Targetted and tracked advertising is the way things are moving. Pushing a commercial to thousands or millions is going by by, which is why were seeing thigs like Google's Adwords/AdSense becoming very popular. Its targetted advertising.
A key part of this is the tracking. Google Adwords goes to certain pains to maintain a privacy barrier between users of Adwords (via site visits, searches, etc.) and those who establish a business relationship based on an Adwords ad (that is - someone who clicks on an ad... and even then the information is limited). This, among other user-favorable approaches to advertising, is what has made Google's system a success.
The grandparent doesn't say what ad tech they used. But the problem is that by this time, the well has been poisoned. Any app that admits to being "advertising supported" will be viewed as a likely carrier for untold amounts of scumware (spyware, et al). Even if it isn't. The perception is there - and for good reason. Scumware companies have soured our view of that model.
The interesting thing is that Google entered a poisoned market. Advertising ilk such as Doubleclick polluted online advertising with inappropriate expectations (why is just seeing an ad on TV acceptable but an online campaign a failure if it doesn't generate click-throughs) and playing games with tracking cookies, pop-ups/unders, java, and flash. It's a wonder anyone loads ad banners at all (and an increasing number of users don't). Yet Google has flourished in this wasteland. And a large part of this has to do with their behavior. At the least, they don't behave in a manner that makes it worth the effort to block them. And that only makes an already effective system more effective.
Purveyors of "tracking" and "targeted" ad technology should be very careful as to what limits their targets will accept.
Re:Concise guide to Linux on the deskop for non-te
on
Linux Desktop Guide
·
· Score: 1
Sheesh talk about shooting the messenger! Apparently I'm a troll because I'm pointing out the bleeding obvious.
Just to set the record straight - I haven't labeled you as a troll. And while you may have some points, I think you're missing some other "obvious".
Linux is not built for someone who never wants to get their hands dirty with knowing how the computer works. There's still too much you have to configure by hand, too much that can go wrong that will REQUIRE you to hand edit files etc.
The problem is... neither is Windows. Sure, there are plenty of places you can go clicky-clicky and twiddle some config. But that doesn't explain WHY someone needs to do it... or what those values should be. Things go wrong with Windows too. And when they do, our neophyte either finds some instructions to follow or they go get help (via favor or pay).
Keep in mind that the modern Linux desktop-oriented distro is pretty good at offering clicky-clicky GUI config tools. Basic configurations are covered. But if something breaks badly, or you want to do something a bit out of the ordinary, you can get your Linux-savvy help to dig in and do what's needed.
Just like Windows.
Most non-technical Windows users will not ever need to edit the registry.
Maybe... maybe not. It depends entirely on what they want to configure or what needs to be fixed.
Telling these users that they should switch to Linux is totally ridiculous and a great way to get people off side when it is quite possible that if you bring them on board later on, they'll think it's wonderful. This is hurting Linux.
A fair enough point. However, if not now... when? Personal computers are complex. They've always been and will likely continue to be no matter how refined the interfaces become. The microcomputer has dealt with complexity for decades now... yet that hasn't stopped its adoption by the mainstream.
I would suggest that at this point, Linux is good enough. It needs more hardware and commercial software support - which it is getting. And it could always benefit from improvements - which is happening. But where it is today is a solid enough platform that offers good functionality for the majority of common computing tasks.
Another thing to consider is that perfection is not a requirement for success. A decade or so ago, we could have been having this debate over the merits of MacOS vs. Windows (or more accurately, "Mac vs. PC"). Mac users would point out the superior interface and configuration . Windows / PC users would point out the advantages of not relying on a single vendor.
Again - you've got a generally good point. And I agree that Linux should continue to improve. But from my personal experience (years doing admin and tech support and toying with personal computers since the early 80's) I'm inclined to say that it has less weight then you seem to believe it does.
One last point...
95% of the world could care less about how the computer works. They would never want source code because they don't know what to do with it and don't care, so they're not going to crusade like Stallman to get it.
This same population doesn't understand how to build systems. They don't know how to maintain them. If left to their own devices, they would have continued trudging along without microcomputers or the Internet. Their ignorance is not wisdom.
The mis perception that people get about source code, et al is that they need to use it personally. Heck, I haven't touched but a fraction of a percent of code I have available to me. But I have benefited personally and professionally from that code availability as people with similar interests as mine HAVE brought about changes to code bases that I ultimately use. I have also benefited from separate systems that, due to the transparency of code and open standards, are completely compatible with each other.
Re:Concise guide to Linux on the deskop for non-te
on
Linux Desktop Guide
·
· Score: 1
Even more amazing is how few people use them. For example I doubt either my mother or my girlfriend knows how to hand edit the registry. They use Windows frequently.
None the less, for a system that is often held as the example in GUI configuration when compared to flat text configs in Linux... there's an awful lot of things one can only configure in Windows if you modify the registry. And woe to the neophyte who wishes to tread there; they will find the registry inherently hostile. The savings grace is that they don't have to tread there too often. And even if / when they have to - if they follow instructions, they'll probably be OK.
Anyone who's experienced this will find that the Linux world isn't that unfamiliar. There are GUI tools for most of the usual end-user configs. And if someone finds themselves having to get elbow-deep in to the system, if they follow instructions, they'll do fine. One major difference is that text config files are fairly resliliant and often very well documented within the config file itself.
Re:Concise guide to Linux on the deskop for non-te
on
Linux Desktop Guide
·
· Score: 1
For all its problems its still usually a few clicks to install windows applications, the settings are more often than not in the menus with a nice dialog box set up for picking between them, and even administering the computer can be done graphically without resorting to hand editing anything?
Like even Windows applications and settings... the answer is "it depends". Any software that is part of the distro is simply a matter of selecting it and letting it install (either from the 'net or CDROM depending on your selection). Software from a 3rd party? It all depends. There are vendors who package their apps for your distro in it's preferred format (clicky-clicky to begin install). There are vendors who use either existing commercial or self-written all-inclusive install packages (much like you see on Windows - clicky-clicky to install). And then there are those who offer an archive that you have to drop in place to run - much like a Windows.zip file.
When it comes to configuration, it all depends on how you want to do things. There are some very impressive GUI tools that give you all the normal tasks with clicky-clicky ease. These tools are modifying underlying config files that you can tweak by hand if you're so inclined. But with current distros like SuSE, this is entirely by choice.
How many Windows users do you know that hand edit ini files or the registry?
Isn't it amazing how many registry hacks show up on Windows help sites?
Neither a.sxw or a PDF one would be very useful for someone new to PCs...
Really? Must be something wrong with your system. My default Fedora and SuSE installs automagically handle PDF files with a simple clicky-clicky on the file / document icon. Same with.sxw. And since this is a guide about using Linux, it seems that it is entirely the right format.
Granted - it would be nice for someone to provide a printed copy.
Just like every other license, you have to have ownership before you can license it out. The GPL is no exception. You have to assign ownership to the FSF so that they can enforce the license.
Oddly enough - there is a lot of software out there licensed under the GPL without transferring copyright over to the FSF. It would seem it is less of a "you have to" and more of a "the FSF suggests." Which makes sense - one doesn't enforce copyright when one isn't the holder of said copyright.
They both represent corporate America. This country is driven by business and corporate interests will always prevail above those of ordinary citizens.
Wait, wait. Are you telling me that Corporate America doesn't want us flying? I'd suspect you'd find a few rather large corporations that just happen to have quite an inventory of aircraft disagreeing with that.
Nice rant. Normally, I'd agree. But it has no place in this conversation.
maybe some ipod users here could explain why they would be against one more digital music store's songs being compatible with their ipod?
There's this great file format that's compatible with the iPod and rather easy for Real to implement. I hear people call it "MP3". Maybe you've heard of it too.
Granted, its not Ogg Vorbis. But then... its certainly not a "DRM"-crippled format either.
No... actually, that is the point. The US Military does not have a policy to target civilian populations - Al Qaeda does. As such, you see completely different messages coming from the two organizations.
If you want to argue semantics, then I suppose you are correct. You've provided an example. But you're missing the point.
Keep in mind that Abu Graib is an embarassment. It is an example of either covert policy or a distasteful mixture of mob mentality and gallows humor. It is not an example of the day-to-day operations and policy of US forces.
If they did care about civilian deaths, the US attack helicopters wouldn't strafe building complexes where rebels were staying. They'd send guys in to get them. The US helicopters shot up tens of apartments, killing occupants. The thing is, America is responsible for dead American troops, not dead locals. If you really think the US cares a jot about any Iraqi civilian, you really should go read some impartial media.
US Military forces kill civilians. It's a fact. And I don't try to pretend that this doesn't happen. This doesn't mean they don't try to avoid civilian death and it certainly doesn't mean they intentionally target civilians.
So what about the example given? I don't know the details - and I suspect neither do the critics. However, from experience and previous documentation, I know that urban warfare is difficult and dangerous. Sending troops in to the buildings to try and ferret out rebels would have been extremely risky. Part of this is the civilian dress of the combatants. And this alone would have lead to not only an increase risk for US forces but an increase likelihood that civilians would have been killed.
There are a couple other factors to consider. First, if I am thinking of the same incident, US commanders reported that they had been returning fire from those buildings. Secondly, if US forces did not have any regard for civilians, they would simply have had the building destroyed - they certainly have the capability.
We have seen plenty of footage of regular US troops celebrating the deaths of Iraqi civilians, though. And plenty of footage of war crimes in progress (against Iraqi civilians).
Please feel free to provide any links to this footage you might have. One thing that I've noted is that context is important. A month or two ago, someone posted a link to CNN footage of US soldiers shooting an Iraqi and celebrating. It then followed on to a soldier being interviewed and talking about the rush he got from the experience. What this clip failed to provide was context. The footage had come from a CNN program on the effects of fighting on the soldiers. What the clip didn't show was the soldier interviewed talking about the guilt and remorse he felt later on (despite his belief he was justified). And it also edited out the fact that the Iraqi being shot was a part of an attacking force.
Just because they're prisoners, doesn't mean they aren't civilians.
Ahh - Abu Ghraib. You might note that this has become a scandal and a severe embarassment for the US Military. There are no press statements from the President of the United States or Secretary of Defense calling Abu Ghraib a great victory guided by the hand of God.
Great technology isn't enough, you need the winning team and business side to go with it.
Hey - great. Pay the guys who came up with the great technology their fair share (or at least, the bargained price). Then go off to market it for millions in profit. There's nothing wrong with that.
Who are you to tell somebody else what they should or should not do with their own Predicta?... Of course, you are free to object, but you look pretty silly when you do it.
I disagree. What if I was an art collector who decided that my vast collection of classic art, some of which are considered historical milestones, would all look more modern with a few splashes of neon paint and some blinking LEDs embeded in the subject's eyes? It would be defacement of those pieces and I could certainly understand the art world to be rather upset.
Granted - if those pieces were a part of my private collection, I would be legally allowed to do what I want with them. But it would still be tactless.
The letters quoted in the article give interesting insights into the mindset of these terrorists.
You left out an interesting one:
...The UN imposes all sorts of penalties on all those who contradict its religion. It issues documents and statements that openly contradict Islamic belief, such as the International Declaration for Human Rights, considering all religions are equal, and considering that the destruction of the statues constitutes a crime...
The statues noted here are the ancient Bamiyan Buddhas. The destruction of historical relics.
This isn't just a war based on politics. It is a war of culture.
The sanctions were a little iffy (millions of innocent people died in Iraq -- the question is to what degree that was the fault of the sanctions or Saddam).
The UN set up an "Oil for Food" program to help ensure the Iraqi people had basic food and medical supplies. During this time, Saddam managed to build nine new, and quite opulent, palaces. And it is suspected that funds intended to help Iraqi people went to weapons research.
But our recent invasion of Iraq didn't seem very justified (no WMD, no link to al Queda, no plans by Saddam to attack the US -- why are we there again?).
Let me preface my next comments by stating that I found the reasons given to justify this attack suspect. Having said that...
There were plenty of reasons to believe WMD existed. The least of which was the fact that every time UN inspectors tried to certify that Iraq was complying with cease-fire agreements, there was interference. In comparison, former Soviet block countries, as well as the US and the Soviets and then Russia have been able to comply with various nuclear inspections. And even with the lack of WMD evidense, there has still been discoveries of banned weapons capability.
Also keep in mind that the Iraqi government was maintained an atagonistic stance towards the US. During the 10 year cease-fire, there were constant provocations towards patroling US (and I suspect allied) aircraft. Another interesting example is the Iraqi Intelligence attempt to assassinate the former President Bush Sr. This doesn't provide any form of proof that Iraq intended a direct attack on the US. But it does show a willingness to do harm against the US.
Ten years ago, the US tried to avoid what it has to deal with today. The intent was to allow the potentially sticky situation of removing Sadam's regime to solve itself. However, Sadam managed to survive multiple uprisings and coup attempts. Not to mention UN sanctions and inspections.
How is our killing, say, 3,000 Iraq civilians less evil than al Queda killing 3,000 American civilians?
Al Queda targets civilians. The civilians killed ARE the intended targets. If the US military had intended the wholesale death of Arabic civilians, the death toll would be in the hundreds of thousands. However, the US does try to avoid civilian death. Obviously, they're not always successful. But you don't see US forces celebrating the death of civilians.
Zionist complicity in the 9/11 attacks is not an unreasonable supposition.
9/11 wasn't the first attack on the World Trade Center. Or are you going to claim that the muslim extremists indicted in this attack is simply part of a long-term Zionist conspiracy?
How is it that there are plenty of things going wrong?
Something can be overall workable even with a slew of minor issues. Windows has a history of this.
A better example is my Linux (Debian and SuSE) environments. I am very happy with them even though there are plenty of bits and pieces I'd like to see improved / fixed.
Funny how Linux from Walmart which itself is a large corporation may help fight the software giant Microsoft is. How ironic where the revolution comes from.
The rise of commodity hardware didn't eliminate the corporation. It did marginalize former gatekeepers. But it also spawned new corporations - and created new gatekeepers who discovered the new keys, as it were.
But the overall effect was positive. Commodity hardware created choice and fostered competition. It brought about a faster cycle for technology. It drove more competative prices. And it spawned a considerably larger marketplace. Good for business. Good for the consumer.
The rise of commodity operating systems will do the same thing. Former gatekeepers will find that their keys, while usefull, won't unlock the only paths available; their importance will lessen. New business oportunities will be available and new (and old) corporate interests will pursue them (and we'll very likely end up with a new gatekeepers). And again - the overall effect will be positive as the consumer gets additional choice and business gets additional oportunity.
A key point here is that the corporation does not end. By the very nature of the industry, we are dependant on them. When a gatekeeper talks about the end of business, they're really talking about the end of THEIR business.
The focus shouldn't be on corporations anyway. There's nothing wrong with corporate interest per se. However, by the nature of the beast, it should be kept in check. And the best tool to do that is choice. Business interests that wish to retain customers will have to curb activities that upset them... as long as the customer has a choice.
Choice is the real power of these commodity markets; the real opportunity and threat of Linux and it's like. Some will fight it. Others will embrace it. And it won't always be the entities you expect or approve of.
Sun's SunRays always seemed fairly interesting. And I've seen them used by a crew who run the dataroom for a national security conference (with glowing praise).
I've opened my mouth and all some of you heard was FUD FUD FUD FUD FUD.
And this is where Rob finally talks truth. Granted, you have to dig through a winding path of inference and congecture to get to it.
Actually - I'm not being completely truthfull. Rob did have another valid point:
If you've been watching, companies are slowly moving to acquire IP and they appear to be planning on recouping that investment at some future time. With Open Source software you can see, in great detail, what makes the products tick and this makes discovery relatively simple. It is my belief that people and companies are now mining this software for opportunities and then acquiring the intellectual property they will need to "mine" Linux users at some future point, granted only well funded non-government users.
However, I find it disingenious on Enderle's part to not immediately note that SCO is pioneering this business strategy. Or that Microsoft published the play book.
Slashdot Mirror
A key part of this is the tracking. Google Adwords goes to certain pains to maintain a privacy barrier between users of Adwords (via site visits, searches, etc.) and those who establish a business relationship based on an Adwords ad (that is - someone who clicks on an ad... and even then the information is limited). This, among other user-favorable approaches to advertising, is what has made Google's system a success.
The grandparent doesn't say what ad tech they used. But the problem is that by this time, the well has been poisoned. Any app that admits to being "advertising supported" will be viewed as a likely carrier for untold amounts of scumware (spyware, et al). Even if it isn't. The perception is there - and for good reason. Scumware companies have soured our view of that model.
The interesting thing is that Google entered a poisoned market. Advertising ilk such as Doubleclick polluted online advertising with inappropriate expectations (why is just seeing an ad on TV acceptable but an online campaign a failure if it doesn't generate click-throughs) and playing games with tracking cookies, pop-ups/unders, java, and flash. It's a wonder anyone loads ad banners at all (and an increasing number of users don't). Yet Google has flourished in this wasteland. And a large part of this has to do with their behavior. At the least, they don't behave in a manner that makes it worth the effort to block them. And that only makes an already effective system more effective.
Purveyors of "tracking" and "targeted" ad technology should be very careful as to what limits their targets will accept.
Just to set the record straight - I haven't labeled you as a troll. And while you may have some points, I think you're missing some other "obvious".
The problem is... neither is Windows. Sure, there are plenty of places you can go clicky-clicky and twiddle some config. But that doesn't explain WHY someone needs to do it... or what those values should be. Things go wrong with Windows too. And when they do, our neophyte either finds some instructions to follow or they go get help (via favor or pay).
Keep in mind that the modern Linux desktop-oriented distro is pretty good at offering clicky-clicky GUI config tools. Basic configurations are covered. But if something breaks badly, or you want to do something a bit out of the ordinary, you can get your Linux-savvy help to dig in and do what's needed.
Just like Windows.
Maybe... maybe not. It depends entirely on what they want to configure or what needs to be fixed.
A fair enough point. However, if not now... when? Personal computers are complex. They've always been and will likely continue to be no matter how refined the interfaces become. The microcomputer has dealt with complexity for decades now... yet that hasn't stopped its adoption by the mainstream.
I would suggest that at this point, Linux is good enough. It needs more hardware and commercial software support - which it is getting. And it could always benefit from improvements - which is happening. But where it is today is a solid enough platform that offers good functionality for the majority of common computing tasks.
Another thing to consider is that perfection is not a requirement for success. A decade or so ago, we could have been having this debate over the merits of MacOS vs. Windows (or more accurately, "Mac vs. PC"). Mac users would point out the superior interface and configuration . Windows / PC users would point out the advantages of not relying on a single vendor.
Again - you've got a generally good point. And I agree that Linux should continue to improve. But from my personal experience (years doing admin and tech support and toying with personal computers since the early 80's) I'm inclined to say that it has less weight then you seem to believe it does.
One last point...
This same population doesn't understand how to build systems. They don't know how to maintain them. If left to their own devices, they would have continued trudging along without microcomputers or the Internet. Their ignorance is not wisdom.
The mis perception that people get about source code, et al is that they need to use it personally. Heck, I haven't touched but a fraction of a percent of code I have available to me. But I have benefited personally and professionally from that code availability as people with similar interests as mine HAVE brought about changes to code bases that I ultimately use. I have also benefited from separate systems that, due to the transparency of code and open standards, are completely compatible with each other.
None the less, for a system that is often held as the example in GUI configuration when compared to flat text configs in Linux... there's an awful lot of things one can only configure in Windows if you modify the registry. And woe to the neophyte who wishes to tread there; they will find the registry inherently hostile. The savings grace is that they don't have to tread there too often. And even if / when they have to - if they follow instructions, they'll probably be OK.
Anyone who's experienced this will find that the Linux world isn't that unfamiliar. There are GUI tools for most of the usual end-user configs. And if someone finds themselves having to get elbow-deep in to the system, if they follow instructions, they'll do fine. One major difference is that text config files are fairly resliliant and often very well documented within the config file itself.
Like even Windows applications and settings... the answer is "it depends". Any software that is part of the distro is simply a matter of selecting it and letting it install (either from the 'net or CDROM depending on your selection). Software from a 3rd party? It all depends. There are vendors who package their apps for your distro in it's preferred format (clicky-clicky to begin install). There are vendors who use either existing commercial or self-written all-inclusive install packages (much like you see on Windows - clicky-clicky to install). And then there are those who offer an archive that you have to drop in place to run - much like a Windows
When it comes to configuration, it all depends on how you want to do things. There are some very impressive GUI tools that give you all the normal tasks with clicky-clicky ease. These tools are modifying underlying config files that you can tweak by hand if you're so inclined. But with current distros like SuSE, this is entirely by choice.
Isn't it amazing how many registry hacks show up on Windows help sites?
Really? Must be something wrong with your system. My default Fedora and SuSE installs automagically handle PDF files with a simple clicky-clicky on the file / document icon. Same with
Granted - it would be nice for someone to provide a printed copy.
Oddly enough - there is a lot of software out there licensed under the GPL without transferring copyright over to the FSF. It would seem it is less of a "you have to" and more of a "the FSF suggests." Which makes sense - one doesn't enforce copyright when one isn't the holder of said copyright.
Scott Kurtz of PvP fame had a nice rant on that "work". Embeded in the rant is his own parody.
Eh. But they didn't have good marketing with a catchy name like "crusade".
Wait, wait. Are you telling me that Corporate America doesn't want us flying? I'd suspect you'd find a few rather large corporations that just happen to have quite an inventory of aircraft disagreeing with that.
Nice rant. Normally, I'd agree. But it has no place in this conversation.
There's a few things you're missing on your sig.
1) Slashdot had the same bias well before OSDN (then Andover) expressed interest in buying them.
2) As a general rule, all tech news is biased. You aren't likely to find unbiased news anywhere.
3) Slashdot rose from obscurity at a time when the more mainstream news sources' bias was almost entirely opposing Slashdot's bias.
Granted - that probably won't all fit.
There's this great file format that's compatible with the iPod and rather easy for Real to implement. I hear people call it "MP3". Maybe you've heard of it too.
Granted, its not Ogg Vorbis. But then... its certainly not a "DRM"-crippled format either.
No... actually, that is the point. The US Military does not have a policy to target civilian populations - Al Qaeda does. As such, you see completely different messages coming from the two organizations.
If you want to argue semantics, then I suppose you are correct. You've provided an example. But you're missing the point.
Keep in mind that Abu Graib is an embarassment. It is an example of either covert policy or a distasteful mixture of mob mentality and gallows humor. It is not an example of the day-to-day operations and policy of US forces.
US Military forces kill civilians. It's a fact. And I don't try to pretend that this doesn't happen. This doesn't mean they don't try to avoid civilian death and it certainly doesn't mean they intentionally target civilians.
So what about the example given? I don't know the details - and I suspect neither do the critics. However, from experience and previous documentation, I know that urban warfare is difficult and dangerous. Sending troops in to the buildings to try and ferret out rebels would have been extremely risky. Part of this is the civilian dress of the combatants. And this alone would have lead to not only an increase risk for US forces but an increase likelihood that civilians would have been killed.
There are a couple other factors to consider. First, if I am thinking of the same incident, US commanders reported that they had been returning fire from those buildings. Secondly, if US forces did not have any regard for civilians, they would simply have had the building destroyed - they certainly have the capability.
Please feel free to provide any links to this footage you might have. One thing that I've noted is that context is important. A month or two ago, someone posted a link to CNN footage of US soldiers shooting an Iraqi and celebrating. It then followed on to a soldier being interviewed and talking about the rush he got from the experience. What this clip failed to provide was context. The footage had come from a CNN program on the effects of fighting on the soldiers. What the clip didn't show was the soldier interviewed talking about the guilt and remorse he felt later on (despite his belief he was justified). And it also edited out the fact that the Iraqi being shot was a part of an attacking force.
Ahh - Abu Ghraib. You might note that this has become a scandal and a severe embarassment for the US Military. There are no press statements from the President of the United States or Secretary of Defense calling Abu Ghraib a great victory guided by the hand of God.
Hey - great. Pay the guys who came up with the great technology their fair share (or at least, the bargained price). Then go off to market it for millions in profit. There's nothing wrong with that.
I disagree. What if I was an art collector who decided that my vast collection of classic art, some of which are considered historical milestones, would all look more modern with a few splashes of neon paint and some blinking LEDs embeded in the subject's eyes? It would be defacement of those pieces and I could certainly understand the art world to be rather upset.
Granted - if those pieces were a part of my private collection, I would be legally allowed to do what I want with them. But it would still be tactless.
You left out an interesting one:
The statues noted here are the ancient Bamiyan Buddhas. The destruction of historical relics.
This isn't just a war based on politics. It is a war of culture.
The UN set up an "Oil for Food" program to help ensure the Iraqi people had basic food and medical supplies. During this time, Saddam managed to build nine new, and quite opulent, palaces. And it is suspected that funds intended to help Iraqi people went to weapons research.
Let me preface my next comments by stating that I found the reasons given to justify this attack suspect. Having said that...
There were plenty of reasons to believe WMD existed. The least of which was the fact that every time UN inspectors tried to certify that Iraq was complying with cease-fire agreements, there was interference. In comparison, former Soviet block countries, as well as the US and the Soviets and then Russia have been able to comply with various nuclear inspections. And even with the lack of WMD evidense, there has still been discoveries of banned weapons capability.
Also keep in mind that the Iraqi government was maintained an atagonistic stance towards the US. During the 10 year cease-fire, there were constant provocations towards patroling US (and I suspect allied) aircraft. Another interesting example is the Iraqi Intelligence attempt to assassinate the former President Bush Sr. This doesn't provide any form of proof that Iraq intended a direct attack on the US. But it does show a willingness to do harm against the US.
Ten years ago, the US tried to avoid what it has to deal with today. The intent was to allow the potentially sticky situation of removing Sadam's regime to solve itself. However, Sadam managed to survive multiple uprisings and coup attempts. Not to mention UN sanctions and inspections.
Al Queda targets civilians. The civilians killed ARE the intended targets. If the US military had intended the wholesale death of Arabic civilians, the death toll would be in the hundreds of thousands. However, the US does try to avoid civilian death. Obviously, they're not always successful. But you don't see US forces celebrating the death of civilians.
9/11 wasn't the first attack on the World Trade Center. Or are you going to claim that the muslim extremists indicted in this attack is simply part of a long-term Zionist conspiracy?
Something can be overall workable even with a slew of minor issues. Windows has a history of this.
A better example is my Linux (Debian and SuSE) environments. I am very happy with them even though there are plenty of bits and pieces I'd like to see improved / fixed.
The rise of commodity hardware didn't eliminate the corporation. It did marginalize former gatekeepers. But it also spawned new corporations - and created new gatekeepers who discovered the new keys, as it were.
But the overall effect was positive. Commodity hardware created choice and fostered competition. It brought about a faster cycle for technology. It drove more competative prices. And it spawned a considerably larger marketplace. Good for business. Good for the consumer.
The rise of commodity operating systems will do the same thing. Former gatekeepers will find that their keys, while usefull, won't unlock the only paths available; their importance will lessen. New business oportunities will be available and new (and old) corporate interests will pursue them (and we'll very likely end up with a new gatekeepers). And again - the overall effect will be positive as the consumer gets additional choice and business gets additional oportunity.
A key point here is that the corporation does not end. By the very nature of the industry, we are dependant on them. When a gatekeeper talks about the end of business, they're really talking about the end of THEIR business.
The focus shouldn't be on corporations anyway. There's nothing wrong with corporate interest per se. However, by the nature of the beast, it should be kept in check. And the best tool to do that is choice. Business interests that wish to retain customers will have to curb activities that upset them... as long as the customer has a choice.
Choice is the real power of these commodity markets; the real opportunity and threat of Linux and it's like. Some will fight it. Others will embrace it. And it won't always be the entities you expect or approve of.
Win3.1? A better example is WinME.
Sun's SunRays always seemed fairly interesting. And I've seen them used by a crew who run the dataroom for a national security conference (with glowing praise).
I guess their work on Lenny the Lamprey fell through?
And this is where Rob finally talks truth. Granted, you have to dig through a winding path of inference and congecture to get to it.
Actually - I'm not being completely truthfull. Rob did have another valid point:
However, I find it disingenious on Enderle's part to not immediately note that SCO is pioneering this business strategy. Or that Microsoft published the play book.