WTF? So coporations in other countries are beacons of moral purity and selfless sacrifice?
Did I say that? No. What I was talking about was that it seems to be a common attitude amongst Americans that amoral behaviour and selfishness is ok if it is in the name of making money.
Trying to brush off greed as a purely American failing may make you feel better, but it's just ridiculous.
Sorry, but self interest and greed are one of the defining features of "the American way". You may think it's like that in the rest of the world, but it isn't.
I think you have hit on the crux of the matter. You only really hear these type of arguments ("profit is all that matters for corporations") from Americans. In the rest of the world, they sound frankly screwed up. But of course since most Americans haven't really experienced countries other than their own, they assume that these sad ideas are normal.
I spoke to an electrician at our local hospital recently. He told me the hospital had three separate electricity systems - one connected to the national grid, one connected to an onsite generator which is running all the time, and a third connected to some kind of highly reliable battery system (sorry can't remember the details) for life support and operating theatres in case both the national grid and the on-site generator fail simultaneously.
If they have that level of redundancy for the electrics then I see no reason why they shouldn't for the network.
Just out of interest, does anyone know what kind of bandwidth charges you face doing something like this? I mean, OpenOffice, Mozilla, RedHat ISOs, - there must be massive bandwidth charges associated with distributing this kind of stuff, isn't there? Does anyone know what these guys pay per Gb, and what their monthly bills are like?
Well, seeing as this has been modded up to +5 funny, I guess I should take the plunge:
Reg; People are always complaining about the security in windows, but come on, Windows is great. All my friends use it! Loretta; Yes, and my friends friends. Reg: Yeah. Loretta: And my friends friends friends. Reg: Yeah, all right. Don't labor the point. And tell me, what is insecure in Windows? Rebel2: Outlook? Reg: What? Rebel2: Microsoft Outlook. Reg: Oh yeah, yeah. That's insecure. That's true, yeah. Rebel3: And Internet Explorer. Loretta: Oh yeah, Internet Explorer, Reg. Remember all the security holes that's had? Reg: Yeah, all right, I'll grant you Outlook and Internet Explorer are two things are insecure... Mathias: And IIS. Reg: Well, yeah. Obviously IIS, I mean IIS goes without saying, doesn't it? But apart from the Outlook, Internet Explorer, and IIS... Rebel4: Word Macros. Rebel2: Passport. Rebel5: Hotmail. Reg: Yeah, yeah, all right. Fair enough... Rebel1: And Active-X. Rebels: Oh, yeah Francis: Yeah. Yeah, That's a really bad one isn't it? Active-X. Rebel6: The Windows kernel itself. Loretta: Yes, remember when they found that NSA key Reg? Francis: Yeah, well, that's certainly a bit worrying, isn't it? Everyone: Huhuhuh. Huhuhuhuhuh. Reg: All right. But apart from the Outlook, Internet Explorer, IIS, Word Macros, Passport, Hotmail, Active-X and the Windows kernel itself, what is insecure in Windows? Rebel2: SQL server? Reg: Oh, fuck off.
I've always believed that one day some bright college kid is going to come up with a completely different style of computer language and interface, and when that happens we will all slap our heads and go "D'oh! So that's how we should be doing it! Obvious!"
Like the web and P2P, the most influential ideas are often quite simple, and "obvious".
Re:Yes, but now the webdesigners will have to foll
on
BBC says "Avoid Explorer"
·
· Score: 5, Informative
Still too many webdesigners want to make sites that look flashy and work only in Explorer...
I know a lot of people say this, but is it actually true. I use both Mozilla and IE and very rarely notice any differences.
Apart from the known issues with IE, outlook, and IIS, what is insecure in Windows?
When I first read this, I assumed it was a joke, along the lines of "What did the Romans ever do for us?" in Monty Python's "The Life of Brian". But looks like everyone is taking it seriously so I must be wrong.
We really are having a communications problem here, aren't we?
Now you have tossed up how leaving Saddam in power benefits a bunch of other nations, NOT the US.
No, I didn't. There are a number of countries that have agreements with Iraq which would be beneficial to them once the embargo is lifted, but they are not currently beneficial because of the embargo. The USA has made moves to try to nullify these contracts should a regieme change occur, i.e. the USA want to replace the current regieme in Bagdad with one that will nullify existing contracts and replace it with one which will put in place contracts beneficial to the USA.
BTW, all the countries YOU mention have expressed and interest in dropping the embargo.
Of course. See above.
All of the countries YOU mention have sold finished goods to Iraq in the past and may still.
Not sure how this is relevant to the discussion.
Now, I have already explained this to you several different ways, try explaining to the rest of us just how an expensive military operation to remove a brutal dictator is more econonimically beneficial to the US (not these other countries) than just removing the embargo and sanctions?
Jeeze. You've explained to me that if there's more oil on the market, the price goes down. And yes, you've explained that in lots of different ways.
In my last post I asked you to do a web search and read up about Iraq and the importance of its oil agreements with other countries, but I guess you haven't. Here is a starting point for you:
How does all that have anything to do with conspiracy? Since all that is public knowledge, you're entire post is a fairly good argument that there isn't some massive conspiracy in the current administration.
Ah yes. This type of argument is very popular in the USA these days isn't it? "Since campaign contributions are public knowledge, they're not bribes are they? It's not corruption, like in foreign places".
A conspiracy is a joining or acting together, "as if by sinister design", according to some dictionary definitions. I believe current usage is more along the lines of when governments do bad or illegal things and hide them. Well, if the current regieme says that it is invading Iraq for humanitarian reasons, but is actually doing it for financial reasons, I believe that is conspiracy. My point about listing the backgrounds of your leaders was to show how likely it is that a conspiracy is occurring.
Bush was the president of an OIL company in an oil-producing state, and a governor of that state.
Now he's president of the United States. As such his primary job is to quickly select a team of people to staff the upper levels of the executive branch and carry out his policies. That means very talented executives that he already KNOWS and trusts to faithfully make decisions the same way he would.
Where the HELL do you expect him to FIND such people, in quantity, in a short time, EXCEPT the industry and state he's been working in for years?
Think about it: What line of work are YOU in? If YOU had to pick several dozen executives whose work YOU know and whose decisions YOU trust, what line of work would THEY be in?
Gosh. If what you say about how your country is run is true, don't you find that a little bit worrying? I mean, it doesn't sound like a great way to run a country. Perhaps you might like to think about that again.
[Sarcasm] Thank you! I am concentrating as hard as I can! [/Sarcasm]
it is a demand/price problem. The more oil on the market, the cheaper it is and it does not matter one bit where it originated.
[Sarcasm] Ahh, yes now I get it! It's a price/demand problem. More oil on the market, price goes down. Let me write that down. [/Sarcasm]
Not sure what "contracts" you are speaking of [..] you are really missing the basics here.
Ah, well, I think this may be where our knowledge and experience diverge. You've done Economics 101 recently, I take an interest in foreign affairs and read the international press regularly.
Iraq does indeed have oil contracts, and they do matter quite a bit. China, France and Russia have all expressed concern that the USA is trying to get a new regieme into Iraq that will break their existing agreements. These contract involve the development and exploitation of oil fields in Iraq and on an international scale are both politically and economically very significant. Rather than responding to this with more schoolboy economics why don't you try searching some good news sites for information about Iraq and oil contracts?
So, this guy gets out when he is 30yrs old, can find a job and move on with his life looking for more buildings to burn down. isnt there something wrong with that?
You're right! 40 million Euros is too much for him to ever pay back! Let's kill him! Yeah! I'll start the chant! Kill him! Kill him! Kill him! Come on everyone, join in! Kill him! Kill him! Kill him! Those Euro weenies will probably just say he's mentally unstable or something, and give him a few years in jail and a nice psychologist to talk to. Losers! Kill him! Kill him!...
Interesting how the parent of the above post, which (skeptically) asks what how specifically the US government benefits from the oil in Iraq after a war has been modded as insightful, but my response to it, which answers the question has been modded as offtopic.
I think there should be a new mod, "-1 Unamerican".
You are linking the regime to the price of oil, not me.
Did I? I missed that. I thought I was talking about how a regieme change in Bagdad would be financially advantageous to the USA. I never mentioned the price of oil.
I see you looked up the definition and have yet to grasp how it applies to a commodity.
I can see I am in the presence of an intellect far superior to my own. Forgive my stupidity, but what exactly is your point about oil being a fungible commodity? Do you mean to say that, because it is a fungible commodity, the contracts that countries and oil companies have with oil producing contries don't really matter? If you think that then maybe you should pass the news on to Putin, Jintao, Chirac, etc. I'm sure it will be a great weight off their minds when they realise how simple the economics of international oil agreements is, and that they've just been worrying about nothing.
Or we could just ask for the embargo to be lifted, but that would only incrementally increase the supply.
I assume that you know that many countries have oil agreements with Iraq which would come into effect once the embargo is lifted, and that the USA wants to get a regieme into Bagdad that will nullify those agreements?
Now, to all those Political/Economic geniuses out there that pose the crackpot theory you and I are challenging, please look up "fungible commodity", see how it applies to oil.
A fungible commodity is homogenious and equal, such as pure metals, water or oil. Perhaps you can use your "Political/Economic genius" to explain how that proves the idea that the USA will benefit financially from a USA friendly regieme in Iraq is a "crackpot theory".
I'd be curious to know how specifically the US government benefits from the oil in Iraq after a war.
Iraq has the second largest proven reserves of oil in the world after Saudi Arabia. American oil companies have not had access to this since the late 1980s. They stand to profit enormously from a post-Hussein government friendly to the United States. It would also allow the scuttling of oil deals between Iraq and other countries and reshuffling world petroleum markets in favor of US oil firms.
There is a lot for US oil companies to gain from getting a US friendly regieme into Iraq, and that is exactly what Bush wants to do. They have also been trying to put in place a regieme that will cancel oil agreements Iraq currently has with China, Russia and France. I shouldn't need to point out the links between Bush and his cronies and the oil companies.
You don't have to take my word for it. Spend a few hours reading what the better international press has said about this over the last few months.
I'm not sure if I can totally approve of this type of activism, because it mirrors exactly what is wrong with the USA today. It shouldn't be just about "how much money". If you really care about something, get off your butt and do something about it. Get vocal - organise grassroots movements, write letters, explain the problems you see to your friends, family and community. But don't just expect to buy influence with money - that's what is currently ruining the democratic fabric of the USA.
I think if you're American, you'd be nuts not to be a conspiracy theorist! Bear with me...
I'll leave Bush aside... But have you read up on your Vice President Dick Cheney (exCEO of Halliburton Industried, and oil services company with dealings with Iraq), Secretary of Commerce Don Evans (ex chairman and CEO of Tom Brown Inc, an oil and gas company), Secretary of Defense Don Rumsfeld (ex board member of the Tribune Company which publishes the Los Angelese Times, Chicago Tribune, NY's Channel 11), Secretary of Energy Spencer Abraham (received more from the automotive industry than any other candidate, voted in 2000 to abolish the department he now leads), Secretary of Health and Human Services Tommy Thompson (received paid for trips abroad to promote free trade and $72,000 in campaign contributions from Philip Morris, the tobacco giant), Secretary to the Interior Gale Norton (ex national chairwoman of an "environmental group" funded by Ford Motor Company and BP Amoco, White House Chief of Staff Andrew H Card Jr (ex General Motor's chief lobbyist), National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice (served on Chevron's board of directors, has an oil tanker named after her!), Secretary to the Treasury Paul O'Neill (ex. president and CEO of Alcoa - one of the biggest polluters in Texas), Shadow Adviser to the President Kenneth L. Lay (ex Head of Enron...)...
Maybe things were better in 1969. But I don't believe much your Government says these days. Especially about the "war on Iraq" not having anything to do with oil. Does that make me a crazy conspiracy theorist?
but the key protagonist is really Opera Software, which may be gaining the (initial) upper hand simply because they are not Microsoft.
You don't think it might be because Opera's browser is more suited to mobiles because it's less bloated?
No, I think that "not Microsoft" is a very strong reason for Ericcson, Nokia, etc. to use Opera, even if the Microsoft solution was better.
As we all know, Microsoft has been very successful in the PC world. They bascially dictate to the PC manufacturers what to do to a huge extent - not just technically, but from a marketing perspective too. If, for instance, Dell wanted to sell a Harry Potter themed PC, Microsoft can say no (and have done). Do you think the mobile phone companies want to be in that situation? Do you think they want their products to become commodities with cut-throat margins upon which Microsoft add software with huge margins and upon which they can dictate the price?
I'm not saying this because I am an anti-Microsoft zealot, but because I can really see the business sense of the mobile phone companies not having anything to do with Microsoft. This is one of the biggest problems Microsoft currently faces - the market is moving away from PCs to smaller form devices, and the manufacturers don't want anything to do with Microsoft. This is why we will see Microsoft increasingly experimenting with it's own hardware, like the X-Box. Don't be suprised if you find a Microsoft branded mobile phone released sometime in the next couple of years.
[..] innovative companies like Sun, Microsoft, and Linux [..] in countries like Finland, Pakistan, and Europe [..]
Dim people who post to discussion web sites such as Slashdot, LinuxToday and Hotmail, should avoid activities such as listing things, generalizing or summaries.
See what it's like to live in a country, where because of an accident of birth, you literally aren't *allowed* to do anything but scrub public urinals for the rest of your life
As opposed to living in a country, where because of an accident of birth, you can become President even if you are a dunce!
India will continue to pirate as long as Microsoft leads everywhere else, though having the governor officially reject capitalism is a good step for socialism.
Sorry? I assume that you are using your own special definitions of capitalism and socialism here, because I don't see how they've got anything to do with this Indian state deciding to use Linux for a particular project rather than Microsoft.
Slashdot Mirror
WTF? So coporations in other countries are beacons of moral purity and selfless sacrifice?
Did I say that? No. What I was talking about was that it seems to be a common attitude amongst Americans that amoral behaviour and selfishness is ok if it is in the name of making money.
Trying to brush off greed as a purely American failing may make you feel better, but it's just ridiculous.
Sorry, but self interest and greed are one of the defining features of "the American way". You may think it's like that in the rest of the world, but it isn't.
You must be American.
I think you have hit on the crux of the matter. You only really hear these type of arguments ("profit is all that matters for corporations") from Americans. In the rest of the world, they sound frankly screwed up. But of course since most Americans haven't really experienced countries other than their own, they assume that these sad ideas are normal.
Bye bye Karma.
(Score -1, Unamerican.)
I spoke to an electrician at our local hospital recently. He told me the hospital had three separate electricity systems - one connected to the national grid, one connected to an onsite generator which is running all the time, and a third connected to some kind of highly reliable battery system (sorry can't remember the details) for life support and operating theatres in case both the national grid and the on-site generator fail simultaneously.
If they have that level of redundancy for the electrics then I see no reason why they shouldn't for the network.
Just out of interest, does anyone know what kind of bandwidth charges you face doing something like this? I mean, OpenOffice, Mozilla, RedHat ISOs, - there must be massive bandwidth charges associated with distributing this kind of stuff, isn't there? Does anyone know what these guys pay per Gb, and what their monthly bills are like?
Well, seeing as this has been modded up to +5 funny, I guess I should take the plunge:
Reg; People are always complaining about the security in windows, but come on, Windows is great. All my friends use it!
Loretta; Yes, and my friends friends.
Reg: Yeah.
Loretta: And my friends friends friends.
Reg: Yeah, all right. Don't labor the point. And tell me, what is insecure in Windows?
Rebel2: Outlook?
Reg: What?
Rebel2: Microsoft Outlook.
Reg: Oh yeah, yeah. That's insecure. That's true, yeah.
Rebel3: And Internet Explorer.
Loretta: Oh yeah, Internet Explorer, Reg. Remember all the security holes that's had?
Reg: Yeah, all right, I'll grant you Outlook and Internet Explorer are two things are insecure...
Mathias: And IIS.
Reg: Well, yeah. Obviously IIS, I mean IIS goes without saying, doesn't it? But apart from the Outlook, Internet Explorer, and IIS...
Rebel4: Word Macros.
Rebel2: Passport.
Rebel5: Hotmail.
Reg: Yeah, yeah, all right. Fair enough...
Rebel1: And Active-X.
Rebels: Oh, yeah
Francis: Yeah. Yeah, That's a really bad one isn't it? Active-X.
Rebel6: The Windows kernel itself.
Loretta: Yes, remember when they found that NSA key Reg?
Francis: Yeah, well, that's certainly a bit worrying, isn't it?
Everyone: Huhuhuh. Huhuhuhuhuh.
Reg: All right. But apart from the Outlook, Internet Explorer, IIS, Word Macros, Passport, Hotmail, Active-X and the Windows kernel itself, what is insecure in Windows?
Rebel2: SQL server?
Reg: Oh, fuck off.
I've always believed that one day some bright college kid is going to come up with a completely different style of computer language and interface, and when that happens we will all slap our heads and go "D'oh! So that's how we should be doing it! Obvious!"
Like the web and P2P, the most influential ideas are often quite simple, and "obvious".
Still too many webdesigners want to make sites that look flashy and work only in Explorer...
I know a lot of people say this, but is it actually true. I use both Mozilla and IE and very rarely notice any differences.
Apart from the known issues with IE, outlook, and IIS, what is insecure in Windows?
When I first read this, I assumed it was a joke, along the lines of "What did the Romans ever do for us?" in Monty Python's "The Life of Brian". But looks like everyone is taking it seriously so I must be wrong.
We really are having a communications problem here, aren't we?
i cl e/0,1426,MCA_945_1535914,00.html
Now you have tossed up how leaving Saddam in power benefits a bunch of other nations, NOT the US.
No, I didn't. There are a number of countries that have agreements with Iraq which would be beneficial to them once the embargo is lifted, but they are not currently beneficial because of the embargo. The USA has made moves to try to nullify these contracts should a regieme change occur, i.e. the USA want to replace the current regieme in Bagdad with one that will nullify existing contracts and replace it with one which will put in place contracts beneficial to the USA.
BTW, all the countries YOU mention have expressed and interest in dropping the embargo.
Of course. See above.
All of the countries YOU mention have sold finished goods to Iraq in the past and may still.
Not sure how this is relevant to the discussion.
Now, I have already explained this to you several different ways, try explaining to the rest of us just how an expensive military operation to remove a brutal dictator is more econonimically beneficial to the US (not these other countries) than just removing the embargo and sanctions?
Jeeze. You've explained to me that if there's more oil on the market, the price goes down. And yes, you've explained that in lots of different ways.
In my last post I asked you to do a web search and read up about Iraq and the importance of its oil agreements with other countries, but I guess you haven't. Here is a starting point for you:
http://www.gomemphis.com/mca/america_at_war/art
Once you've read that I hope you will agree that the situation is a little more complex than your basic economics would have you imagine.
How does all that have anything to do with conspiracy? Since all that is public knowledge, you're entire post is a fairly good argument that there isn't some massive conspiracy in the current administration.
Ah yes. This type of argument is very popular in the USA these days isn't it? "Since campaign contributions are public knowledge, they're not bribes are they? It's not corruption, like in foreign places".
A conspiracy is a joining or acting together, "as if by sinister design", according to some dictionary definitions. I believe current usage is more along the lines of when governments do bad or illegal things and hide them. Well, if the current regieme says that it is invading Iraq for humanitarian reasons, but is actually doing it for financial reasons, I believe that is conspiracy. My point about listing the backgrounds of your leaders was to show how likely it is that a conspiracy is occurring.
Look:
Bush was the president of an OIL company in an oil-producing state, and a governor of that state.
Now he's president of the United States. As such his primary job is to quickly select a team of people to staff the upper levels of the executive branch and carry out his policies. That means very talented executives that he already KNOWS and trusts to faithfully make decisions the same way he would.
Where the HELL do you expect him to FIND such people, in quantity, in a short time, EXCEPT the industry and state he's been working in for years?
Think about it: What line of work are YOU in? If YOU had to pick several dozen executives whose work YOU know and whose decisions YOU trust, what line of work would THEY be in?
Gosh. If what you say about how your country is run is true, don't you find that a little bit worrying? I mean, it doesn't sound like a great way to run a country. Perhaps you might like to think about that again.
Okay, very simply,
[Sarcasm]
Thank you! I am concentrating as hard as I can!
[/Sarcasm]
it is a demand/price problem. The more oil on the market, the cheaper it is and it does not matter one bit where it originated.
[Sarcasm]
Ahh, yes now I get it! It's a price/demand problem. More oil on the market, price goes down. Let me write that down.
[/Sarcasm]
Not sure what "contracts" you are speaking of [..] you are really missing the basics here.
Ah, well, I think this may be where our knowledge and experience diverge. You've done Economics 101 recently, I take an interest in foreign affairs and read the international press regularly.
Iraq does indeed have oil contracts, and they do matter quite a bit. China, France and Russia have all expressed concern that the USA is trying to get a new regieme into Iraq that will break their existing agreements. These contract involve the development and exploitation of oil fields in Iraq and on an international scale are both politically and economically very significant. Rather than responding to this with more schoolboy economics why don't you try searching some good news sites for information about Iraq and oil contracts?
Governments are made up of people- i.e., they are greedy, selfish, and evasive about their motives, just like the real people you deal with every day.
Ahhh. So that's what they meant when they said "by the people, for the people". Now I understand American politics much better.
Over here in Europe, we like to elect leaders that aren't greedy, selfish, and evasive about their motives. But then, we're just a bunch of losers.
So, this guy gets out when he is 30yrs old, can find a job and move on with his life looking for more buildings to burn down. isnt there something wrong with that?
You're right! 40 million Euros is too much for him to ever pay back! Let's kill him! Yeah! I'll start the chant! Kill him! Kill him! Kill him! Come on everyone, join in! Kill him! Kill him! Kill him! Those Euro weenies will probably just say he's mentally unstable or something, and give him a few years in jail and a nice psychologist to talk to. Losers! Kill him! Kill him!...
Interesting how the parent of the above post, which (skeptically) asks what how specifically the US government benefits from the oil in Iraq after a war has been modded as insightful, but my response to it, which answers the question has been modded as offtopic.
I think there should be a new mod, "-1 Unamerican".
You are linking the regime to the price of oil, not me.
Did I? I missed that. I thought I was talking about how a regieme change in Bagdad would be financially advantageous to the USA. I never mentioned the price of oil.
I see you looked up the definition and have yet to grasp how it applies to a commodity.
I can see I am in the presence of an intellect far superior to my own. Forgive my stupidity, but what exactly is your point about oil being a fungible commodity? Do you mean to say that, because it is a fungible commodity, the contracts that countries and oil companies have with oil producing contries don't really matter? If you think that then maybe you should pass the news on to Putin, Jintao, Chirac, etc. I'm sure it will be a great weight off their minds when they realise how simple the economics of international oil agreements is, and that they've just been worrying about nothing.
Or we could just ask for the embargo to be lifted, but that would only incrementally increase the supply.
I assume that you know that many countries have oil agreements with Iraq which would come into effect once the embargo is lifted, and that the USA wants to get a regieme into Bagdad that will nullify those agreements?
Now, to all those Political/Economic geniuses out there that pose the crackpot theory you and I are challenging, please look up "fungible commodity", see how it applies to oil.
A fungible commodity is homogenious and equal, such as pure metals, water or oil. Perhaps you can use your "Political/Economic genius" to explain how that proves the idea that the USA will benefit financially from a USA friendly regieme in Iraq is a "crackpot theory".
I'd be curious to know how specifically the US government benefits from the oil in Iraq after a war.
Iraq has the second largest proven reserves of oil in the world after Saudi Arabia. American oil companies have not had access to this since the late 1980s. They stand to profit enormously from a post-Hussein government friendly to the United States. It would also allow the scuttling of oil deals between Iraq and other countries and reshuffling world petroleum markets in favor of US oil firms.
There is a lot for US oil companies to gain from getting a US friendly regieme into Iraq, and that is exactly what Bush wants to do. They have also been trying to put in place a regieme that will cancel oil agreements Iraq currently has with China, Russia and France. I shouldn't need to point out the links between Bush and his cronies and the oil companies.
You don't have to take my word for it. Spend a few hours reading what the better international press has said about this over the last few months.
I'm not sure if I can totally approve of this type of activism, because it mirrors exactly what is wrong with the USA today. It shouldn't be just about "how much money". If you really care about something, get off your butt and do something about it. Get vocal - organise grassroots movements, write letters, explain the problems you see to your friends, family and community. But don't just expect to buy influence with money - that's what is currently ruining the democratic fabric of the USA.
I think if you're American, you'd be nuts not to be a conspiracy theorist! Bear with me...
I'll leave Bush aside... But have you read up on your Vice President Dick Cheney (exCEO of Halliburton Industried, and oil services company with dealings with Iraq), Secretary of Commerce Don Evans (ex chairman and CEO of Tom Brown Inc, an oil and gas company), Secretary of Defense Don Rumsfeld (ex board member of the Tribune Company which publishes the Los Angelese Times, Chicago Tribune, NY's Channel 11), Secretary of Energy Spencer Abraham (received more from the automotive industry than any other candidate, voted in 2000 to abolish the department he now leads), Secretary of Health and Human Services Tommy Thompson (received paid for trips abroad to promote free trade and $72,000 in campaign contributions from Philip Morris, the tobacco giant), Secretary to the Interior Gale Norton (ex national chairwoman of an "environmental group" funded by Ford Motor Company and BP Amoco, White House Chief of Staff Andrew H Card Jr (ex General Motor's chief lobbyist), National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice (served on Chevron's board of directors, has an oil tanker named after her!), Secretary to the Treasury Paul O'Neill (ex. president and CEO of Alcoa - one of the biggest polluters in Texas), Shadow Adviser to the President Kenneth L. Lay (ex Head of Enron...)...
Maybe things were better in 1969. But I don't believe much your Government says these days. Especially about the "war on Iraq" not having anything to do with oil. Does that make me a crazy conspiracy theorist?
but the key protagonist is really Opera Software, which may be gaining the (initial) upper hand simply because they are not Microsoft.
You don't think it might be because Opera's browser is more suited to mobiles because it's less bloated?
No, I think that "not Microsoft" is a very strong reason for Ericcson, Nokia, etc. to use Opera, even if the Microsoft solution was better.
As we all know, Microsoft has been very successful in the PC world. They bascially dictate to the PC manufacturers what to do to a huge extent - not just technically, but from a marketing perspective too. If, for instance, Dell wanted to sell a Harry Potter themed PC, Microsoft can say no (and have done). Do you think the mobile phone companies want to be in that situation? Do you think they want their products to become commodities with cut-throat margins upon which Microsoft add software with huge margins and upon which they can dictate the price?
I'm not saying this because I am an anti-Microsoft zealot, but because I can really see the business sense of the mobile phone companies not having anything to do with Microsoft. This is one of the biggest problems Microsoft currently faces - the market is moving away from PCs to smaller form devices, and the manufacturers don't want anything to do with Microsoft. This is why we will see Microsoft increasingly experimenting with it's own hardware, like the X-Box. Don't be suprised if you find a Microsoft branded mobile phone released sometime in the next couple of years.
[..] innovative companies like Sun, Microsoft, and Linux [..] in countries like Finland, Pakistan, and Europe [..]
Dim people who post to discussion web sites such as Slashdot, LinuxToday and Hotmail, should avoid activities such as listing things, generalizing or summaries.
Or something. Whatever.
No one ever brings these [moral] arguments up in chemistry, or physics, or math
I think Einstein would have disagreed with you.
See what it's like to live in a country, where because of an accident of birth, you literally aren't *allowed* to do anything but scrub public urinals for the rest of your life
As opposed to living in a country, where because of an accident of birth, you can become President even if you are a dunce!
India will continue to pirate as long as Microsoft leads everywhere else, though having the governor officially reject capitalism is a good step for socialism.
Sorry? I assume that you are using your own special definitions of capitalism and socialism here, because I don't see how they've got anything to do with this Indian state deciding to use Linux for a particular project rather than Microsoft.