Microsoft claiming to be the victors over Open Source makes about as much sense as claiming to be victorious over Extreme Programming.
Open Source is not a product. It is not a company. It is not an individual. It is not a group. It is not an entity. Open Source is a development model.
The only way that Microsoft could be "victorious" over Open Source is if they were to originate a superior development model that attracted more developers to it.
Since that has not happened, I'm really not sure what sort of victory they are talking about.
On the other hand, they could be trying to say that they are victorious over products developed using the open source model.
But even this is a strange thing to be saying because the game never ends. They may be selling more of Microsoft product X than there are installations of Open Source product Y, but is that a permanent situation or a temporary one? If history tells us anything, it is the latter.
The sad sick truth of the matter is that Microsoft's precarious position is due entirely to lack of competition, a situation that it worked very hard to create. If Microsoft were but one 800 pound gorilla among many 800 pound gorillas, then the product quality engendered through the process of competition would mean that Open Source products would have a very hard time of it.
But because Microsoft has been so successful at defeating its competitors, it has nowhere to go but down. Growth of a company is dependent upon its markets. It can't grow bigger than the markets it serves. The bigger a percentage a company has of a particular market, the more difficult it becomes to grab more of that market. This is why Microsoft's strategy has always been to violate anti-trust regulations in order to conquer new markets.
Unluckily for them, they can't do that anymore. Since they cannot expand, that leaves them in the precarious position of having to defend their position within the markets they have already conquered, and as anyone can tell you, you can't win a defensive war. The most you can hope for is that the enemy gets tired and goes home, and that doesn't happen in free markets. There is always another enemy coming right behind to take a shot at you.
So not only are they not "victorious" over Open Source, they aren't even going to be able to maintain their current position. That isn't to say that the company is doomed, only that much like the British Empire, their glory days are at an end.
I'm 35 years old. When I was a kid I never could figure out exactly what it was that the world was trying to protect me from with all of the restrictions it placed upon what I could see or read.
It didn't take me long to come to the conclusion that the motivation was malice against the young, because after all there was no way that grown people could actually be so collectively stupid as to believe the things they were telling me about how this or that was so harmful to me.
As I grew older I realized that yes, people can be that stupid.
It all comes down to culture and the values that the young are indoctrinated to believe. Teach a kid to be afraid of black cats from a young age and you'll wind up with a 40 year old who is terrified of them, even if they cannot explain why. Teach a kid that certain things are "bad" for children to see or know about, and you'll wind up with a 40 year old who believes just that, even if they cannot explain why.
Most of the things that people try to protect children from are not harmful to anyone of any age. These things are transgressions of Victorian morality in most cases, as it was during this period that the notion of a child as an exceptional individual, and of childhood as a special period in life, really took hold. Before this, children were seen as small and immature versions of adults, not as a different sort of creature.
Today society spends so much time and effort worrying about children and working to protect them from things. That's all fine and good when you're talking about lead paint or electric blankets that catch on fire. But it isn't such a good idea when you're attempting to protect the kid from life itself. Robert A. Heinlein said "Don't cripple your children by making their lives easy for them." I couldn't agree more.
When we attempt to "protect" children from violations of Victorian sensibilities, we're doing them no favors and only making ourselves look foolish and capricious in the process.
Knowledge of sex, even pornography, is not harmful provided that it isn't spoon fed to someone on a continual basis. If anyone of any age were to sit and watch porn all day long, it would definitely have an effect on them and not a good one. But in small doses, porn hurts no one. Now that doesn't mean you should start showing porn to kids, they'll find it on their own soon enough. What it does mean is that their seeing it does not constitute an emergency or a problem in need of a solution.
Kids are going to see porn. They're going to steal sips of alcohol from your liquor cabinet. Most are going to get rip roaring drunk at some point. They're going to smoke a few cigarettes, and in some cases a lot. Many will experiment with various drugs, and the weak ones will fall prey to them. They're going to start up with boyfriends or girlfriends when they get to be a certain age, and most of them are going to have sex. All of these things are NORMAL. There are dangers of course, such as STD's, teen pregnancy, and drug addition, but you can't protect your kids from these things by attempting to isolate your kids from them. And you especially can't protect your kids by lying to them about these things.
If you want to protect kids, the best thing to do is to educate them about the real dangers of the world. There are predators online who look for kids to molest. There are also predators hanging around parks and playgrounds looking to do the same. Creepy old guys hang around shopping malls leering at middle schoolers. If you want your kids to be safe from them, then EDUCATE them on the nature of these predators.
My mother warned me when I was very young that as a good looking boy there would be creeps out there looking to molest me. She did her best to keep me safe by taking the time to teach me about the dangers that existed. I'm alive today because she did this, literally.
Parents need to do their job and stop looking to the state to pass useless laws that only serve to insult and annoy kids and do nothing to deter actual predators.
Given that we are at the tail end of the carbon cycle for the entire history of the planet, sequestering carbon seems like a rather silly and harmful thing to do.
In a few hundred million years, there will not be enough free carbon in the biosphere for life to continue existing at its current levels. Life won't die out completely, at least not all at once. Instead you'll have a much more humble level of life on earth, with a few hardy survivors holding on. Eventually either life will find some biochemical engine which does not rely upon carbon, or it will die out almost completely. Which will happen is beyond my ability to predict.
Satellite photos of the earth that have been taken for decades show that the earth is becoming greener. Our use of fossil fuels is freeing up carbon that plants are using. Contrary to the dire predictions of apocalypse from the Goracle and his crypto-marxist fellow travellers, this is a good thing.
But even so it is a drop in the bucket. It won't save our planet, though it may delay the demise of its biosphere by a small fraction of a little bit. Our ability to put carbon into the environment is dwarfed by the naturally occurring process by which carbon is removed from the biosphere. All that coal and limestone and oil are the result of carbon being removed from the system over millions of years. We're putting some of it back now, but it won't stay there for long.
Trying to remove carbon from the environment isn't only useless and a waste of money, it is based upon bad science. This is just another example of the Marxism through other means that defines the modern environmentalist movement, which the DOE is apparently beholden to.
Sooner or later it will become pathetically obvious that the primary factor behind climate change (either warmer or cooler) is the sun. If the sun's radiation increases, the earth becomes warmer. If it decreases, or is blocked somehow, then the earth becomes cooler. This isn't exactly rocket science. When the day comes when this basic fact can no longer be denied, the crypto-marxists will try to distance themselves from all of their current nonsense while simultaneously trying to find some other scam that they can use to fool the easily led.
If the earth becomes cooler, which there are indications may be happening based upon sun spot activity, they will undoubtedly try for socialized food production and distribution, and drag out all of their old tired lies about the evils of free markets, which will beguile a new generation of fools and morons. Then again they may surprise me, and come up with something even more atrocious. They're extremely good at telling lies, but then they have to be. If they were not then they'd be relegated to the fringes where they belong.
Evil never sleeps and stupid never dies. The fact that these asshats with their evil pseudo-religion are still causing trouble after all this time is proof enough of that.
Saying that a gun is more likely to kill a family member than an intruder is a fundamentally flawed statement.
Guns are not "Bad...mmmkay."
Guns don't kill people. People kill people.
For a gun to be lethal it must be loaded, aimed, and fired at someone. This requires action on the part of a human being.
Kitchen knives don't kill people either.
But, In the UK, the nannystaters are working as we speak to outlaw pointy knives in the home. Why? Because they discovered to their dismay that even after they conned their fellow citizens into laying down their right to keep and bear arms, dysfunctional assholes were still killing each other using the most convenient means at hand.
The cult is doing this to make Anonymous look bad.
I used to be a Scientologist, and I can tell you based on first hand experience that this is EXACTLY what the cult would do.
This is not the work of those who fight and oppose the cult of Scientology.
The cult has already taken to creating fake videos and messages that appear to be from Anonymous and that contain threats of violence against the cult itself. This latest stunt is simply the next step in their campaign of demonizing Anonymous.
The problem with Anonymous is that anyone can pretend to be part of the group. While they are highly resistant to efforts by the cult to target them as individuals, they are vulnerable to false-flag tactics such as this one.
This is not the first time the cult has done this. Back in the 70's they targeted a woman for writing a book that revealed the evil nature of the cult. The cult responded by forging evidence linking her to a fake bomb threat, among other things:
Scientology is evil. It is something that most people who have never dealt with the cult have a hard time understanding or believing. To describe the nature of this cult to someone who is unfamiliar with it is very difficult because polite society lacks the terms needed to accurately convey the depth of evil found within this organization. It is also difficult because an accurate description defies belief. Most people are unable to contemplate something so evil actually existing in the real world.
But scientology is that bad, and it is real. Its victims are a multitude and its crimes are horrific.
But don't take my word for it, read up on it yourself:
If I had my way, the individuals within the Chinese government responsible for this censorship would be hanged, drawn, and quartered. I'd release videos of the executions on youtube.
It is so easy for people to forget how fragile their rights and freedoms are. Unless you're willing to fight for them, to the death if necessary, then they are little more than indulgences on the part of the powerful.
Chance for Apple to win, if they'd play the game.
on
The Death of Windows XP
·
· Score: 1, Interesting
This will be a great opportunity for Apple IF they stop requiring consumers to purchase a very expensive dongle in order to run their OS.
The latest version of OS-X can be had for approximately $100. This OS is, by most accounts, far superior to Vista. But in order to run it, you have to purchase a dongle from Apple.
Apple's cheapest dongle is close to $1000. How can it be so expensive? Because they won't sell you a dongle by itself you see. They'll only sell you a dongle when it is attached to their branded hardware. This hardware is not substantially different from that of any other standard PC, but it is the only hardware that includes the magic dongle. This gives Apple a monopoly...though not the kind they derive any actual benefit from. This monopoly doesn't help them dominate the market, but instead only serves to exclude them from it.
The result? Microsoft continues to win and Apple continues to lose.
No other outcome is possible when Apple forfeits the game.
You, and several million of your friends, have to be willing...no make that eager, to murder people if you do not get your way. You must constantly remind all who will listen of how sensitive you are to any hint that you will not get your way. "Spontaneous" demonstrations in which your followers wail, thrash themselves about, and burn your enemies in effigy are generally pretty effective, especially if said followers can be encouraged to act like complete fuckwads on camera.
At the same time, you must promote your group as a "religion of togetherness" or something equally pleasant sounding but meaningless phrase. Should anyone ever call you on the tendency of your group to murder people, you must respond by calling them bigots, reminding them that you are the religion of togetherness, and finish off with veiled threats that if they don't shut up, you'll murder them too.
The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.
The only thing worse than criminals are rogue agents of the state, acting under color of authority, to undermine the rights of their fellow citizens.
Thugs and goons are bad enough, but they're 10 times worse when given a badge.
A good friend of mine once said: Most cops are NOT pigs, but an awful lot of pigs pursue a career in law enforcement. The older I get, the more I understand just how right he was.
At the end of the day, the only thing that stands between us and the would-be tyrants of the world is our willingness to oppose them, with deadly force if need be. Liberty and power are two sides of the same coin, and in the real world political power comes from the barrel of a gun.
There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order.
"(Note to 2nd amendment types: your guns will not keep you free. If the government wants your ass, they're going to get it.)"
They seem to be working pretty well for Al Qaeda in Iraq. If a bunch of inbreds with AK's can keep the army and marines busy for 5 years, just imagine what Americans can do.
This is of course the reason why those on the left are so determined to disarm the nation. They know that unless and until the population is helpless, their designs on the country will have to be put on hold.
The question is not what one man with one gun will do when faced with tyranny and oppression, but what the American people as a whole will do.
Capitalism is an emergent phenomena that arises when human beings are left to their own devices. It is the economic manifestation of the fundamental liberties that healthy societies embrace and defend.
The open source model is also an emergent phenomena that arises when human beings are left to their own devices. Software programs are not lawn mowers, they are not widgets. They are an abstraction whose utility is not diluted when shared with others. When knowledgeable users are able to modify and improve software programs, thereby increasing their utility, it is all but inevitable that human beings will self-organize into groups to do just that. This is not communism, this is a quilting bee.
Pajitnov's complaints only make sense when one realizes that he comes from a nation where freedom simply doesn't exist. He comes from a country where the government controls the lives of its subjects, where serfdom never really ended. He doesn't understand emergent phenomena created by the voluntary activities of free agents because in the Soviet Union the only free agents were the party bosses and the criminals (but I repeat myself.)
He is in fact arguing for the creation of a coercive authority to prevent individuals from acting in their own best interest.
It is amazing how profoundly stupid some intelligent people can be.
If younger people are going to the library, how much do you want to bet that certain segments of our society will identify this as a "problem" that needs to be solved?
They can't make it a crime to be born after a certain date, but they sure can make it difficult for those who are.
Everything that has been created is build upon what came before.
The Roman alphabet is far from ideal when it comes to reading and writing English, but we use it anyway. The spelling of many words in English is far from phonetic, but we continue to spell them that way just the same. The benefits of moving to a different set of symbols or a different spelling of some words are vastly outweighed by the costs involved.
This is what is known as a path dependency. The grass may be greener on the other side, but the price to be paid for moving there is profoundly prohibitive.
The same is true when it comes to computer science.
A reinvented wheel may be better than what it replaces, but the cost of its development does not justify the effort, assuming you can get anyone to adopt it.
It is easy to be creative when you don't have customers. When you don't have people who have come to use a particular product, or work within a particular paradigm, change is easy. Without these other people clogging up the way, it is easy to jump to a new way of doing things.
If no one used the Roman alphabet, finding a new one would be a snap! If the spelling of words wasn't standardized then implementing new phonetic spellings for things like "knight" would be easy.
She's simply finding other ways of manifesting her unresolved compulsion for self-destruction.
She can't drink anymore, so she finds other ways of shooting herself in the foot, trying her hardest to ruin and wreck things for herself.
Is this because of some rogue gene? I seriously doubt it. This is what is known as a character flaw, one that is unfortunately very serious.
I hope that she is able to eventually work her way through all of the nonsense she's pulled in on top of herself. It is rare that someone is able to do this, but it does happen.
Who exactly are the "authorities" that the ministers are forbidden to direct?
Could it be....bureaucrats?
I hardly see how taking power out of the hands of corrupt (but elected) officials, and putting into the hands of corrupt (but unelected) bureaucrats is a good thing.
The iron cage of bureaucracy clams shut once again.
Slashdot Mirror
The sadists who ran Saddam's network of torture and death chambers are out of work at the moment.
.... persuade these people to talk.
Surely they could be employed to
Actually it isn't.
Dell sells precision workstations that are configured to run RHEL. These models have an "N" designation.
Similar models without the "N" designation are geared towards Windows users.
Believe it or not, the hardware is not always the same.
Microsoft claiming to be the victors over Open Source makes about as much sense as claiming to be victorious over Extreme Programming.
Open Source is not a product. It is not a company. It is not an individual. It is not a group. It is not an entity. Open Source is a development model.
The only way that Microsoft could be "victorious" over Open Source is if they were to originate a superior development model that attracted more developers to it.
Since that has not happened, I'm really not sure what sort of victory they are talking about.
On the other hand, they could be trying to say that they are victorious over products developed using the open source model.
But even this is a strange thing to be saying because the game never ends. They may be selling more of Microsoft product X than there are installations of Open Source product Y, but is that a permanent situation or a temporary one? If history tells us anything, it is the latter.
The sad sick truth of the matter is that Microsoft's precarious position is due entirely to lack of competition, a situation that it worked very hard to create. If Microsoft were but one 800 pound gorilla among many 800 pound gorillas, then the product quality engendered through the process of competition would mean that Open Source products would have a very hard time of it.
But because Microsoft has been so successful at defeating its competitors, it has nowhere to go but down. Growth of a company is dependent upon its markets. It can't grow bigger than the markets it serves. The bigger a percentage a company has of a particular market, the more difficult it becomes to grab more of that market. This is why Microsoft's strategy has always been to violate anti-trust regulations in order to conquer new markets.
Unluckily for them, they can't do that anymore. Since they cannot expand, that leaves them in the precarious position of having to defend their position within the markets they have already conquered, and as anyone can tell you, you can't win a defensive war. The most you can hope for is that the enemy gets tired and goes home, and that doesn't happen in free markets. There is always another enemy coming right behind to take a shot at you.
So not only are they not "victorious" over Open Source, they aren't even going to be able to maintain their current position. That isn't to say that the company is doomed, only that much like the British Empire, their glory days are at an end.
I'm 35 years old. When I was a kid I never could figure out exactly what it was that the world was trying to protect me from with all of the restrictions it placed upon what I could see or read.
It didn't take me long to come to the conclusion that the motivation was malice against the young, because after all there was no way that grown people could actually be so collectively stupid as to believe the things they were telling me about how this or that was so harmful to me.
As I grew older I realized that yes, people can be that stupid.
It all comes down to culture and the values that the young are indoctrinated to believe. Teach a kid to be afraid of black cats from a young age and you'll wind up with a 40 year old who is terrified of them, even if they cannot explain why. Teach a kid that certain things are "bad" for children to see or know about, and you'll wind up with a 40 year old who believes just that, even if they cannot explain why.
Most of the things that people try to protect children from are not harmful to anyone of any age. These things are transgressions of Victorian morality in most cases, as it was during this period that the notion of a child as an exceptional individual, and of childhood as a special period in life, really took hold. Before this, children were seen as small and immature versions of adults, not as a different sort of creature.
Today society spends so much time and effort worrying about children and working to protect them from things. That's all fine and good when you're talking about lead paint or electric blankets that catch on fire. But it isn't such a good idea when you're attempting to protect the kid from life itself. Robert A. Heinlein said "Don't cripple your children by making their lives easy for them." I couldn't agree more.
When we attempt to "protect" children from violations of Victorian sensibilities, we're doing them no favors and only making ourselves look foolish and capricious in the process.
Knowledge of sex, even pornography, is not harmful provided that it isn't spoon fed to someone on a continual basis. If anyone of any age were to sit and watch porn all day long, it would definitely have an effect on them and not a good one. But in small doses, porn hurts no one. Now that doesn't mean you should start showing porn to kids, they'll find it on their own soon enough. What it does mean is that their seeing it does not constitute an emergency or a problem in need of a solution.
Kids are going to see porn. They're going to steal sips of alcohol from your liquor cabinet. Most are going to get rip roaring drunk at some point. They're going to smoke a few cigarettes, and in some cases a lot. Many will experiment with various drugs, and the weak ones will fall prey to them. They're going to start up with boyfriends or girlfriends when they get to be a certain age, and most of them are going to have sex. All of these things are NORMAL. There are dangers of course, such as STD's, teen pregnancy, and drug addition, but you can't protect your kids from these things by attempting to isolate your kids from them. And you especially can't protect your kids by lying to them about these things.
If you want to protect kids, the best thing to do is to educate them about the real dangers of the world. There are predators online who look for kids to molest. There are also predators hanging around parks and playgrounds looking to do the same. Creepy old guys hang around shopping malls leering at middle schoolers. If you want your kids to be safe from them, then EDUCATE them on the nature of these predators.
My mother warned me when I was very young that as a good looking boy there would be creeps out there looking to molest me. She did her best to keep me safe by taking the time to teach me about the dangers that existed. I'm alive today because she did this, literally.
Parents need to do their job and stop looking to the state to pass useless laws that only serve to insult and annoy kids and do nothing to deter actual predators.
Given that we are at the tail end of the carbon cycle for the entire history of the planet, sequestering carbon seems like a rather silly and harmful thing to do.
In a few hundred million years, there will not be enough free carbon in the biosphere for life to continue existing at its current levels. Life won't die out completely, at least not all at once. Instead you'll have a much more humble level of life on earth, with a few hardy survivors holding on. Eventually either life will find some biochemical engine which does not rely upon carbon, or it will die out almost completely. Which will happen is beyond my ability to predict.
Satellite photos of the earth that have been taken for decades show that the earth is becoming greener. Our use of fossil fuels is freeing up carbon that plants are using. Contrary to the dire predictions of apocalypse from the Goracle and his crypto-marxist fellow travellers, this is a good thing.
But even so it is a drop in the bucket. It won't save our planet, though it may delay the demise of its biosphere by a small fraction of a little bit. Our ability to put carbon into the environment is dwarfed by the naturally occurring process by which carbon is removed from the biosphere. All that coal and limestone and oil are the result of carbon being removed from the system over millions of years. We're putting some of it back now, but it won't stay there for long.
Trying to remove carbon from the environment isn't only useless and a waste of money, it is based upon bad science. This is just another example of the Marxism through other means that defines the modern environmentalist movement, which the DOE is apparently beholden to.
Sooner or later it will become pathetically obvious that the primary factor behind climate change (either warmer or cooler) is the sun. If the sun's radiation increases, the earth becomes warmer. If it decreases, or is blocked somehow, then the earth becomes cooler. This isn't exactly rocket science. When the day comes when this basic fact can no longer be denied, the crypto-marxists will try to distance themselves from all of their current nonsense while simultaneously trying to find some other scam that they can use to fool the easily led.
If the earth becomes cooler, which there are indications may be happening based upon sun spot activity, they will undoubtedly try for socialized food production and distribution, and drag out all of their old tired lies about the evils of free markets, which will beguile a new generation of fools and morons. Then again they may surprise me, and come up with something even more atrocious. They're extremely good at telling lies, but then they have to be. If they were not then they'd be relegated to the fringes where they belong.
Evil never sleeps and stupid never dies. The fact that these asshats with their evil pseudo-religion are still causing trouble after all this time is proof enough of that.
Saying that a gun is more likely to kill a family member than an intruder is a fundamentally flawed statement.
Guns are not "Bad...mmmkay."
Guns don't kill people. People kill people.
For a gun to be lethal it must be loaded, aimed, and fired at someone. This requires action on the part of a human being.
Kitchen knives don't kill people either.
But, In the UK, the nannystaters are working as we speak to outlaw pointy knives in the home. Why? Because they discovered to their dismay that even after they conned their fellow citizens into laying down their right to keep and bear arms, dysfunctional assholes were still killing each other using the most convenient means at hand.
Nope. I just mistake flirting for general friendliness.
I've had women practically throwing themselves at me, and I don't realize it until later.
I don't seem to have any problem giving off "the vibes" myself, but I'm blind and deaf to them when I'm on the receiving end it seems.
They are NOT KNOWN FOR BEING GRIEFERS.
The cult is attempting to portray them as being griefers and to manufacture "evidence" to that effect.
Do try to keep up.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_flag
The cult is doing this to make Anonymous look bad.
I used to be a Scientologist, and I can tell you based on first hand experience that this is EXACTLY what the cult would do.
This is not the work of those who fight and oppose the cult of Scientology.
The cult has already taken to creating fake videos and messages that appear to be from Anonymous and that contain threats of violence against the cult itself. This latest stunt is simply the next step in their campaign of demonizing Anonymous.
The problem with Anonymous is that anyone can pretend to be part of the group. While they are highly resistant to efforts by the cult to target them as individuals, they are vulnerable to false-flag tactics such as this one.
This is not the first time the cult has done this. Back in the 70's they targeted a woman for writing a book that revealed the evil nature of the cult. The cult responded by forging evidence linking her to a fake bomb threat, among other things:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Freakout
She was facing a long prison sentence until the FBI accidentally discovered that the cult had set her up while conducting another investigation
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Snow_White
Scientology is evil. It is something that most people who have never dealt with the cult have a hard time understanding or believing. To describe the nature of this cult to someone who is unfamiliar with it is very difficult because polite society lacks the terms needed to accurately convey the depth of evil found within this organization. It is also difficult because an accurate description defies belief. Most people are unable to contemplate something so evil actually existing in the real world.
But scientology is that bad, and it is real. Its victims are a multitude and its crimes are horrific.
But don't take my word for it, read up on it yourself:
http://www.xenu.net/
http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~dst/Library/
If I had my way, the individuals within the Chinese government responsible for this censorship would be hanged, drawn, and quartered. I'd release videos of the executions on youtube.
It is so easy for people to forget how fragile their rights and freedoms are. Unless you're willing to fight for them, to the death if necessary, then they are little more than indulgences on the part of the powerful.
This will be a great opportunity for Apple IF they stop requiring consumers to purchase a very expensive dongle in order to run their OS.
The latest version of OS-X can be had for approximately $100. This OS is, by most accounts, far superior to Vista. But in order to run it, you have to purchase a dongle from Apple.
Apple's cheapest dongle is close to $1000. How can it be so expensive? Because they won't sell you a dongle by itself you see. They'll only sell you a dongle when it is attached to their branded hardware. This hardware is not substantially different from that of any other standard PC, but it is the only hardware that includes the magic dongle. This gives Apple a monopoly...though not the kind they derive any actual benefit from. This monopoly doesn't help them dominate the market, but instead only serves to exclude them from it.
The result? Microsoft continues to win and Apple continues to lose.
No other outcome is possible when Apple forfeits the game.
Liberty, if it means anything at all, is the right to tell other people what they do not want to hear. -- George Orwell.
You, and several million of your friends, have to be willing...no make that eager, to murder people if you do not get your way. You must constantly remind all who will listen of how sensitive you are to any hint that you will not get your way. "Spontaneous" demonstrations in which your followers wail, thrash themselves about, and burn your enemies in effigy are generally pretty effective, especially if said followers can be encouraged to act like complete fuckwads on camera.
At the same time, you must promote your group as a "religion of togetherness" or something equally pleasant sounding but meaningless phrase. Should anyone ever call you on the tendency of your group to murder people, you must respond by calling them bigots, reminding them that you are the religion of togetherness, and finish off with veiled threats that if they don't shut up, you'll murder them too.
The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.
The only thing worse than criminals are rogue agents of the state, acting under color of authority, to undermine the rights of their fellow citizens.
Thugs and goons are bad enough, but they're 10 times worse when given a badge.
A good friend of mine once said: Most cops are NOT pigs, but an awful lot of pigs pursue a career in law enforcement. The older I get, the more I understand just how right he was.
At the end of the day, the only thing that stands between us and the would-be tyrants of the world is our willingness to oppose them, with deadly force if need be. Liberty and power are two sides of the same coin, and in the real world political power comes from the barrel of a gun.
There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order.
"(Note to 2nd amendment types: your guns will not keep you free. If the government wants your ass, they're going to get it.)"
They seem to be working pretty well for Al Qaeda in Iraq. If a bunch of inbreds with AK's can keep the army and marines busy for 5 years, just imagine what Americans can do.
This is of course the reason why those on the left are so determined to disarm the nation. They know that unless and until the population is helpless, their designs on the country will have to be put on hold.
The question is not what one man with one gun will do when faced with tyranny and oppression, but what the American people as a whole will do.
I for one will be going for a head shot.
Capitalism is an emergent phenomena that arises when human beings are left to their own devices. It is the economic manifestation of the fundamental liberties that healthy societies embrace and defend.
The open source model is also an emergent phenomena that arises when human beings are left to their own devices. Software programs are not lawn mowers, they are not widgets. They are an abstraction whose utility is not diluted when shared with others. When knowledgeable users are able to modify and improve software programs, thereby increasing their utility, it is all but inevitable that human beings will self-organize into groups to do just that. This is not communism, this is a quilting bee.
Pajitnov's complaints only make sense when one realizes that he comes from a nation where freedom simply doesn't exist. He comes from a country where the government controls the lives of its subjects, where serfdom never really ended. He doesn't understand emergent phenomena created by the voluntary activities of free agents because in the Soviet Union the only free agents were the party bosses and the criminals (but I repeat myself.)
He is in fact arguing for the creation of a coercive authority to prevent individuals from acting in their own best interest.
It is amazing how profoundly stupid some intelligent people can be.
If younger people are going to the library, how much do you want to bet that certain segments of our society will identify this as a "problem" that needs to be solved?
They can't make it a crime to be born after a certain date, but they sure can make it difficult for those who are.
Everything that has been created is build upon what came before.
The Roman alphabet is far from ideal when it comes to reading and writing English, but we use it anyway. The spelling of many words in English is far from phonetic, but we continue to spell them that way just the same. The benefits of moving to a different set of symbols or a different spelling of some words are vastly outweighed by the costs involved.
This is what is known as a path dependency. The grass may be greener on the other side, but the price to be paid for moving there is profoundly prohibitive.
The same is true when it comes to computer science.
A reinvented wheel may be better than what it replaces, but the cost of its development does not justify the effort, assuming you can get anyone to adopt it.
It is easy to be creative when you don't have customers. When you don't have people who have come to use a particular product, or work within a particular paradigm, change is easy. Without these other people clogging up the way, it is easy to jump to a new way of doing things.
If no one used the Roman alphabet, finding a new one would be a snap! If the spelling of words wasn't standardized then implementing new phonetic spellings for things like "knight" would be easy.
Needless to say, this isn't going to happen.
I'm not sure you read what I wrote.
A character flaw is, by definition, something that we are responsible for.
Hey! I resemble that!
She's simply finding other ways of manifesting her unresolved compulsion for self-destruction.
She can't drink anymore, so she finds other ways of shooting herself in the foot, trying her hardest to ruin and wreck things for herself.
Is this because of some rogue gene? I seriously doubt it. This is what is known as a character flaw, one that is unfortunately very serious.
I hope that she is able to eventually work her way through all of the nonsense she's pulled in on top of herself. It is rare that someone is able to do this, but it does happen.
People who learn from other's mistakes are called wise.
Why would doctors diagnose someone with ADD simply because he or she does not have any disciples?
I had disciples when I was a kid, but they diagnosed me anyway.
Futhermore, I thi--oooh look shiny object!!!!!!
Who exactly are the "authorities" that the ministers are forbidden to direct?
Could it be....bureaucrats?
I hardly see how taking power out of the hands of corrupt (but elected) officials, and putting into the hands of corrupt (but unelected) bureaucrats is a good thing.
The iron cage of bureaucracy clams shut once again.