It costs a company NOTHING to give stock options. Options have ZERO cash value. How then do you do accounting for a non-expense? Only when the options are exercised does any kind of financial transaction take place.
"Moore's admitted that the section is incorrect, but I guess he didn't have time to change the film after the 9/11th commission came out with their report."
Someone challenged other readers to find factually incorrect pieces in Moore's film, they do, and that's the excuse you give for it?
President Bush did not authorize that flight, Richard Clark did. You know, the same Richard Clark whose ass Moore sucks in praise. He didn't outright SAY that Bush authorized the flight, or that Clark didn't, but the crafty manner in which the point was presented clearly was meant to mislead the audience that it WAS Bush who authorized the flight, without having to blatantly state something that wasn't true.
Moore is famous for this. Despite the facts Moore references, he presents an overall picture of the situation that is intended to make people draw inaccurate conclusions on their own.
"If you can't exercise your right then for all intents and purposes you don't have that right."
Correct me if I'm wrong (yes I'm always open to that slim possibility) but are you suggesting that people don't have rights unless government creates those rights?
"An anarchic society without laws is one where the stong are the only ones with any meaningful rights."
I don't disagree with that at all. But there comes a point where government unnecessarily intrudes and inevitably makes a bigger mess than what they started with.
"Clean air regulations provide you the freedom to breathe."
Wrong. They restrict what companies can pump into the air. Clean air is a side effect.
"Criminal restrictions provide you freedom from oppression by your neighbors."
Wrong. They outline what your neighbors can't do to you or your property.
"Regulations regarding food and drug quality provide you freedom from being injured or from being fleeced by unscrupulous companies."
Wring. They restrict companies by telling them what they cannot put in food or drugs, and forces them to disclose their ingredients, side effects, etc. Safer products is a side effect.
That's not to say that these are BAD laws, but they certainly do not establish new liberties. The 10th Amendment affirms that anything not expressly forbidden by law is reserved as a right of the people. Therefore, law (by constitutional definition) can only restrict freedoms we already enjoy.
OK, first of all, can we retire "M$" already? It's not clever anymore!!
To my main point, Microsoft isn't "afraid" or "desperate". Perhaps they've been a bit shallow on innovation of late, but they're not losing any significant market share. Most of these places that Slashdot often reports as "switching to Linux" are either switching from another *NIX, or are only considering Linux.
Microsoft may be running out of ideas (other than finding new ways to keep their stranglehold on the home PC user), but they are by no means desperate.
"I don't care if there's only one law or one million on the books, as long as it does the job of creating the type of society we all want to live in."
I don't know about you, but I for one don't relish living in a society "created" by government. Far more societal ills are caused by government then are cured. Laws can only restrict freedom; they cannot create it. The more laws we have, the less freedom we have. It's that simple.
Government intervention should only be solicited when no other solution exists. Educating users about the nature of spyware is a far better solution to this particular problem.
If spyware = trespassing, then illegal music downloading = theft.
Afterall, nobody's physically intruding on your property or causing physical damage right? If they create an "electronic trespassing" law, they'd have to make all sorts of other "electronic" laws as well. And heaven knows we have enough laws as it is!
"Unless there is something in the constitution that specifically prohibits laws like this, the law stands and the scumware company will be out of business where they belong."
It's called activist judges making VERY broad interpretations of the Constitution. If you are at all familiar with the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, you already know what I'm talking about.
From reading Slashdot for several years, it would seem to me that Miscrosoft has been "scared" of Linux for some quite time. Every time one of these studies comes out, someone makes the "Microsoft is getting scared" and gets modded up to +5.
But despite their apparent terror, they've still managed to maintain their market dominance. I don't really think Microsoft is as scared as some Slashdotters would make themselves believe they are. Show me where Linux has taken a significant bite out of Microsoft; then you might have a case.
And to take your (good) point a step further, would Slashdot report it if France ultimately decided to go with Microsoft?
I know that I'd want to know what happens in a head-to-head involving Mandrake vs. Microsoft, but somehow I don't think anything but a win for Mandrake will make the headlines.
Out of many (states), one (nation). Basically this statement refers to the representative government (republic) that was established, not a pure democracy.
It has nothing to do with the role of the citizen, let alone imply any obligation of citizens to a collective.
Though we do agree that energy efficiency is indeed a national security issue.
Not many people know (well maybe they do, I dunno) that the U.S. invaded what is now Canada in 1811. We probably would control that territory today if the British invasion of 1812 hadn't interrupted and diverted our troops.
Seriously folks, this sounds like a troll magnet! I'm assuming any textbook created in this manner would require HEAVY editing. Knowing this, can that textbook truly be considered a collaborative effort? Would it pass the Creative Commons lisence requirements?
Slashdot Mirror
Nice? I thought that any act by government restricting our freedom, no matter how benevolent their intent, was a bad thing.
How bout they focus on educating the public about malware instead?
Thses are not free as in beer (let alone speech). These are free as in 'you don't get paid to test their products for them'.
It costs a company NOTHING to give stock options. Options have ZERO cash value. How then do you do accounting for a non-expense? Only when the options are exercised does any kind of financial transaction take place.
Someone challenged other readers to find factually incorrect pieces in Moore's film, they do, and that's the excuse you give for it?
President Bush did not authorize that flight, Richard Clark did. You know, the same Richard Clark whose ass Moore sucks in praise. He didn't outright SAY that Bush authorized the flight, or that Clark didn't, but the crafty manner in which the point was presented clearly was meant to mislead the audience that it WAS Bush who authorized the flight, without having to blatantly state something that wasn't true.
Moore is famous for this. Despite the facts Moore references, he presents an overall picture of the situation that is intended to make people draw inaccurate conclusions on their own.
Inappropriately, I might add. By definition, a documentary is supposed to be objective.
Say what you will in defense of Moore, but he is NOT objective. But then the Academy doesn't have a "Propaganda Film" category yet.
Correct me if I'm wrong (yes I'm always open to that slim possibility) but are you suggesting that people don't have rights unless government creates those rights?
"An anarchic society without laws is one where the stong are the only ones with any meaningful rights."
I don't disagree with that at all. But there comes a point where government unnecessarily intrudes and inevitably makes a bigger mess than what they started with.
"Clean air regulations provide you the freedom to breathe."
Wrong. They restrict what companies can pump into the air. Clean air is a side effect.
"Criminal restrictions provide you freedom from oppression by your neighbors."
Wrong. They outline what your neighbors can't do to you or your property.
"Regulations regarding food and drug quality provide you freedom from being injured or from being fleeced by unscrupulous companies."
Wring. They restrict companies by telling them what they cannot put in food or drugs, and forces them to disclose their ingredients, side effects, etc. Safer products is a side effect.
That's not to say that these are BAD laws, but they certainly do not establish new liberties. The 10th Amendment affirms that anything not expressly forbidden by law is reserved as a right of the people. Therefore, law (by constitutional definition) can only restrict freedoms we already enjoy.
To my main point, Microsoft isn't "afraid" or "desperate". Perhaps they've been a bit shallow on innovation of late, but they're not losing any significant market share. Most of these places that Slashdot often reports as "switching to Linux" are either switching from another *NIX, or are only considering Linux.
Microsoft may be running out of ideas (other than finding new ways to keep their stranglehold on the home PC user), but they are by no means desperate.
I don't know about you, but I for one don't relish living in a society "created" by government. Far more societal ills are caused by government then are cured. Laws can only restrict freedom; they cannot create it. The more laws we have, the less freedom we have. It's that simple.
Government intervention should only be solicited when no other solution exists. Educating users about the nature of spyware is a far better solution to this particular problem.
Afterall, nobody's physically intruding on your property or causing physical damage right? If they create an "electronic trespassing" law, they'd have to make all sorts of other "electronic" laws as well. And heaven knows we have enough laws as it is!
It's called activist judges making VERY broad interpretations of the Constitution. If you are at all familiar with the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, you already know what I'm talking about.
..."DD" designation (such as DDG) implies that destroyers, not firgates (perhaps both, I suppose) will be fit with these devices.
This isn't a story, it's an(other) Apple/iPod ad disguised as "news for nerds".
"Notorious" as in "Known widely and usually unfavorably; infamous" (dictionary.com)?
"It's perfectly fine to make money off of p2p, no one said anything to the contrary."
You did.
No? Can't say I'm surprised.
But despite their apparent terror, they've still managed to maintain their market dominance. I don't really think Microsoft is as scared as some Slashdotters would make themselves believe they are. Show me where Linux has taken a significant bite out of Microsoft; then you might have a case.
Maybe it is for 5kr1p7 k1dd33z, but I think that France's legislature has better things to do than sticking it to The Man.
I know that I'd want to know what happens in a head-to-head involving Mandrake vs. Microsoft, but somehow I don't think anything but a win for Mandrake will make the headlines.
I suppose if people here gave Microsoft products that kind of a pass, this wouldn't be Slashdot.
Out of many (states), one (nation). Basically this statement refers to the representative government (republic) that was established, not a pure democracy.
It has nothing to do with the role of the citizen, let alone imply any obligation of citizens to a collective.
Though we do agree that energy efficiency is indeed a national security issue.
Not many people know (well maybe they do, I dunno) that the U.S. invaded what is now Canada in 1811. We probably would control that territory today if the British invasion of 1812 hadn't interrupted and diverted our troops.
But then, of course, you aren't the RIAA's customer if you download music without paying for it.
Indeed, and where are all of the zealots who claim Linux superiority over Micro$oft in the bug-fix turnaround department?
Seriously folks, this sounds like a troll magnet! I'm assuming any textbook created in this manner would require HEAVY editing. Knowing this, can that textbook truly be considered a collaborative effort? Would it pass the Creative Commons lisence requirements?
NVIDIA drivers.