A very valid point. However, in this case, BNL in on the Reprise label which is, you guessed it, a Time Warner company. When I saw this in the record store, I put the CD down and walked out.
Now I'm trying to find a way to get the money to BNL directly while I d/l the new songs from Napster. I will gladly support BNL. I refuse to support Time Warner as long as they are attacking me. ________________
"...for an asteroid the size of texas (astrologically speaking - very, very, unlikely)..."
Actually, astrologically speaking, it's quite likely as those folks will buy anything. I'm sure you meant astronomically speaking, in which case, yes, it is quite unlikely. ________________
"Microsoft is always looking at ways to improve the simplicity, flexibility and fairness of its licensing practices in response to evolving customer needs and improvements in technology."
Translation: Microsoft is always aware of how we are screwing our customers (though we will deny it if asked). When the uproar threatens to overturn our favorable cost/benefit ratio, we will make changes.
"This change recognizes advances in how Microsoft Select License and Enterprise Agreement customers are deploying Microsoft software across corporate networks and helps to simplify and speed deployment of new Microsoft products."
Translation: Although our customers were already deploying our software that way before this change, we need to find an excuse for making this license change now. Therefore, we are blaming our customers for this. They changed, you see, and being the responsive company that we are, we nobly changed with them. But only the big customers, you see, not the little guys who were the ones that couldn't afford this nonsense in the first place. But who cares about the little guys? We're Microsoft! We don't have to care.
"The Benefits:
Faster deployment of licensed Microsoft software products throughout an organization using the advanced deployment technologies now available for Microsoft products."
Translation: Well, not 'faster' really, since they will keep doing what they were doing before, but we don't want to say that we're no longer screwing them as badly so this is how we will phrase it. Faster, yeah, that's it!
" Reduction in Total Cost of Ownership (TCO) for Microsoft software through easier deployment."
Translation: Uh, yeah, we're saving our customers money, you see! Yeah, aren't we great? And it's 'easier' this way because, *cough* they don't have to pay us twice -- uh scratch that from the record.
________________
Thank you for your response and clarification. As it happens, I am not, nor have I ever been in an HMO. I have always had other forms of health coverage. So my comments were empathetic toward others, not based on personal experience.
So was I making up accusations? No, everything I said about HMOs came directly from physicians complaining about the way HMOs have treated them. You say that the HMO decision-makers are medical professionals. The physicians I have spoken with say the opposite. The reality probably is that both are true in some cases. You are presenting the best-case scenario, and I was presenting the worst-case scenario.
Although I thank you for setting a more balanced tone to my comments, it wasn't my intent to talk about HMOs as such. Rather, I was using that as a common example of the attitude of profits-over-people. If my example painted with too broad a stroke, my original point still stands -- there are numerous examples where corporations cause human suffering in the name of profits. ________________
"Don't you feel there's a difference between intentionally breaking into someone's computer system, and slightly speeding?
Absolutely. I didn't mean to give the wrong impression. I was talking about trends, not current events. My point was that as laws and restrictions pile up, it becomes harder and harder to even be aware of every law, let alone keep them. It is at that point that you get the situation I was talking about.
I am not condoning breaking into computer systems, but I do have issues with that being a felony except in the most egregious of cases. And yes, it's an entirely different thing to be caught speeding. For one thing, you won't make national headlines for doing so. For another, it's not a felony. ________________
"I'm constantly amazed that people in journalism either have no logical base or are masters of sensationalism. I think it's a little from column A and a little bit from column B. "
I agree. For one thing, most people don't think through their words very carefully. It's easy to slip cliches into everyday speech. A journalist merely scribbles down the sloppy speech.
Something else that often plays a part is the lack of mathematical thinking among most folks. The Attorney General probably wasn't thinking what stating 'one half' of Net users really meant in real terms.
And, as you say, sensationalism can play a part in the news game. "Coming up next, your neighbor may be a criminal!"
"Eventually, they will have too many restrictions, and if they force people to break laws to do things that they are legally doing at this moment, what is to make these people not do other illegal things? "
There are some who contend that this is exactly what they want, and already have in the non-tech world. That if there are enough laws and restrictions in place, any time a law enforcer wants to harrass you, they can -- legally.
Most of the time, you break the laws (slightly speeding, jaywalking, and so on) without even thinking about it, and with no repercussions. The sheriff decides to keep his eye on you, however, and you get hauled in for something trivial. If tech laws keep piling on, we may see a similar phenomenon with our online activity, as you alluded. ________________
Theft is wrong regardless of the medium used. However, I found Michigan's Attorny General stated matters in the usual exaggerated tone that the government uses to smear technology users:
Granholm said: "Hacking is the dark side of high technology's power and progress. For every person using a computer or the Internet for research, commerce or communication, there may be another person using that technology to commit a crime. '
She probably didn't mean that literally (how stupid would she have to be in order for that to be the case), but using such inflammatory language is wrong. Does she really mean to give the impression that half of the Net users are legitimate, and half are criminals? That would mean hundreds of millions of criminals!
(sarcasm)No wonder law enforcement has to work so hard to make the Net safe for us!(/sarcasm) ________________
"The expectation of ultimate salvation through technology, whatever the immediate human and social costs, has become the unspoken orthodoxy, reinforced by a market-induced enthusiasm for novelty and sanctioned by a millenarian yearning for new beginnings. This popular faith, subliminally indulged and intensified by corporate, government, and media pitchmen, inspires an awed deference to the practitioners and their promises of deliverance while diverting attention from more urgent concerns. Thus, unrestrained technological development is allowed to proceed apace, without serious scrutiny or oversight -- without reason."
I know people who go to the opposite extreme -- they see the problems with tecnological developments (auto pollution, atomic weapons, and the like) and take the attitude that technology is evil, or that it often is used that way.
Both the worship of techology, and the hatred of technology seems to me to miss the point. Technology is simply a tool. It can be used to create good things, and bad. It can result in good side-effects, and bad.
Speaking specifically of software development, there are times when people outside the field look with awe on the process of creating code. That ignorance of the process may contribute to those extreme ways of thinking about technology. Once you know how something works, it gets de-mystified in your mind and becomes just another tool or skill. Programming, I tell people, is like playing the piano -- it's a skill that can be learned, not magic.
Similarly, technology is a tool, not magic, not a panacea, not the solution to human problems by itself. ________________
"A governemnt which puts into place laws like statutes of limitations preventing people which get screwed by big companies from seeking damages, also refuses to help those same people. (FYI: my wife's disabilities were caused by the drug Thalitimide, for which the distributors can no longer be sued, even though they hid evidence of distribution on medical records.)
Sorry for the rant, but as much as I hate democrats the republicans are responsible this kind of sh*t."
Your frustration is understandable. Still, I don't know that you can put the blame on either democrat or republican. Both parties seem beholden to the corporations, and your experience is yet another in a long line of examples.
Liability laws too dangerous to the bottom line? Let's get our good buddies in government to fix that problem.
It's the stereotypical HMO problem again. The doctor knows of a treatment (or in your case, a device) that would improve the quality of life of a patient. The bean-counters back at the main office, however, say no. Can't have quality of life come ahead of profits and shareholder value.
It's easy to get people to agree to something in a survey -- after all, the questions are being fed to them in easy, bite-sized portions. Often the "correct" response is easy to figure out, since the questions can be misleading. I'm not saying the Business Week survey was deliberately misleading, but we've all read about political polls that do lead the surveyee down the path desired.
I have little doubt, however, that most of those who reponded, "yes, corporations don't always have our best interests at heart" have little idea of just how true that is. Does the average person know about the DMCA and the threat it poses to the First Amendment? Does the average person know that Hollywood is really trying to control information usage while going around claiming to be 'fighting piracy'? Does the average person realize that Disney owning ABC means that some news stories just aren't making it on the air?
I think most persons, who get their news from the networks, or their local newspaper, or even Business Week have little idea of the forces at work in corporations. How could they? Corporations own those news outlets.
They may have a foggy concept of the reality we already clearly see, that political entities are fading in importance compared to the corporations. But they probably don't realize how quickly their rights are being taken away.
Most people are too busy eating their Big Macs, watching Must See TV, and buying the latest SUVs to really see what's happening.
________________
You must be joking. Have you missed the last half-decade of global expansion in free trade? Have you missed all that Clinton has said in favor of this? Have no missed the way Wall Street applauded his economic policies?
The fact that some idiotic dot-coms are finally dying means nothing -- most new businesses die, some deservedly. That's capitalism in action. Cycles come and go (nothing rises forever).
But if you think Clinton was in some way against global expansion there isn't much point in talking. Read. Learn. ________________
Yeah, yeah, I know. If the good times come under a Republican president, the president gets the credit. If the good times come under a Democratic president, the previous Republican president gets the credit (or congress, if Republicans happen to be in power at the time).
Look nothing I said was false. Clinton really did get educated on centrist, global free trade and he pushed it at a time when most Republicans were pulling back into an introspective, American-first attitude. They get it now (or at least some do), but Clinton pushed hard back when it wasn't nearly as popular as it is now. ________________
I honestly believe that Clinton had very little to do with the longest sustained period of growth the US economy has ever seen. Since you obviously consider his impact substantial, could you please list which of his policies had any direct or indirect effect on the economy?
Clinton, more than most folks at first, clearly grasped the concept of the global economy. He pushed for this, and the country benefited greatly in subsequent years as free trade exploded around the globe. ________________
Slashdot Mirror
Now I'm trying to find a way to get the money to BNL directly while I d/l the new songs from Napster. I will gladly support BNL. I refuse to support Time Warner as long as they are attacking me.
________________
Actually, astrologically speaking, it's quite likely as those folks will buy anything. I'm sure you meant astronomically speaking, in which case, yes, it is quite unlikely.
________________
"Microsoft is always looking at ways to improve the simplicity, flexibility and fairness of its licensing practices in response to evolving customer needs and improvements in technology."
Translation: Microsoft is always aware of how we are screwing our customers (though we will deny it if asked). When the uproar threatens to overturn our favorable cost/benefit ratio, we will make changes.
"This change recognizes advances in how Microsoft Select License and Enterprise Agreement customers are deploying Microsoft software across corporate networks and helps to simplify and speed deployment of new Microsoft products."
Translation: Although our customers were already deploying our software that way before this change, we need to find an excuse for making this license change now. Therefore, we are blaming our customers for this. They changed, you see, and being the responsive company that we are, we nobly changed with them. But only the big customers, you see, not the little guys who were the ones that couldn't afford this nonsense in the first place. But who cares about the little guys? We're Microsoft! We don't have to care.
"The Benefits: Faster deployment of licensed Microsoft software products throughout an organization using the advanced deployment technologies now available for Microsoft products."
Translation: Well, not 'faster' really, since they will keep doing what they were doing before, but we don't want to say that we're no longer screwing them as badly so this is how we will phrase it. Faster, yeah, that's it!
" Reduction in Total Cost of Ownership (TCO) for Microsoft software through easier deployment."
Translation: Uh, yeah, we're saving our customers money, you see! Yeah, aren't we great? And it's 'easier' this way because, *cough* they don't have to pay us twice -- uh scratch that from the record.
________________
In case of a water landing, you will find information on the use of floatation devices at this URL...
Please fasten your javascripts.
________________
So was I making up accusations? No, everything I said about HMOs came directly from physicians complaining about the way HMOs have treated them. You say that the HMO decision-makers are medical professionals. The physicians I have spoken with say the opposite. The reality probably is that both are true in some cases. You are presenting the best-case scenario, and I was presenting the worst-case scenario.
Although I thank you for setting a more balanced tone to my comments, it wasn't my intent to talk about HMOs as such. Rather, I was using that as a common example of the attitude of profits-over-people. If my example painted with too broad a stroke, my original point still stands -- there are numerous examples where corporations cause human suffering in the name of profits.
________________
Absolutely. I didn't mean to give the wrong impression. I was talking about trends, not current events. My point was that as laws and restrictions pile up, it becomes harder and harder to even be aware of every law, let alone keep them. It is at that point that you get the situation I was talking about.
I am not condoning breaking into computer systems, but I do have issues with that being a felony except in the most egregious of cases. And yes, it's an entirely different thing to be caught speeding. For one thing, you won't make national headlines for doing so. For another, it's not a felony.
________________
I agree. For one thing, most people don't think through their words very carefully. It's easy to slip cliches into everyday speech. A journalist merely scribbles down the sloppy speech.
Something else that often plays a part is the lack of mathematical thinking among most folks. The Attorney General probably wasn't thinking what stating 'one half' of Net users really meant in real terms.
And, as you say, sensationalism can play a part in the news game. "Coming up next, your neighbor may be a criminal!"
sigh
________________
There are some who contend that this is exactly what they want, and already have in the non-tech world. That if there are enough laws and restrictions in place, any time a law enforcer wants to harrass you, they can -- legally.
Most of the time, you break the laws (slightly speeding, jaywalking, and so on) without even thinking about it, and with no repercussions. The sheriff decides to keep his eye on you, however, and you get hauled in for something trivial. If tech laws keep piling on, we may see a similar phenomenon with our online activity, as you alluded.
________________
I figured someone would be stupid enough to state the obvious pun in that sentence. Most of us merely noted it and moved on.
________________
Granholm said: "Hacking is the dark side of high technology's power and progress. For every person using a computer or the Internet for research, commerce or communication, there may be another person using that technology to commit a crime. '
She probably didn't mean that literally (how stupid would she have to be in order for that to be the case), but using such inflammatory language is wrong. Does she really mean to give the impression that half of the Net users are legitimate, and half are criminals? That would mean hundreds of millions of criminals!
(sarcasm)No wonder law enforcement has to work so hard to make the Net safe for us!(/sarcasm)
________________
I know people who go to the opposite extreme -- they see the problems with tecnological developments (auto pollution, atomic weapons, and the like) and take the attitude that technology is evil, or that it often is used that way.
Both the worship of techology, and the hatred of technology seems to me to miss the point. Technology is simply a tool. It can be used to create good things, and bad. It can result in good side-effects, and bad.
Speaking specifically of software development, there are times when people outside the field look with awe on the process of creating code. That ignorance of the process may contribute to those extreme ways of thinking about technology. Once you know how something works, it gets de-mystified in your mind and becomes just another tool or skill. Programming, I tell people, is like playing the piano -- it's a skill that can be learned, not magic.
Similarly, technology is a tool, not magic, not a panacea, not the solution to human problems by itself.
________________
"A governemnt which puts into place laws like statutes of limitations preventing people which get screwed by big companies from seeking damages, also refuses to help those same people. (FYI: my wife's disabilities were caused by the drug Thalitimide, for which the distributors can no longer be sued, even though they hid evidence of distribution on medical records.)
Sorry for the rant, but as much as I hate democrats the republicans are responsible this kind of sh*t."
Your frustration is understandable. Still, I don't know that you can put the blame on either democrat or republican. Both parties seem beholden to the corporations, and your experience is yet another in a long line of examples.
Liability laws too dangerous to the bottom line? Let's get our good buddies in government to fix that problem.
It's the stereotypical HMO problem again. The doctor knows of a treatment (or in your case, a device) that would improve the quality of life of a patient. The bean-counters back at the main office, however, say no. Can't have quality of life come ahead of profits and shareholder value.
Rant on...
________________
It walks down stairs
Alone or in pairs
It makes a roboty sound
It springs! It springs!
A mobility thing!
Everyone knows it's iBot...
________________
I have little doubt, however, that most of those who reponded, "yes, corporations don't always have our best interests at heart" have little idea of just how true that is. Does the average person know about the DMCA and the threat it poses to the First Amendment? Does the average person know that Hollywood is really trying to control information usage while going around claiming to be 'fighting piracy'? Does the average person realize that Disney owning ABC means that some news stories just aren't making it on the air?
I think most persons, who get their news from the networks, or their local newspaper, or even Business Week have little idea of the forces at work in corporations. How could they? Corporations own those news outlets.
They may have a foggy concept of the reality we already clearly see, that political entities are fading in importance compared to the corporations. But they probably don't realize how quickly their rights are being taken away.
Most people are too busy eating their Big Macs, watching Must See TV, and buying the latest SUVs to really see what's happening.
________________
The fact that some idiotic dot-coms are finally dying means nothing -- most new businesses die, some deservedly. That's capitalism in action. Cycles come and go (nothing rises forever).
But if you think Clinton was in some way against global expansion there isn't much point in talking. Read. Learn.
________________
Especially weird when people reply to messages they misunderstood. Nobody said Clinton was a republican. What world are you in?
________________
Look nothing I said was false. Clinton really did get educated on centrist, global free trade and he pushed it at a time when most Republicans were pulling back into an introspective, American-first attitude. They get it now (or at least some do), but Clinton pushed hard back when it wasn't nearly as popular as it is now.
________________
Clinton, more than most folks at first, clearly grasped the concept of the global economy. He pushed for this, and the country benefited greatly in subsequent years as free trade exploded around the globe.
________________