For some companies the hiring process is a form of masturbation. Rejecting a high percentage of people makes them feel like they select only the best, which implies that they are the best too.
When I was hiring we spent only about an hour with each candidate and hired people who worked out fine.
"Companies don't employee people just to give them jobs, they employee people because they need them. If you have no use for part of your workforce, regardless or earnings, the wise thing to do is slim-down."
No, the wise thing is to not hire people you don't need. In any case, sudden layoffs are usually the result of poor company performance or to spin a better image for the stock market. It's rarely done because people aren't needed.
1) McNealy was obsessed with beating Bill Gates and MS rather than focusing on Sun's own bottom line.
2) Sun couldn't maintain an advantage in costs/benefits of their hardware relative to PC.
Had Sun embraced OSS earlier, customers would have realized earlier that Sun's servers were too expensive and it's fall would have come that much sooner.
The problem is that we are in a state of denial when it comes to scaling usability. Supporting devices with tiny displays using the same library will compromise the mainstream case one way or the other.
Using the same code from mainframe to hand-held may be a beautiful abstraction, but it sucks for real-world users.
The reality is that the power of the US government to regulate the future behavior of a company that has found to be a abusive monopoly is much more limited than many Slashdotters believe.
In the case of the EU, who knows? Sometimes it seems like they're making up the laws as they go.
"The HTML rendering components should be made into a redistributable package, like the.NET framework."
Sure, adding a download step is exactly what a developer wants to do to keep his customers happy.
"This arrangement would also encourage application developers to more carefully consider why and how they add HTML rendering to their app, and whether they should use some other platform, such as XULRunner or Webkit."
The implication is that the developers using the MS engine didn't make the right decision. Thanks. I always seek advice from those who don't have any experience with my tools. Perhaps I can provide equally valuable advice for Linux developers although I'm not one myself.
Let's be honest. If DOJ had lost their case, people would still be making excuses for Apple doing the same thing as MS.
As individuals, the issue isn't what the government or the courts determine, but our own experience. Some people don't like Apple's bundling and some people don't like MS's bundling. Both have an equal right to be angry.
Even your translation is wrong because you're still using the word convicted. The DOJ could have filed a criminal complaint but did not because it requires a higher standard of proof that they knew they couldn't meet because the case was too weak.
"Opera's complaint specifically addressed the fact that MS's abuse has resulted in a huge portion of the Web no longer being standards compliant and that this was part of MS's intention as revealed by their internal memos."
The standards were pretty loose at the time IE first appeared. You could argue Javascript was the first non-standard browser extension.
I was merely (humorously, I hopped) pointing out that there are many open source projects that are based on financially failed proprietary projects. That doesn't mean they don't have some value as a technology.
I think IBM, Oracle, Red Hat and Sun are all to an extent open source posers. One can only speculate how much more successful Java would be on the desktop if Sun had opened it years ago rather than suing MS over it. After wringing all possible money out of Java, they finally open source it.
If you create restrictions that as a practical matter only affect one group of people, it's still discrimination.
You could pass a law outlawing any masturbation that involves a penis and say it's not discrimination against men because women can't masturbate with a penis either.
"God forbids it because it is harmful for us, as a society and as individuals."
Surely God could have forbid it by not designing beings who are capable of being attracted to the same sex. God in the eyes of many religions appears to be a typical PHB.
I thought somebody might turn my comment into a joke, but I didn't think somebody would seriously misunderstand it. Surely you've heard the expression "put yourself in his position". Hint: it has nothing to do with posture.
The problem is that the homosexuality is mentioned little in the Bible - rather insignificant compared to the 10 commandments. Yet many Christians look the other way when it comes to other clear-cut sins.
I believe they do this because their cultural opposition to homosexuality is the key driving force and then they look to the Bible for justification.
It takes an all-knowing God to identify many Christians today since they certainly don't model their life after Jesus. They act more like modern-day pharisees.
Slashdot Mirror
For some companies the hiring process is a form of masturbation. Rejecting a high percentage of people makes them feel like they select only the best, which implies that they are the best too.
When I was hiring we spent only about an hour with each candidate and hired people who worked out fine.
"Companies don't employee people just to give them jobs, they employee people because they need them. If you have no use for part of your workforce, regardless or earnings, the wise thing to do is slim-down."
No, the wise thing is to not hire people you don't need. In any case, sudden layoffs are usually the result of poor company performance or to spin a better image for the stock market. It's rarely done because people aren't needed.
And that's why GE is the market leader today. Oh wait...
Sounds like you're doing them a favor.
"Microsoft, by virtue of its near-monopoly on the desktop, could kill a DRM scheme for the desktop simply by refusing to support it."
If they did that, how long would take the EU to start investigating them for abusing their monopoly position?
Who would you prefer? George Bush, or Richard Nixon...
Sun had two fundamental problems.
1) McNealy was obsessed with beating Bill Gates and MS rather than focusing on Sun's own bottom line.
2) Sun couldn't maintain an advantage in costs/benefits of their hardware relative to PC.
Had Sun embraced OSS earlier, customers would have realized earlier that Sun's servers were too expensive and it's fall would have come that much sooner.
The problem is that we are in a state of denial when it comes to scaling usability. Supporting devices with tiny displays using the same library will compromise the mainstream case one way or the other.
Using the same code from mainframe to hand-held may be a beautiful abstraction, but it sucks for real-world users.
And why should MS care about them?
"After Microsoft killed Netscape ..."
So you don't know the difference between murder and suicide? Netscape did a lot of dumb things, not the least of which was getting into bed with Sun.
The reality is that the power of the US government to regulate the future behavior of a company that has found to be a abusive monopoly is much more limited than many Slashdotters believe.
In the case of the EU, who knows? Sometimes it seems like they're making up the laws as they go.
"Wrong. Because most people assume windows is free since it came with their computer."
RMS had that problem too. He thought since the mainframe was bundled with source code, that the software was zero cost.
"The HTML rendering components should be made into a redistributable package, like the .NET framework."
Sure, adding a download step is exactly what a developer wants to do to keep his customers happy.
"This arrangement would also encourage application developers to more carefully consider why and how they add HTML rendering to their app, and whether they should use some other platform, such as XULRunner or Webkit."
The implication is that the developers using the MS engine didn't make the right decision. Thanks. I always seek advice from those who don't have any experience with my tools. Perhaps I can provide equally valuable advice for Linux developers although I'm not one myself.
Let's be honest. If DOJ had lost their case, people would still be making excuses for Apple doing the same thing as MS.
As individuals, the issue isn't what the government or the courts determine, but our own experience. Some people don't like Apple's bundling and some people don't like MS's bundling. Both have an equal right to be angry.
Even your translation is wrong because you're still using the word convicted. The DOJ could have filed a criminal complaint but did not because it requires a higher standard of proof that they knew they couldn't meet because the case was too weak.
"Opera's complaint specifically addressed the fact that MS's abuse has resulted in a huge portion of the Web no longer being standards compliant and that this was part of MS's intention as revealed by their internal memos."
The standards were pretty loose at the time IE first appeared. You could argue Javascript was the first non-standard browser extension.
I was merely (humorously, I hopped) pointing out that there are many open source projects that are based on financially failed proprietary projects. That doesn't mean they don't have some value as a technology.
I think IBM, Oracle, Red Hat and Sun are all to an extent open source posers. One can only speculate how much more successful Java would be on the desktop if Sun had opened it years ago rather than suing MS over it. After wringing all possible money out of Java, they finally open source it.
But it really doesn't apply to everyone equally.
If you create restrictions that as a practical matter only affect one group of people, it's still discrimination.
You could pass a law outlawing any masturbation that involves a penis and say it's not discrimination against men because women can't masturbate with a penis either.
"God forbids it because it is harmful for us, as a society and as individuals."
Surely God could have forbid it by not designing beings who are capable of being attracted to the same sex. God in the eyes of many religions appears to be a typical PHB.
"Homosexuals have the same right to marry (restricted to someone of the opposite sex) as any one else. Where is the discrimination?"
By your logic, if the law said that you could only marry someone of the same sex, it wouldn't be discrimination, right?
I thought somebody might turn my comment into a joke, but I didn't think somebody would seriously misunderstand it. Surely you've heard the expression "put yourself in his position". Hint: it has nothing to do with posture.
The problem is that the homosexuality is mentioned little in the Bible - rather insignificant compared to the 10 commandments. Yet many Christians look the other way when it comes to other clear-cut sins.
I believe they do this because their cultural opposition to homosexuality is the key driving force and then they look to the Bible for justification.
It takes an all-knowing God to identify many Christians today since they certainly don't model their life after Jesus. They act more like modern-day pharisees.
see: http://www.lightpointe.com/home.cfm
Where all the failed projects go to die.
Perhaps open source projects should be split into two categories (inspired by MIB II):
Old and busted:
Netscape Enterprise Server
New Hotness:
Apache
This is a silly distinction. We don't have the right of free speech because it's about a "grouping of two people" exchanging ideas?