Or like the one that William Gibson wrote -- Kill Switch.
That, Chinga and others were stand-alone episodes but quite wonderful in their own right. While the Alien invasion arc was good, they stopped making such episodes after a while. Which is a sad thing:-/
If Joe Sixpack kills someone and is forgiven, why shouldn't anyone else be? While that is an extreme (and criminal) analogy, it is unfair that the law does not treat everyone equally.
I'm sure a good lawyer could argue out this point - if X can be exempted, why can't Y be exempted if his reasons are quite similar?
For one, usability -- Apple's software is quite usable and intuitive, which is why they're as famous as they are.
Secondly, if Apple can come up with something on the x86 where folks can play games that aren't available for the Mac, they'd sell real well with the Mac-heads.
And most importantly, marketing is what sells software - not quality. OS/2 was much better than any of the alternatives, but still there is a reason why MS rocked the boat.
We all know how good Apple is at that. People have been predicting the death of Apple time and again, only to have them come up with something so different, market them away to glory and watch the numbers climb.
But the most obvious question is - why? Apple sells because its users like to think that they are somehow "different" from the others. If Apple were to become commonplace, that would no longer be the case. On the other hand, given Apple's treatment of its customers in the past, I would not be surprised if Steve Jobs shafted them in the future.
Increase the amount of good in the world and decrease the amount of evil.
Oh yeah. Microsoft is evil for pursuing the bottomline. Funny, just a while ago they were the good underdogs fighting the Evil Corporation (TM) -- none else than IBM.
They're a business and they go where the bottom line is. They need to do what makes their shareholders happy, as simple as that.
Sorry, as an entrepreneur, I'd most likely do a lot of things that Microsoft does to protect my bottomline. It's not good or evil - merely economics.
And oh, I suppose they are also evil for making money off one industry and use it to help several others. Guess what? Funding projects to fight AIDS and famine is a little more important than writing code.
Besides do you really buy a stock in a company whose CEO calls you a communist?
Opensource is most certainly a little socialist in its nature - that is not a judgement, merely an observation.
And I do not know about you, but I'd buy stocks in a company that would increase MY bottom line.
If you're going to be on a moral highground and judge your investments as Good and Evil, you'd make an absolutely lousy businessman.
Get over it. Your Opensource software probably cost some guy a job that he was making by writing software you now give away free. Does that make you good or evil?
I'm a member of very few communities, and one of them happens to be the India-Pakistan Friendship Club Sans N00bies Or Borders (IPFC-SNOBS). There, the discussion often turns to how Islamic militancy is largely responsible for all the problems and how Pakistan is unable to contain that, at which point it boils down to a religious war of sorts.
And some of the most insightful posts that I've seen in this regard are those by Iranians - as folks who're experiencing the brunt of an Islamic fundamentalist society first hand, they offer some very interesting and quite insightful inputs.
I've also observed this in a few other forums, and it largely helps tell the other extreme right wing Muslims on how their strong beliefs may eventually come to bite them in the back in ways that they cannot even imagine.
You're on crack if you think something won't sell just because it's named badly (intentionally or otherwise).
What's more likely to happen is that it will get quite popular and just like AOL brought out Nullsoft, Cockos will get bought out and the company will rename the products.
While names maybe useful in branding, useful and functional stuff need not always have good names - there will be people buying the stuff for what it does, rather than what it's called. Have enough such people and you'd be mainstream - you'd not be laughing at the name simply because it'd have become ubiquitous.
Back Orifice was such a cheesy name, but when it became popular, people stopped noticing what it was called.
Re:And let's not forget who is funding a lot of th
on
New and Improved SETI
·
· Score: 1
Evil? Yes, you mean like killing people, selling crack, prostitution and the like?
No? Robbing old ladies? You mean, they took a knife to their throat and asked them to pay up or die?
Oh wait, robbing banks? You mean, they walked in with guns and took away your money? Or maybe they stole your credit cards and laundered billions in a scam.
No - they sell things which people pay for. Don't like it? Don't buy it. They're running a business, and nobody is obliged to buy their products.
If people are, blame the people and not the company that is making it.
Disagreeable, perhaps. Evil? Yeah right.
Re:And let's not forget who is funding a lot of th
on
New and Improved SETI
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
> as good as all their charitable things are, they can easily afford it, > and more.
If it's my hard earned money, what I do with it is upto me. Nobody has an obligation to give away their money just because they can afford to, no matter what the voices in your head tell you.
> and it doesn't remove the fact they are fucking up > the IT industry and now keeping society back >years, maybe even decades.
Excuse me? That is *such* a blanket statement to make. But guess what? You said it yourself - IT industry. When you are in any industry, you're in the business of making money. Do not like their methods? Fight them on their turf but do not blame them for chasing profit.
You're an idiot if you think Microsoft hasn't contributed to technological progress in the IT industry. Perhaps you disagree with their methods, technology and ideas -- that does not mean they are wrong or that they are detrimental to progress.
In fact, I laud Microsoft because they have been one of the few people responsible for bringing computers to the masses. They have proven that software as an industry can sustain independently and have contributed a real lot to IT and computer science, but then you're probably too blind to see it.
Yes, they're a company that have had buggy softwares. Do you think building complex software is easy? It's a fine line between usability, security and stability and it's one that Microsoft has learnt to walk quite well. Funny, people still make fun of Microsoft products crashing but their products have become increasingly stable, reliable and secure over the years. Perfect? No. Better? Yes. Give credit where it is due.
Yes, they're guilty of a few questionable acts - but they are a business with an obligation to their share holders. You've apparently not stepped to the inside of a boardroom, so I'll not even bother telling you what or how hard business is.
And if you were a really genuine techie concerned about technology, you'd realize that progress is independent of who makes it -- it will ultimately happen no matter what. Not to mention that places like Microsoft Research quite possibly contribute much more to IT than you can ever possibly imagine.
> plus, true charity is anonymous.
Einstein, you would not know if it were anonymous.
> it's hardly altruistic (or anything remotely resembling it) when you give a > small fraction of your wealth in exchage for having your name or > company's name all over stuff. that's called "advertising" or "ego".
Funny, people have been doing this for ages - and yet when Bill Gates or Paul Allen does it, it's somehow wrong.
Heard of the Nobel Prize? Pulitzer Prize? Fields Medal? Guess who these are named after.
Bill Gates and Paul Allen are running a business in one industry and are using the profit they make from that to help make this world a better place. I somehow think fighting AIDS and famine is infinitely more important than writing software, but that's just me.
And I care two hoots on whether doing so boosts their ego or if they use their name -- they're helping science and society, and that is what matters.
Re:And let's not forget who is funding a lot of th
on
New and Improved SETI
·
· Score: 5, Informative
Well, Paul Allen funds a lot of good research.
I was part of Project Halo/Digital Aristotle, an AI project which aims to learn (and solve) conceptual problems in physics which was funded by Vulcan ventures.
In fact, Vulcan Capital funds a lot of really cool stuff.
In my opinion, Bill Gates and Paul Allen are doing the world a favour - they are businessmen who make money off one industry, but help in the progress of several others. When was the last time any of the CEOs of Walmart or Oil Magnates helped fund such things as research and the like?
And not to mention the fact that places like MSR do a lot of awesome research in and of themselves.
Well, I'm writing this from Chennai/Madras which was hit quite badly (over 3000+ folks were killed from areas here and around).
The problem is that this region has never seen Tsunamis before, and most people were just curious to see what the hell was happening. That made it only worse - a lot of them were morning walkers who were wondering what's up with the sea.
If erudite urban folks are this naive, what can you expect off villagers? Actually, there is a story making the rounds of a guy from Singapore who called up his village and warned them about this, and they all moved to safety and nobody in the village was affected.
The problem is that, it is not enough if you had a warning system -- you would need to know what to do with it. It's not sufficient to warn people, you need to tell them where to go and what to do, too.
I agree with you, however how often do people think of consequences when they are 16 and horny?:)
Firstly, the problem is that the guy distributed the video without her consent. Secondly, the video clip was found on eBay's subsidiary Bazee - but Bazee was not authorized to distribute pornographic material.
So, it becomes a violation of privacy and unauthorized distribution of pornographic material.
All in all, despite everything the real victim is the girl. Unfortunate, really.
Sex is all fine and dandy, but you're ignoring the fact that this is the video of a girl which has been publicized without her consent.
While the arrest of Bajaj (the CEO) was wrong, I do not see why it was wrong on the part of the government to clamp down on the distribution of the video.
She shared her intimate moments with someone she trusted, and the jerk betrayed her. This is less about sex and more about privacy.
Slashdot Mirror
Or like the one that William Gibson wrote -- Kill Switch.
That, Chinga and others were stand-alone episodes but quite wonderful in their own right. While the Alien invasion arc was good, they stopped making such episodes after a while. Which is a sad thing
Isn't law supposed to be equal for all?
If Joe Sixpack kills someone and is forgiven, why shouldn't anyone else be? While that is an extreme (and criminal) analogy, it is unfair that the law does not treat everyone equally.
I'm sure a good lawyer could argue out this point - if X can be exempted, why can't Y be exempted if his reasons are quite similar?
For one, usability -- Apple's software is quite usable and intuitive, which is why they're as famous as they are.
Secondly, if Apple can come up with something on the x86 where folks can play games that aren't available for the Mac, they'd sell real well with the Mac-heads.
And most importantly, marketing is what sells software - not quality. OS/2 was much better than any of the alternatives, but still there is a reason why MS rocked the boat.
We all know how good Apple is at that. People have been predicting the death of Apple time and again, only to have them come up with something so different, market them away to glory and watch the numbers climb.
But the most obvious question is - why? Apple sells because its users like to think that they are somehow "different" from the others. If Apple were to become commonplace, that would no longer be the case. On the other hand, given Apple's treatment of its customers in the past, I would not be surprised if Steve Jobs shafted them in the future.
Well, didn't mean to say that they do not continue to do so.
Just that they have been writing since back then - bad wording on my part.
Quite obviously they do, they've a $330 million market from selling products for the Mac.
Well, back then Microsoft was in fact writing software for the Mac - that could be the reason why there is a Mac in the background.
Increase the amount of good in the world and decrease the amount of evil.
Oh yeah. Microsoft is evil for pursuing the bottomline. Funny, just a while ago they were the good underdogs fighting the Evil Corporation (TM) -- none else than IBM.
They're a business and they go where the bottom line is. They need to do what makes their shareholders happy, as simple as that.
Sorry, as an entrepreneur, I'd most likely do a lot of things that Microsoft does to protect my bottomline. It's not good or evil - merely economics.
And oh, I suppose they are also evil for making money off one industry and use it to help several others. Guess what? Funding projects to fight AIDS and famine is a little more important than writing code.
Besides do you really buy a stock in a company whose CEO calls you a communist?
Opensource is most certainly a little socialist in its nature - that is not a judgement, merely an observation.
And I do not know about you, but I'd buy stocks in a company that would increase MY bottom line.
If you're going to be on a moral highground and judge your investments as Good and Evil, you'd make an absolutely lousy businessman.
Get over it. Your Opensource software probably cost some guy a job that he was making by writing software you now give away free. Does that make you good or evil?
I couldn't agree with you more. In fact, I feel so about most of the things on the list, too.
How important is HDTV really to *most* Americans?
Boo to that list, indeed!
Not really.
I'm a member of very few communities, and one of them happens to be the India-Pakistan Friendship Club Sans N00bies Or Borders (IPFC-SNOBS). There, the discussion often turns to how Islamic militancy is largely responsible for all the problems and how Pakistan is unable to contain that, at which point it boils down to a religious war of sorts.
And some of the most insightful posts that I've seen in this regard are those by Iranians - as folks who're experiencing the brunt of an Islamic fundamentalist society first hand, they offer some very interesting and quite insightful inputs.
I've also observed this in a few other forums, and it largely helps tell the other extreme right wing Muslims on how their strong beliefs may eventually come to bite them in the back in ways that they cannot even imagine.
Team Live Journal!
;)
Fuck, yeah!
Well, atleast now we've proven that Slashdot is more reliable than blogs of 13 year old girls ;)
We atleast bother backing up our rumours with evidence (sometimes!).
Take that, Jenny. Ahaan!
You're on crack if you think something won't sell just because it's named badly (intentionally or otherwise).
What's more likely to happen is that it will get quite popular and just like AOL brought out Nullsoft, Cockos will get bought out and the company will rename the products.
While names maybe useful in branding, useful and functional stuff need not always have good names - there will be people buying the stuff for what it does, rather than what it's called. Have enough such people and you'd be mainstream - you'd not be laughing at the name simply because it'd have become ubiquitous.
Back Orifice was such a cheesy name, but when it became popular, people stopped noticing what it was called.
Evil? Yes, you mean like killing people, selling crack, prostitution and the like?
No? Robbing old ladies? You mean, they took a knife to their throat and asked them to pay up or die?
Oh wait, robbing banks? You mean, they walked in with guns and took away your money? Or maybe they stole your credit cards and laundered billions in a scam.
No - they sell things which people pay for. Don't like it? Don't buy it. They're running a business, and nobody is obliged to buy their products.
If people are, blame the people and not the company that is making it.
Disagreeable, perhaps. Evil? Yeah right.
> as good as all their charitable things are, they can easily afford it,
> and more.
If it's my hard earned money, what I do with it is upto me. Nobody has an obligation to give away their money just because they can afford to, no matter what the voices in your head tell you.
> and it doesn't remove the fact they are fucking up
> the IT industry and now keeping society back
>years, maybe even decades.
Excuse me? That is *such* a blanket statement to make. But guess what? You said it yourself - IT industry. When you are in any industry, you're in the business of making money. Do not like their methods? Fight them on their turf but do not blame them for chasing profit.
You're an idiot if you think Microsoft hasn't contributed to technological progress in the IT industry. Perhaps you disagree with their methods, technology and ideas -- that does not mean they are wrong or that they are detrimental to progress.
In fact, I laud Microsoft because they have been one of the few people responsible for bringing computers to the masses. They have proven that software as an industry can sustain independently and have contributed a real lot to IT and computer science, but then you're probably too blind to see it.
Yes, they're a company that have had buggy softwares. Do you think building complex software is easy? It's a fine line between usability, security and stability and it's one that Microsoft has learnt to walk quite well. Funny, people still make fun of Microsoft products crashing but their products have become increasingly stable, reliable and secure over the years. Perfect? No. Better? Yes. Give credit where it is due.
Yes, they're guilty of a few questionable acts - but they are a business with an obligation to their share holders. You've apparently not stepped to the inside of a boardroom, so I'll not even bother telling you what or how hard business is.
And if you were a really genuine techie concerned about technology, you'd realize that progress is independent of who makes it -- it will ultimately happen no matter what. Not to mention that places like Microsoft Research quite possibly contribute much more to IT than you can ever possibly imagine.
> plus, true charity is anonymous.
Einstein, you would not know if it were anonymous.
> it's hardly altruistic (or anything remotely resembling it) when you give a
> small fraction of your wealth in exchage for having your name or
> company's name all over stuff. that's called "advertising" or "ego".
Funny, people have been doing this for ages - and yet when Bill Gates or Paul Allen does it, it's somehow wrong.
Heard of the Nobel Prize? Pulitzer Prize? Fields Medal? Guess who these are named after.
Bill Gates and Paul Allen are running a business in one industry and are using the profit they make from that to help make this world a better place. I somehow think fighting AIDS and famine is infinitely more important than writing software, but that's just me.
And I care two hoots on whether doing so boosts their ego or if they use their name -- they're helping science and society, and that is what matters.
Well, Paul Allen funds a lot of good research.
I was part of Project Halo/Digital Aristotle, an AI project which aims to learn (and solve) conceptual problems in physics which was funded by Vulcan ventures.
In fact, Vulcan Capital funds a lot of really cool stuff.
In my opinion, Bill Gates and Paul Allen are doing the world a favour - they are businessmen who make money off one industry, but help in the progress of several others. When was the last time any of the CEOs of Walmart or Oil Magnates helped fund such things as research and the like?
And not to mention the fact that places like MSR do a lot of awesome research in and of themselves.
Nice troll =)
And sad to see so many people who fell for it, too.
Well, talk of heavenly bodies of the wrong kind :-(
Cassini Hyugens sounds like the name of a Scandinavian supermodel or something.
:-(
:-/
And here I was hoping for some spectacular pictures
What do I see? Big round thing with holes. Different, but not the way I imagined
> Windows ME is Redmond's "finest"...
I do not think that word means what you think it does.
My willy is always free...
Rehashing an old joke -
;-)
What do you call one Britney on the moon?
Problem.
What do you call 100 Britneys on the moon?
Problem.
What do you call 1,000 Britneys on the moon?
Problem.
What do you call 1 million Britneys on the moon?
Problem.
What do you call all the Britneys on the moon?
Problem solved!!!
You may now continue expounding Britney's talents.
Well, I'm writing this from Chennai/Madras which was hit quite badly (over 3000+ folks were killed from areas here and around).
The problem is that this region has never seen Tsunamis before, and most people were just curious to see what the hell was happening. That made it only worse - a lot of them were morning walkers who were wondering what's up with the sea.
If erudite urban folks are this naive, what can you expect off villagers? Actually, there is a story making the rounds of a guy from Singapore who called up his village and warned them about this, and they all moved to safety and nobody in the village was affected.
The problem is that, it is not enough if you had a warning system -- you would need to know what to do with it. It's not sufficient to warn people, you need to tell them where to go and what to do, too.
Your sense of humor called.
It said it would be back, too. But not anytime soon.
I agree with you, however how often do people think of consequences when they are 16 and horny? :)
Firstly, the problem is that the guy distributed the video without her consent. Secondly, the video clip was found on eBay's subsidiary Bazee - but Bazee was not authorized to distribute pornographic material.
So, it becomes a violation of privacy and unauthorized distribution of pornographic material.
All in all, despite everything the real victim is the girl. Unfortunate, really.
>nor did she know she was being filmed
Oh no, you're quite wrong there - she did know she was being filmed.
In fact, it is said that in the clip itself, the guy asks her for an upskirt shot and she refuses.
Sex is all fine and dandy, but you're ignoring the fact that this is the video of a girl which has been publicized without her consent.
While the arrest of Bajaj (the CEO) was wrong, I do not see why it was wrong on the part of the government to clamp down on the distribution of the video.
She shared her intimate moments with someone she trusted, and the jerk betrayed her. This is less about sex and more about privacy.