Wrong...Try this on: He who hesitates is lost... You don't have any morals or ethical values do you?
I don't hesitate. I don't stand around with my dick in my hand bitching about this OS or that OS.
And as far as morals or ethics, I don't think that you have any. You seem happy to call for gov't punishment of a successful company that's not killing people in factories, that's not misrepresenting their earnings, and that's employing thens of thousands of people in one of the worst economies in thousands of years. You're the thief. You believe in forecefully taking things away from a company that were rightfully earned. Luckily people like you don't have any real power. This country would be shit. Read Atlas Shrugged. It's all about thieves such as yourself and what would happen if people like you got control.
If you punish everybody that went along with MS's monopoly, you basically punish everybody that's keeping this economy alive
I agree. The gov't may be stupid, but they're not stupid enough to kill one of the last viable, profitable technology companies in the country. The company also happens to have it's products in virtually every sector of American business. So if they break up MS, it would be replaced with what...? OSS alternatives generating $0 tax revenue, and 0 jobs?
It's simple, people need to take a stand and boycott Microsoft and its supporters. Either people like being manipulated and bullied by MS tactics or they don't.....pick your side.
Ahh. I remember being a kid in college and everything was black and white. You're right or wrong. Enjoy it kiddo. It won't last forever.
Personally, I don't give a shit who makes what. I use what works and is a good value. Right now, for my business, that's a few MS products and a few Intuit products.
No, the law is just wrong, and so was the lawsuit. The lawsuit was just abuot a lot of pissed off competitors that couldn't keep up. MS won the PC market fair and square. Now that they're huge they're using their size to their advantage. That's called economies of scale. Happens every day. Wal-Mart, Best Buy, Circuit City, etc. That's part of a reason why people actually try to grow their businesses... to fight off competition. The anti-trust laws are wrong and generally harmful. They need to be thrown out.
How about just ignore the whole MS/Anti-MS thing and get on with life? Use the software that works for you and just let it rest. It's soooo old.
Re:Aren't Off-The-Plan "Villages" enough?
on
Open Source Housing
·
· Score: 1
That sounds very nice... in the US, "apartment", even a "nice apartment" is generally one in a large building of thousands, or one in one of many building "units", each holding between 10-50 "apartments". They're all generally the same. Even "luxury" apartments are generally just white boxes inside with a few different layouts. Definitely not suited to living. Suitable for sleeping and watching TV, but not to living, in my opinion. From many years of working in IT, it seems to me that about 95% of all IT geeks live in some generic apartment since "life" is generally a few minutes while not in work, commuting, or sleeping when they get to play with their home computer (as opposed to the one at work). Sad life, really.
Re:Aren't Off-The-Plan "Villages" enough?
on
Open Source Housing
·
· Score: 1
No backyard here, either. That's the beauty of owning your own house. You can do whatever the fuck you want.
Re:Aren't Off-The-Plan "Villages" enough?
on
Open Source Housing
·
· Score: 1
My apartment building has pretty unique units.
You're still living in a "unit". I live in a house (that I designed). Big difference.
Re:Aren't Off-The-Plan "Villages" enough?
on
Open Source Housing
·
· Score: 1
Dude, I was completely with you until you said "my apartment". The very word apartment is pretty disgusting to me... it screams, "I don't care where I live. I just need a generic box to keep the weather out, and the TV in." I find it hard to believe that anyone could value individuality living in an apartment.
I think that Yahoo is already doing the all-encompassing portal thing. The difference between them and.Net/Passport/whaterver it's called this week is that Yahoo is quietly going about their business. They're not tooting their own horn with buzzwords. They don't need to. While they're not perfect, they definitely have the best multi-service integrated platform on the Web today.
As far as spam goes, yes, Yahoo is thousands of tiems better than Hotmail. That being said, Yahoo has started to slip a bit recently. I'm now seeing a message or two a day coming in from spam, whereas I saw zero about 6 months ago, and I'm not doing anything differently with my email (especially my personal one). So while it may be the best, it's not perfect, and I sure as shit hope they're not slipping.
I like Yahoo. Yahoo really has their shit together. I use a lot of different Yahoo services, and I use their single sign-on. I work from many different places from many different computers, but no matter where I am (even in a mall, for example), I've got access to my mail, my contacts, my to do list, auctions I'm watching, stock quotes, news, etc. Yahoo is doing it right.
I quit being a nerd after working in IT for several years. Now, I really want to spend as little time in front of a computer as is humanly possible. I can't stand the damn things. I'm still a geek, but a different kind of geek.
Did it ever occur to you that licensing software for money isn't a real business?
No. That's a really, really stupid idea, and I try to avoid really, really stupid ideas when I can. If I'm gonna spend time building something, and other people want it, then I sell it to them. It's called a business.
I'm a manager too. I don't pay myself right now. Somehow I doubt that I also fall into the "management class" that the parent poster is talking about. Too bad life isn't really that cut & dried, huh?
Not every factory in Asia is a sweatshop. There are hundreds of thousands of factories over there making things for First World nations, and I know for a fact that not all of them are "sweatshops". And even those that are, in relatively free areas like Taiwan and South Korea, people *want* these jobs. The US or European standard of living has no meaning over there. People *want* these jobs because they pay relatively well, and the conditions are better than those of working in a rice paddy all day long for the rest of their lives. So yes, I think that any company that can find willing, productive, and affordable labor in another country should move production there.
The planet's economy is out of whack. It always has been. The European standard of living (I'm talking about hundreds of years here... the US isn't that old) has been so unbelievably good compared to conditions in Africa, Asia, South America etc. for hundreds of years. Now, with real globalization, what we're gonna see is equalization and competition on a global scale. This is a good thing for those people in developing countries, and bad for those of us in modern countries. The standard of living is gonna even out across the planet now. I think that that's a good thing for mankind. Sure, it may suck for US factory workers, but that's life. Life ain't fair. Time for them to find new lines of work, or try to compete with South Koreans who work harder, longer, and for a fraction as much.
I'm chronically wasted. Does this mean they're gonna have to shoot me and test my brain stem. Geez, I hope not. Or, if it has to happen, I hope they do it when I'm really, really wasted. That way I won't feel it. Just an idea. Dude.
Part of capitalism is the right to set your own costs however low you want them to be. That includes giving your product away if you so desire. If you can't compete, that's your problem, not the problem of developers who decide to give things away.
Capitalism onyl works if it assumes that people will want to be reimbursed in some way for their work. People working for free, while it really is a hunky-dory idea that gives me the warm fuzzies, is bullshit. Kids in college living in mommy & daddy's basement giving away their time for free definitely throw things out of whack. How in the hell are people who *do* have a mortgage and a family to pay for supposed to compete with that? And, let's say that these OSS kids put a bunch of software developers & companies out of business... are those really the people that we should be relying on for software? People who have no stake in it whatsoever?
Because of this we maintain the fiction that people are paid what they are worth in a free market economy. The truth is that people are paid as little as the businesses figure they can get away with.
Workers take as much as they can get away with, too.
Actually, they're both true. Employment isn't one sided. Nobody's holding a gun to anybody's head to work (at least in the US). It's just a regular business transaction whereas both sides try to get as much as possible.
If you were to eliminate the greed angle - so that business owners didn't make substantially more than employees for the same amount of work - very few people would ever start a business;
If we eliminated the greed angle, and workers didn't try to gouge their employers, then we'd have many more businesses and many more people employed.
You seem to be under this crazy assumption that workers are just poor, hapless slobs that are under the control of their employers. If you feel that you're like this, perhaps you need to grow some balls and either make yourself a valuable employee at your current job, or find a new one.
Oh please. That's the way it is right now because the economy in much of the modernized world is bad. A few years ago in the US, it was the other way around. Employment is a simple business contract in which both sidestry to get as much as they can, and if successful, settle on a middle ground.
I could also take your argument and say that employees try to get money for free. They try to make as much as they can, job hopping, all the while trying to weasel their way out of work as much as possible.
That's how business works. Both sides have demands, and they meet in the middle.
I agree with C, but C has two parts... they're prepared to quit *and* they are a valuable employee. If they're worthless, then there's no erason the company shouldn't hold the door for them on the way out.
Slashdot Mirror
Wrong...Try this on: He who hesitates is lost... You don't have any morals or ethical values do you?
I don't hesitate. I don't stand around with my dick in my hand bitching about this OS or that OS.
And as far as morals or ethics, I don't think that you have any. You seem happy to call for gov't punishment of a successful company that's not killing people in factories, that's not misrepresenting their earnings, and that's employing thens of thousands of people in one of the worst economies in thousands of years. You're the thief. You believe in forecefully taking things away from a company that were rightfully earned. Luckily people like you don't have any real power. This country would be shit. Read Atlas Shrugged. It's all about thieves such as yourself and what would happen if people like you got control.
If you punish everybody that went along with MS's monopoly, you basically punish everybody that's keeping this economy alive
I agree. The gov't may be stupid, but they're not stupid enough to kill one of the last viable, profitable technology companies in the country. The company also happens to have it's products in virtually every sector of American business. So if they break up MS, it would be replaced with what...? OSS alternatives generating $0 tax revenue, and 0 jobs?
It's simple, people need to take a stand and boycott Microsoft and its supporters. Either people like being manipulated and bullied by MS tactics or they don't .....pick your side.
Ahh. I remember being a kid in college and everything was black and white. You're right or wrong. Enjoy it kiddo. It won't last forever.
Personally, I don't give a shit who makes what. I use what works and is a good value. Right now, for my business, that's a few MS products and a few Intuit products.
Only the wealthy can afford to be activists.
It's clear, MS is above the law
No, the law is just wrong, and so was the lawsuit. The lawsuit was just abuot a lot of pissed off competitors that couldn't keep up. MS won the PC market fair and square. Now that they're huge they're using their size to their advantage. That's called economies of scale. Happens every day. Wal-Mart, Best Buy, Circuit City, etc. That's part of a reason why people actually try to grow their businesses... to fight off competition. The anti-trust laws are wrong and generally harmful. They need to be thrown out.
Fuck off.
How about just ignore the whole MS/Anti-MS thing and get on with life? Use the software that works for you and just let it rest. It's soooo old.
That sounds very nice... in the US, "apartment", even a "nice apartment" is generally one in a large building of thousands, or one in one of many building "units", each holding between 10-50 "apartments". They're all generally the same. Even "luxury" apartments are generally just white boxes inside with a few different layouts. Definitely not suited to living. Suitable for sleeping and watching TV, but not to living, in my opinion. From many years of working in IT, it seems to me that about 95% of all IT geeks live in some generic apartment since "life" is generally a few minutes while not in work, commuting, or sleeping when they get to play with their home computer (as opposed to the one at work). Sad life, really.
No backyard here, either. That's the beauty of owning your own house. You can do whatever the fuck you want.
My apartment building has pretty unique units.
You're still living in a "unit". I live in a house (that I designed). Big difference.
Dude, I was completely with you until you said "my apartment". The very word apartment is pretty disgusting to me... it screams, "I don't care where I live. I just need a generic box to keep the weather out, and the TV in." I find it hard to believe that anyone could value individuality living in an apartment.
I think that Yahoo is already doing the all-encompassing portal thing. The difference between them and .Net/Passport/whaterver it's called this week is that Yahoo is quietly going about their business. They're not tooting their own horn with buzzwords. They don't need to. While they're not perfect, they definitely have the best multi-service integrated platform on the Web today.
As far as spam goes, yes, Yahoo is thousands of tiems better than Hotmail. That being said, Yahoo has started to slip a bit recently. I'm now seeing a message or two a day coming in from spam, whereas I saw zero about 6 months ago, and I'm not doing anything differently with my email (especially my personal one). So while it may be the best, it's not perfect, and I sure as shit hope they're not slipping.
Payment:
I'll buy beer for you and won't tell your parents.
You get to look at my personal collection of nudie magazines.
You can code at my office, and tell your parents that you're at a sleepover. I'm an adult. They'll believe me.
I can pick you up from school, posing as your parents.
I have a PS2 and Grand Theft Auto: Vice City!
You can have all of the soda and candy you want.
Please send resume and/or high score list.
I like Yahoo. Yahoo really has their shit together. I use a lot of different Yahoo services, and I use their single sign-on. I work from many different places from many different computers, but no matter where I am (even in a mall, for example), I've got access to my mail, my contacts, my to do list, auctions I'm watching, stock quotes, news, etc. Yahoo is doing it right.
I quit being a nerd after working in IT for several years. Now, I really want to spend as little time in front of a computer as is humanly possible. I can't stand the damn things. I'm still a geek, but a different kind of geek.
My job already was. That's why I'm not in IT any more. I didn't whine about it, though.
Did it ever occur to you that licensing software for money isn't a real business?
No. That's a really, really stupid idea, and I try to avoid really, really stupid ideas when I can. If I'm gonna spend time building something, and other people want it, then I sell it to them. It's called a business.
I'm a manager too. I don't pay myself right now. Somehow I doubt that I also fall into the "management class" that the parent poster is talking about. Too bad life isn't really that cut & dried, huh?
Not every factory in Asia is a sweatshop. There are hundreds of thousands of factories over there making things for First World nations, and I know for a fact that not all of them are "sweatshops". And even those that are, in relatively free areas like Taiwan and South Korea, people *want* these jobs. The US or European standard of living has no meaning over there. People *want* these jobs because they pay relatively well, and the conditions are better than those of working in a rice paddy all day long for the rest of their lives. So yes, I think that any company that can find willing, productive, and affordable labor in another country should move production there.
The planet's economy is out of whack. It always has been. The European standard of living (I'm talking about hundreds of years here... the US isn't that old) has been so unbelievably good compared to conditions in Africa, Asia, South America etc. for hundreds of years. Now, with real globalization, what we're gonna see is equalization and competition on a global scale. This is a good thing for those people in developing countries, and bad for those of us in modern countries. The standard of living is gonna even out across the planet now. I think that that's a good thing for mankind. Sure, it may suck for US factory workers, but that's life. Life ain't fair. Time for them to find new lines of work, or try to compete with South Koreans who work harder, longer, and for a fraction as much.
I'm chronically wasted. Does this mean they're gonna have to shoot me and test my brain stem. Geez, I hope not. Or, if it has to happen, I hope they do it when I'm really, really wasted. That way I won't feel it. Just an idea. Dude.
Part of capitalism is the right to set your own costs however low you want them to be. That includes giving your product away if you so desire. If you can't compete, that's your problem, not the problem of developers who decide to give things away.
Capitalism onyl works if it assumes that people will want to be reimbursed in some way for their work. People working for free, while it really is a hunky-dory idea that gives me the warm fuzzies, is bullshit. Kids in college living in mommy & daddy's basement giving away their time for free definitely throw things out of whack. How in the hell are people who *do* have a mortgage and a family to pay for supposed to compete with that? And, let's say that these OSS kids put a bunch of software developers & companies out of business... are those really the people that we should be relying on for software? People who have no stake in it whatsoever?
If you have a real case, anyone can get great representation. Lawyers work on contingency. I did it and I sued a Fortune 500 company and won.
Because of this we maintain the fiction that people are paid what they are worth in a free market economy. The truth is that people are paid as little as the businesses figure they can get away with.
Workers take as much as they can get away with, too.
Actually, they're both true. Employment isn't one sided. Nobody's holding a gun to anybody's head to work (at least in the US). It's just a regular business transaction whereas both sides try to get as much as possible.
If you were to eliminate the greed angle - so that business owners didn't make substantially more than employees for the same amount of work - very few people would ever start a business;
If we eliminated the greed angle, and workers didn't try to gouge their employers, then we'd have many more businesses and many more people employed.
You seem to be under this crazy assumption that workers are just poor, hapless slobs that are under the control of their employers. If you feel that you're like this, perhaps you need to grow some balls and either make yourself a valuable employee at your current job, or find a new one.
Oh please. That's the way it is right now because the economy in much of the modernized world is bad. A few years ago in the US, it was the other way around. Employment is a simple business contract in which both sidestry to get as much as they can, and if successful, settle on a middle ground.
I could also take your argument and say that employees try to get money for free. They try to make as much as they can, job hopping, all the while trying to weasel their way out of work as much as possible.
That's how business works. Both sides have demands, and they meet in the middle.
Sounds like you had a really shitty lawyer. You should have gotten at the very least, your money, plus interest, plus a penalty.
Don't forget C. They're prepared to quit.
I agree with C, but C has two parts... they're prepared to quit *and* they are a valuable employee. If they're worthless, then there's no erason the company shouldn't hold the door for them on the way out.