An interesting question is, how much revenue is MS going to lose as a result of much of heavyweights of the IT industry (Sun, Novell, IBM, Oracle) moving their many or all of their staff to Linux?
Seriously - all those companies pay MS considerable sums each year in licencing fees. Now MS is effectively losing all of the key players in an important sector of US industry. That's got to hurt a bit, hasn't it?
Microsoft sometimes claims that it has more full-time programmers working on Microsoft software than there are working on Linux software. If we add up IBM, Novell and Oracle, all of which have moved thousands of programmers to Linux, do we have Microsoft beat yet?
They could do it a lot faster by making the pieces that regular people ( ie not slashdot users ) still miss when they look at the linux desktop.
Except that isn't where the money is. The money is in the enterprise and big government. That's why IBM isn't bothered about stuff the home user wants.
You should also bare in mind that the USA does not want anyone else to have a good military, so it is for instance trying to stifle a pan-European military force. So it's not a case of the Euros not wanting a strong military, it's a case of the USA preventing the Euros from having one.
You should ask the textile workers and other manufacturing workers about that. While you are at it, also ask IT workers you've seen their jobs go.
Except I wasn't referring to American workers. The fact that American workers are losing out just demonstrates how far your administration are prepared to go to make American corporations competative. Like I said, "The USA has for decades played hardball in international trade." American workers are just casualities of that policy.
It should be no suprise that the Chinese want to develop their own standards
No it shouldn't. But not for the motives you give.
The USA has for decades played hardball in international trade. They have been good at getting their own way. The Chinese realise that if they want to become a world ecomonic superpower, they've got to start playing as hard as the USA traditionally has. Europe is also now getting it's act together - the EU is a powerful force in international trade negociations, much more that the individual countries of Europe can be.
You say "Communism itself can't tolerate any kinds of rivals whatsoever". I don't think this has got anything to do with Communism, it's about global trade and China's desire to become a global economic superpower.
People complain that Open Sourcerers don't innovate. But isn't this an example of Microsoft copying us? So isn't this a clear example of Microsoft playing catchup to OSS innovation?
Three whole times. Out of all the American companies in existence. Wow, thats a meaningful statistic.
Three times American companies have done things that have been duplicitous and harmful to my business. Compared to zero times that I've had a European company stab me or business partners in the back. That's pretty meaningful to me.
I'm afraid that my experience of American companies means that I don't trust them any more. Sorry, but that's the case. Three times now I've been involved in deals with American companies where the American company has betrayed one of their European partners, just to make a fast buck, including one case which financially ruined one of my clients.
You should do the right thing just because it is the right thing to do, not because it's the law or so you don't lose customers.
Why do people act like these things only happen in the US?
We don't. I think the issue is that many Americans bang on about the USA being the land of freedom all the time, when in actual fact it is no better than the rest of the first world. And recently, a lot worse.
Yes. Lots of Americans still do. That's because - rather than comparing themselves with other first world countries - they compare themselves with places with oppressive regimes.
The logic goes something like this: "Of course the USA is still the most free country in the world! Look at China and Syria!"
Indeed, the USA claims pretty much all inventions for itself, and the people who invented them, and because of it's size when it compares itself to the rest of the world, it looks like it's the only place innovating.
But a fairer comparison would be to compare, say, the USA with the whole of Europe. I expect if we were to look at, say nobel prizes and group together all of the European ones and then compare that to the USA, the USA wouldn't look so rosy any more.
Also, I think Europe needs to reclaim some of our innovations and innovators for ourselves. Einstein, for instance, was both European and did all of his most important work whilst in Europe, so why is it that so many Americans think he was American? (Yes, I do know he became an American citizen later in life, but many Americans are not aware that he did all his important work in Europe).
Comparing the Northern Ireland problem to al-Qaeda is like comparing apples to oranges.
A literal comparison, yes, but if you look at root causes then I don't think it is so dumb. The root causes of both are essentially social, and that seems to be overlooked by the current administration, who view it as a "war".
America's technological strength is based on innovation.
I would say it is partly based on innovation.
One huge advantage that the USA has in most areas of business is a huge, practically borderless, single market containing almost 300 million people. The benefits of this can't be understated, and it's something that other countries can't completely emulate (although in Europe we're trying to create a single market, we'll always have the issues with different languages and cultures).
I think commentators often overestimate the advantage that the USA has in terms of the greater capabilities of it's people, and also are blinkered if they think that other countries can't achieve greatness as well.
Because he's a right-wing bastard like Bush and Howard.
I genuinely believe that he wasn't, at least until fairly recently. I think the pressure that the whole Iraq war thing put him under may have changed him considerably. A shame.
I find it highly disturbing that the US recoils in revulsion at the brutal beheading of one of its own, but bats nary an eyelid when superweapons designed to kill MILLIONS are announced.
It's called lack of empathy.
I've heard some people saying that the recent torture/humiliation photos "aren't that bad". However, I expect if the situation in the photos were reversed (e.g. a small Iraqi woman holding a naked, beaten up US marine on the end of a leash) those same people would be able to empathize with the victims a whole lot better...
Yes. Why the f*ck is Tony Blair not more critical of Bush's approach? I don't understand why he can't both support the USA, and be critical of it. I don't see them as exclusive. I would respect him a lot more if he did this.
The biggest threat to the USA in the future is terrorism. Terrorism is defeated with bombs, although the chimps currently in the White House seem to think it is.
Terrorism is just a symptom of a disease - hatred within society. For every terrorist, there will be a hundred people in the same society that feel very strongly about the same issues, but not enough to become a terrorist. That is, until you drop a bomb on their children. To defeat terrorism in the long term, you've got to tackle the strong feelings within the society that produced it.
When Tony Blair first started office, he realised this was the way to solve the Northern Ireland problem, and did some very intelligent things (along with his counterparts in the Republic of Ireland) to tackle the social problems that were the root cause of terrorism in N.Ireland. Why on earth he is now supporting Bush's neanderthal approach to Al-Quaida I will never understand.
Slashdot Mirror
An interesting question is, how much revenue is MS going to lose as a result of much of heavyweights of the IT industry (Sun, Novell, IBM, Oracle) moving their many or all of their staff to Linux?
Seriously - all those companies pay MS considerable sums each year in licencing fees. Now MS is effectively losing all of the key players in an important sector of US industry. That's got to hurt a bit, hasn't it?
Microsoft sometimes claims that it has more full-time programmers working on Microsoft software than there are working on Linux software. If we add up IBM, Novell and Oracle, all of which have moved thousands of programmers to Linux, do we have Microsoft beat yet?
I'm curious. How is the USA doing this?
By applying political pressure.
They could do it a lot faster by making the pieces that regular people ( ie not slashdot users ) still miss when they look at the linux desktop.
Except that isn't where the money is. The money is in the enterprise and big government. That's why IBM isn't bothered about stuff the home user wants.
You should also bare in mind that the USA does not want anyone else to have a good military, so it is for instance trying to stifle a pan-European military force. So it's not a case of the Euros not wanting a strong military, it's a case of the USA preventing the Euros from having one.
You should ask the textile workers and other manufacturing workers about that. While you are at it, also ask IT workers you've seen their jobs go .
Except I wasn't referring to American workers. The fact that American workers are losing out just demonstrates how far your administration are prepared to go to make American corporations competative. Like I said, "The USA has for decades played hardball in international trade." American workers are just casualities of that policy.
It should be no suprise that the Chinese want to develop their own standards
No it shouldn't. But not for the motives you give.
The USA has for decades played hardball in international trade. They have been good at getting their own way. The Chinese realise that if they want to become a world ecomonic superpower, they've got to start playing as hard as the USA traditionally has. Europe is also now getting it's act together - the EU is a powerful force in international trade negociations, much more that the individual countries of Europe can be.
You say "Communism itself can't tolerate any kinds of rivals whatsoever". I don't think this has got anything to do with Communism, it's about global trade and China's desire to become a global economic superpower.
People complain that Open Sourcerers don't innovate. But isn't this an example of Microsoft copying us? So isn't this a clear example of Microsoft playing catchup to OSS innovation?
Three whole times. Out of all the American companies in existence. Wow, thats a meaningful statistic.
Three times American companies have done things that have been duplicitous and harmful to my business. Compared to zero times that I've had a European company stab me or business partners in the back. That's pretty meaningful to me.
I'm afraid that my experience of American companies means that I don't trust them any more. Sorry, but that's the case. Three times now I've been involved in deals with American companies where the American company has betrayed one of their European partners, just to make a fast buck, including one case which financially ruined one of my clients.
You should do the right thing just because it is the right thing to do, not because it's the law or so you don't lose customers.
Why do people act like these things only happen in the US?
We don't. I think the issue is that many Americans bang on about the USA being the land of freedom all the time, when in actual fact it is no better than the rest of the first world. And recently, a lot worse.
Yes. Lots of Americans still do. That's because - rather than comparing themselves with other first world countries - they compare themselves with places with oppressive regimes.
The logic goes something like this: "Of course the USA is still the most free country in the world! Look at China and Syria!"
Indeed, the USA claims pretty much all inventions for itself, and the people who invented them, and because of it's size when it compares itself to the rest of the world, it looks like it's the only place innovating.
But a fairer comparison would be to compare, say, the USA with the whole of Europe. I expect if we were to look at, say nobel prizes and group together all of the European ones and then compare that to the USA, the USA wouldn't look so rosy any more.
Also, I think Europe needs to reclaim some of our innovations and innovators for ourselves. Einstein, for instance, was both European and did all of his most important work whilst in Europe, so why is it that so many Americans think he was American? (Yes, I do know he became an American citizen later in life, but many Americans are not aware that he did all his important work in Europe).
Comparing the Northern Ireland problem to al-Qaeda is like comparing apples to oranges.
A literal comparison, yes, but if you look at root causes then I don't think it is so dumb. The root causes of both are essentially social, and that seems to be overlooked by the current administration, who view it as a "war".
America's technological strength is based on innovation.
I would say it is partly based on innovation.
One huge advantage that the USA has in most areas of business is a huge, practically borderless, single market containing almost 300 million people. The benefits of this can't be understated, and it's something that other countries can't completely emulate (although in Europe we're trying to create a single market, we'll always have the issues with different languages and cultures).
I think commentators often overestimate the advantage that the USA has in terms of the greater capabilities of it's people, and also are blinkered if they think that other countries can't achieve greatness as well.
An entire generation was brainwashed to hate America as the enemy.
Are you being ironic?
Because he's a right-wing bastard like Bush and Howard.
I genuinely believe that he wasn't, at least until fairly recently. I think the pressure that the whole Iraq war thing put him under may have changed him considerably. A shame.
I find it highly disturbing that the US recoils in revulsion at the brutal beheading of one of its own, but bats nary an eyelid when superweapons designed to kill MILLIONS are announced.
It's called lack of empathy.
I've heard some people saying that the recent torture/humiliation photos "aren't that bad". However, I expect if the situation in the photos were reversed (e.g. a small Iraqi woman holding a naked, beaten up US marine on the end of a leash) those same people would be able to empathize with the victims a whole lot better...
Good point. Bush himself said "I don't do nuance". (For me, that is a clear sign of Bush's lack of intelligence).
It makes you wonder if John McCormack actually influences the military with his games.
Perhaps he could bring about world peace by making non-violent weapons?
Coming in Doom 4... custard cannons, exploding jelly mines and balloons filled with rasberry sauce.
Yes. Why the f*ck is Tony Blair not more critical of Bush's approach? I don't understand why he can't both support the USA, and be critical of it. I don't see them as exclusive. I would respect him a lot more if he did this.
Of course I meant to say "Terrorism is not defeated with bombs..."
Also, I guess a tip of the hat is also required to John Major re. the intelligent approach to solving the N.Ireland problem.
Don't we have enough bombs already?
The biggest threat to the USA in the future is terrorism. Terrorism is defeated with bombs, although the chimps currently in the White House seem to think it is.
Terrorism is just a symptom of a disease - hatred within society. For every terrorist, there will be a hundred people in the same society that feel very strongly about the same issues, but not enough to become a terrorist. That is, until you drop a bomb on their children. To defeat terrorism in the long term, you've got to tackle the strong feelings within the society that produced it.
When Tony Blair first started office, he realised this was the way to solve the Northern Ireland problem, and did some very intelligent things (along with his counterparts in the Republic of Ireland) to tackle the social problems that were the root cause of terrorism in N.Ireland. Why on earth he is now supporting Bush's neanderthal approach to Al-Quaida I will never understand.
What's the catch?
If the atmosphere contains more polution, we get less light but the atmosphere actually warms up more. As someone else said, light != heat.
Do you get sand in your PC?
I think he should have responded "Do Americans find it difficult to see their computer keyboards over their obese stomachs?"