Mindspring? Don't they use MS as the desktop running vantive as the troubleticket system? See your boss knows linux isn't a business o/s.
I am really surprised at how stupid your response is. First, you did not address any of the points I brought up. Second, you attempted to respond to my post by bashing Linux as something that "...[is not] a business OS" when my argument had nothing to do with what is the best "business OS." Third, you assumed that mindspring is "my boss" which they are not -- they *were* my ISP, and were never my employer.
I suggest trying to respond to my points. You'll probably come up with a much better argument.
I admit. I like M$, here's why... If it wasn't for them damn winboxen and their applications crashing all the time I wouldn't be working.
So far, I can think of only three types of people who like Microsoft: 1. MSFT stockholders, 2. people who think that anything that makes money is inherently good, and 3. people whose jobs depend on it. Your statement puts you in the third category.
A WIDELY USED UNSTABLE O/S MAKES MONEY
CHILDREN!! Ask any sysadmin what they spend the majority of their time fixin, Linux or M$.
And you actually like it for this reason? This is the stupidest thing I've read all day (but the day's still young). Wouldn't you rather be spending your time getting work done, doing innovative things and make money? That's what I can do all day long because I don't have to waste time trying to make Microsoft stuff work.
I'm sick of all these whiny people bitching and moaning about how unfair M$ is.
And I'm sick of all these whiny Microsoft apologists making stupid arguments.
Don't get me wrong, they're all got their merits but M$ has been at the forfront of ease of use for a long time.
What a nice opinion.
Ever try configuring hardware in NIX? Pain in the ass for a sysadmin like me let alone a user.
I configure hardware under UNIX all the time. Since you seem to be spinning your wheels in the point-and-click land of NT system reboot^H^H^H^H^H^Hadministration, I'm not surprised that you find it difficult to configure hardware under UNIX. Since I have some knowledge in that area, I don't find it so difficult. This is true for all system administration and computer use, for that matter: if you are trained and skilled, then it is easy. Otherwise, it is difficult. Tell me: if Microsoft is so "easy to use," then why is there such a thing as MCSE?
M$ makes some damn good free stuff. Look at how nicely IE has matured.
IE is not free. Microsoft has admitted that much of the price of Win98 was comprised of "research and development," and they have also admitted that much of their "research and development" was done inr IE. I bet you also think that IIS comes "free" with NT server.
MS has been there for me and many other admins (even though they won't admit it) for many years now.
They've been there for you, standing behind you, asking you to bend over...
My alliance to the dark side of the force is stronger than ever. JOIN THE EMPIRE!
I can't see why, considering the numerous idiotic statements you've made regarding the specious merits of Microsoft. I'm guessing that this has more to do with what psychologists call "cognitive dissonance": the inability to hold two disparate ideas simultanously. For example, you may have trouble simultaneously understadning "Microsoft makes me a lot of money," and "Microsoft makes poor technology, tries to force people to pay for it, and it unethical in general." People in this situation (see also: Scientology) often make all sorts of moronic statements and defend their point of view with vitrol and excess exclamation points.
I am not too naive to understand that the US wants to push this case along as fast as possible so that there isn't too much turmoil within the economy, but isn't that what a capatilist society is supposed to be about? The survival of the fittest? The best companies with the best products that the consumer likes best WINS?!
Yes, this is the theory (as I understand it) behind capitalism: all companies try hard to make good products. Consumers will select the best product and buy it. Therefore, the companies that make the best products win. This competitive activity fosters innovation and our society ends up better off.
Here is the problem: companies only like capitalism when they want to get into a market. Once they are in that market, they hate capitalism. Competitors mean that they have to work harder to make their products better. It's much easier and cheaper to destroy your competitor than to compete against their products.
This is why I believe that the only things that a company should have the right to do in order to increase sales is to improve the quality of their products or services. It is the only thing which fosters what I see as competition. Everything else is designed to destroy competitors, which is, by nature, anti-capitalistic. Let me say that again: competing against a competitor's products is competitive, destroying a competitor is not. (If the competitor is destroyed becuase their products can't compete with yours in terms of quality, then that's another story.)
This is why I believe in antitrust as a valid function of government. It's like the referee at an american football game: they make sure that the teams compete instead of engage in clipping, holding, murder, and other such illegal activities. NOTE: I have no idea the best way for government enforcement of antitrust. Like all government activity, it's ripe for corruption and that part sucks.
Now anyone who has looked at Microsoft's history can tell that their competitive activities have been anything but competitive. Microsoft is out for blood. They will do anything and say anything to destroy their competitors. Therefore, I think that the government's action is capitalistic, for it's attempting to rectify something that is not.
Why do you have to rank on those of us who happen to have a preference for rape? The good
thing about technology is that it is blind, that it allows those of us who don't fit into society's mold to have a fair say and a fair chance at having our opinions heard.
And what does rape have to do with terrorism or heroin? You degrade rapists and don't
seem to think anything about it. A comment like that about homosexuals, Jews, blacks, or any other
minority would have an angry mob at your door real quick.
As a member of a currently socially unacceptable group, I realize that I must fight for my rights in every way I can, and get people to realize that I'm not bad or evil, I am what I am, and everyone will just have to accept that!
For the record, I am gay. The problem with your lifestyle is that the "love" of children assumes that children are capable of understanding sexual relationships. I admit that some are and some aren't. I was sexually active when I was 12. But the psychological evidence of sexual abuse of children compels me to reject pedophilia as something abusive and evil. And no, I don't "just have to accept" your lifestyle.
I have a feeling you will try and label me a hypocrite. That won't work. You'll do much better to try and show me that whatever psychological evidence I've seen is invalid (much like the psychological evidence against homesexuality has been shown to be invalid).
Finally, I get a logical and well-put point. You are correct: it would be anti-free speech to ban people the right to do what they wanted to with their land.
I noticed that you failed to address a single one of the points I raised in my response to you. Instead you fawned about how wonderful advertising is. What you think of as "art forms" and what you think is "necessary" is not any more compelling than what flavor of ice cream you like best. For the record, I hate advertising and have a low opinion of advertisers for that reason. But my opinions have nothing to do with my argument.
And when you're ready to counter my argument instead of spout your opinions I will be ready to answer.
To answer your question, either charge a subscription fee (like consumer reports), or make the media free because the consumer is the product (like television). It is immoral to do both, for then you are asking people to pay money for the privilege of looking at advertisements.
Absolutely every person who produces anything must advertise.
I infer from what you wrote that you gathered that I believe it is wrong to advertise. This is not my position at all. I believe it is wrong to take people's attention without giving something in return. I believe it is wrong to charge people for the "privilege" of looking at advertising.
Subscriptions only serve to give the media a means of stable circulation, which in turn enables them to sell advertising.
"Subscriptions only serve..."? You write as if the little "money" part of the subscription was inconsequential to the purpose of subscription, and as if charging people money for subscriptions actually increased circulation. Tell me, do you think that the circulation would be made more stable if the media was released free of charge? Obviously it would! The moment a subscription-based service starts selling advertising is the moment is loses the right to charge a subscription fee. Case in point: I used to be able to go to a movie theater and pay to see a movie. Nowadays it's common for for a consumer to pay to see a movie and also pay to see the commercials which run before the movie. This is wrong. If the movie theater is going to rent that prime real estate space then it should make the admission price free. This is the way television works, why can't it work for movie theaters? And why can't it work for magazines and newspapers (which are frequently over 50% advertising)?
and neither are they a way for the media to support itself directly.
The television empire (saving a few premium channels which are but a drop in the bucket) which is an industry huger than than any magazine or newspaper could ever dream to be survives solely on advertising.
Until we all become psychic, or completely self-sufficient, advertising is an integral part of life. If you don't like it, you should probably stop working and live in a tent.
This is the same thing as saying "get a life," which I'll interpret as an ad hominem springing forth from your pathetically lame argument.
A while back I read a really interesting article in Linux Journal about "Mediated Reality" (using eyeglasses whose display can filter out things you don't want to see in the real world -- like advertisements). The article was fascinating in itself, but it really put a point to why I dislike most of advertising.
It mentioned (animated) web banners which portray a moving mouse pointer and explain that it is an obvious attempt to capture the users' attention. In the end, this is what all advertising is attempting to do. They don't care about eyeballs, they want you to give your attention, your precious time, to their marketroid message.
It's also like a company which I've seen here in Atlanta, GA, USA called "Promove" which has brick-and-mortars set up to connect apartment hunters with vacant apartments. The buildings and signs are painted bright yellow. Why? Because they know that it is a psychological fact that yellow is the most eye-grabbing color. People are just naturally drawn to look at it. In the end, just another scheme to steal peoples' attention.
And that's what all advertising is: A scheme to steal peoples' attention. This is why I hate most advertising. It is the attempt of companies to use psychological tricks to take my attention and my time which is rightfully mine, and which companies have no right to.
I agree that advertising on television is acceptable, for it delivers a free service to the viewers. The viewers pay with their attention. I think that magazines and newspapers which charge a subscription fee are immoral. Why would I pay to have my attention diverted towards someone else's financial gain? I pay to look at what I want to look at, not what Frito-Lay wants me to look at! I think that advertising billboards should be illegal: the advertiser gets the viewer's attention and the viewer gets... nothing (plus it's unsafe, people are trying to drive for God's sake!). And I think that T-Shirts which say "Tommy Hilfiger" boldly on the front is a testament to how stupid many of us have become.
And to those people who say, "It's just a few more ads, get over it, we're already inundated with ads, stop whining!" I reply: your time and your attention may be worthless to you, but to me they are my most precious resource, and I reserve the right to whine, bitch, and complain about their loss as much as I so please.
Why don't you jus tell us exactly what one must do to be a Christian? I've never had any two Christians come up with the same response when posed with this question.
For example: is baptism necessary for salvation? Either way you answer I can confront you with scripture which will contradict what you said.
Funny you should ask. Al Franken responded to the exact same bit of retoric from Rush Limbaugh by calling up a bunch of major conservatives and asking them to name non-military goverment programs that had achieved their objectives.
Al Franken failed to answer the question. Instead, he tried to turn it into a slam against his political enemy. You have done the same thing.
The governement has done a lot and a lot (if not most) of it has worked.
Like what?
No, welfare has not eliminated all poverty, but no one with an ounce of sense thinks that makes it a failure, any more than the continued existance of sick people makes modern medicine a failure.
If you remember, it was the republicans who pushed for legislation to remove people from the welfare rolls. Bill "The era of big government is over" Clinton oppposed it vehemently, but caved after he received pressure from his own party. Can you provide for me statistics showing how many people are actually "lifed out of poverty" by welfare compared to those who use it as a means of living? Furthermore, you should know by now that welfare is much more about vote buying than it is about helping people. Why do you think the underachievers continue to support those who promise them plundered money? (Hint: probably because they're being promised plundered money.)
You only listed one government program (welfare) and even owned up to that it has, at least, partially failed. What about all the others? I'll give you some others to think about: Social Security, Medicare, The Drug War. Successes or failures? I'm sure you can think of even more.
Its real easy for privileged little brats to sit and talk about how useless the govenment is.
Ad hominem.
(but still expect fire departments and police to be there when they need them)
The fire department is local, not federal. Furthermore the fire department is a valid function of local government.
but for those of us who have lived a while on the harder side of real life, its just more pathetic whining.
You just whined about living "a while on the harder side of real life" and then implied that what I wrote was "pathetic whining." First, your statement is the most stupid and hypocritical thing I've read all day. Second, we all live hard lives. You don't how hard my life was any more or less than I know how hard yours was.
In summation, you attempted to counter my argument by simply stating your position and providing one one shaky example about which can be raised many legitimate and serious objections. Then you tried to slander me, implying that I am "priviledged," a "little brat," and one who engages in "pathetic whining" despite the fact that you and I have never met. You have followed the pattern of, "If you find you aren't able to attack your opponent's position, then attack your opponent." In conclusion, your argument is shit. I am hoping that the next time you post you will be able to generate a more intellegent one.
Anyone who values freedom in the United States has noticed our freedoms being slowly eroded over the past few decades. The Federal government is larger than ever. We have more failed government programs than ever before. ("Failed government program" is redundant. Can anyone think of a government program that actually worked?) The US government is trying hard to pass laws to disarm Americans (did they stop to think that only law-abiding citizens obey laws? Did they pay heed to the consistent statistic that passing gun legislation increases crime?) We have gross violations of the 4th amendment in the name of the insane, grossly expensive, horribly malicious, and completely ineffective "war on drugs."
Currently the top 50% of wage earners in the US pay 96% of the taxes. This is why the concept of "tax breaks for the poor" is ridiculous. It also shows how the concept of the rich "paying their fair share" is equally as stupid. If anything destroys the American empire, it will be when the top 49% of wage earners are paying 100% of the taxes.
In the United States we have apologists arguing that life in Cuba can't be so bad, with its "free" and "free" education. If it's not so bad, then why have Cubans been rafting to the US in droves for the past few decades?
I can go on all day. It seems to me that tyranny and ignorance are alive and well here is the US. I am sure it can only be worse in other parts of the world.
"In general the art of government consists in taking as much money as possible from one class of citizens to give to the other." --Voltaire
Why is it that every time any news story matching/(Microsoft|The rumor mill) (announces|leaks).*about X-Box/ then it gets posted to Slashdot? First of all, the X-Box is pure vapor. It doesn't exist. And we all know Microsoft's knack for releasing vaporware products to help destroy competition. So I don't see how these stories can be considered "news."
Second, Microsoft stands in the way of everything geeks believe in: open technology, open standards. So I personally don't see how these stories can be considered "news for nerds." I would be more likely to classify it as "news for people who don't like that big, complecated, and unfriendly technology thing and need Microsoft to make it easy-to-use" (see also: the Ease-of-Use Lie).
I'm also sure we've all noticed the recent rash of Microsoft whiners who keep wailing, "Every time a Linux story is posted it's modded up, and every time a Microsoft story is posted it's modded down! Slashdot is not objective! They're all a bunch of Linux Zealots!"
Maybe there is some truth to that, but certainly not in the case of Slashdot's recent and repetitive fawning over the X-Box.
God won't kill you now. Probably. But if you think that the end of life brings end of existance, then I wonder what you will do in the day when you stand before the Lord?
You say "God won't kill you now," but then add, "Probably." In other words, you're guessing. Tell me, is blasphemy not a killworthy sin? God seemed to kill people left and right for rather petty transgressions in the OT, yet, for some reason, he lets me live. The least you can do is admit that your God is inconsistent. Go read Acts 12:23 and try and reconcile what God did to Herod (and for what reason he did it) with what I said. And in answer to your question, it should have already been crystal clear that I do not believe that the Bible is true and do not hardly believe that it could possibly be the divine word of a perfect being. Hence, I have no reason to fear standing in front of a mythical being.
What evidence are you speaking on when you say without admitting that there is a huge amount of evidence due on part of the Christians and Apologists.
I will reiterate it for you: there is no evidence for heaven, hell, angels, demons, miracles (as described by the Bible), and the flood, to name a few. As long as you are trying to 1. convince people that the Bible is true, and 2. claim that there is not enough evidence to believe in evolution, don't you think it would be the honorable thing to do to provide evidence for the many unscientific and dubious things in the Bible?
The Bible is not the divine word of a perfect being. There is absolutley no evidence for angels, demons, miracles (as described in the bible), heaven, hell, or souls. And if I'm wrong then I dare and defy the God of the Christians to kill me before I can finish typing this sentence.
I recommend that you not challenge Evolution on lack of evidence without admitting that there is a huge amount of evidence due on part of the Christians and Apologists.
Microsoft is evil, and I do not compromise with evil. I had to find a company which would allow me to run a non-Microsoft operating system on my desktop. Now that I work at my new company I don't use any Microsoft products at all.
And I like it that way. Microsoft stands in the way of everything I love about computing: open standards, open APIs, open exchange of information, competition, and free software.
If you are a dual-booter, ask yourself: it it really worth perpetuating evil just so you can play EverQuest?
(Note: the last time I proposed this idea I got a veritable buttload of ad hominems. I hope that the responses to this post can actually generate some decent arguments.)
Except for my implication that LISP is worthless. Certainly you could have chosen to dispute that.
Why don't you give us some arguments for your claim that Lisp is a worthless language?
I'd be happy to, though my arguments should be obvious. Almost no one is using LISP for anything outside of college classes. Go to monster.com and search for LISP. Then search for C++. Which comes up with more hits? My guess is that you know the answer without having to do the searches.
Everybody's wrong now and then. Including you.
Correct. I am often wrong about things. Guess what? So are you. Nonetheless I don't see how this follows my comment about Phillip Greenspun's backpedaling. Are you suggesting that my Greenspun was not backpedaling, or perhaps that my interpretation was wrong? It doesn't really matter, for the fact remains that despite Phillip's stupid arguments about LISP being "the most powerful and elegant" programming language he still admitted to coding in Perl (despite the fact that it, according to Phillip, has "one onethousandth of the power of FORTRAN"). Perhaps LISP wasn't powerful and elegant enough to handle the job that Perl was obviously better suited for.
Consider this: What if the distraction you feel is completely normal, but you have been told all your life that this distraction is due to "ADD" and needs to be "treated"? So you were told from childhood up that you can't pay attention and need to be drugged, and that the drugged state is normal, while the undrugged state is bad. Meaning, what if this ADD thing is completely made up, and the "symptoms" you feel are a psychological issue that has been created by people telling you and convincing you that you are "hyperactive" and need to be drugged?
Honestly, I feel distracted all the time. But I learned to cope with it as lots of people do. I think it's completely normal for a kid to feel distracted -- they've got short attention spans for Christ's sake!
You may quite possibly be a victim of the ADD myth. I hope you're not going to drug your son.
Would someone care to share with me here how someone is diagnosed with/ADH?D/? And what the evidence of this "disease" is? And how that differs from just "being a kid"?
Everyone nowadays just accepts that some kids have this disease and that the cure for this disease is the drug called ritalin. Why is it that all-of-a-sudden millions of kids need to be drugged where that has never happened before in history? How did this "epidemic" come washing over us requiring parents to drug their children with mind-altering chemicals?
I think it has much more to do with parents not wanting to raise their kids. They would rather do it with drugs and day care. The medical industry, smelling money, produces a diagnosis for a fake illness which demands treatment. The drug industry, smelling money, complies, producing the mind-altering drug ritalin. And the government, who prefers stupid, drugged citizens, stays mum about the whole subject.
At my school it seems that there are always people in the class who want to code on different platforms, including Linux. In my data structures class, the professor asked if we all had VC++. Several people said no (becuase they used Borland), and several people, including me, said that they would rather use g++. I was surprised and impressed.
My school holds classes at night and, like me, contains lots of students who are already in the field but wanting to finish their degree. This makes it a much different environment than some other Ivory Tower schools. Professors at my school can't lie to students like they did at Georgia Tech (with lies such as, "If you write your code with a goto statement then you will be fired immediately!"). I think that because there are so many "geeks in the field" in my classes that there are also lots of Linux and BSD users in my classes.
What I think is more ridiculous is that schools teach that worthless language known as LISP. (If you try and dispute this you better be prepared. I have trashed many LISPer's pathetic arguments on this subject. It was greatly pleasing to see Philip "If there was any justice in the world, the guys who wrote Perl should go do jail." Greenspun backpedaling.)
Come on, do you people really believe there are hundreds of hidden APIs that only Microsoft knows about? Get real!
Exactly! Microsoft would never lie to us little consumers. NT Workstation and NT Server are completely different operating systems, too!
Most of these so-called 'undocumented' APIs come from programmers forgetting to log certain changes or new implementations being made after the MSDN/WinAPI books go to press.
I wonder how you know this? Do you work for Microsoft? Even if you did, then that would work against you. It would mean that the truthfulness of everything you say is immediately suspect.
At any rate, the Windows API along with COM is a very flexible and extensible architecture that really does work pretty well.
This is a non-sequitur. We were talking about undocumented APIs, and then you start fawning about how "flexible and extensible" COM is.
In my line of work developing RAD applications, there is literally no other platform besides Windows, simply because the tools and interfaces for that type of work don't exist on Linux.
In other words, Microsoft can't have any hidden APIs because you really like the Windows development tools?
Your pro-Microsoft rant is pointless and your argument is pathetic. Perhaps you should contact the Wine developers and ask them if there are any undocumented Microsoft APIs. They should know, shouldn't they?
Wellllll, how in the hell did people come to a conclusion that we should be in jail for commiting a crime?
In other words, we should punish the entire country and destroy freedom because some companies have done things which are wrong? I still fail to see the logic. Communisim and jail are not the same thing.
Hmm maybe you should think about that more, some of those open source license do dictate how I
distribute the binaries and code, and whether I can or cannot make money off of them.
This is moronic. How can you fail to see the huge difference between Communism (which is a type of totalitarian government) and the open source movement (which is a largely disorganized and decentralized group of volunteers)? In case you can't, let me enumerate some of the differences for you.
Open source advocates set the controls on their own software, not everybody's software. Communism, by contrast, sets rules for everybody.
Open source advocates do not advocate, as a plank of their position as open source advocates, the government control of speech, press, religion, and business. Communism and The Green Party do.
Open source advocates cannot legally use force to achieve their goals. Communism, as a government power, can.
what do you mean "made a face"? did he stick out his tongue or what?
I apologize, I should have clarified.
When I wrote that he "made a face," what I meant was that he used the godlike powers of Windows 2000 to create a human face out of nothingness. The face hovered in midair for seven seconds and then he destroyed it with the click of a mouse button, proving that Microsoft views the laws of physics the same way as it does the laws of the United States. Because Windows 2000 is so Easy To Use (tm), he was able to do all of this with Drag-n-Drop and fancy icons.
Slashdot Mirror
Mindspring? Don't they use MS as the desktop running vantive as the troubleticket system? See your boss knows linux isn't a business o/s.
I am really surprised at how stupid your response is. First, you did not address any of the points I brought up. Second, you attempted to respond to my post by bashing Linux as something that "...[is not] a business OS" when my argument had nothing to do with what is the best "business OS." Third, you assumed that mindspring is "my boss" which they are not -- they *were* my ISP, and were never my employer.
I suggest trying to respond to my points. You'll probably come up with a much better argument.
I admit. I like M$, here's why... If it wasn't for them damn winboxen and their applications crashing all the time I wouldn't be working.
So far, I can think of only three types of people who like Microsoft: 1. MSFT stockholders, 2. people who think that anything that makes money is inherently good, and 3. people whose jobs depend on it. Your statement puts you in the third category.
A WIDELY USED UNSTABLE O/S MAKES MONEY
CHILDREN!! Ask any sysadmin what they spend the majority of their time fixin, Linux or M$.
And you actually like it for this reason? This is the stupidest thing I've read all day (but the day's still young). Wouldn't you rather be spending your time getting work done, doing innovative things and make money? That's what I can do all day long because I don't have to waste time trying to make Microsoft stuff work.
I'm sick of all these whiny people bitching and moaning about how unfair M$ is.
And I'm sick of all these whiny Microsoft apologists making stupid arguments.
Don't get me wrong, they're all got their merits but M$ has been at the forfront of ease of use for a long time.
What a nice opinion.
Ever try configuring hardware in NIX? Pain in the ass for a sysadmin like me let alone a user.
I configure hardware under UNIX all the time. Since you seem to be spinning your wheels in the point-and-click land of NT system reboot^H^H^H^H^H^Hadministration, I'm not surprised that you find it difficult to configure hardware under UNIX. Since I have some knowledge in that area, I don't find it so difficult. This is true for all system administration and computer use, for that matter: if you are trained and skilled, then it is easy. Otherwise, it is difficult. Tell me: if Microsoft is so "easy to use," then why is there such a thing as MCSE?
M$ makes some damn good free stuff. Look at how nicely IE has matured.
IE is not free. Microsoft has admitted that much of the price of Win98 was comprised of "research and development," and they have also admitted that much of their "research and development" was done inr IE. I bet you also think that IIS comes "free" with NT server.
MS has been there for me and many other admins (even though they won't admit it) for many years now.
They've been there for you, standing behind you, asking you to bend over...
My alliance to the dark side of the force is stronger than ever. JOIN THE EMPIRE!
I can't see why, considering the numerous idiotic statements you've made regarding the specious merits of Microsoft. I'm guessing that this has more to do with what psychologists call "cognitive dissonance": the inability to hold two disparate ideas simultanously. For example, you may have trouble simultaneously understadning "Microsoft makes me a lot of money," and "Microsoft makes poor technology, tries to force people to pay for it, and it unethical in general." People in this situation (see also: Scientology) often make all sorts of moronic statements and defend their point of view with vitrol and excess exclamation points.
But it's just a guess.
I am not too naive to understand that the US wants to push this case along as fast as possible so that there isn't too much turmoil within the economy, but isn't that what a capatilist society is supposed to be about? The survival of the fittest? The best companies with the best products that the consumer likes best WINS?!
Yes, this is the theory (as I understand it) behind capitalism: all companies try hard to make good products. Consumers will select the best product and buy it. Therefore, the companies that make the best products win. This competitive activity fosters innovation and our society ends up better off.
Here is the problem: companies only like capitalism when they want to get into a market. Once they are in that market, they hate capitalism. Competitors mean that they have to work harder to make their products better. It's much easier and cheaper to destroy your competitor than to compete against their products.
This is why I believe that the only things that a company should have the right to do in order to increase sales is to improve the quality of their products or services. It is the only thing which fosters what I see as competition. Everything else is designed to destroy competitors, which is, by nature, anti-capitalistic. Let me say that again: competing against a competitor's products is competitive, destroying a competitor is not. (If the competitor is destroyed becuase their products can't compete with yours in terms of quality, then that's another story.)
This is why I believe in antitrust as a valid function of government. It's like the referee at an american football game: they make sure that the teams compete instead of engage in clipping, holding, murder, and other such illegal activities. NOTE: I have no idea the best way for government enforcement of antitrust. Like all government activity, it's ripe for corruption and that part sucks.
Now anyone who has looked at Microsoft's history can tell that their competitive activities have been anything but competitive. Microsoft is out for blood. They will do anything and say anything to destroy their competitors. Therefore, I think that the government's action is capitalistic, for it's attempting to rectify something that is not.
Your comment could very well have been this:
Why do you have to rank on those of us who happen to have a preference for rape? The good
thing about technology is that it is blind, that it allows those of us who don't fit into society's mold to have a fair say and a fair chance at having our opinions heard.
And what does rape have to do with terrorism or heroin? You degrade rapists and don't
seem to think anything about it. A comment like that about homosexuals, Jews, blacks, or any other
minority would have an angry mob at your door real quick.
As a member of a currently socially unacceptable group, I realize that I must fight for my rights in every way I can, and get people to realize that I'm not bad or evil, I am what I am, and everyone will just have to accept that!
For the record, I am gay. The problem with your lifestyle is that the "love" of children assumes that children are capable of understanding sexual relationships. I admit that some are and some aren't. I was sexually active when I was 12. But the psychological evidence of sexual abuse of children compels me to reject pedophilia as something abusive and evil. And no, I don't "just have to accept" your lifestyle.
I have a feeling you will try and label me a hypocrite. That won't work. You'll do much better to try and show me that whatever psychological evidence I've seen is invalid (much like the psychological evidence against homesexuality has been shown to be invalid).
Finally, I get a logical and well-put point. You are correct: it would be anti-free speech to ban people the right to do what they wanted to with their land.
I noticed that you failed to address a single one of the points I raised in my response to you. Instead you fawned about how wonderful advertising is. What you think of as "art forms" and what you think is "necessary" is not any more compelling than what flavor of ice cream you like best. For the record, I hate advertising and have a low opinion of advertisers for that reason. But my opinions have nothing to do with my argument.
And when you're ready to counter my argument instead of spout your opinions I will be ready to answer.
To answer your question, either charge a subscription fee (like consumer reports), or make the media free because the consumer is the product (like television). It is immoral to do both, for then you are asking people to pay money for the privilege of looking at advertisements.
As an advertising major,
This definately explains why you're so defensive.
Absolutely every person who produces anything must advertise.
I infer from what you wrote that you gathered that I believe it is wrong to advertise. This is not my position at all. I believe it is wrong to take people's attention without giving something in return. I believe it is wrong to charge people for the "privilege" of looking at advertising.
Subscriptions only serve to give the media a means of stable circulation, which in turn enables them to sell advertising.
"Subscriptions only serve..."? You write as if the little "money" part of the subscription was inconsequential to the purpose of subscription, and as if charging people money for subscriptions actually increased circulation. Tell me, do you think that the circulation would be made more stable if the media was released free of charge? Obviously it would! The moment a subscription-based service starts selling advertising is the moment is loses the right to charge a subscription fee. Case in point: I used to be able to go to a movie theater and pay to see a movie. Nowadays it's common for for a consumer to pay to see a movie and also pay to see the commercials which run before the movie. This is wrong. If the movie theater is going to rent that prime real estate space then it should make the admission price free. This is the way television works, why can't it work for movie theaters? And why can't it work for magazines and newspapers (which are frequently over 50% advertising)?
and neither are they a way for the media to support itself directly.
The television empire (saving a few premium channels which are but a drop in the bucket) which is an industry huger than than any magazine or newspaper could ever dream to be survives solely on advertising.
Until we all become psychic, or completely self-sufficient, advertising is an integral part of life. If you don't like it, you should probably stop working and live in a tent.
This is the same thing as saying "get a life," which I'll interpret as an ad hominem springing forth from your pathetically lame argument.
A while back I read a really interesting article in Linux Journal about "Mediated Reality" (using eyeglasses whose display can filter out things you don't want to see in the real world -- like advertisements). The article was fascinating in itself, but it really put a point to why I dislike most of advertising.
It mentioned (animated) web banners which portray a moving mouse pointer and explain that it is an obvious attempt to capture the users' attention. In the end, this is what all advertising is attempting to do. They don't care about eyeballs, they want you to give your attention, your precious time, to their marketroid message.
It's also like a company which I've seen here in Atlanta, GA, USA called "Promove" which has brick-and-mortars set up to connect apartment hunters with vacant apartments. The buildings and signs are painted bright yellow. Why? Because they know that it is a psychological fact that yellow is the most eye-grabbing color. People are just naturally drawn to look at it. In the end, just another scheme to steal peoples' attention.
And that's what all advertising is: A scheme to steal peoples' attention. This is why I hate most advertising. It is the attempt of companies to use psychological tricks to take my attention and my time which is rightfully mine, and which companies have no right to.
I agree that advertising on television is acceptable, for it delivers a free service to the viewers. The viewers pay with their attention. I think that magazines and newspapers which charge a subscription fee are immoral. Why would I pay to have my attention diverted towards someone else's financial gain? I pay to look at what I want to look at, not what Frito-Lay wants me to look at! I think that advertising billboards should be illegal: the advertiser gets the viewer's attention and the viewer gets ... nothing (plus it's unsafe, people are trying to drive for God's sake!). And I think that T-Shirts which say "Tommy Hilfiger" boldly on the front is a testament to how stupid many of us have become.
And to those people who say, "It's just a few more ads, get over it, we're already inundated with ads, stop whining!" I reply: your time and your attention may be worthless to you, but to me they are my most precious resource, and I reserve the right to whine, bitch, and complain about their loss as much as I so please.
Unfortunately you probably also heard some hogwash like some dude turned water into wine and brought dead people back to life.
Why don't you jus tell us exactly what one must do to be a Christian? I've never had any two Christians come up with the same response when posed with this question.
For example: is baptism necessary for salvation? Either way you answer I can confront you with scripture which will contradict what you said.
Who needs english when you're a 1337 h4x0r who has his own 1337 l4Ngu4g3?
Funny you should ask. Al Franken responded to the exact same bit of retoric from Rush Limbaugh by calling up a bunch of major conservatives and asking them to name non-military goverment programs that had achieved their objectives.
Al Franken failed to answer the question. Instead, he tried to turn it into a slam against his political enemy. You have done the same thing.
The governement has done a lot and a lot (if not most) of it has worked.
Like what?
No, welfare has not eliminated all poverty, but no one with an ounce of sense thinks that makes it a failure, any more than the continued existance of sick people makes modern medicine a failure.
If you remember, it was the republicans who pushed for legislation to remove people from the welfare rolls. Bill "The era of big government is over" Clinton oppposed it vehemently, but caved after he received pressure from his own party. Can you provide for me statistics showing how many people are actually "lifed out of poverty" by welfare compared to those who use it as a means of living? Furthermore, you should know by now that welfare is much more about vote buying than it is about helping people. Why do you think the underachievers continue to support those who promise them plundered money? (Hint: probably because they're being promised plundered money.)
You only listed one government program (welfare) and even owned up to that it has, at least, partially failed. What about all the others? I'll give you some others to think about: Social Security, Medicare, The Drug War. Successes or failures? I'm sure you can think of even more.
Its real easy for privileged little brats to sit and talk about how useless the govenment is.
Ad hominem.
(but still expect fire departments and police to be there when they need them)
The fire department is local, not federal. Furthermore the fire department is a valid function of local government.
but for those of us who have lived a while on the harder side of real life, its just more pathetic whining.
You just whined about living "a while on the harder side of real life" and then implied that what I wrote was "pathetic whining." First, your statement is the most stupid and hypocritical thing I've read all day. Second, we all live hard lives. You don't how hard my life was any more or less than I know how hard yours was.
In summation, you attempted to counter my argument by simply stating your position and providing one one shaky example about which can be raised many legitimate and serious objections. Then you tried to slander me, implying that I am "priviledged," a "little brat," and one who engages in "pathetic whining" despite the fact that you and I have never met. You have followed the pattern of, "If you find you aren't able to attack your opponent's position, then attack your opponent." In conclusion, your argument is shit. I am hoping that the next time you post you will be able to generate a more intellegent one.
Anyone who values freedom in the United States has noticed our freedoms being slowly eroded over the past few decades. The Federal government is larger than ever. We have more failed government programs than ever before. ("Failed government program" is redundant. Can anyone think of a government program that actually worked?) The US government is trying hard to pass laws to disarm Americans (did they stop to think that only law-abiding citizens obey laws? Did they pay heed to the consistent statistic that passing gun legislation increases crime?) We have gross violations of the 4th amendment in the name of the insane, grossly expensive, horribly malicious, and completely ineffective "war on drugs."
Currently the top 50% of wage earners in the US pay 96% of the taxes. This is why the concept of "tax breaks for the poor" is ridiculous. It also shows how the concept of the rich "paying their fair share" is equally as stupid. If anything destroys the American empire, it will be when the top 49% of wage earners are paying 100% of the taxes.
In the United States we have apologists arguing that life in Cuba can't be so bad, with its "free" and "free" education. If it's not so bad, then why have Cubans been rafting to the US in droves for the past few decades?
I can go on all day. It seems to me that tyranny and ignorance are alive and well here is the US. I am sure it can only be worse in other parts of the world.
"In general the art of government consists in taking as much money as possible from one class of citizens to give to the other." --Voltaire
Why is it that every time any news story matching /(Microsoft|The rumor mill) (announces|leaks).*about X-Box/ then it gets posted to Slashdot? First of all, the X-Box is pure vapor. It doesn't exist. And we all know Microsoft's knack for releasing vaporware products to help destroy competition. So I don't see how these stories can be considered "news."
Second, Microsoft stands in the way of everything geeks believe in: open technology, open standards. So I personally don't see how these stories can be considered "news for nerds." I would be more likely to classify it as "news for people who don't like that big, complecated, and unfriendly technology thing and need Microsoft to make it easy-to-use" (see also: the Ease-of-Use Lie).
I'm also sure we've all noticed the recent rash of Microsoft whiners who keep wailing, "Every time a Linux story is posted it's modded up, and every time a Microsoft story is posted it's modded down! Slashdot is not objective! They're all a bunch of Linux Zealots!"
Maybe there is some truth to that, but certainly not in the case of Slashdot's recent and repetitive fawning over the X-Box.
Am I alone in this sentiment?
God won't kill you now. Probably. But if you think that the end of life brings end of existance, then I wonder what you will do in the day when you stand before the Lord?
You say "God won't kill you now," but then add, "Probably." In other words, you're guessing. Tell me, is blasphemy not a killworthy sin? God seemed to kill people left and right for rather petty transgressions in the OT, yet, for some reason, he lets me live. The least you can do is admit that your God is inconsistent. Go read Acts 12:23 and try and reconcile what God did to Herod (and for what reason he did it) with what I said. And in answer to your question, it should have already been crystal clear that I do not believe that the Bible is true and do not hardly believe that it could possibly be the divine word of a perfect being. Hence, I have no reason to fear standing in front of a mythical being.
What evidence are you speaking on when you say without admitting that there is a huge amount of evidence due on part of the Christians and Apologists.
I will reiterate it for you: there is no evidence for heaven, hell, angels, demons, miracles (as described by the Bible), and the flood, to name a few. As long as you are trying to 1. convince people that the Bible is true, and 2. claim that there is not enough evidence to believe in evolution, don't you think it would be the honorable thing to do to provide evidence for the many unscientific and dubious things in the Bible?
The Bible is not the divine word of a perfect being. There is absolutley no evidence for angels, demons, miracles (as described in the bible), heaven, hell, or souls. And if I'm wrong then I dare and defy the God of the Christians to kill me before I can finish typing this sentence.
I recommend that you not challenge Evolution on lack of evidence without admitting that there is a huge amount of evidence due on part of the Christians and Apologists.
Microsoft is evil, and I do not compromise with evil. I had to find a company which would allow me to run a non-Microsoft operating system on my desktop. Now that I work at my new company I don't use any Microsoft products at all.
And I like it that way. Microsoft stands in the way of everything I love about computing: open standards, open APIs, open exchange of information, competition, and free software.
If you are a dual-booter, ask yourself: it it really worth perpetuating evil just so you can play EverQuest?
(Note: the last time I proposed this idea I got a veritable buttload of ad hominems. I hope that the responses to this post can actually generate some decent arguments.)
There's little to dispute yet.
Except for my implication that LISP is worthless. Certainly you could have chosen to dispute that.
Why don't you give us some arguments for your claim that Lisp is a worthless language?
I'd be happy to, though my arguments should be obvious. Almost no one is using LISP for anything outside of college classes. Go to monster.com and search for LISP. Then search for C++. Which comes up with more hits? My guess is that you know the answer without having to do the searches.
Everybody's wrong now and then. Including you.
Correct. I am often wrong about things. Guess what? So are you. Nonetheless I don't see how this follows my comment about Phillip Greenspun's backpedaling. Are you suggesting that my Greenspun was not backpedaling, or perhaps that my interpretation was wrong? It doesn't really matter, for the fact remains that despite Phillip's stupid arguments about LISP being "the most powerful and elegant" programming language he still admitted to coding in Perl (despite the fact that it, according to Phillip, has "one onethousandth of the power of FORTRAN"). Perhaps LISP wasn't powerful and elegant enough to handle the job that Perl was obviously better suited for.
If that's not backpedaling, I don't know what is.
Consider this: What if the distraction you feel is completely normal, but you have been told all your life that this distraction is due to "ADD" and needs to be "treated"? So you were told from childhood up that you can't pay attention and need to be drugged, and that the drugged state is normal, while the undrugged state is bad. Meaning, what if this ADD thing is completely made up, and the "symptoms" you feel are a psychological issue that has been created by people telling you and convincing you that you are "hyperactive" and need to be drugged?
Honestly, I feel distracted all the time. But I learned to cope with it as lots of people do. I think it's completely normal for a kid to feel distracted -- they've got short attention spans for Christ's sake!
You may quite possibly be a victim of the ADD myth. I hope you're not going to drug your son.
Would someone care to share with me here how someone is diagnosed with /ADH?D/? And what the evidence of this "disease" is? And how that differs from just "being a kid"?
Everyone nowadays just accepts that some kids have this disease and that the cure for this disease is the drug called ritalin. Why is it that all-of-a-sudden millions of kids need to be drugged where that has never happened before in history? How did this "epidemic" come washing over us requiring parents to drug their children with mind-altering chemicals?
I think it has much more to do with parents not wanting to raise their kids. They would rather do it with drugs and day care. The medical industry, smelling money, produces a diagnosis for a fake illness which demands treatment. The drug industry, smelling money, complies, producing the mind-altering drug ritalin. And the government, who prefers stupid, drugged citizens, stays mum about the whole subject.
Are you drugging your kid?
At my school it seems that there are always people in the class who want to code on different platforms, including Linux. In my data structures class, the professor asked if we all had VC++. Several people said no (becuase they used Borland), and several people, including me, said that they would rather use g++. I was surprised and impressed.
My school holds classes at night and, like me, contains lots of students who are already in the field but wanting to finish their degree. This makes it a much different environment than some other Ivory Tower schools. Professors at my school can't lie to students like they did at Georgia Tech (with lies such as, "If you write your code with a goto statement then you will be fired immediately!"). I think that because there are so many "geeks in the field" in my classes that there are also lots of Linux and BSD users in my classes.
What I think is more ridiculous is that schools teach that worthless language known as LISP. (If you try and dispute this you better be prepared. I have trashed many LISPer's pathetic arguments on this subject. It was greatly pleasing to see Philip "If there was any justice in the world, the guys who wrote Perl should go do jail." Greenspun backpedaling.)
Come on, do you people really believe there are hundreds of hidden APIs that only Microsoft knows about? Get real!
Exactly! Microsoft would never lie to us little consumers. NT Workstation and NT Server are completely different operating systems, too!
Most of these so-called 'undocumented' APIs come from programmers forgetting to log certain changes or new implementations being made after the MSDN/WinAPI books go to press.
I wonder how you know this? Do you work for Microsoft? Even if you did, then that would work against you. It would mean that the truthfulness of everything you say is immediately suspect.
At any rate, the Windows API along with COM is a very flexible and extensible architecture that really does work pretty well.
This is a non-sequitur. We were talking about undocumented APIs, and then you start fawning about how "flexible and extensible" COM is.
In my line of work developing RAD applications, there is literally no other platform besides Windows, simply because the tools and interfaces for that type of work don't exist on Linux.
In other words, Microsoft can't have any hidden APIs because you really like the Windows development tools?
Your pro-Microsoft rant is pointless and your argument is pathetic. Perhaps you should contact the Wine developers and ask them if there are any undocumented Microsoft APIs. They should know, shouldn't they?
Wellllll, how in the hell did people come to a conclusion that we should be in jail for commiting a crime?
In other words, we should punish the entire country and destroy freedom because some companies have done things which are wrong? I still fail to see the logic. Communisim and jail are not the same thing.
Hmm maybe you should think about that more, some of those open source license do dictate how I
distribute the binaries and code, and whether I can or cannot make money off of them.
This is moronic. How can you fail to see the huge difference between Communism (which is a type of totalitarian government) and the open source movement (which is a largely disorganized and decentralized group of volunteers)? In case you can't, let me enumerate some of the differences for you.
what do you mean "made a face"? did he stick out his tongue or what?
I apologize, I should have clarified.
When I wrote that he "made a face," what I meant was that he used the godlike powers of Windows 2000 to create a human face out of nothingness. The face hovered in midair for seven seconds and then he destroyed it with the click of a mouse button, proving that Microsoft views the laws of physics the same way as it does the laws of the United States. Because Windows 2000 is so Easy To Use (tm), he was able to do all of this with Drag-n-Drop and fancy icons.