Re:Where have I heard this before?
on
Microsoft Freon
·
· Score: 2
My addenda are not in italics:
Oft-observed MS behavior:
see a new technology
usually when developers start calling their developer assistance lines with code that should work according to the API documentation;
(sidebar: contact nascent developers of the new technology and express interest in 'partnership,' get a feel for their approach) allowing architecture and marketing people at MS to get a clear idea of the philosophy behind the code they already have in their possession;
write press release announcing newest MS brainstorm, including vague statements about timing while rewriting code to take advantage of undocumented hooks to more solid and efficient parts of the Windows API;
watch competition die off or release a new version of Windows in which the actual innovators' code won't run, but the secret-API code will;
maybe develop the technology, maybe not or promise Version 2.0 will have all the things people want, but can only get from the original innovator
...and say, "Developers should write their test suites BEFORE they write their code."
We have a fairly large open source project with contributors coming in and going out all the time (well, not a lot going out; but any number is a problem there). Our experience shows that if you can't write a test suite you're not ready for anything more than a crude prototype. The problem with test-after-coding regimes is the testing gets short-circuited. You've already got working code. You "know" it works. You're just proving it works. So you test the obvious stuff that proves this.
Since we have instituted this policy, coding efficiency has actually improved. Coders who have tried to devise a complete set of tests have formalized their understanding of the requirements in a sense which the most complete requirements doc will never do. We include the test suite in CVS. Nobody commits until their update passes the entire test suite. This results in an enormous (but complete) test of everything done so far. But you can't imagine the thrill of seeing your patch pass that many tests the first time.
All of which is completely separate from what a QA process is for.
You have achieved the holy grail...
on
Baked Alaska
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
...of/. posting: +5 (Troll). Enjoy it while you got it.
I think it was the "card-carrying Mensa" sig, coupled with the misspelling of "tolerance." Or maybe the juxtaposition of the comment on stupidity with the parroting of the latest Rush Limbaugh lies being used to dupe the really stupid who want to believe so badly.
Since others have pointed out the obvious flaw in the "Big Business is policing itself" lie, I will concentrate on the "Kyoto is a restrictive and impractical way to cut pollution" lie. The Kyoto Treaty is nothing of the kind. It is an agreement among nations as to who has what responsibility for cleaning up how much. It says nothing about the way in which the emission of greenhouse gases might be accomplished (well, it says some things, but only to preclude bogus schemes by the unscrupulous).
Government-mandated pollution reduction is not required. Each country is left to its own devices: economic incentives, tax breaks, or legislated restrictions. The fact that this lie is being promulgated is an excellent measure of the desperation of the anti-Kyoto forces. All their other arguments are falling one by one, so they are reduced to pathetic trolling such as this:
"The Democrats can whine and moan all they want, but the Capitalist system WORKS."
Most Democrats, of course, believe that the "the Capitalist system works." Part of the reason it works so well in the United States is that James Madison realized the key to its success would be government regulation (particularly enforcement of contracts). Since that time, we have found a number ways in which it works better with regulation.
An excellent example of this is pollution control. Imagine, if you will, a community of manufacturers who compete with each other. Imagine further that they are moral people all of whom want to do the right thing. (This is not as surprising as Ralph Nader seems to think. Businessmen are people, too, and they don't want to poison their kids any more than they want to poison yours.)
Sooner or later, one of these companies will find itself at a competitive disadvantage. They cannot produce their product at a price which will allow them to make money selling it for what they can get. If they are paying money to reduce their pollution, they will be in a position where they can stay competitive by cutting controls or they can lose everything by going out of business. They may start polluting with full intention to clean it up later, when they get competitive again.
But they may never get the chance. Because now another business is in the least-competitive position, their existence threatened if they don't cut pollution controls. Eventually you can see an entire industry polluting at a maximum, EVEN THOUGH NONE OF THEM WANT TO. Regulations prohibiting pollution can be seen as a contract (sort of like a treaty) between them with the government as a guarantor. And it also protects them against a competitor who actually is nefarious and really doesn't care what is right.
The Kyoto Treaty can be viewed as just such a contract between nations. Any industrial nation could achieve an unfair competitive advantage over the others by ignoring global warming. If one country is losing out in the global marketplace because its business is overtaxed, the government could allow greenhouse gas emissions as a way to become competitive again without giving up its beloved taxes. (We saw this in Eastern Europe and Russia and China during the Cold War.)
Mensa-morons can whine and moan all they want, but the Kyoto Treaty will WORK. Just like the pollution and fuel-efficiency regulations they probably opposed during the '70s (and now celebrate the results of).
...the scientific prowess of nerds. But they do amply demonstrate nerds' legendary lack of social skills. And Timothy is out there leading the pack with that old canard about the helix of M&Ms.
What he assumes (despite considerable evidence to the contrary) is that the entire ship was in weightlessness. In fact, as clearly shown in Mission to Mars, the only part of the ship which had very low gravity (allowing the M&M trick to be possible) was the central axis.
Since even the central axis was rotating, any zero-g DNA model not only COULD be rotating, it would HAVE TO BE rotating. Now, admittedly it did not look like this model was oriented along the axis of the ship. But there was nothing in the scene which would have precluded such an orientation.
Yes, there are many who use the term this way. But I think a review the historical record would show that it originally included all threats to liberty. I have certainly heard older Libertarians complain that the movement has moved away from the original meaning, which included big business as well as big government as threats to liberty.
So, I leave it to others to decide which is the perversion of the meaning. I certainly do not dispute the dictionary.com definition because maximizing individual rights has to include fighting all threats to individual liberties.
There may be Libertarians who believe that individual rights can only be violated through the use of force, but they are clearly wrong. Corporations and other people do impact others in ways that infringe on their liberties (especially property rights, which are dear to all true Libertarians).
When you conclude with "If they were a threat in the sense that I just mentioned, a libertarian would view it as proper for the government to stop them," you make precisely the distinction I made between true Libertarians and pseudo-Libertarians. True Libertarians would view it as proper for the government to stop them; pseudo-Libertarians assume that threats to personal liberty can only come from governments (or that they can only be violated through the use of force).
"If the threat to my liberty is my daughter's asthma, it doesn't matter to me whether she dies because some factory nearby is pumping toxins into the air or because the government forced me to accept socialized medicine which was inferior."
Replying:
"The key erroroneus statement is the notion about the 'factory nearby.' If you have a child with asthma, and there is a factory that introduces toxins that aggravate that condition, you have the power to move away. You CHOSE to live there, you knew the risks. (this is assuming the factory existed prior to your arrival). If the factory did not exist prior to arrival, personal property laws (which are guaranteed by the Constitution) when exercised by a community would do much to prevent the buidling of the factory, or in the least, create a 'buy-out' situation to cover relocating."
Your stated assumption is not the only one your argument depends upon. You are also assuming the company didn't hide the toxic releases. You are assuming there are other places where there are no such health risks. And there probably were people who were there before the factory existed.
But even these assumptions (ridiculous though they are in the real world) do not change the fact that my liberties are being restricted. I do not have the right to live where I please. Property rights are an important value for all true Libertarians. Pseudo-Libertarians construct absurd arguments to justify their taking if the taker is not a government.
When you start talking about "personal property laws" and the Constitution, you only demonstrate your ignorance. The laws which allow for communities to restrict the location of factories are hardly guaranteed by the Constitution. The first such laws were passed in the 1930s. They are governmental restrictions on our liberties which are opposed by most pseudo-Libertarians and many Libertarians. On top of that, they do nothing if the plant is upwind.
Then you go on to say:
"It is often the sloth of the masses that allows the government and business to encroach on liberties. This, of course, is the fault of the individual, not the coporations or government. You lose the right to complain if you do nothing to protect your property or your own rights."
Yes, sloth of the masses results in many injustices against them. This, of course, does not absolve governments and businesses from their responsibility for their immoral acts, except in the biased eyes of pseudo-Libertarians. I do not "do nothing" to protect my property. It is the pseudo-Libertarians who urge the masses to sloth, particularly when regulation is the obvious path to protection.
Obvious paths not being your forte, you offered:
"In regards to what I have to assume is an 'eron' statement, minus the media buzzword: the overcharge by a corporation, if controlled by consumerism (and free market) are often self-correcting. As in the case of Enron, even with previous bad government policy (see: botched deregulation 101 by prof. Gray Davis) the eventual NON involvement of government allowed for the poor business practice to lead the company into extinction."
I made no reference to Enron (or "eron" for that matter). I was refering the taxes charged by Microsoft, including the upgrade tax and the tax they force on manufacturers who are forced to pay for lousy operating systems on every machine they sell, even if they want to put a better OS on a particular machine.
Of course, your analysis of the Enron debacle is as flawed as the rest of your reasoning. Gray Davis had little to do with deregulation. And deregulation had little to do with the California energy crisis (except that it was the panacea advocated by the pseudo-Libertarians at Enron who took advantage of it to infringe the liberties of Californians). To suggest that the results of the Enron affair prove the success of the free market is further evidence of your ability to look at things with an unbiased view.
As far as your claim that consumerism and free markets are "self-correcting," I am glad you included the word "often." Yes, they often are. Usually when they are regulated. Some of that regulation can be private (as in the rules of the NYSE) and some of it usually comes from government (usually over the objections of pseudo-Libertarians). In 1982 Joseph Stiglitz used the assumptions of the free-market theorists to prove that markets are NOT self-correcting without regulation. He won the Nobel Prize in Economics last year for this research. You might want to check it out.
Then you told us:
"The strongest proof to the benefit of a free-market is the rise/fall of the 'new economy.' Bad ideas with shaky business models have been purged (by and large). Business' with solid models based on REAL economics, and unchecked by massive amounts of (socialist)government regulation are able to thrive."
Unless, of course, some megacorp decided they were a threat and checked them by incorporating their ideas into their OS. Or stealing their code.
I never said free markets weren't useful. But to assume they preclude all need for government regulation has been proven wrong again and again. In fact, we have considerable evidence well-regulated markets are best solution. But pseudo-Libertarians (like communists) have ideological needs which require them to ignore the evidence.
Then you treat us to the following gem:
"(for the record - I still hold to my conspiracy theory that the Fed burst the 'internet bubble' prematurely on purpose.)"
Nice that you share this little hint about your schizophrenia with us, but I suggest it might be more important that you tell your therapist.
Then you return to your strange constitutional theories:
"Again, leave the power of choice (the dollar is mightier than the vote, ask a lobbyist)to the consumer and leave the government to it's Constitutional duties."
Our Constitution was written by a strange alliance between conservatives who believed in the importance of government and liberals who feared government. They did such a good job they enabled us to become a nation of liberals who believe in government and conservatives who fear governmental power. And pseudo-Libertarians whose grip on reality has become so weak they believe their fantasies are what the Constitution says.
Then you close with some good, old-fashioned stereotyping:
"Regulation need not be by elected officials, it requires only an education on the part of the people. (meaning, you have to get out of the college town coffee house and stop asking the government to do what you won't)...funny how the more socialist rants I come across the more I laugh.....why is it assumed that a government can be created that will only regulate that which they think is 'kewl' ??"
First, the stereotypes: "college town" and "coffee house" and "socialist rants." I do not live in a college town. I don't much like coffee, and seldom visit coffee houses. I am not a socialist, as would have been apparent to anyone who saw that I used "socialized medicine" (perhaps unfairly) as one of the threats to my daughter's health.
Secondly, the substantive points: regulation need not be government; education is all that's needed; and the assumption that a government can be created which will only do what I agree with.
Yes, regulation is possible outside of government. Of course, this involves risks to our liberties much like those posed by governments, often with less chance of respresentation. In fact, the stronger the regulation, the more the regulator becomes like a government. (Indeed, the distinction may become meaningless.)
Yes, education is good. But it cannot do everything we need to protect our liberties.
I don't assume that governments will only regulate that which I think is "kewl." But that doesn't stop me from trying to get it to stop regulating that which is not "kewl" or from trying to get it to regulate that which I think needs to be regulated. As it will always be a compromise with others, I expect it will always be less than what I want it to be (or more).
But I know that those who assume they have a blanket answer all questions of regulation will be wrong about half the time, whether they are socialists or pseudo-Libertarians. The socialists will assume that all threats to our liberties come from individuals and corporations. The pseudo-Libertarians will assume that all threats come from government. Each will find the real threats to THEIR liberties comes from the direction they are ignoring.
...over me. Because I choose not to buy his products, I have a competitive advantage over those who do.
But that doesn't tell the whole story. There are many threats that individuals (especially wealthy individuals) and corporations (especially powerful corporations) pose which do threaten my freedoms. Perhaps it is easier for government with its coercive powers, but it is quite common with corporations as well. Those who ignore this by insisting that all threats to liberty come from government do no service to liberty.
If the threat to my liberty is my daughter's asthma, it doesn't matter to me whether she dies because some factory nearby is pumping toxins into the air or because the government forced me to accept socialized medicine which was inferior.
If the threat to my liberty is my inability to market my next-big-thing computer program, it doesn't matter whether it is because the government taxes new businesses too highly or because investors think the idea is so good MS will steal it from me.
If the threat to my liberty is an economic collapse caused by insufficient resources, it doesn't matter to me whether those resources are lacking because of a command economy like Communism or because some corporation has figured out a way to overcharge all the rest for a second-rate product. It doesn't matter whether it's because the government taxed us too much or because the government borrowed too much. If the money is removed from the economy, it doesn't matter if it goes to the Microsoft tax, to the income tax or to buy Treasury bonds. (Actually it does matter somewhat, since these are coming from different parts of the economy. But any of them can harm the economy by starving it of resources.)
Yes, the corporations and the wealthy do exert power through the government as well, but that is not the primary way they threaten my liberty.
Eternal vigilance only works if you look in every direction.
...actually played a role in the initial funding of the Santa Fe Institute.
In the early '80s, Cato and Hoover and the University of Chicago told the Reagan administration (where they were very welcome) that foreign aid was unnecessary because all the poor countries of the Third World had to do was adopt market economics and their economies would automagically right themselves and be tremendously productive. They even convinced the big banks to loan money based on this prediction. After all, they'd have plenty of money to pay back the banks.
Ten years later the money was gone, Bangla Desh was just as poor with a market economy as they had been without, and the banking system was threatened by the defaults these Cato prognostications had said couldn't happen. The banks went back to the Cato economists to ask what happened. All they got were shrugs and excuses (not unlike this article).
About this time the Santa Fe Institute was trying to raise funds for their new idea for an interdisciplinary institute. Many of their people were refugees from Economics programs at schools controlled by the same people who made the bad predictions. They had objected to the bad assumptions behind the predictions and found their careers stymied. Opted for the interdisciplinary approach at Santa Fe, where the ideologues in their own disciplines had less sway.
They walked in the door at Chase Manhattan just about the time Cato was telling them they had to just eat those billions in losses. Chase asked them if they had any research which could help. They said they weren't sure about help, but their economists had predicted the failure in Bangla Desh (where one had been a Peace Corps volunteer).
...why this guy is so confused should read Paul Ormerod's book, Butterfly Economics. The book (subtitled "A New General Theory of Social and Economic Behavior") outlines the mathematics which University of Chicago economists broke through the barrier which had prevented others from mathematizing economics.
All they had to do was assume that all agents (that's you and me) in an economic system had an infinite ability to predict the future prices of goods (and they would all have to agree). Now, these economists didn't actually believe this was true, but they hoped further work with the math would allow them to make simpler, more believable assumptions.
And further work did just that. Sort of.
In 1968, it was proven that we could relax those assumptions so that different people could have different opinions about the future state of the world. The only assumption remaining which still flew in the face of common sense: All agents had to have access to an infinite amount of computing power. And it was proven that the math broke down if this requirement was relaxed.
One might expect that this would mean the theory would be thrown out. But one would be wrong. Because orthodox economic theory requires that markets "clear" in this way.
And from this orthodox economists have shown that the distribution of wealth and income which emerges from equilibrium markets cannot be altered without making someone else worse off. Which had implications for economic policy which greatly pleased those who were opposed to certain government tax policies and regulatory policies.
And those people were rich. They funded organizations like The Hoover Institution, The Cato Institute, and Wendy Gramm's Let Enron Rip Off California Institute.
Unfortunately for the theory, in 1982 David Newbery of Cambridge and Joseph Stiglitz of Princeton proved that in an uncertain world in which the future is allowed to exist, the conclusion that the distribution of income and wealth cannot be altered without harming someone is, in general, not true. Despite this finding, the old result continues to be taught to students the world over. --Paul Ormerod
It is taught because before it was disproved it acquired a strong political following, which included politically motivated private individuals who were willing to fund research which produced the results they wanted produced. So organizations like the Cato Institute have to continue to act as if a theory which rests on absurd assumptions is true, even though we know it is not. If they do not continue to so act, they will stop getting money from wealthy conservatives. That is why the absurd theory was never thrown out.
All of this would not make much difference except that an alternative set of theories have arisen, which take advantage of more recent developments in the mathematics of non-linear systems. They make no absurd assumptions, and (though incomplete) they do work. See Ormerod's book for more information.
They new theories do not skew either to conservative or liberal biases. (Ormerod is even more critical of European attempts to micromanage their economies than he is of laissez-faire Reaganism.) One of the results of including non-linear systems into the mix has been the discovery of what is known as the "network effect." Although most of us have experienced the network effect personally, Stan Liebowitz has developed a little mini-career opposing it.
It turns out there is money in this opposition. Microsoft is willing to pay good money for this obvious nonsense. And it fits right in with Cato's nervousness about a competing theory which does not rest on the absurd assumptions theirs requires.
Which explains why Liebowitz has no clue as to why CD sales were up while Napster was booming and are down since it was shuttered. The Napster community was a classic network with people sharing their favorite music with others. Sure some used it to avoid purchasing CDs. But far more were able to hear music they might never have found otherwise. Liebowitz cannot afford to see this since it would cut off a lucrative source of income for him to admit the network effect has such power. But the rest of us are under no such limitation.
When radio came along, record companies said the new technology was so different it would destroy the copyright economy they thrived on; 30 years later they were bribing DJs to play their records. Cassette tapes were similarly attacked. VCRs were supposed to be the end of the movie business; today they are an important part of their bottom line.
Someday we'll probably see congressional investigations of record companies paying on-line music-sharing services to promote their products. And Stan Liebowitz will still be confused about why his absurd assumptions still don't predict real-world results.
I'm glad you said "mostly" Libertarian because the Cato Institute is the classic example of what I call pseudo-Libertarian.
True Libertarians are opposed to all threats to our liberty, whether they come from other people, from corporations, or from government. Pseudo-Libertarians are willing to accept any amount of threat to their liberties just so long as they don't come from government. In fact, they are willing to support threats to our liberty from corporations and from wealthy individuals if they can imagine that the government action which would protect us from a real threat to our liberties from business could somehow be construed as a government threat.
...should be concentrating on instead of Napster. A couple of good triple-damages laws, some rigorous enforcement (featuring rewards for turning in corporate hackers, backed by a good witness-protection program), and so elite flying squads kicking in the doors of corporate labs in Israel (those scanning electron microscopes are neither cheap nor easy to hide, and this problem disappears.
Either that or Newscorp disappears. Either way, a desireable outcome.
I, too, noticed the "Titanic" quality...
on
The Empire Stumbles
·
· Score: 2
...in "Spiderman" (action for the guys, romance for the girls). But I don't think "Attack of the Clones" was really lacking in chick-ocitude.
In fact, the second time I saw "Send in the Clones" (the title I was jokingly referring to it by before the release actually turns out to be a much better title) I was struck by the number of teen girls in the audience. They seemed to like it a lot. Which I find encouraging when you consider the role Senator Amidala plays in the third act. Definitely not the shrinking violet waiting for a handsome prince to rescue her from the slavers.
Maybe we'll get to see CJ Cherryh's "Angel with a Sword" made into a movie yet.
<DISCLAIMERS type="movie preferences" for="those looking to discount my opinions">I liked Episode II. I even liked Episode I. I've seen Episode II twice. I liked "Spiderman." But I've only seen it once. I think the final act of "Clones" was the best action sequence yet in any Star Wars movie (you can throw in "Spiderman" into the mix and still not beat it).</DISCLAIMERS>
"Spokesman Jon Murchinson said Microsoft has been talking about how to allow open-source and proprietary software to coexist. 'Our goal is to resolve difficult issues that are driving a wedge between the commercial and free software models,' he said."
In other words, "Don't use any of those licenses which prohibit us from stealing open-source code." You know, because they drive a wedge between the commercial and free software models.
"I don't need to explain..." and "To our credit" are hardly insults nor are they bullying. They are somewhat lazy as writing devices. And they deliberately compliment the reader (sometimes known as "pandering" if such compliments are intended get better ratings or higher sales or more click-throughs).
Anyone who feels bullied by such a comment would have to be in need of emergency intervention from a self-image-rescue team. Not exactly your average/. reader.
"Clearly" is hardly a mark of excellent writing, but generally means that the author thinks he or she has a strong argument for the position being identified which is so clear it's not worth devoting space to. It can be a sign of lack of research but is more likely related to a desire not to waste the readers' time. As a means of intellectual bullying, it falls flat on its face. Anyone who uses "clearly" to bully is setting themselves up for an intellectual thrashing (especially on an open forum like/.) since the responder is absolved of the need to prove the contrary and only needs to prove that it is not clear.
I would be fascinated to hear the logical steps needed to get from a compliment like "To our credit" to "if you don't agree with me, you're a moron." Perhaps the poster feels the threat of withholding the compliment is somehow intellectually intimidating.
...if your local PBS station reruns last night's shows the following day. (Many do, often sometime around noon local time.)
Excerpts of four of Gould's many appearances on the show were compiled into a "Remembering Stephen Jay Gould" segment, which mentions a number of his books.
...Boeing supporting some research in the 1970s which purported to find an ability of professional psychics to predict or control the results of quantum mechanical observations.
You see, if observation causes the collapse of the wave function, an observer should be able to affect the results of his experiments. So, if you have a PETA psychic running the Schroedinger's Cat experiment, you'll have fewer dead cats.
...who go off and start their own businesses and use MS developer-assistance funds (well, I think they used them). I believe Microsoft still has a stake in them as well.
Real Player was founded by people who left MS, and we should not be surprised they used some Microsoft tactics. (Of course, they were surprised when MS used those tactics on them. But those who live by the sword....)
You are correct, however, in identifying this as an important question of ethics which is all-too-prevalent in the industry. Maybe a code of ethics for coders is what we need.
Nothing TiVo does requires a cable or satellite connection. In fact, it uses some kludges to enable it to work with a satellite box (and, I assume, a set-top cable box for digital cable).
The basic kludge enables the TiVo box to pretend it's a remote and control the satellite box. This greatly simplifies the process of synchronizing the two pieces of equipment (the TiVo unit and the satellite box).
But with over-the-air reception the TiVo box doesn't need any special tricks like that. (The same thing is true of non-digital cable, which just uses radio-frequency signals coming in on a coaxial cable, emulating over-the-air reception.)
Just think of TiVo as a digital VCR. It records shows just like a regular VCR. The advantages start when you want to play something while you're still recording it...or want to back up the tape without stopping recording...or want to continue recording while you watching something you've recorded at another time.
And then there's the TV guide features, which are more useful to over-the-air viewers than cable viewers (who probably have some similar service from their cable company). The guide allows a number of features which are not possible in a standard VCR, like choosing to record a show rather than a time. This means that if your local station changes the air-time of your favorite show TiVo automatically changes what it records.
I recently switched from satellite to cable on my TiVo and found some interesting features: As best it could, TiVo figured out how to record all of the shows I had previously recorded even though they had different stations and even different times. This saved me a lot of reprogramming time.
What TiVo is NOT useful without is the subscription to the television guide service. This is a little obnoxious, since it should be able to record by time, even if you are not paying the $10/month fee. Some of the more powerful features require the info provided by the subscription service, but those which do not require it should not be shut off if you decide not to pay the subscription.
TiVo works fine with POOTA (plain old over-the-air) television. In fact, it probably provides more benefits to people without cable or satellite. But don't expect that because you have antenna-based reception you can avoid the subscription. It just doesn't work.
I've been wondering lately if there is an inverse correlation between the economy as a whole and videogame sales.
During the '30s the movie industry was churning out bad movies at an incredible rate and raking in the dough (that's what they called money back then). This has sometimes been attributed to the the fact that it was an interesting way to burn a lot of time which didn't cost a lot but took people's minds off their own problems.
It was also the mode-o'-the-day entertainment technology.
All of which pretty much describes a really addictive computer or video game. Perhaps a good recession is just what the gaming industry (hey, games were big in the Depression as well) needs.
Or perhaps I'm just trying to rationalize my probably-irrational desire to start a game-design company.
...for a long, long time. What seems to be changing is the insistence on not changing the terms.
As far back as 1975, Frank Herbert (a very successful author) and Ben Bova (a fairly ethical editor) were telling young authors never to sign the first contract a publisher offered you. The contracts always included all kinds of outrageous clauses. (Well, maybe not all kinds, since this article points out some new ones.) Herbert said that even with all his experience the publishers were still sending him exploitative contracts and his agent was still crossing out sentences and sending them back.
Bova claimed that the publishers knew the contracts were outrageous, fully expected them to be rewritten by the authors, and continued to send them out in hopes of achieving the indentured servitude of a major talent. Some first-time writers told them they were afraid they wouldn't get published if they crossed out things on the contract. But Bova maintained that the publishers would agree to any reasonable change because their editors would already have decided they wanted to publish the book.
This last seems to be the thing which is changing, according to the linked article. Which seems strange to me, given the fact that writers have never been in a position of greater power. It has never been easier to self-publish, let alone the possibilities of publishing your own work on the Internet.
In summary, when you get an outrageous offer:
1) Read the Writers Union advice linked in an earlier post, cross out the things you should cross out, and send it back.
2) If you're not comfortable doing this yourself (or if you're tired of doing it yourself every time you get an acceptance), get an agent. Again, this is explained in an earlier post.
3) If your publisher refuses to comply, get another publisher or self-publish.
Life is too short to allow yourself to be enslaved by immoral cretins.
...a real element which was named after a web site which hadn't even been invented yet. (Heck, it was named before the Internet had been invented, let alone the World Wide Web.)
...beat...
OK, it was really named after the Greek word for "artificial." I wonder if TechNet.com knows its name means something like "fake."
Slashdot Mirror
My addenda are not in italics:
Oft-observed MS behavior:
- see a new technology
usually when developers start calling their developer assistance lines with code that should work according to the API documentation;(sidebar: contact nascent developers of the new technology and express interest in 'partnership,' get a feel for their approach) allowing architecture and marketing people at MS to get a clear idea of the philosophy behind the code they already have in their possession;
write press release announcing newest MS brainstorm, including vague statements about timing while rewriting code to take advantage of undocumented hooks to more solid and efficient parts of the Windows API;
watch competition die off or release a new version of Windows in which the actual innovators' code won't run, but the secret-API code will;
maybe develop the technology, maybe not or promise Version 2.0 will have all the things people want, but can only get from the original innovator
...than OO.
Most of us think "object oriented" when we see OO. When we see OOO, we think "exclamation of extreme satisfaction."
...and say, "Developers should write their test suites BEFORE they write their code."
We have a fairly large open source project with contributors coming in and going out all the time (well, not a lot going out; but any number is a problem there). Our experience shows that if you can't write a test suite you're not ready for anything more than a crude prototype. The problem with test-after-coding regimes is the testing gets short-circuited. You've already got working code. You "know" it works. You're just proving it works. So you test the obvious stuff that proves this.
Since we have instituted this policy, coding efficiency has actually improved. Coders who have tried to devise a complete set of tests have formalized their understanding of the requirements in a sense which the most complete requirements doc will never do. We include the test suite in CVS. Nobody commits until their update passes the entire test suite. This results in an enormous (but complete) test of everything done so far. But you can't imagine the thrill of seeing your patch pass that many tests the first time.
All of which is completely separate from what a QA process is for.
...of /. posting: +5 (Troll). Enjoy it while you got it.
I think it was the "card-carrying Mensa" sig, coupled with the misspelling of "tolerance." Or maybe the juxtaposition of the comment on stupidity with the parroting of the latest Rush Limbaugh lies being used to dupe the really stupid who want to believe so badly.
Since others have pointed out the obvious flaw in the "Big Business is policing itself" lie, I will concentrate on the "Kyoto is a restrictive and impractical way to cut pollution" lie. The Kyoto Treaty is nothing of the kind. It is an agreement among nations as to who has what responsibility for cleaning up how much. It says nothing about the way in which the emission of greenhouse gases might be accomplished (well, it says some things, but only to preclude bogus schemes by the unscrupulous).
Government-mandated pollution reduction is not required. Each country is left to its own devices: economic incentives, tax breaks, or legislated restrictions. The fact that this lie is being promulgated is an excellent measure of the desperation of the anti-Kyoto forces. All their other arguments are falling one by one, so they are reduced to pathetic trolling such as this:
Most Democrats, of course, believe that the "the Capitalist system works." Part of the reason it works so well in the United States is that James Madison realized the key to its success would be government regulation (particularly enforcement of contracts). Since that time, we have found a number ways in which it works better with regulation.
An excellent example of this is pollution control. Imagine, if you will, a community of manufacturers who compete with each other. Imagine further that they are moral people all of whom want to do the right thing. (This is not as surprising as Ralph Nader seems to think. Businessmen are people, too, and they don't want to poison their kids any more than they want to poison yours.)
Sooner or later, one of these companies will find itself at a competitive disadvantage. They cannot produce their product at a price which will allow them to make money selling it for what they can get. If they are paying money to reduce their pollution, they will be in a position where they can stay competitive by cutting controls or they can lose everything by going out of business. They may start polluting with full intention to clean it up later, when they get competitive again.
But they may never get the chance. Because now another business is in the least-competitive position, their existence threatened if they don't cut pollution controls. Eventually you can see an entire industry polluting at a maximum, EVEN THOUGH NONE OF THEM WANT TO. Regulations prohibiting pollution can be seen as a contract (sort of like a treaty) between them with the government as a guarantor. And it also protects them against a competitor who actually is nefarious and really doesn't care what is right.
The Kyoto Treaty can be viewed as just such a contract between nations. Any industrial nation could achieve an unfair competitive advantage over the others by ignoring global warming. If one country is losing out in the global marketplace because its business is overtaxed, the government could allow greenhouse gas emissions as a way to become competitive again without giving up its beloved taxes. (We saw this in Eastern Europe and Russia and China during the Cold War.)
Mensa-morons can whine and moan all they want, but the Kyoto Treaty will WORK. Just like the pollution and fuel-efficiency regulations they probably opposed during the '70s (and now celebrate the results of).
...the scientific prowess of nerds. But they do amply demonstrate nerds' legendary lack of social skills. And Timothy is out there leading the pack with that old canard about the helix of M&Ms.
What he assumes (despite considerable evidence to the contrary) is that the entire ship was in weightlessness. In fact, as clearly shown in Mission to Mars, the only part of the ship which had very low gravity (allowing the M&M trick to be possible) was the central axis.
Since even the central axis was rotating, any zero-g DNA model not only COULD be rotating, it would HAVE TO BE rotating. Now, admittedly it did not look like this model was oriented along the axis of the ship. But there was nothing in the scene which would have precluded such an orientation.
Yes, there are many who use the term this way. But I think a review the historical record would show that it originally included all threats to liberty. I have certainly heard older Libertarians complain that the movement has moved away from the original meaning, which included big business as well as big government as threats to liberty.
So, I leave it to others to decide which is the perversion of the meaning. I certainly do not dispute the dictionary.com definition because maximizing individual rights has to include fighting all threats to individual liberties.
There may be Libertarians who believe that individual rights can only be violated through the use of force, but they are clearly wrong. Corporations and other people do impact others in ways that infringe on their liberties (especially property rights, which are dear to all true Libertarians).
When you conclude with "If they were a threat in the sense that I just mentioned, a libertarian would view it as proper for the government to stop them," you make precisely the distinction I made between true Libertarians and pseudo-Libertarians. True Libertarians would view it as proper for the government to stop them; pseudo-Libertarians assume that threats to personal liberty can only come from governments (or that they can only be violated through the use of force).
...the foolishness of pseudo-Libertarianism.
You quoted me:
Replying:
Your stated assumption is not the only one your argument depends upon. You are also assuming the company didn't hide the toxic releases. You are assuming there are other places where there are no such health risks. And there probably were people who were there before the factory existed.
But even these assumptions (ridiculous though they are in the real world) do not change the fact that my liberties are being restricted. I do not have the right to live where I please. Property rights are an important value for all true Libertarians. Pseudo-Libertarians construct absurd arguments to justify their taking if the taker is not a government.
When you start talking about "personal property laws" and the Constitution, you only demonstrate your ignorance. The laws which allow for communities to restrict the location of factories are hardly guaranteed by the Constitution. The first such laws were passed in the 1930s. They are governmental restrictions on our liberties which are opposed by most pseudo-Libertarians and many Libertarians. On top of that, they do nothing if the plant is upwind.
Then you go on to say:
Yes, sloth of the masses results in many injustices against them. This, of course, does not absolve governments and businesses from their responsibility for their immoral acts, except in the biased eyes of pseudo-Libertarians. I do not "do nothing" to protect my property. It is the pseudo-Libertarians who urge the masses to sloth, particularly when regulation is the obvious path to protection.
Obvious paths not being your forte, you offered:
I made no reference to Enron (or "eron" for that matter). I was refering the taxes charged by Microsoft, including the upgrade tax and the tax they force on manufacturers who are forced to pay for lousy operating systems on every machine they sell, even if they want to put a better OS on a particular machine.
Of course, your analysis of the Enron debacle is as flawed as the rest of your reasoning. Gray Davis had little to do with deregulation. And deregulation had little to do with the California energy crisis (except that it was the panacea advocated by the pseudo-Libertarians at Enron who took advantage of it to infringe the liberties of Californians). To suggest that the results of the Enron affair prove the success of the free market is further evidence of your ability to look at things with an unbiased view.
As far as your claim that consumerism and free markets are "self-correcting," I am glad you included the word "often." Yes, they often are. Usually when they are regulated. Some of that regulation can be private (as in the rules of the NYSE) and some of it usually comes from government (usually over the objections of pseudo-Libertarians). In 1982 Joseph Stiglitz used the assumptions of the free-market theorists to prove that markets are NOT self-correcting without regulation. He won the Nobel Prize in Economics last year for this research. You might want to check it out.
Then you told us:
Unless, of course, some megacorp decided they were a threat and checked them by incorporating their ideas into their OS. Or stealing their code.
I never said free markets weren't useful. But to assume they preclude all need for government regulation has been proven wrong again and again. In fact, we have considerable evidence well-regulated markets are best solution. But pseudo-Libertarians (like communists) have ideological needs which require them to ignore the evidence.
Then you treat us to the following gem:
Nice that you share this little hint about your schizophrenia with us, but I suggest it might be more important that you tell your therapist.
Then you return to your strange constitutional theories:
Our Constitution was written by a strange alliance between conservatives who believed in the importance of government and liberals who feared government. They did such a good job they enabled us to become a nation of liberals who believe in government and conservatives who fear governmental power. And pseudo-Libertarians whose grip on reality has become so weak they believe their fantasies are what the Constitution says.
Then you close with some good, old-fashioned stereotyping:
First, the stereotypes: "college town" and "coffee house" and "socialist rants." I do not live in a college town. I don't much like coffee, and seldom visit coffee houses. I am not a socialist, as would have been apparent to anyone who saw that I used "socialized medicine" (perhaps unfairly) as one of the threats to my daughter's health.
Secondly, the substantive points: regulation need not be government; education is all that's needed; and the assumption that a government can be created which will only do what I agree with.
Yes, regulation is possible outside of government. Of course, this involves risks to our liberties much like those posed by governments, often with less chance of respresentation. In fact, the stronger the regulation, the more the regulator becomes like a government. (Indeed, the distinction may become meaningless.)
Yes, education is good. But it cannot do everything we need to protect our liberties.
I don't assume that governments will only regulate that which I think is "kewl." But that doesn't stop me from trying to get it to stop regulating that which is not "kewl" or from trying to get it to regulate that which I think needs to be regulated. As it will always be a compromise with others, I expect it will always be less than what I want it to be (or more).
But I know that those who assume they have a blanket answer all questions of regulation will be wrong about half the time, whether they are socialists or pseudo-Libertarians. The socialists will assume that all threats to our liberties come from individuals and corporations. The pseudo-Libertarians will assume that all threats come from government. Each will find the real threats to THEIR liberties comes from the direction they are ignoring.
...over me. Because I choose not to buy his products, I have a competitive advantage over those who do.
But that doesn't tell the whole story. There are many threats that individuals (especially wealthy individuals) and corporations (especially powerful corporations) pose which do threaten my freedoms. Perhaps it is easier for government with its coercive powers, but it is quite common with corporations as well. Those who ignore this by insisting that all threats to liberty come from government do no service to liberty.
If the threat to my liberty is my daughter's asthma, it doesn't matter to me whether she dies because some factory nearby is pumping toxins into the air or because the government forced me to accept socialized medicine which was inferior.
If the threat to my liberty is my inability to market my next-big-thing computer program, it doesn't matter whether it is because the government taxes new businesses too highly or because investors think the idea is so good MS will steal it from me.
If the threat to my liberty is an economic collapse caused by insufficient resources, it doesn't matter to me whether those resources are lacking because of a command economy like Communism or because some corporation has figured out a way to overcharge all the rest for a second-rate product. It doesn't matter whether it's because the government taxed us too much or because the government borrowed too much. If the money is removed from the economy, it doesn't matter if it goes to the Microsoft tax, to the income tax or to buy Treasury bonds. (Actually it does matter somewhat, since these are coming from different parts of the economy. But any of them can harm the economy by starving it of resources.)
Yes, the corporations and the wealthy do exert power through the government as well, but that is not the primary way they threaten my liberty.
Eternal vigilance only works if you look in every direction.
...actually played a role in the initial funding of the Santa Fe Institute.
In the early '80s, Cato and Hoover and the University of Chicago told the Reagan administration (where they were very welcome) that foreign aid was unnecessary because all the poor countries of the Third World had to do was adopt market economics and their economies would automagically right themselves and be tremendously productive. They even convinced the big banks to loan money based on this prediction. After all, they'd have plenty of money to pay back the banks.
Ten years later the money was gone, Bangla Desh was just as poor with a market economy as they had been without, and the banking system was threatened by the defaults these Cato prognostications had said couldn't happen. The banks went back to the Cato economists to ask what happened. All they got were shrugs and excuses (not unlike this article).
About this time the Santa Fe Institute was trying to raise funds for their new idea for an interdisciplinary institute. Many of their people were refugees from Economics programs at schools controlled by the same people who made the bad predictions. They had objected to the bad assumptions behind the predictions and found their careers stymied. Opted for the interdisciplinary approach at Santa Fe, where the ideologues in their own disciplines had less sway.
They walked in the door at Chase Manhattan just about the time Cato was telling them they had to just eat those billions in losses. Chase asked them if they had any research which could help. They said they weren't sure about help, but their economists had predicted the failure in Bangla Desh (where one had been a Peace Corps volunteer).
Walked out with a $100 million check.
Read Complexity: The Emerging Science at the Edge of Order and Chaos for a more accurate explanation of the events (condensed for this post).
...why this guy is so confused should read Paul Ormerod's book, Butterfly Economics. The book (subtitled "A New General Theory of Social and Economic Behavior") outlines the mathematics which University of Chicago economists broke through the barrier which had prevented others from mathematizing economics.
All they had to do was assume that all agents (that's you and me) in an economic system had an infinite ability to predict the future prices of goods (and they would all have to agree). Now, these economists didn't actually believe this was true, but they hoped further work with the math would allow them to make simpler, more believable assumptions.
And further work did just that. Sort of.
In 1968, it was proven that we could relax those assumptions so that different people could have different opinions about the future state of the world. The only assumption remaining which still flew in the face of common sense: All agents had to have access to an infinite amount of computing power. And it was proven that the math broke down if this requirement was relaxed.
One might expect that this would mean the theory would be thrown out. But one would be wrong. Because orthodox economic theory requires that markets "clear" in this way.
And from this orthodox economists have shown that the distribution of wealth and income which emerges from equilibrium markets cannot be altered without making someone else worse off. Which had implications for economic policy which greatly pleased those who were opposed to certain government tax policies and regulatory policies.
And those people were rich. They funded organizations like The Hoover Institution, The Cato Institute, and Wendy Gramm's Let Enron Rip Off California Institute.
It is taught because before it was disproved it acquired a strong political following, which included politically motivated private individuals who were willing to fund research which produced the results they wanted produced. So organizations like the Cato Institute have to continue to act as if a theory which rests on absurd assumptions is true, even though we know it is not. If they do not continue to so act, they will stop getting money from wealthy conservatives. That is why the absurd theory was never thrown out.
All of this would not make much difference except that an alternative set of theories have arisen, which take advantage of more recent developments in the mathematics of non-linear systems. They make no absurd assumptions, and (though incomplete) they do work. See Ormerod's book for more information.
They new theories do not skew either to conservative or liberal biases. (Ormerod is even more critical of European attempts to micromanage their economies than he is of laissez-faire Reaganism.) One of the results of including non-linear systems into the mix has been the discovery of what is known as the "network effect." Although most of us have experienced the network effect personally, Stan Liebowitz has developed a little mini-career opposing it.
It turns out there is money in this opposition. Microsoft is willing to pay good money for this obvious nonsense. And it fits right in with Cato's nervousness about a competing theory which does not rest on the absurd assumptions theirs requires.
Which explains why Liebowitz has no clue as to why CD sales were up while Napster was booming and are down since it was shuttered. The Napster community was a classic network with people sharing their favorite music with others. Sure some used it to avoid purchasing CDs. But far more were able to hear music they might never have found otherwise. Liebowitz cannot afford to see this since it would cut off a lucrative source of income for him to admit the network effect has such power. But the rest of us are under no such limitation.
When radio came along, record companies said the new technology was so different it would destroy the copyright economy they thrived on; 30 years later they were bribing DJs to play their records. Cassette tapes were similarly attacked. VCRs were supposed to be the end of the movie business; today they are an important part of their bottom line.
Someday we'll probably see congressional investigations of record companies paying on-line music-sharing services to promote their products. And Stan Liebowitz will still be confused about why his absurd assumptions still don't predict real-world results.
I'm glad you said "mostly" Libertarian because the Cato Institute is the classic example of what I call pseudo-Libertarian.
True Libertarians are opposed to all threats to our liberty, whether they come from other people, from corporations, or from government. Pseudo-Libertarians are willing to accept any amount of threat to their liberties just so long as they don't come from government. In fact, they are willing to support threats to our liberty from corporations and from wealthy individuals if they can imagine that the government action which would protect us from a real threat to our liberties from business could somehow be construed as a government threat.
...should be concentrating on instead of Napster. A couple of good triple-damages laws, some rigorous enforcement (featuring rewards for turning in corporate hackers, backed by a good witness-protection program), and so elite flying squads kicking in the doors of corporate labs in Israel (those scanning electron microscopes are neither cheap nor easy to hide, and this problem disappears.
Either that or Newscorp disappears. Either way, a desireable outcome.
...in "Spiderman" (action for the guys, romance for the girls). But I don't think "Attack of the Clones" was really lacking in chick-ocitude.
In fact, the second time I saw "Send in the Clones" (the title I was jokingly referring to it by before the release actually turns out to be a much better title) I was struck by the number of teen girls in the audience. They seemed to like it a lot. Which I find encouraging when you consider the role Senator Amidala plays in the third act. Definitely not the shrinking violet waiting for a handsome prince to rescue her from the slavers.
Maybe we'll get to see CJ Cherryh's "Angel with a Sword" made into a movie yet.
<DISCLAIMERS type="movie preferences" for="those looking to discount my opinions">I liked Episode II. I even liked Episode I. I've seen Episode II twice. I liked "Spiderman." But I've only seen it once. I think the final act of "Clones" was the best action sequence yet in any Star Wars movie (you can throw in "Spiderman" into the mix and still not beat it).</DISCLAIMERS>
...in the end of "We Can Remember it for you Wholesale," also known as "Total Recall."
...is over the GPL.
In other words, "Don't use any of those licenses which prohibit us from stealing open-source code." You know, because they drive a wedge between the commercial and free software models.
"I don't need to explain..." and "To our credit" are hardly insults nor are they bullying. They are somewhat lazy as writing devices. And they deliberately compliment the reader (sometimes known as "pandering" if such compliments are intended get better ratings or higher sales or more click-throughs).
/. reader.
/.) since the responder is absolved of the need to prove the contrary and only needs to prove that it is not clear.
Anyone who feels bullied by such a comment would have to be in need of emergency intervention from a self-image-rescue team. Not exactly your average
"Clearly" is hardly a mark of excellent writing, but generally means that the author thinks he or she has a strong argument for the position being identified which is so clear it's not worth devoting space to. It can be a sign of lack of research but is more likely related to a desire not to waste the readers' time. As a means of intellectual bullying, it falls flat on its face. Anyone who uses "clearly" to bully is setting themselves up for an intellectual thrashing (especially on an open forum like
I would be fascinated to hear the logical steps needed to get from a compliment like "To our credit" to "if you don't agree with me, you're a moron." Perhaps the poster feels the threat of withholding the compliment is somehow intellectually intimidating.
Most slashdotters wouldn't.
...if your local PBS station reruns last night's shows the following day. (Many do, often sometime around noon local time.)
Excerpts of four of Gould's many appearances on the show were compiled into a "Remembering Stephen Jay Gould" segment, which mentions a number of his books.
...Boeing supporting some research in the 1970s which purported to find an ability of professional psychics to predict or control the results of quantum mechanical observations.
You see, if observation causes the collapse of the wave function, an observer should be able to affect the results of his experiments. So, if you have a PETA psychic running the Schroedinger's Cat experiment, you'll have fewer dead cats.
Right?
...who go off and start their own businesses and use MS developer-assistance funds (well, I think they used them). I believe Microsoft still has a stake in them as well.
Real Player was founded by people who left MS, and we should not be surprised they used some Microsoft tactics. (Of course, they were surprised when MS used those tactics on them. But those who live by the sword....)
You are correct, however, in identifying this as an important question of ethics which is all-too-prevalent in the industry. Maybe a code of ethics for coders is what we need.
Nothing TiVo does requires a cable or satellite connection. In fact, it uses some kludges to enable it to work with a satellite box (and, I assume, a set-top cable box for digital cable).
The basic kludge enables the TiVo box to pretend it's a remote and control the satellite box. This greatly simplifies the process of synchronizing the two pieces of equipment (the TiVo unit and the satellite box).
But with over-the-air reception the TiVo box doesn't need any special tricks like that. (The same thing is true of non-digital cable, which just uses radio-frequency signals coming in on a coaxial cable, emulating over-the-air reception.)
Just think of TiVo as a digital VCR. It records shows just like a regular VCR. The advantages start when you want to play something while you're still recording it...or want to back up the tape without stopping recording...or want to continue recording while you watching something you've recorded at another time.
And then there's the TV guide features, which are more useful to over-the-air viewers than cable viewers (who probably have some similar service from their cable company). The guide allows a number of features which are not possible in a standard VCR, like choosing to record a show rather than a time. This means that if your local station changes the air-time of your favorite show TiVo automatically changes what it records.
I recently switched from satellite to cable on my TiVo and found some interesting features: As best it could, TiVo figured out how to record all of the shows I had previously recorded even though they had different stations and even different times. This saved me a lot of reprogramming time.
What TiVo is NOT useful without is the subscription to the television guide service. This is a little obnoxious, since it should be able to record by time, even if you are not paying the $10/month fee. Some of the more powerful features require the info provided by the subscription service, but those which do not require it should not be shut off if you decide not to pay the subscription.
TiVo works fine with POOTA (plain old over-the-air) television. In fact, it probably provides more benefits to people without cable or satellite. But don't expect that because you have antenna-based reception you can avoid the subscription. It just doesn't work.
I've been wondering lately if there is an inverse correlation between the economy as a whole and videogame sales.
During the '30s the movie industry was churning out bad movies at an incredible rate and raking in the dough (that's what they called money back then). This has sometimes been attributed to the the fact that it was an interesting way to burn a lot of time which didn't cost a lot but took people's minds off their own problems.
It was also the mode-o'-the-day entertainment technology.
All of which pretty much describes a really addictive computer or video game. Perhaps a good recession is just what the gaming industry (hey, games were big in the Depression as well) needs.
Or perhaps I'm just trying to rationalize my probably-irrational desire to start a game-design company.
...for a long, long time. What seems to be changing is the insistence on not changing the terms.
As far back as 1975, Frank Herbert (a very successful author) and Ben Bova (a fairly ethical editor) were telling young authors never to sign the first contract a publisher offered you. The contracts always included all kinds of outrageous clauses. (Well, maybe not all kinds, since this article points out some new ones.) Herbert said that even with all his experience the publishers were still sending him exploitative contracts and his agent was still crossing out sentences and sending them back.
Bova claimed that the publishers knew the contracts were outrageous, fully expected them to be rewritten by the authors, and continued to send them out in hopes of achieving the indentured servitude of a major talent. Some first-time writers told them they were afraid they wouldn't get published if they crossed out things on the contract. But Bova maintained that the publishers would agree to any reasonable change because their editors would already have decided they wanted to publish the book.
This last seems to be the thing which is changing, according to the linked article. Which seems strange to me, given the fact that writers have never been in a position of greater power. It has never been easier to self-publish, let alone the possibilities of publishing your own work on the Internet.
In summary, when you get an outrageous offer:
1) Read the Writers Union advice linked in an earlier post, cross out the things you should cross out, and send it back.
2) If you're not comfortable doing this yourself (or if you're tired of doing it yourself every time you get an acceptance), get an agent. Again, this is explained in an earlier post.
3) If your publisher refuses to comply, get another publisher or self-publish.
Life is too short to allow yourself to be enslaved by immoral cretins.
...a real element which was named after a web site which hadn't even been invented yet. (Heck, it was named before the Internet had been invented, let alone the World Wide Web.)
...beat...
OK, it was really named after the Greek word for "artificial." I wonder if TechNet.com knows its name means something like "fake."
...what MS employees who get paid to make fake posts on Linux geek discussion groups as anonymous cowards try to erect to cover their tracks.
...this?