Actually, a colleague came into my office with the original WSJ piece, and then I read the Ars link, before this was posted on/.
The tip of the iceberg we see in print is worth accepting as truth.
However, I do trust Redmond to engage in a variety of schemes to strengthen its grip on the market.
Invoking Rove to characterize Redmond's behavior was gratuitous, but I'm thinking that they're maneuvering carefully so that the spectre of the Sherman Anti-Trust Act doesn't come home to roost.
I guess if you were to insert the word "draft" in there, I could buy into the idea. Sure, IT is heuristic, and we things need to shake out a bit.
But, by the time somebody like the W3C standardized something, things ought to converge.
In the case of IE, there is tremendous backlash against a convicted monopolist which arrogantly thumbs its nose at standards bodies.
Subtle incompatibilites == monopolistic behavior, IMHO.
Pork is but an example of the "elastic clause" in the Constitution being stretched to the limits.
As nerds, we should be able to look at the way the US Government plays out (for twisted values of "plays") and say "Yep: got a poorly factored hierarchy here, with three layers of government, and then the layering completely shot by TLAs like the SSA and IRS".
Note that I'm specifically attacking the factoring here, not trying to start a flamewar over whether the SSA (Social Security Administration) is a Good Thing or not.
The good news about the SSA is that it's a known quantity, and you get economies of scale from handling it at the Federal level.
One could wish that one's individual vote might have more potential to affect the course of the SSA, however...
By voting for advocates of fiscal conservatism and the free-market who are Republican, I can be "voting against" President Bush just as much as someone who votes for a candidate who believes in an even more gargantuan national government and a far greater socialized economy can be "voting against" President Bush.
"The difference between theory and practice is greater in practice than in theory"
Part of the compromise inherent in our representative democracy is that you're guaranteed some bathwater with your baby.
We end up voting not to maximize the baby, but minimzed the current and projected bathwater.
Perhaps the internet can eventually provide better feedback, as http://porkbusters.org/ would seem to indicate.
One hopes.
Free software goes on out the window, when some figures out that they actually get what they pay for.
Beyond that realization is another one. Consider http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/. You're not getting a mole of water; you're getting a mole of oxygen and two of hydrogen. If you've the fortitude to work through it, you'll know how to manage your thirst yourself.
Free software isn't about paying, it's about investing. While we need not condescend to those who can't/won't see this, we can note that they will indeed become skilled at paying.
it's extremely improbable that your one vote is going to matter one way or the other.
No, but generalized apathy helps no one.
What we really need to do is:
Encourage everyone to view voting as a civic duty
Stigmatize treating Democracy as some kind of spectator sport
Hate W? Great, get out there and vote against his party!
Please, let's have sufficient turnout that, irrespective of the outcome, we don't have one side whining on, at great taxpayer expense, about how the other thugged the election.
Not that facts would dissuade anyone from exercising their First Ammendment right to complain, but facts make a great sound buffer.
"Some company" would become shark bait the minute that there was deemed sufficient revenue for the shark school to mount a campaign of intellectual property conquest.
Rich media experiences are a Faustian bargain. The EULA is an abstract goatskin, and that's your blood you're click/signing.
The reality is that the bulk of people are perfectly content to sign over to a proprietary vendor.
Paraphrasing Mellencamp: "Free Software goes on, long after the thrill of getting mugged by the proprietary vendor is gone".
When was it Apple's game to announce groovy new products, then deliver them behind schedule, bereft of compelling new features, in more confusing variations than a cel phone plan, with hardware requirements that will spur the market penetration of GNU/Linux, and at prices that will surely drive ???profit???.
Slashdot Mirror
Actually, a colleague came into my office with the original WSJ piece, and then I read the Ars link, before this was posted on /.
The tip of the iceberg we see in print is worth accepting as truth.
However, I do trust Redmond to engage in a variety of schemes to strengthen its grip on the market.
Invoking Rove to characterize Redmond's behavior was gratuitous, but I'm thinking that they're maneuvering carefully so that the spectre of the Sherman Anti-Trust Act doesn't come home to roost.
MS only lets itself look completely inept like this to downplay the accusation of being a domineering monopoly.
If Verizon had hired some headz and gone MythTV, then we could be impressed.
Don't be fooled by the Rove-fu.
It's all about partial truth. The 50k increase in jobs is one thing; the 75k loss is another exercise with which we need not nag the reader.
But, by the time somebody like the W3C standardized something, things ought to converge.
In the case of IE, there is tremendous backlash against a convicted monopolist which arrogantly thumbs its nose at standards bodies.
Subtle incompatibilites == monopolistic behavior, IMHO.
The fact that the list was about video games was implicit.
/.ing, for that matter.
At the risk of sounding un-American, I'm disinterested in watching you "get your game on" in a personal way.
Such voyeurism would take away from getting my own on. Or
I suppose you could YouTube yourself, as a popularity check.
Old monopolies don't die, they just limp along amidst mockery.
Note the fact that there are plenty of reptiles in circulation, even beyond public office.
Hey, I won't charge you for the extra 'e'. And I'm no stallmanite, either!
Well, I wouldn't, true, but: we aren't talking about me now, are we?
;)
This is management brought to you by the "If it ain't br0k3, fix it until it is" crowd.
Multiplying the staff by 50 represents a lower bound, you starry-eyed optimist!
Onto Olive with the oil?
Bluto with bluetooth?
Wimpy with <limp-wristed-apologist-goes-here>?
Well, if you duplicated the SSA across 50 states, it would likely need 50X the staff or so, no?
Pork is but an example of the "elastic clause" in the Constitution being stretched to the limits.
As nerds, we should be able to look at the way the US Government plays out (for twisted values of "plays") and say "Yep: got a poorly factored hierarchy here, with three layers of government, and then the layering completely shot by TLAs like the SSA and IRS".
Note that I'm specifically attacking the factoring here, not trying to start a flamewar over whether the SSA (Social Security Administration) is a Good Thing or not.
The good news about the SSA is that it's a known quantity, and you get economies of scale from handling it at the Federal level.
One could wish that one's individual vote might have more potential to affect the course of the SSA, however...
Part of the compromise inherent in our representative democracy is that you're guaranteed some bathwater with your baby.
We end up voting not to maximize the baby, but minimzed the current and projected bathwater.
Perhaps the internet can eventually provide better feedback, as http://porkbusters.org/ would seem to indicate.
One hopes.
Splendid! Thank you for this. Truly, "stuff that matters".
Free software isn't about paying, it's about investing. While we need not condescend to those who can't/won't see this, we can note that they will indeed become skilled at paying.
No, but generalized apathy helps no one.
What we really need to do is:
Hate W? Great, get out there and vote against his party!
Please, let's have sufficient turnout that, irrespective of the outcome, we don't have one side whining on, at great taxpayer expense, about how the other thugged the election.
Not that facts would dissuade anyone from exercising their First Ammendment right to complain, but facts make a great sound buffer.
"Some company" would become shark bait the minute that there was deemed sufficient revenue for the shark school to mount a campaign of intellectual property conquest.
Rich media experiences are a Faustian bargain. The EULA is an abstract goatskin, and that's your blood you're click/signing.
The reality is that the bulk of people are perfectly content to sign over to a proprietary vendor.
Paraphrasing Mellencamp: "Free Software goes on, long after the thrill of getting mugged by the proprietary vendor is gone".
Should that really be "On-Shoring", or simply "Shoring"?
We really need more early ante-prior-pre-planning for these linguistic decisions.
Yeah, but if the deadline intersects Redmond's bottom line (e.g., some kind of DRM issue), then the angle on getting it done becomes acute.
Remember, class: it's all about the frogskins.
Brilliant Plan:
/. userbase into jigsaw, totally destroying their signal/noise ratio.
Upload the entire
After all, I'm a troll: aren't you?
Before your Perl operator table overlord: http://www.ozonehouse.com/mark/blog/code/PeriodicT able.html
"Dahling, it is better to look good than to feel good.
And let me tell you something, dahling: you look BrowserShield-ous."
Well, it's an anti-Redmond troll on an Apple thread. So we should call it Llort and have it run for US Senate in Mississippi, or something.
When was it Apple's game to announce groovy new products, then deliver them behind schedule, bereft of compelling new features, in more confusing variations than a cel phone plan, with hardware requirements that will spur the market penetration of GNU/Linux, and at prices that will surely drive ???profit???.
Can't get the Led out?
One sensed a bottom line somewhere...