'Cuz it's so cool to ask for a link to everything because you're too much of a retard to use Google or read the newspaper yourself? Nope - it'd provide some context to your rant. Your argument is far too general without it. It sounds like you're parroting something you've heard and aren't actually informed enough to maintain your position. That you're refusing to do this and, instead, insist on maintaining your argument with insults simply drives home the point.
But please - keep going. It's funny in an odd sort of way.
support your outlandish claims which are completely devoid of any form of evidence. Yeah. Okay. You go back live under your rock now. The rest of us remember the news we've read over the last year. ...but apparently can't link to any of it to make the point. But we remember it!
But I've never had a driver problem installing windows. The last time I did a windows install was w2k, but I had no problems installing it on my custom built computer or a compaq. The same computer, with the same hardware, Red Hat 4 wouldn't install, and after installing red hat 5, I had to recompile with mouse support. ...
Find the correct drivers = insert the windows CD.
I had a refurb Compaq laptop... it came with WinME. I had an option to pre-buy XP for it. I wanted Win2K and, in fact, had an unused license already. So I took my bargain laptop home and tried to install Win2K. It was a nightmare hunting down drivers for the damn thing. Since Compaq did not support Win2K on that particular model, I had to hunt down which obfuscated drivers fit those particular chips on other Compaq models... install those... and hope they worked. Or find OEM versions. Eventually I got everything running (more or less).
I also got a copy of Mandrake (back when it was Mandrake). Installed it as a dual-boot. Everything worked first shot, out of the box.
I was rather amused. Usually laptop hardware has given me fits with Linux (one time I went through 3 distros before finding one that was happy out-of-box). This was the first time I had trouble with Windows and no trouble with Linux. It really drove home the importance of OEM support for any OS.
My point is that there's no reason for people to think evil of Microsoft's move to create their own open source license, since other developers out there (myself included) would also have a custom open source license. It's easier to custom tailor a license to every requirement, than try to find an OSS license out there that fits. There are a lot of true Open Source, OSI approved licenses out there. Look them over. If you can't find one that fits... it might be time to ask yourself whether you really want an OSS license. That's not to say there's no room for improvement or new ideas. But at this stage, I'm not so sure there's any variations of the Open Source theme that hasn't already been explored and codified in to an existing license.
Should we think evil of Microsoft for creating their own license? Devil's in the details. What is their license doing? It seems to be the old licenses first trotted out when Microsoft was doing a lot to try and re-define what "open source" meant. That causes me to question Microsoft's intentions. Or at very best, this particular Microsoft employee's understanding of Open Source (there's lots of smart folks who just don't get it - just read all the posts on this topic).
What I'm trying to say is that the open source community is a community. Once you start to blame Microsoft for everything, turn a cold shoulder towards them whenever they even mildly reach out, you're essentially becoming them on the other side of the mirror. What's worse is that this attitude will ensure that there will never be a point in time in the future when Microsoft can reconcile with OSS. I think the fact that even one person inside the company is reaching out says that Microsoft as an entity is not 100% against opening a code base. They have great marketing and business tactics, they are hear to stay for as far as I can see. I think that the attitude should be open arms under the right conditions instead of a persistent never ending cold war or middle east-style conflict in software today. I'm all for it. And here's how Microsoft can do it... use a license that can be trusted. You know why that works? Because IBM has done it already.
When IBM started to embrace Linux and Open Source, there was a lot of eye-rolling from some of the old-timers. They remembered the old IBM. They had the same view of IBM as they do Microsoft. Who could trust them? The thing is... nobody has to trust IBM. IBM's commitment comes from the licenses they use whether they're contributing to GPL projects or releasing their own code under the CPL. It doesn't matter what IBM does in the future. Their contributions to the community are guaranteed by those licenses.
What about Microsoft? They've already dealt with the GPL (Services for Unix). They've already used the CPL (WiX). Why these other licenses? Where'd they come from? What do they do?
The licenses we're looking at here are old "friends". They first started rearing their ugly heads back when Free Software and Open Source was gaining a lot of attention. Accusations of intentional obfuscation of the "open source" term were made (with good reason) and the OSI was born. To see these license schemes showing up again seems like more of the same; another gambit rather than true attempts at outreach.
An astute reader would point out that the CPL is IBM's own invention. So why not let Microsoft do the same? To begin with, compare the CPL to any of these Microsoft Shared Source licenses. The restrictions and intents are very different. Secondly, is Microsoft really doing anything that isn't already covered by an existing OSI approved license? If so... why? If this is really an attempt to become part of the Open Source community then what is it they're doing that's so different? You'll have to forgive those who become cynical at this point as this is where Microsoft's unfortunate history catches up to them.
I will *never* license any of my code under the GPL. It's an extremely restrictive license that takes away the rights of the developers. If I release something as open source and it's modified, I don't care who modifies it. There's no good reason for them to have to release their changes to the public. The only thing I care about is if my code is used to generate profit. Any other uses... *shrugs* Alright. So the GPL isn't for you (the GPL requires giving back changes and has no issue with profit). Pick another OSS license.
Safety culture is not only safer, but it saves a company huge amounts of money, and ends up being more profitable, in both the short and long term. I'm actually rather supportive of a safety culture. Doing things safely is also doing things right. It's the mark of a true professional. And like the goofy posters say "safety is no accident." It takes some self discipline and knowledge to do things right. And I'm confident that the overall outcome of such discipline is positive.
Having said that - we are also talking about NASA's culture. This is "safety culture" meets bureaucratic insanity. That's where I start getting critical. It's not the "safety culture" per se. It's NASA's twisted treatment of the concept. Like I noted earlier - NASA could use a bit more focus on instilling a culture of technical accuracy. However, I really do wonder what that would turn in to after a few cycles of bureaucratic mutation.
Free speech is fine but I don't agree with having this tool available to non-professionals in a nice easily installed package. You're right. Only professionals should have tools like this. If you're going to have this tool, you better be using it to lift credit card information from unsecured Point of Sale networks.
And in the end, where are the parents not pushing back? Because these are the same sort of people who think they're getting a good deal by receiving a free "performance tuneup" by Geek Squad when they purchase their kids computer from BestBuy?
Microsoft does bad things: 5% of Slashdot articles Microsoft does perfectly innocent things, but Slashdot declares them bad: 95% of Slashdot articles.
Made up figures don't mean anything. Having said that... it always seems to be a judgment call. There are plenty of screwy things that Microsoft does and always a contingent claiming double-standards, religious zeal, reality of business, ignorant-basement-dweller, and whatever other non-argument they can to justify or detract from the issue.
I don't buy your figures. But I do agree that there are certainly times when articles or comments are beyond the pale. Microsoft does occasionally get skewered over non-issues. I'm 100% behind calling those out. They detract from the real issues.
Which issues are "real" is probably the point where we would disagree.
Of course Microsoft does "bad things." The problem here is that, on Slashdot, the term "bad things" is basically defined as "Microsoft does it." It's self-fulfilling. Hell, when Microsoft gave a free 3-year warranty on Xbox 360s, somehow that was construed as a "bad thing" on Slashdot... Great example. You say "free 3-year warranty on Xbox 360." The critics noted design flaws, a history of denying said flaws, and said "damage control." Is this one of your 95%?
The bashing here is entirely out of control. It makes the Steve Jobs Reality Distortion Field look tiny in comparison. All you need to do is type "embrace and extend" or "FUD" and you get an instant +5 insightful. Sometimes. The bashing does need some sanity checking. However, it's not as simplistic as you claim.
By the way - cute use of colorful terminology while decrying other's over-use of catch phrases. Reality distortion field indeed.
Must be a good thing. Although I'm sure if Microsoft started handing out free chocolates and flowers, before going on to start selling Linux distributions and releasing the entire code of the Windows kernel under the BSD license, you'd find some reasons to kick up a fuss about that, as well. I'm game. The day they start doing that - let me know. Maybe I'll readjust my skepticism for a company that's given me so many reasons to be skeptical. It's worked for IBM - it could work for Microsoft.
Until that day - apples and oranges... strawman... etc, etc.
Why is the majority of slashdot so anti-microsoft, they sound all sound like whiny 15 year olds that think they are cool since they know how install linux on their machine. Because Microsoft does bad things. Sometimes that's lost on many so-called IT professionals. Heck - sometimes its lost on the MS bashers.
Makes me wonder just what kind of actually scary info is coming down the pipe from NASA, that they have to whip everyone into a frenzy with a story about OMG DRUNK ASTRONAUTS!!1 I doubt its anything so calculated. It's simply a reflection of NASA's culture. NASA is hyber-sensitive about "safety." Anything that even has the appearance of causing death or injury gets a lot of attention. It is a part of an overall "safety" culture NASA management is trying to foster; the idea being that keeping safety in mind with even little things creates a pervasive mindset that helps avoid big accidents as well. Part of that cultural push is the concept that anyone can bring to light issues and have them addressed.
It sounds like a good idea. But put through the beurocratic lens, it becomes something just short of a new form of insanity. A lot of paperwork, hand-wringing, meetings, and instructional courses get wrapped up in this "safety" exercise. Sometimes there's some good outcomes. Sometimes it seems like a lot of work for questionable return.
After all, even in this "safe" culture, we have catastrophic failures. Some would be hard to avoid. Some are really bad mistakes. And it seems that the bad mistakes are more due to a lack of accuracy than a mind for safety (you can only be so safe doing this kind of work). A coworker of mine (hi Bart) noted at lunch this week that we'd be better off if "accuracy" became the new "safety". I'm all for it. Although... I'm kind of wondering what it'd become once we put it under that beucrocratic lense.
One last note - "safety" at NASA so often seems to be much ado about nothing. This particular report offers no details - no flights, no names.... nothing that can be directly addressed. Maybe this is the whistleblower's warning and details will come to light once an investigation starts digging. But it could also be an overreaction spurred on by the current culture over yet another non-issue. I'll be very curious to see how it all play out.
Worst. Film. Ever. The friggin series was bad enough. I assume you're saying that only because you've successfully managed to wipe such gems as Highlander II and Battlefield Earth from your memory. I apologize for having undone that. But it was for your own good. Perspective is important... even if painful.
Did you watch TV when you travelled? Whenever I visit the USA, I tend to watch a bit of TV and am always amazed at the adverts which seem to assume a complete lack of any kind of intellect. Most of them would make me actively avoid the product in question. I can only assume that people in the USA turn off their brains at some point between sitting in front of the TV and making a purchase. Yup. Watched some TV. Saw commercials. Read some newspapers. Relied a lot more on English than I would have liked. Saw some rather weird stuff - shrugged it off as oddities to the host culture.
What does the US public do when sitting in front of a commercial? No idea. I wonder myself. I suspect ignore them. Sometimes I'm just shocked at a commercial - I note how stupid a commercial is, or how its doing some kind of bait-and-switch by implication. My wife asks me why I'm bothering to watch it.:)
I'm not claiming that the US isn't awash in stupidity. There's more than enough to make me scratch my head at times - and I'm a native. But anyone who wants to claim that stupidity is special to the US is turning a blind eye to the less-stellar aspects of their own (or other) cultures. Baywatch may be a spawn of US culture but it has world-wide appeal (it was one of those shows I could almost guarantee I'd find on any TV in any given area I visited).
Regardless, the people in America are generally pretty fucking stupid and will buy whatever the hell the companies are marketing. If they advertise 3-year-old technology as "CUTTING EDGE! BUY NOW!!", then the people tend to believe that the advertisers are selling cutting-edge technology.
People in America are willing to put up with this insane amount of bullshit whereas they aren't in other countries like Japan. I don't buy it. I've traveled around a bit. I've seen a fair amount of stupidity that wasn't US centric. As you said, there's got to be more to it. As I noted elsewhere, it seems to me that other markets simply have more options. Consumers in these markets are simply better educated - probably due to exposure more than anything else. And that leads to more competition.
One possibility is that it might have to do with geography. In Japan and Europe, there's smaller barriers between you and other countries. National boundaries don't do much to isolate markets. There's more exposure to competitors and competing products. That exposure drives demand and fosters competition at home. Meanwhile, in Fortress America, the US market is isolated by vast oceans and vastly larger internal geographic distances. Few consumers are exposed to anything other than what their local Mobile carrier kiosk advertises or what's pushed by national TV advertising campaigns. Without uncontrolled exposure, consumer demand is shaped by companies who have no interest in fostering the kind of markets their over-seas counterparts compete in.
Another possibility is culture. Maybe there's just something different about Japanese and European corporate cultures that push them to deliver the latest / greatest. And while I suspect there's certainly more than a few executives that would love to foster the kind of market control found in the US, all it takes is a couple competitors to play differently to upset the balance.
But hey... that's all wild speculation on my part. I'm not sure. I'm no expert in world-wide telecommunications markets. But I don't buy that "profit" or "stupidity" is US-centric enough to differentiate the markets.
... or of course it could very well be an accurate description of a specific population. One of which that may be disproportionally tuned in to the Paris Hilton / Lohan craze. I dunno - is Tokyo pop culture any less shallow than US pop culture (nevermind the symbol mobile phone represent in these cultures)? I suspect its more to do with education and competition. Maybe Japanese and European consumers are exposed to more products and thus have a different demand than their US counterparts.
You see, foreigner, in America, innovation costs money. In American society, profit is the bottom line and the only winner is the company. If the company can change the lineup just enough to keep the sheeple fooled into buying in to slightly different products, the CEO gets a nice, fat bonus. (The same goes for Apple, btw.)
And here I thought everyone was well-versed on the sad state of corporate America. How insightful! Profit is obviously the issue. Its not like European companies, or Japanese companies who the parent article uses as a direct comparison, are motivated by profit! Profit must be an entirely US-centric concept. It must be stopped.
Oh - and congratulations on your hip and edgy use of the word "sheeple." It truely marks you as someone who refuses to follow the crowd. You're a rebel. A deviant. Someone who thinks on their own terms and refuses to follow trends. In fact, you're so cutting-edge that Scion has a commercial just for you! You don't get that kind of treatment unless you're ahead of the curve.
Are you saying that buying Foxpro made tons of other companies go out of business? Or are you just trying a vain and quite contrived appeal to emotion? I'm saying that the article doesn't have much to do with Microsoft at all. Using it as evidence of Microsoft's behavior is misleading.
The "Microsoft killed Nescape" meme is completely wrong, but most people who are predisposed toward MS to begin with don't realize that or simply don't care because it's inconvenient. The idea that the meme is "completely wrong" conveniently disregards a lot of the information that came up during the trial. There's more to this than "we don't like Microsoft."
Having said that... Netscape had a hell of a lot more involved in their own demise than the Microsoft-bashing admits. The last real Netscape products (as opposed to re-skinned Mozilla bundling) were hardly highlights of Netscape's interesting history.
The only question would be whether Netscape's output was a direct result of external pressure or internal fumbling (or both). I've seen some rather scathing write-ups on Netscape's management. I know what Netscape put out, even when it was working, just wasn't what I wanted. But at the same time, Netscape was certainly feeling Microsoft breathing down their necks (I remember an article pre-NS4 describing Netscape as a rabbit that put itself in the headlights of the Microsoft truck).
I'd like to point out that in this list, there was exactly one company "killed" by Microsoft. Foxpro was acquired by them. More importantly MS is still keeping the project alive after all of this time. Microsoft most certainly is not the company killer that the Slashdot Groupthink make it out to be. You'd make a good trial lawyer.
"Your Honor... I would like to point out in this list passengers provided by FAA, only one of the persons mentioned in the included passenger manifests were actually killed by my client. Clearly, my client is not the mass murderer that the prosecution makes them out to be."
1) Media is choppy. I keep having problems where I can't listen to multiple streams at once. Let's say I am watching a DVD, put it on pause and then want to listen to a podcast. I get audio device errors galore. I agree on this. Now days, it's an iffy thing. Some of my systems behave flawlessly. Some systems are quirky. Some just don't play nice with multiple streams at all. And that all depends on the application, of course. I wish it was all smooth - it is on Windows. However, I also note that things have improved a lot over the years (albeit slower than one would like). Most of the time I don't run in to this particular annoyance.
2) If I compile something heavy duty and then want to watch a DVD, no can do, even though I multi-core CPU. Windows? No problem I regularly run big simulations on one CPU, while watching a DVD at the same time. I get some mixed results on this as well. Depends on how much effort I put in to setting nice levels, etc. The argument that I shouldn't have to do this has a lot of appeal.
3) Get me a decent word processor, and spreadsheet. NO Open Office is not it. AbiWord is actually pretty good for basic tasks, but fails for anything beyond that. To each their own. I use Open Office daily. I have no problem with it. But I also do tend to favor AbiWord for basic tasks as well (dunno why - probably just habit having used AbiWord from day 1 of my "Linux Desktop" experience).
4) Get me a printer that actually works! I am not kidding on this one. I can't print documents for the life of me. Yes blame it on the printer companies, but the end result is that I can't print, and I am not about to write my own printer software. I don't have problems with this. However, I have to admit that I'm mostly printing at work where the infrastructure plays nice with CUPS. At home, I've always checked in to the printer support on Linux before making the purchase. The last time I had some problems was an old all-in-one unit that was given to my daughter... though we did eventually get it working (and it reminded me why I'm careful about my purchases).
You're right here, of course. But you have nobody but yourself to blame.;)
5) Get me a scanner software that actually works well. I have this old Cannon scanner that I can't get to work for the life of me. Windows a snap. Kind of the same deal as printers. You're working with a slim margin consumer electronics market. Buyer beware. I wish it was different.
6) SKYPE? That's a joke. Try watching a DVD, and speaking at the same time? Or compiling or speaking at the same time. For reasons that are beyond me SKYPE goes choppy at times so that I have use Windows. I don't use SKYPE. But playing WoW and using Ventrillo is my own personal hell. It can be done - I've seen references to it. But I have to deal with (apparently) a somewhat quirky on-board sound chip as well as the fact that I'm using Cedega to drive both WoW and Vent. That I can do this is kind of cool. That I have to do it is frustrating - especially when the outcome is unreliable. If I had native clients, I suspect I'd be much better off. But I'm suspecting the often-promised Linux Vent client will see the light of day just after Duke Nukem Forever hits the shelves.
The interesting thing is that quite a few of these peeves were touched upon by Con Kolivas, who complained that Linux on the Desktop is getting no love whatsoever. Even on OSX I have some of these problems. On Windows? No problem whatsoever. So why should I beat myself on the head with Linux? Linux on the server is great, don't get me wrong. But on the desktop? Forget about it... Its all about personal preference. Windows annoys me. It doesn't work the way I want it to. When I want to do interesting things, it gets in the way. And I end up having to modify the interface rather heavily to almost work like a Linux desktop does. Linux annoyances hit me less than Windows annoyances do. But I suspect a lot of that has to do what I expect out of my desktop and because I'm used to a Linux environment. As was noted earlier - familiarity plays a strong role.
Slashdot Mirror
But please - keep going. It's funny in an odd sort of way.
I had a refurb Compaq laptop... it came with WinME. I had an option to pre-buy XP for it. I wanted Win2K and, in fact, had an unused license already. So I took my bargain laptop home and tried to install Win2K. It was a nightmare hunting down drivers for the damn thing. Since Compaq did not support Win2K on that particular model, I had to hunt down which obfuscated drivers fit those particular chips on other Compaq models... install those... and hope they worked. Or find OEM versions. Eventually I got everything running (more or less).Find the correct drivers = insert the windows CD.
I also got a copy of Mandrake (back when it was Mandrake). Installed it as a dual-boot. Everything worked first shot, out of the box.
I was rather amused. Usually laptop hardware has given me fits with Linux (one time I went through 3 distros before finding one that was happy out-of-box). This was the first time I had trouble with Windows and no trouble with Linux. It really drove home the importance of OEM support for any OS.
Should we think evil of Microsoft for creating their own license? Devil's in the details. What is their license doing? It seems to be the old licenses first trotted out when Microsoft was doing a lot to try and re-define what "open source" meant. That causes me to question Microsoft's intentions. Or at very best, this particular Microsoft employee's understanding of Open Source (there's lots of smart folks who just don't get it - just read all the posts on this topic).
When IBM started to embrace Linux and Open Source, there was a lot of eye-rolling from some of the old-timers. They remembered the old IBM. They had the same view of IBM as they do Microsoft. Who could trust them? The thing is... nobody has to trust IBM. IBM's commitment comes from the licenses they use whether they're contributing to GPL projects or releasing their own code under the CPL. It doesn't matter what IBM does in the future. Their contributions to the community are guaranteed by those licenses.
What about Microsoft? They've already dealt with the GPL (Services for Unix). They've already used the CPL (WiX). Why these other licenses? Where'd they come from? What do they do?
The licenses we're looking at here are old "friends". They first started rearing their ugly heads back when Free Software and Open Source was gaining a lot of attention. Accusations of intentional obfuscation of the "open source" term were made (with good reason) and the OSI was born. To see these license schemes showing up again seems like more of the same; another gambit rather than true attempts at outreach.
An astute reader would point out that the CPL is IBM's own invention. So why not let Microsoft do the same? To begin with, compare the CPL to any of these Microsoft Shared Source licenses. The restrictions and intents are very different. Secondly, is Microsoft really doing anything that isn't already covered by an existing OSI approved license? If so... why? If this is really an attempt to become part of the Open Source community then what is it they're doing that's so different? You'll have to forgive those who become cynical at this point as this is where Microsoft's unfortunate history catches up to them.
Having said that - we are also talking about NASA's culture. This is "safety culture" meets bureaucratic insanity. That's where I start getting critical. It's not the "safety culture" per se. It's NASA's twisted treatment of the concept. Like I noted earlier - NASA could use a bit more focus on instilling a culture of technical accuracy. However, I really do wonder what that would turn in to after a few cycles of bureaucratic mutation.
Like the Exam Fee of MCSE: http://www.whizlabs.com/mcse-exam/70-290.html MCSE, huh? My statement still stands.
This is what happens when you hit "submit" instead of "preview" and don't catch an error with quote tags. D'oh. Oh well.
Microsoft does perfectly innocent things, but Slashdot declares them bad: 95% of Slashdot articles. Made up figures don't mean anything. Having said that... it always seems to be a judgment call. There are plenty of screwy things that Microsoft does and always a contingent claiming double-standards, religious zeal, reality of business, ignorant-basement-dweller, and whatever other non-argument they can to justify or detract from the issue.
I don't buy your figures. But I do agree that there are certainly times when articles or comments are beyond the pale. Microsoft does occasionally get skewered over non-issues. I'm 100% behind calling those out. They detract from the real issues.
Which issues are "real" is probably the point where we would disagree. Of course Microsoft does "bad things." The problem here is that, on Slashdot, the term "bad things" is basically defined as "Microsoft does it." It's self-fulfilling. Hell, when Microsoft gave a free 3-year warranty on Xbox 360s, somehow that was construed as a "bad thing" on Slashdot... Great example. You say "free 3-year warranty on Xbox 360." The critics noted design flaws, a history of denying said flaws, and said "damage control." Is this one of your 95%? The bashing here is entirely out of control. It makes the Steve Jobs Reality Distortion Field look tiny in comparison. All you need to do is type "embrace and extend" or "FUD" and you get an instant +5 insightful. Sometimes. The bashing does need some sanity checking. However, it's not as simplistic as you claim.
By the way - cute use of colorful terminology while decrying other's over-use of catch phrases. Reality distortion field indeed.
Until that day - apples and oranges... strawman... etc, etc.
It sounds like a good idea. But put through the beurocratic lens, it becomes something just short of a new form of insanity. A lot of paperwork, hand-wringing, meetings, and instructional courses get wrapped up in this "safety" exercise. Sometimes there's some good outcomes. Sometimes it seems like a lot of work for questionable return.
After all, even in this "safe" culture, we have catastrophic failures. Some would be hard to avoid. Some are really bad mistakes. And it seems that the bad mistakes are more due to a lack of accuracy than a mind for safety (you can only be so safe doing this kind of work). A coworker of mine (hi Bart) noted at lunch this week that we'd be better off if "accuracy" became the new "safety". I'm all for it. Although... I'm kind of wondering what it'd become once we put it under that beucrocratic lense.
One last note - "safety" at NASA so often seems to be much ado about nothing. This particular report offers no details - no flights, no names.... nothing that can be directly addressed. Maybe this is the whistleblower's warning and details will come to light once an investigation starts digging. But it could also be an overreaction spurred on by the current culture over yet another non-issue. I'll be very curious to see how it all play out.
Worst. Film. Ever. The friggin series was bad enough. I assume you're saying that only because you've successfully managed to wipe such gems as Highlander II and Battlefield Earth from your memory. I apologize for having undone that. But it was for your own good. Perspective is important... even if painful.
What does the US public do when sitting in front of a commercial? No idea. I wonder myself. I suspect ignore them. Sometimes I'm just shocked at a commercial - I note how stupid a commercial is, or how its doing some kind of bait-and-switch by implication. My wife asks me why I'm bothering to watch it.
I'm not claiming that the US isn't awash in stupidity. There's more than enough to make me scratch my head at times - and I'm a native. But anyone who wants to claim that stupidity is special to the US is turning a blind eye to the less-stellar aspects of their own (or other) cultures. Baywatch may be a spawn of US culture but it has world-wide appeal (it was one of those shows I could almost guarantee I'd find on any TV in any given area I visited).
People in America are willing to put up with this insane amount of bullshit whereas they aren't in other countries like Japan. I don't buy it. I've traveled around a bit. I've seen a fair amount of stupidity that wasn't US centric. As you said, there's got to be more to it. As I noted elsewhere, it seems to me that other markets simply have more options. Consumers in these markets are simply better educated - probably due to exposure more than anything else. And that leads to more competition.
One possibility is that it might have to do with geography. In Japan and Europe, there's smaller barriers between you and other countries. National boundaries don't do much to isolate markets. There's more exposure to competitors and competing products. That exposure drives demand and fosters competition at home. Meanwhile, in Fortress America, the US market is isolated by vast oceans and vastly larger internal geographic distances. Few consumers are exposed to anything other than what their local Mobile carrier kiosk advertises or what's pushed by national TV advertising campaigns. Without uncontrolled exposure, consumer demand is shaped by companies who have no interest in fostering the kind of markets their over-seas counterparts compete in.
Another possibility is culture. Maybe there's just something different about Japanese and European corporate cultures that push them to deliver the latest / greatest. And while I suspect there's certainly more than a few executives that would love to foster the kind of market control found in the US, all it takes is a couple competitors to play differently to upset the balance.
But hey... that's all wild speculation on my part. I'm not sure. I'm no expert in world-wide telecommunications markets. But I don't buy that "profit" or "stupidity" is US-centric enough to differentiate the markets.
... or of course it could very well be an accurate description of a specific population. One of which that may be disproportionally tuned in to the Paris Hilton / Lohan craze. I dunno - is Tokyo pop culture any less shallow than US pop culture (nevermind the symbol mobile phone represent in these cultures)? I suspect its more to do with education and competition. Maybe Japanese and European consumers are exposed to more products and thus have a different demand than their US counterparts.And here I thought everyone was well-versed on the sad state of corporate America. How insightful! Profit is obviously the issue. Its not like European companies, or Japanese companies who the parent article uses as a direct comparison, are motivated by profit! Profit must be an entirely US-centric concept. It must be stopped.
Oh - and congratulations on your hip and edgy use of the word "sheeple." It truely marks you as someone who refuses to follow the crowd. You're a rebel. A deviant. Someone who thinks on their own terms and refuses to follow trends. In fact, you're so cutting-edge that Scion has a commercial just for you! You don't get that kind of treatment unless you're ahead of the curve.
Having said that... Netscape had a hell of a lot more involved in their own demise than the Microsoft-bashing admits. The last real Netscape products (as opposed to re-skinned Mozilla bundling) were hardly highlights of Netscape's interesting history.
The only question would be whether Netscape's output was a direct result of external pressure or internal fumbling (or both). I've seen some rather scathing write-ups on Netscape's management. I know what Netscape put out, even when it was working, just wasn't what I wanted. But at the same time, Netscape was certainly feeling Microsoft breathing down their necks (I remember an article pre-NS4 describing Netscape as a rabbit that put itself in the headlights of the Microsoft truck).
"Your Honor... I would like to point out in this list passengers provided by FAA, only one of the persons mentioned in the included passenger manifests were actually killed by my client. Clearly, my client is not the mass murderer that the prosecution makes them out to be."
You're right here, of course. But you have nobody but yourself to blame.