Microsoft just failed to meet the demand for the XBox. Nintendo made several hundred thousand more units, so their supply is more suited for the corresponding demand. Yeah, it might be the best selling console, but that's just because there are more units out for sale.
And, if the Gamecube is a hundred bucks less, let Nintendo milk capitalism for all it's worth.
Interesting...
on
HP Buys Compaq
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
I was discussing this with my parents a few days ago:
Gateway is apparently in the hole because they don't offer much "unique" and with computer sales allegedly having a bad forecast, this doesn't leave much room for competition: Dell, IBM, and now "HP/Compaq" are here to stay.
Can we expect to see more mergers, or what's the deal? With computer "builders," we don't really suffer from the lack of standards, interoperability, etc. that we see in harware/software...so are these mergers really helping consumers or just gaging the diersity of merchants?
I congratulate you upon creation of several pieces of software for the Linux market, and you have successfully blended open and closed source software; however, do you think you can be profitable in a community that sometimes rejects closed source projects? Has the fascination with Free/free software hindered your business plans or has the creation of Free code libraries/bases kept good PR with Linux users while allowing profit to coexist?
Unfortunately, the Linux community has become so infatuated with a single document that will forever exclude it from business: The GNU General Public License. To correct this problem, I have made a website, http://www.magnanimity.org, to promote the Magna Open License. It allows businesses to keep otherwise totally open and unprofitable software closed to free redistribution and "code borrowing," but still open to peer review. And it's so flexible that one can make it freely redistributable if he/she wants! Sounds like a good combo to me. ; ) Please check it out. Because Magnanimity is open source software for the real world.
Yes, but there have been several groups of Republicans in the past, including the Democratic-Republicans, which I believe you are referring to. Regardless, today's Republicans fight for state's rights MUCH more than the centralized-government Democrats.
Several Linux advocates (like myself) fight UCITA in an effort to hinder mandatory licensing schemes. There is, however, in my opinion, some contradiction here: Why is it that the governments attempts to standardize software licensing are hindered whereas the FSF's efforts are glorified???
I believe that the Linux community has been somewhat "brainwashed" into believing that the GNU GPL is the only license that meets the needs of all individuals. Frankly, it doesn't. Since when does freedom only come in one form??? If the Linux community wants to fight standardized licensing programs, then they must abolish their own. (Do not try to deny that the GPL creates two worlds of software...GPL and non-GPL)
So, what must be done? Abolish the GPL? Kill the FSF? Absolutely not. If individuals REALLY want to use the GPL, go ahead. No one can stop you... But I simply believe that many developers use this licensing without understanding or comprehending its true implications.
Yes, this is going to be the Flame War of the Century, but I don't care. Hear me out and then flame. You might learn, or Heaven Forbid, agree.
Richard Stallman founded the GNU movement in order to recreate the utopia that he had at MIT, and there is, of course, no problem with this philosophy. He liked the environment, so he tried to spread the environment to other parts of technological society. The situation complicates, however, when you get people involved that you don't know/don't trust. At MIT, everyone knows everyone, and everyone likes everyone. (Please don't write saying "Well, not everyone likes me, and I'm at MIT." I don't care and you know what I mean. The community is generally friendly and the AI group has its own little, friendly society.) So, when Mr. Stallman tried to spread this ideal to other parts of the world, problems began to arise where the people weren't so friendly and the sharing of code wasn't simply looking out of curiosity or reviewing your best friend's newest 650-line wangdoodle (Roald Dahl, may he rest in peace). People in the "real world" want to sell software, make a living, propel the economy and make their companies/organizations/egos huge.
So, here's where we stand. People aren't your neighbors anymore, and they use your code. This reuse doesn't help just your science department and your university of choice, but is a complete externality. The GPL, therefore, is very community-based. (Dare I say communist.)
How can we fix this problem? Well, by simply rethinking the kosher licensing scheme in the Linux community (there's that darn "community" word again) and making this ideal of everyone-looks-at-everyone's-code-and-makes-everyt hing-better-for-us a reality with a non-community based license (Such as the Magna Open License) that allows the peer review benefit to coexist with privatization and redistribution restriction. WHAT?!? Redistribution Restriction?!? Yes. Why? Because there are people that want to steal your code and use it against you. Unlike Richard Stallman's utopia, as mentioned before, the real world is steeped with greedy people who want to steal code and reuse it without asking permission of the sweat and blood of the laborers who innovated. (Don't deny it. All humans, including you, yes, you, are greedy and selfish by nature...and there is no changing that. Sorry. You lose. We all do.)
Synoptically, the GNU GPL would work if we all lived in little 5-person software groups, but we don't. We live in a world with billions of people (even though an incredibly small amount of those individuals actually own a computer...a smaller percentage on the Internet.) where they don't want to make your code better, just for you...they want to make your code good for them.
I completely agree.
In order to fully understand this situation, you need to have a very good understanding of both micro- and macroeconomics, which, no offense, a lot of slashdot readers don't have. There is a lot more to the MSFT case than the software itself. The entire American market must be put into perspective. ------------------------------------ --------------
The problem I have with the GPL is the SEVERE promotion of standarized software. Assuming that peers have the ability to reuse code (as they do under the GPL), the features of competing software will maintain nothing but balance, and innovation will only become waiting and copying. Many argue that this is good, seeing as how it promotes more innovation of the working body and increases competition, but innovation can only proceed to a certain level with a limited amount of resources (As with the GPL, selling the software is difficult, as it can just be downloaded, etc. for free) So, my question is: With the GPL, how is it beneficial that companies do not have to strive to out-do, so to speak, their competitors, as they can simply use the competing code in their products? Software standardization, in that sense, (otherwise, standards are very good) under the GPL (BSD, LGPL, the list goes on), only promotes laziness and strikes a lower limit of innovation on corporations and non-profit organizations, alike.
The solution: The Magna Open L:icense. It promotes the sole benefit (in my eyes) of OSS: peer review. Other than that, redistribution, code reuse, and modification is completely regulated by the original developers. Yes, software should have owners. The social program that we have turned the GNU movement into (or has it been that way from the beginning?) is drowning the software industry into incentive-less cheating. It's time for freedom for the real world. The ideology of the FSF doesn't and will not work.
Why I'd vote for Bush, and why you should.
on
Should You Vote?
·
· Score: 1
First, let's get something across. I'm only 15, so I can't vote. My parents haven't told me everything about politics: I learn on my own. I have to know this stuff for the school Forensics team. (If anyone from MI out there reads this, and is on a Forensics team, e-mail me if you're in Impromptu/Extemp) There are a lot of things that people don't understand about politics, and that's why I believe that Bush won't get as many botes as he deserves: people don't understand politics. So, even if you hate him, please read this and then tell me what you think.
First, taxes. The whole bit about Gore's 1 percent accusation is, in a sense, true. THink about it this way. If you're making 10 billion dollars a year, and you have to pay 40 percent of your income to federal taxes, that's a LOT of money. So, if Bush gives tax cuts to all Americans, of course a lot is going to be given back to the people who pay all the bills: the richest one percent. It's just a matter of logic. And don't say, "Oh, well the people who make that much can spare some money anyway." American is about capitalism: keeping what you EARN. If you make that money, keep it. You shouldn't be cheated out of hard work. As for myself,I got a paycheck today, and, not to my surprise, I got pummelled with taxes: 15 percent of my income. So, for someone who makes LESS THAN 1000 per year, that's pretty bad. I'd hate to see it get worse. Gore and Nader are both for increases in taxes (Nader is almost socialist), so I say whatever. I want my money back.
Social Security. Ok. Right now, as the current Social Security system stands, every American makes approximately 2 percent each year on this money. Not only does inflation, most of the time, grow faster than this, so we are actually LOSING money, but, if we happen to die before 61 or whatever age it is...I can't quite remember, all of that money goes down the tubes. That SUCKS. Currently, passing those retirement savings on to future generations is illegal, but it is not with the privatization of SS. Also, government-controlled programs would yield a 7 percent annual rate of capital gains through bonds, so that they are secure unless the ENTIRE economy were to collapse, completely. Sounds good to me. Keep my money if I want to invest diferently (On a side note, you can't just take the money. You MUST invest it, so no one will be left in the dark if he/she irresponsibly wastes his SS savings), and make more if the government does the work. Also, I can pass the savings on to my kids. Cool.
Abortion. Listen. Abortion is stupid. You can't play God. If you want to know anything more about this, PLEASE e-mail me and I will send you some essays, etc. that I guarantee will change your mind. If you want to know, a committee of highly respected doctors met shortly after Roe v. Wade, and they determined that life begins at conception, so, regardless of the gestation length, it's murder. Also, a part of a woman's body is scientifically defined as "a structure that shares the same genetic code as the body," and the fetus' g. code is different. It's not her's, the baby is a baby and muder is murder. Nothing can change that.(I know Bush is for abortion is rape, incest and Life OT Mother rases, but the last is almost nothing. Dr. Koop in however many years as the S. Gerneral, was aware of NO CASE where the woman's life was in danger. Anyway, At least he isn't for sucking the brains out of babies and, although I think a bill just passed through Congress abolishing it, yet Clinton will probably veto is, in which babies for which abortion fails, in that their brains are half gone, but they come out crying, and fully alive, it has been MANDATORY to literally throw the half-live baby into the corner and let it die and it has been illegal to otherwise touch/comfort the suffering human. A nurse was fired for cradling a baby whose brains were almost gone, crying, on the verge of death and covered in its own blood. Please. How sick you can be. Stop the horror.)
Gun Control. In the 50's before the first gun control laws were passed, the amount of gun-related crime was 0.4 percent of what it is today. So, this crime is a problem of society, not the government. Also, in Switzerland, the government mandates that each household has in its possession at least 1 gun, and since this legislation was passed, the crime rate has dropped there to become the lowest in Europe, etc. Anyway, it's a Constitutional Right.
School Vouchers. Because I live in Michigan, I'll use Detriot as an example. Let's say that there is some public school in Detroit that has a graduation rate of 10 percent and the academic value is close to nothing. There is a student at this school who would LOVE to learn, but his family is too poor to afford private/parochail school tuition. Why should he be stuck there? He shouldn't. And most schools will not be affected by these vouchers. They are only used where schools are failing. As Bush remarked in one of the debates, "Why should we continue to subsidize failure?" It seems almost rudimentary to me in that schools with no educational value should not be a prison for poor children. Another argument against school vouchers is that teachers don't have to have credentials to teach at the "other schools." If this is a bad thing, than I suppose the State should stop allowing graduate students teach at public universities, such as the prestigious U of M. Kids first.
I think I have covered most of the basic bases for people to consider. If you want more info, just e-mail. (delete the NO SPAM in the address)I would be happy to LaTeX something up for everyone. Thank you for your consideration. I greatly appreciate any comments/criticism. Impromptu rules.:)
CMcTortoise
Oh yeah. If you're wondering about foreign policy, please just look at Cheney's records. Secretary of Defense for some years and tons of government experience. He knows foreign policy like Slashdotters know technology.
Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft just failed to meet the demand for the XBox. Nintendo made several hundred thousand more units, so their supply is more suited for the corresponding demand. Yeah, it might be the best selling console, but that's just because there are more units out for sale.
And, if the Gamecube is a hundred bucks less, let Nintendo milk capitalism for all it's worth.
I was discussing this with my parents a few days ago:
Gateway is apparently in the hole because they don't offer much "unique" and with computer sales allegedly having a bad forecast, this doesn't leave much room for competition: Dell, IBM, and now "HP/Compaq" are here to stay.
Can we expect to see more mergers, or what's the deal? With computer "builders," we don't really suffer from the lack of standards, interoperability, etc. that we see in harware/software...so are these mergers really helping consumers or just gaging the diersity of merchants?
I congratulate you upon creation of several pieces of software for the Linux market, and you have successfully blended open and closed source software; however, do you think you can be profitable in a community that sometimes rejects closed source projects? Has the fascination with Free/free software hindered your business plans or has the creation of Free code libraries/bases kept good PR with Linux users while allowing profit to coexist?
CMcTortoise
-----------------------------------------------
Unfortunately, the Linux community has become so infatuated with a single document that will forever exclude it from business: The GNU General Public License. To correct this problem, I have made a website, http://www.magnanimity.org, to promote the Magna Open License. It allows businesses to keep otherwise totally open and unprofitable software closed to free redistribution and "code borrowing," but still open to peer review. And it's so flexible that one can make it freely redistributable if he/she wants! Sounds like a good combo to me. ; ) Please check it out. Because Magnanimity is open source software for the real world.
-----------------------------------------------
Yes, but there have been several groups of Republicans in the past, including the Democratic-Republicans, which I believe you are referring to. Regardless, today's Republicans fight for state's rights MUCH more than the centralized-government Democrats.
Comments Welcome
-----------------------------------------------
Several Linux advocates (like myself) fight UCITA in an effort to hinder mandatory licensing schemes. There is, however, in my opinion, some contradiction here: Why is it that the governments attempts to standardize software licensing are hindered whereas the FSF's efforts are glorified???
I believe that the Linux community has been somewhat "brainwashed" into believing that the GNU GPL is the only license that meets the needs of all individuals. Frankly, it doesn't. Since when does freedom only come in one form??? If the Linux community wants to fight standardized licensing programs, then they must abolish their own. (Do not try to deny that the GPL creates two worlds of software...GPL and non-GPL)
So, what must be done? Abolish the GPL? Kill the FSF? Absolutely not. If individuals REALLY want to use the GPL, go ahead. No one can stop you... But I simply believe that many developers use this licensing without understanding or comprehending its true implications.
Comments Welcome.
-----------------------------------------------
Yes, this is going to be the Flame War of the Century, but I don't care. Hear me out and then flame. You might learn, or Heaven Forbid, agree.
Richard Stallman founded the GNU movement in order to recreate the utopia that he had at MIT, and there is, of course, no problem with this philosophy. He liked the environment, so he tried to spread the environment to other parts of technological society. The situation complicates, however, when you get people involved that you don't know/don't trust. At MIT, everyone knows everyone, and everyone likes everyone. (Please don't write saying "Well, not everyone likes me, and I'm at MIT." I don't care and you know what I mean. The community is generally friendly and the AI group has its own little, friendly society.) So, when Mr. Stallman tried to spread this ideal to other parts of the world, problems began to arise where the people weren't so friendly and the sharing of code wasn't simply looking out of curiosity or reviewing your best friend's newest 650-line wangdoodle (Roald Dahl, may he rest in peace). People in the "real world" want to sell software, make a living, propel the economy and make their companies/organizations/egos huge.
So, here's where we stand. People aren't your neighbors anymore, and they use your code. This reuse doesn't help just your science department and your university of choice, but is a complete externality. The GPL, therefore, is very community-based. (Dare I say communist.)
How can we fix this problem? Well, by simply rethinking the kosher licensing scheme in the Linux community (there's that darn "community" word again) and making this ideal of everyone-looks-at-everyone's-code-and-makes-everyt hing-better-for-us a reality with a non-community based license (Such as the Magna Open License) that allows the peer review benefit to coexist with privatization and redistribution restriction. WHAT?!? Redistribution Restriction?!? Yes. Why? Because there are people that want to steal your code and use it against you. Unlike Richard Stallman's utopia, as mentioned before, the real world is steeped with greedy people who want to steal code and reuse it without asking permission of the sweat and blood of the laborers who innovated. (Don't deny it. All humans, including you, yes, you, are greedy and selfish by nature...and there is no changing that. Sorry. You lose. We all do.)
Synoptically, the GNU GPL would work if we all lived in little 5-person software groups, but we don't. We live in a world with billions of people (even though an incredibly small amount of those individuals actually own a computer...a smaller percentage on the Internet.) where they don't want to make your code better, just for you...they want to make your code good for them.
-----------------------------------------------
I completely agree.- --------------
In order to fully understand this situation, you need to have a very good understanding of both micro- and macroeconomics, which, no offense, a lot of slashdot readers don't have. There is a lot more to the MSFT case than the software itself. The entire American market must be put into perspective.
-----------------------------------
The problem I have with the GPL is the SEVERE promotion of standarized software. Assuming that peers have the ability to reuse code (as they do under the GPL), the features of competing software will maintain nothing but balance, and innovation will only become waiting and copying. Many argue that this is good, seeing as how it promotes more innovation of the working body and increases competition, but innovation can only proceed to a certain level with a limited amount of resources (As with the GPL, selling the software is difficult, as it can just be downloaded, etc. for free) So, my question is: With the GPL, how is it beneficial that companies do not have to strive to out-do, so to speak, their competitors, as they can simply use the competing code in their products? Software standardization, in that sense, (otherwise, standards are very good) under the GPL (BSD, LGPL, the list goes on), only promotes laziness and strikes a lower limit of innovation on corporations and non-profit organizations, alike.
The solution: The Magna Open L:icense. It promotes the sole benefit (in my eyes) of OSS: peer review. Other than that, redistribution, code reuse, and modification is completely regulated by the original developers. Yes, software should have owners. The social program that we have turned the GNU movement into (or has it been that way from the beginning?) is drowning the software industry into incentive-less cheating. It's time for freedom for the real world. The ideology of the FSF doesn't and will not work.
-----------------------------------------------
First, let's get something across. I'm only 15, so I can't vote. My parents haven't told me everything about politics: I learn on my own. I have to know this stuff for the school Forensics team. (If anyone from MI out there reads this, and is on a Forensics team, e-mail me if you're in Impromptu/Extemp) There are a lot of things that people don't understand about politics, and that's why I believe that Bush won't get as many botes as he deserves: people don't understand politics. So, even if you hate him, please read this and then tell me what you think.
First, taxes. The whole bit about Gore's 1 percent accusation is, in a sense, true. THink about it this way. If you're making 10 billion dollars a year, and you have to pay 40 percent of your income to federal taxes, that's a LOT of money. So, if Bush gives tax cuts to all Americans, of course a lot is going to be given back to the people who pay all the bills: the richest one percent. It's just a matter of logic. And don't say, "Oh, well the people who make that much can spare some money anyway." American is about capitalism: keeping what you EARN. If you make that money, keep it. You shouldn't be cheated out of hard work. As for myself,I got a paycheck today, and, not to my surprise, I got pummelled with taxes: 15 percent of my income. So, for someone who makes LESS THAN 1000 per year, that's pretty bad. I'd hate to see it get worse. Gore and Nader are both for increases in taxes (Nader is almost socialist), so I say whatever. I want my money back.
Social Security. Ok. Right now, as the current Social Security system stands, every American makes approximately 2 percent each year on this money. Not only does inflation, most of the time, grow faster than this, so we are actually LOSING money, but, if we happen to die before 61 or whatever age it is...I can't quite remember, all of that money goes down the tubes. That SUCKS. Currently, passing those retirement savings on to future generations is illegal, but it is not with the privatization of SS. Also, government-controlled programs would yield a 7 percent annual rate of capital gains through bonds, so that they are secure unless the ENTIRE economy were to collapse, completely. Sounds good to me. Keep my money if I want to invest diferently (On a side note, you can't just take the money. You MUST invest it, so no one will be left in the dark if he/she irresponsibly wastes his SS savings), and make more if the government does the work. Also, I can pass the savings on to my kids. Cool.
Abortion. Listen. Abortion is stupid. You can't play God. If you want to know anything more about this, PLEASE e-mail me and I will send you some essays, etc. that I guarantee will change your mind. If you want to know, a committee of highly respected doctors met shortly after Roe v. Wade, and they determined that life begins at conception, so, regardless of the gestation length, it's murder. Also, a part of a woman's body is scientifically defined as "a structure that shares the same genetic code as the body," and the fetus' g. code is different. It's not her's, the baby is a baby and muder is murder. Nothing can change that.(I know Bush is for abortion is rape, incest and Life OT Mother rases, but the last is almost nothing. Dr. Koop in however many years as the S. Gerneral, was aware of NO CASE where the woman's life was in danger. Anyway, At least he isn't for sucking the brains out of babies and, although I think a bill just passed through Congress abolishing it, yet Clinton will probably veto is, in which babies for which abortion fails, in that their brains are half gone, but they come out crying, and fully alive, it has been MANDATORY to literally throw the half-live baby into the corner and let it die and it has been illegal to otherwise touch/comfort the suffering human. A nurse was fired for cradling a baby whose brains were almost gone, crying, on the verge of death and covered in its own blood. Please. How sick you can be. Stop the horror.)
Gun Control. In the 50's before the first gun control laws were passed, the amount of gun-related crime was 0.4 percent of what it is today. So, this crime is a problem of society, not the government. Also, in Switzerland, the government mandates that each household has in its possession at least 1 gun, and since this legislation was passed, the crime rate has dropped there to become the lowest in Europe, etc. Anyway, it's a Constitutional Right.
School Vouchers. Because I live in Michigan, I'll use Detriot as an example. Let's say that there is some public school in Detroit that has a graduation rate of 10 percent and the academic value is close to nothing. There is a student at this school who would LOVE to learn, but his family is too poor to afford private/parochail school tuition. Why should he be stuck there? He shouldn't. And most schools will not be affected by these vouchers. They are only used where schools are failing. As Bush remarked in one of the debates, "Why should we continue to subsidize failure?" It seems almost rudimentary to me in that schools with no educational value should not be a prison for poor children. Another argument against school vouchers is that teachers don't have to have credentials to teach at the "other schools." If this is a bad thing, than I suppose the State should stop allowing graduate students teach at public universities, such as the prestigious U of M. Kids first.
I think I have covered most of the basic bases for people to consider. If you want more info, just e-mail. (delete the NO SPAM in the address)I would be happy to LaTeX something up for everyone. Thank you for your consideration. I greatly appreciate any comments/criticism. Impromptu rules. :)
CMcTortoise
Oh yeah. If you're wondering about foreign policy, please just look at Cheney's records. Secretary of Defense for some years and tons of government experience. He knows foreign policy like Slashdotters know technology.