer vendors to ensure that no other OS could compete. They have practiced discriminatory pricing against any retailer who dared to carry non-MS OSes with the clear intent of driving them out of business for defying Microsoft. They conquered the office suite marketplace by burning it to the ground, and using their OS monopoly rents to outlast their competition. They have a various times deliberately modified their operating system to prevent competitors products from functioning properly in Windows.
In every market that Microsoft has won, they won by being the only choice left.
Frankly, they're looking for evidence that will allow Bush to be convicted on criminal charges for some of the administrations actions. So far, the administration has done a pretty good job of getting rid of any evidence that would directly tie Bush to his crimes.
You forgot:
E) Form a comittee to investigate why your arse is on fire
F) Conclude that the fire couldn't possibly be man-made and therefore decide not to interfere in the natural burning process.
It is cheaper for now. China's got problems, possibly big problems. They got huge pollution problems, and they've got run away inflation, plus the standard of living is rising in the cities. Effectively the cost advantage of "Made in China" is rapidly eroding. Some of the cheap manufacturers are now looking to relocate to different Asian countries where the labour costs are now lower than China.
I think you need to put your prejudices down for a second a take a clear look at the situation. The administration is actively partisan and hostile to the Democrats. The Democrats have something along the lines of 51% of the Congress. They can't override a veto without a significant portion of the Republicans breaking ranks to do so, and there's very little chance of them doing so on any issue. Any issue of substance that they could pass a bill will either a) serve Bush's (and Republican) interests or b) get Vetoed. So the essence is, there really isn't anything they can accomplish.
They're biding their time until they face a less hostile president, but while doing so, Republican media assets are accusing them of being a "do nothing congress", so they're working on useless projects that they know are useless but look better than doing nothing.
It's all politics.
1) Because the ACID tests show clearly and concisely that it is Microsoft who is doing it wrong.
2) Because Firefox has been eating into their market share.
3) Because it's embrace and extend to extinguish the competition.
4) Because the Acid tests won't check for new, non-standard features that Microsoft introduces (Hello Silverlight!)
5) Because the Microsoft apologists who scream "It's Microsoft therefore it is the standard!" are ignored.
6) Because people are starting to deploy advanced features that say "Doesn't work in IE. Try using a modern browser, please".
7) Because being seen as the company with the worst web browser is bad for the Microsoft brand.
I'm sure there are other reasons, but those are very good self interested reasons why Microsoft would want to implement the standards.
Indeed, you can. I went to Waterloo and got through without taking out any loans, and I didn't, generally speaking, have the top marks in my classes. It's actually pretty easy to do, if you budget reasonably.
Sorry, that was the entire point, they're not a majority of the voters and especially not a majority of the population. Not caring about an issue is merely one aspect of voter apathy. There's also the disenfranchised people who really don't think their vote counts for anything, the people who believe the system is corrupt and don't vote because it's therefore futile, the people who don't know about the issue, the people who don't understand the issue, and the people who are legally barred from voting. There can be other groups as well.
The Christian Right, is very good at motivating their people to go and vote by framing issues in terms right and wrong. Of course, the accuracy of their interpretation of right and wrong is very much open for debate.
But as I was saying, it only takes a tiny minority of organized and interested voters to take control of a voting system with low turnout. It is therefore relatively easy for any motivated group to amplify their importance and cow politicians into working towards the group's goals instead of the populations.
The religious right doesn't represent a majority, except perhaps a majority of voters, even then it's doubtful. They're what is properly called a significant minority.
Suppose for an instance that 30% of voters belonged to the religious right movement. Assume a new law comes up for a vote on it. As long as the law isn't only of interest to the religious right, even at 30% of the actual voters (not eligible) they essentially have the power to pass or fail the bill. To thwart them, you'd need at least 72% of all other voters to disagree with them.
So the moral is the religious right doesn't need to a majority to push their agenda. They just need to have a small but motivated voting body. Voter apathy is actually what allows them to push the rest of you around. When the turn out at an election is 30% of the population, as little as 9% of the population can effectively force their rules on the rest of you.
If the U.S. was fully capitalist the country would be a crumbling has been where millions of people are trapped in the eternal poverty of corporate towns where the corporations owns the buildings, the stores, and the job market. You'd work for the same company that rents you your house and sells you your food, and they'd know exactly how much you can afford for both and price accordingly so that over your lifetime, every luxury just digs you deeper into debt. Debt which would be transferrable to your children because somebody's got to pay it.
Why? Because that's just one of the many nasty abuses of "Free Market Capitalism" that the U.S. government has outlawed. The libertarian response is really that you shouldn't be stupid enough to get caught in something like that. Of course, with no public education I'm not sure how the majority of people are supposed to learn about interest rates, mathematics, and history.
Bah. Libertarians are just communists with a different theory...
No seriously, the founders of the libertarian organizations were mostly former communists who became disillusioned by Stalin, they simply jumped from one extreme to the other without learning a damn thing.