well, my electricity, phone and aged PC (P100) still work, but that doesn't mean that my friend's video wouldn't fail. Hardly apocalyptic, but still midly amusing as they rush into the kitchen shouting "the vidoe's failed; the millenium bug's worked!". She probably won't remember that I told her to set it to 1972....
apologies for typos - that's the real y2k bug at work...;-)
Personally I wouldn't find inventing McDonald's something to be proud of;-) America may have *popularised* things, but they certainly didn't invent as much as you think. Certainly, the car was invented in Europe, not America. And who invented rocketry, which America likes to use? Oh, it was China, a mere couple of thousand years before the modern American state was formed. You mustn't forget that China is an old country with a far more interesting past than that of the USA. The recent communist era is a mere blip in the history of that place. Thankfully, China is opening up more these days. Yes, their human rights record is poor. But that of the USA isn't so good either. On the international scene I'm sure China creates less hassle than the USA. The US can be a good place. But it's not perfect. And you certainly didn't invent everything - so don't believe the brainwashers who say you did!
Regardless of the rights or wrongs of Prof. Singer's suggestion, where would it actually lead to? As it stands, he is suggesting this for severely handicapped foetuses. But remember the abortion laws. In the UK, the law was brought in for special cases only. A doctor had to be convinced that there was a medical reason for the termination before it could go ahead. Now we have lunchtime clinics where one can have a termination simply because it isn't convenient. I'm not saying that Singer's suggestion would lead to young children being executed because they cried too much (!), but I think that the boundaries would be stretched before too long.
Sure, they've made some good software. And we have the freedom to buy it (or not to buy it). But their business ethics are less that 100% wholesome. They say they fight "hard but fair". Exactly how can you do that when you have millions, if not billions in the bank? I'm sure we all love having free browsers. But if Toyota (for example) had given small cars away free then no doubt the unions would have screamed to the US government about "dumping". How exactly does this differ from giving your internet browser away for free in order to cripple the software in opposition to you?
We (the company where I work) use Microsoft products too. We often use the MS knowledge base. It can be good - it can also be a pain. But how is this innovation? I also spent an hour this morning installing all the clip art for Office 2k on someone's PC. Their wonderful "innovative" install on demand system is not all it's cut out to be. Sure, let them innovate. But please, don't let them continually claim their products to be much, much, more than what they are (in doing so stifling the competition), and please, let's stop this proliferation of Windows NT CDs that we get with every PC, regardless of how many licences we have. This is NOT innovation, it's dubious marketing and sales strategies. What they have innovated I will gladly give them credit for. I use MS VC++. I like it. The class viewer is useful, as are the other tools. This is innovation. The office assistant and install-on-demand may be innovation, but IMHO they are a load of cack and don't work correctly. The lawsuit by the DOJ is less to do with their programming ability than their ability to buy out / out-maneuver their rivals using dubious business practices. If MS had just used market capability to reach to reach their current status I would feel differently. However, on the back of their DOS licensing (which made them a lot of money) and their continual sale of software that costs a lot and doesn't do much more for the average user, I feel that it's time that their bluff was called. Freedom to innovate should mean just that. Freedom to innovate without the latest version of Outlook (beta, of course) saying that your e-postcards could contain a virus. Freedom to innovate without Windows (again, beta) saying that your version of DOS is incompatible and you should use MS-DOS. Etc. BTW, I'm using an MS keyboard to type this. And those are good.;-)
I would like to know exactly how "overwhelming" the response has been to their campaign. I told them exactly what I thought of their "Freedom to Innovate" campaign, but had no response whatsoever. Obviously they'll wish to keep negative responses quiet, but I'd like to know how many they got compared with positive ones. I'd especially like to know how many negative responses they get after someone's tried to find an article in their knowledge base...;-)
If it's on BBC2 it (language) won't be censored. And BBC1 is going very much that way. And if they ask what people think of Microsoft they'll show the answers, and probably ask *why* they think that way too. MS are possibly resented in the UK more than in the US as all our cash is leaving the country!
I had the option to go contracting (in London) when made redundant from my previous job. Personally I prefer the feeling of belonging that being a permanent employee gives. Contracting is fine if you want the hassles of getting to know new people every few months and work long hours in exchange for more money, but for some of us job satisfaction is also important. From the manager's point of view, contractors are fine for those things that need getting done quickly, but once that contractor leaves then so does the expertise in that area (so you need to hire another contractor). If you wish to keep job skills within the company, and keep your employees happy because they're learning new skills, then permanent staff is a much better option. Of course, contracting and consulting are very different animals. There are time when you will have to call in a consultant but do make sure that your staff get the chance to learn from them.
Perhaps this kind of development is the way forward for businesses wishing to start developing on Linux. Obviously many of them wish to protect their source code, but they could release libraries they've developed (or extended) that aren't directly related to their main product. Nice one Loki.
>Pretty soon a handful of companies will own all > our forms of media disribution, everything we > read, hear, and see will be at the behest of > our corporate masters. Microsoft and AOL are > tugging it out in the high speed access/cable > tv arena. Oh yes. Especially in the UK. MS are currently taking stakes in a large proportion of our cable operators (anyone know what that proportion is?). We thought having BT as a monopoly wasn't a good thing, but I'm sure we haven't seen anything yet....
Slashdot Mirror
well, my electricity, phone and aged PC (P100) still work, but that doesn't mean that my friend's video wouldn't fail. Hardly apocalyptic, but still midly amusing as they rush into the kitchen shouting "the vidoe's failed; the millenium bug's worked!". She probably won't remember that I told her to set it to 1972....
;-)
apologies for typos - that's the real y2k bug at work...
Personally I wouldn't find inventing McDonald's something to be proud of ;-)
America may have *popularised* things, but they certainly didn't invent as much as you think. Certainly, the car was invented in Europe, not America. And who invented rocketry, which America likes to use? Oh, it was China, a mere couple of thousand years before the modern American state was formed.
You mustn't forget that China is an old country with a far more interesting past than that of the USA. The recent communist era is a mere blip in the history of that place. Thankfully, China is opening up more these days. Yes, their human rights record is poor. But that of the USA isn't so good either. On the international scene I'm sure China creates less hassle than the USA. The US can be a good place. But it's not perfect. And you certainly didn't invent everything - so don't believe the brainwashers who say you did!
Regardless of the rights or wrongs of Prof. Singer's suggestion, where would it actually lead to? As it stands, he is suggesting this for severely handicapped foetuses. But remember the abortion laws. In the UK, the law was brought in for special cases only. A doctor had to be convinced that there was a medical reason for the termination before it could go ahead. Now we have lunchtime clinics where one can have a termination simply because it isn't convenient. I'm not saying that Singer's suggestion would lead to young children being executed because they cried too much (!), but I think that the boundaries would be stretched before too long.
Sure, they've made some good software. And we have the freedom to buy it (or not to buy it).
But their business ethics are less that 100% wholesome. They say they fight "hard but fair". Exactly how can you do that when you have millions, if not billions in the bank? I'm sure we all love having free browsers. But if Toyota (for example) had given small cars away free then no doubt the unions would have screamed to the US government about "dumping". How exactly does this differ from giving your internet browser away for free in order to cripple the software in opposition to you?
We (the company where I work) use Microsoft products too. We often use the MS knowledge base. It can be good - it can also be a pain. But how is this innovation? ;-)
I also spent an hour this morning installing all the clip art for Office 2k on someone's PC. Their wonderful "innovative" install on demand system is not all it's cut out to be.
Sure, let them innovate. But please, don't let them continually claim their products to be much, much, more than what they are (in doing so stifling the competition), and please, let's stop this proliferation of Windows NT CDs that we get with every PC, regardless of how many licences we have. This is NOT innovation, it's dubious marketing and sales strategies. What they have innovated I will gladly give them credit for. I use MS VC++. I like it. The class viewer is useful, as are the other tools. This is innovation. The office assistant and install-on-demand may be innovation, but IMHO they are a load of cack and don't work correctly. The lawsuit by the DOJ is less to do with their programming ability than their ability to buy out / out-maneuver their rivals using dubious business practices.
If MS had just used market capability to reach to reach their current status I would feel differently. However, on the back of their DOS licensing (which made them a lot of money) and their continual sale of software that costs a lot and doesn't do much more for the average user, I feel that it's time that their bluff was called.
Freedom to innovate should mean just that.
Freedom to innovate without the latest version of Outlook (beta, of course) saying that your e-postcards could contain a virus.
Freedom to innovate without Windows (again, beta) saying that your version of DOS is incompatible and you should use MS-DOS.
Etc.
BTW, I'm using an MS keyboard to type this. And those are good.
I would like to know exactly how "overwhelming" the response has been to their campaign. I told them exactly what I thought of their "Freedom to Innovate" campaign, but had no response whatsoever. Obviously they'll wish to keep negative responses quiet, but I'd like to know how many they got compared with positive ones. I'd especially like to know how many negative responses they get after someone's tried to find an article in their knowledge base... ;-)
If it's on BBC2 it (language) won't be censored. And BBC1 is going very much that way. And if they ask what people think of Microsoft they'll show the answers, and probably ask *why* they think that way too. MS are possibly resented in the UK more than in the US as all our cash is leaving the country!
I had the option to go contracting (in London) when made redundant from my previous job. Personally I prefer the feeling of belonging that being a permanent employee gives. Contracting is fine if you want the hassles of getting to know new people every few months and work long hours in exchange for more money, but for some of us job satisfaction is also important.
From the manager's point of view, contractors are fine for those things that need getting done quickly, but once that contractor leaves then so does the expertise in that area (so you need to hire another contractor). If you wish to keep job skills within the company, and keep your employees happy because they're learning new skills, then permanent staff is a much better option. Of course, contracting and consulting are very different animals. There are time when you will have to call in a consultant but do make sure that your staff get the chance to learn from them.
Perhaps this kind of development is the way forward for businesses wishing to start developing on Linux. Obviously many of them wish to protect their source code, but they could release libraries they've developed (or extended) that aren't directly related to their main product.
Nice one Loki.
>Pretty soon a handful of companies will own all
> our forms of media disribution, everything we
> read, hear, and see will be at the behest of
> our corporate masters. Microsoft and AOL are
> tugging it out in the high speed access/cable
> tv arena.
Oh yes. Especially in the UK. MS are currently taking stakes in a large proportion of our cable operators (anyone know what that proportion is?). We thought having BT as a monopoly wasn't a good thing, but I'm sure we haven't seen anything yet....