maybe if microsoft would actually build a good product and sold it with a reasonable price & without the dirty shenanigans and if they quit behaving like a bunch of white collar criminals they would have better success [my emphasis] at being a software company = the harder you use force the more it slips thru your fingers...
Just wondering... what metric for success are you using?
If you're a believer in the Bible (which I'm not), look, you can see that people not taking responsibility for their own actions goes back a looong way. People should find better role models.
Genesis 8 Then the man and his wife heard the sound of the LORD God as he was walking in the garden in the cool of the day, and they hid from the LORD God among the trees of the garden.
9 But the LORD God called to the man, "Where are you?"
10 He answered, "I heard you in the garden, and I was afraid because I was naked; so I hid."
11 And he said, "Who told you that you were naked? Have you eaten from the tree that I commanded you not to eat from?"
12 The man said, "The woman you put here with me. She gave me some fruit from the tree, and I ate it."
13 Then the LORD God said to the woman, "What is this you have done?"
The woman said, "The serpent deceived me, and I ate."
When will these asshats realize that if they dropped the high cost of their software, that would go a long way to eliminate piracy? I mean, come on, I never too economics in college, but even *I* realize this.
$40,000,000,000.00 billion in the bank says they wouldn't care what your hypotethicial econ text books would say anyway.
One thing I really don't like about politics is that they bring up unimportant stuff and make it seem oh so important. That's why I won't fricking run for an elected government position. I'm pretty sure some of the stuff that I did or said but don't remember will be oh so very quickly brought back up. Let's just say for starters I went to a few Dead shows and I inhaled a lot!
The ACLU will protect criminals at all costs, they don't care that the cars are on public roads, and that police calling them in is no different. For quite some time the ACLU has moved away from protecting the rights of people to being a liberal shill.
Are you saying it is only liberals that care about the U.S. Constitution with its "thing" against warrantless search and seizures? The ACLU will try to make the government follow the constitution at all costs!
Maybe European companies don't think they're above the law. Maybe there's something [my emphasis] in the American corporate mentality that makes them think they're special and can do anything without any consequences.
My best guess is that Microsoft wants to tell the world (especially those that are watching their anti-trust behavior and those they are trying to convice that their OOXML should be a standard) that Linux companies CAN and DO license their POS IP.
Good questions, I'll be busy for a few days... (Will be watching TOOL in concert!!!!! and lots of other partying to be done!) I'll try to answer when I get back and have time.
Just one thing though... Buddhism is the only "religion" I've heard that is completely willing to change its tenets if they ever get proven wrong by science.
Once quote I remember from a systematic theology paper is 'God gave us the gifts of reason and wonder. Would he/she have given them to us if he/she didn't want us to explore and investigate our universe?
I've been known to say: "If there is a God, I know he loves me because he gave me Buddhism!"
There is always something where science does not have the immediate answers for, to abandon science at that point seems a bit ludicrous to me to be frank.
What should be done is finding new ways to study the subject until a more satisfactory conclusion is reached.
I agree 100%! What we have to do is emphasize science as a method of inquiry over science as a body of knowledge and then analyze Buddhist literature for possible directions where we could take our inquiry and investigation/experimentation further.
In any case science can't answer the whats and whys of this world, but it can answer the hows. Physics (how?) did not become philosophy (what?), and philosophy did not become religion (why?), you just began to ask different questions.
My original questions (since I was a baby believe it or not) were "What am I?" (included are all What, How, Why questions) and "What happens when I/we die?" Science, philosphy, and religion are just tools to try to get them answered. It just happens that I found Eastern religions, which tend to be experience-based, more useful than Western religions, which tend to be faith-based. Because I'd rather find out for myself.
Point me to a Buddhist document that predicts the outcome of collisions in particle accelerators, or predicts the properties of a compound. If none exist then what does Buddhism have to do with quantum physics? How did Buddhists unravel the mysteries of quantum physics before they had any experimental data to work with? How did they know, in a scientifically compelling way, that quanta existed without studying the photoelectric effect? Where are the 4th century BC Tibetan semiconductors, atomic bombs, and LCDs?
Buddhism may work well as a moral code or lifestyle, but keep it the hell away from science and philosophy. (Which are two separate fields themselves; science doesn't "turn into" philosophy any more than astrology "turns into" botany.)
I have to say I am totally at a loss to understand what thoughts could lead anyone to believe that a 2500 year old moral code could have something to say about modern physics..
A lot depends on what kinds of questions you ask yourself. Do you ask yourself, "What am I?" Some interpretations of quantum physics say that the observer is intimately connected to the observed and lo and behold when we look down at the various subatomic particles we see that they are mostly space and come in and out of existence all the time. So Buddha taught that "Space is Emptiness and Emptiness is Form." Buddha also taught that the universe is an indivisible totality. There have even been experiments that say that perhaps information can be transferred "instantaneously", which in my opinion, would give credence to this hypothesis of the Buddha. (I couldn't find a link, but I found this, more connected with theory than experiment.)
If you honestly ask yourself "What am I?" Then you must see that we are more than a physical body, we also have thoughts, feelings, emotions, hopes, fears, expectations, and creativity (among other things). Well, at this point we can't say that these are not just random events caused by our physical bodies but we should continue asking and studying. Physics and most of Western science have almost nothing to say about these. What are we to do? How about study with an open mind what anybody else has said about this problem, of what we really are - otherwise what kind of scientists are we?
I was amused one time asking myself who knew more about the laws of (trajectory) physics, an NFL quarterback or Albert Einstein. The answer is that we have here two different kinds of knowing, one intellectual, the other intuitive, learned by direct observation and experience and not so theoretical. If our question is still "What am I?" then Buddhism says that we can see for ourselves what we are by observing ourselves, our thoughts and our emotions especially - AND it shows us many excellent methods in order to do so.
Buddhism says that our brains are not producers of thought but more like antennaas for what is going on in pure space. Space is information it says. Do the following: hold your mind still for five minutes. Do random thoughts pop out? I don't think we have to ask ourselves where did the Big Bank come from, because we can get the same answer if we ask ourselves where do thoughts come from. Dude, Buddhism is Science of the Mind, and if you say otherwise, you don't know enough.
In my time of studying things since I was little, I undertook the study of physics when I was eleven. When I was in college getting my BS in it I came to the conclusion that at the level where I was in my studies, physics turned to philosophy, for what do things like time mean anyway?
And then after studying philosphy on my own for a few years, I arrived at the conclusion that philosophy turns to religion because if we can never know these things for sure, we still have to make a decision how we are going to live our lives, and that is religion. In my opinion, real religion is when we consciously decide what to believe on our own (although it can be from reading about religions), fake religion is when someone makes the decision for us.
Why don't more people study Eastern religion's cosmologies? I think it's because people in general like information spoon fed to them instead of researching and processing it on their own. Western psychology is now appreciating many Buddhist ideas that can help certain people with psychological problems and many quantum physicists have felt that Buddhism may have good insights to the ultimate nature of reality. In my view any theory that does not take consciousness into account is incomplete and not worth my basing a belief system around.
Slashdot Mirror
This is a little different situation, so what will Microsoft do now in order to seize the issue?
Increase their contributions to the Republican Party? or Call Dubya directly?
maybe if microsoft would actually build a good product and sold it with a reasonable price & without the dirty shenanigans and if they quit behaving like a bunch of white collar criminals they would have better success [my emphasis] at being a software company = the harder you use force the more it slips thru your fingers...
Just wondering... what metric for success are you using?
That's funny. What if a case's decision gets reversed? Then we have TWO dead lawyers? Who kills the second lawyer now?
"... it costs millions to make a movie, yet I can buy a movie DVD for the same money as an album CD, why?"
I was thinking about this and concluded that it may have something to do with movies being works for hire but music is not. Yes/No/Maybe?
Is it made with sugar or corn syrup?
... and the upshot has been erosion of MS's server market share.
got numbers? It sounds great and everything but... got some numbers for us? (I looked a little but couldn't find much).
The statement begs the question; how is it possible to make a payment but provide no financial incentive?
Free copies of Vista!
My relationship with him's been fine. Except he keeps trying to eat my cereal...
That's Count Chocula, silly.
If you're a believer in the Bible (which I'm not), look, you can see that people not taking responsibility for their own actions goes back a looong way. People should find better role models.
Genesis
8 Then the man and his wife heard the sound of the LORD God as he was
walking in the garden in the cool of the day, and they hid from the LORD
God among the trees of the garden.
9 But the LORD God called to the man,
"Where are you?"
10 He answered, "I heard you in the garden, and I was afraid because I
was naked; so I hid."
11 And he said, "Who told you that you were naked? Have you eaten from
the tree that I commanded you not to eat from?"
12 The man said, "The woman you put here with me. She gave me some fruit
from the tree, and I ate it."
13 Then the LORD God said to the woman, "What is this you have done?"
The woman said, "The serpent deceived me, and I ate."
I prefer to call them SCOX, 'cause that rhymes with... what they are.
Because I'm sure no one's payments, no matter how healthy they are, are going to go down.
I sure don't like paying $4k a year for insurance, that's for sure.
(good post, BTW)
The costs of the major worms and malware have been documented...
BUT, you see, they come out of a different part of the IT budget so from Microsoft's point of view they, don't count, they're basically ZERO.
When will these asshats realize that if they dropped the high cost of their software, that would go a long way to eliminate piracy? I mean, come on, I never too economics in college, but even *I* realize this.
$40,000,000,000.00 billion in the bank says they wouldn't care what your hypotethicial econ text books would say anyway.
I'd mod you up if I had mod points. Thanks for the info, oh man with a Slashdot ID somewhat higher than mine!
One thing I really don't like about politics is that they bring up unimportant stuff and make it seem oh so important. That's why I won't fricking run for an elected government position. I'm pretty sure some of the stuff that I did or said but don't remember will be oh so very quickly brought back up. Let's just say for starters I went to a few Dead shows and I inhaled a lot!
Why don't YOU run for fricking government?
The ACLU will protect criminals at all costs, they don't care that the cars are on public roads, and that police calling them in is no different. For quite some time the ACLU has moved away from protecting the rights of people to being a liberal shill.
Are you saying it is only liberals that care about the U.S. Constitution with its "thing" against warrantless search and seizures? The ACLU will try to make the government follow the constitution at all costs!
Would you rather some of those rights be amended?
Maybe European companies don't think they're above the law. Maybe there's something [my emphasis] in the American corporate mentality that makes them think they're special and can do anything without any consequences.
I think it's called experience.
My best guess is that Microsoft wants to tell the world (especially those that are watching their anti-trust behavior and those they are trying to convice that their OOXML should be a standard) that Linux companies CAN and DO license their POS IP.
I don't know, after studying physics for fourteen years and Buddhism for another fourteen, I think I know what I'm talking about.
Good questions, I'll be busy for a few days... (Will be watching TOOL in concert!!!!! and lots of other partying to be done!) I'll try to answer when I get back and have time.
Just one thing though... Buddhism is the only "religion" I've heard that is completely willing to change its tenets if they ever get proven wrong by science.
Once quote I remember from a systematic theology paper is 'God gave us the gifts of reason and wonder. Would he/she have given them to us if he/she didn't want us to explore and investigate our universe?
I've been known to say: "If there is a God, I know he loves me because he gave me Buddhism!"
There is always something where science does not have the immediate answers for, to abandon science at that point seems a bit ludicrous to me to be frank.
What should be done is finding new ways to study the subject until a more satisfactory conclusion is reached.
I agree 100%! What we have to do is emphasize science as a method of inquiry over science as a body of knowledge and then analyze Buddhist literature for possible directions where we could take our inquiry and investigation/experimentation further.
In any case science can't answer the whats and whys of this world, but it can answer the hows. Physics (how?) did not become philosophy (what?), and philosophy did not become religion (why?), you just began to ask different questions.
My original questions (since I was a baby believe it or not) were "What am I?" (included are all What, How, Why questions) and "What happens when I/we die?" Science, philosphy, and religion are just tools to try to get them answered. It just happens that I found Eastern religions, which tend to be experience-based, more useful than Western religions, which tend to be faith-based. Because I'd rather find out for myself.
A lot depends on what kinds of questions you ask yourself. Do you ask yourself, "What am I?" Some interpretations of quantum physics say that the observer is intimately connected to the observed and lo and behold when we look down at the various subatomic particles we see that they are mostly space and come in and out of existence all the time. So Buddha taught that "Space is Emptiness and Emptiness is Form." Buddha also taught that the universe is an indivisible totality. There have even been experiments that say that perhaps information can be transferred "instantaneously", which in my opinion, would give credence to this hypothesis of the Buddha. (I couldn't find a link, but I found this, more connected with theory than experiment.)
If you honestly ask yourself "What am I?" Then you must see that we are more than a physical body, we also have thoughts, feelings, emotions, hopes, fears, expectations, and creativity (among other things). Well, at this point we can't say that these are not just random events caused by our physical bodies but we should continue asking and studying. Physics and most of Western science have almost nothing to say about these. What are we to do? How about study with an open mind what anybody else has said about this problem, of what we really are - otherwise what kind of scientists are we?
I was amused one time asking myself who knew more about the laws of (trajectory) physics, an NFL quarterback or Albert Einstein. The answer is that we have here two different kinds of knowing, one intellectual, the other intuitive, learned by direct observation and experience and not so theoretical. If our question is still "What am I?" then Buddhism says that we can see for ourselves what we are by observing ourselves, our thoughts and our emotions especially - AND it shows us many excellent methods in order to do so.
Buddhism says that our brains are not producers of thought but more like antennaas for what is going on in pure space. Space is information it says. Do the following: hold your mind still for five minutes. Do random thoughts pop out? I don't think we have to ask ourselves where did the Big Bank come from, because we can get the same answer if we ask ourselves where do thoughts come from. Dude, Buddhism is Science of the Mind, and if you say otherwise, you don't know enough.
yep, that's what I'd do.
Allofmp3 has the ultimate business model for me dollars!
In my time of studying things since I was little, I undertook the study of physics when I was eleven. When I was in college getting my BS in it I came to the conclusion that at the level where I was in my studies, physics turned to philosophy, for what do things like time mean anyway?
And then after studying philosphy on my own for a few years, I arrived at the conclusion that philosophy turns to religion because if we can never know these things for sure, we still have to make a decision how we are going to live our lives, and that is religion. In my opinion, real religion is when we consciously decide what to believe on our own (although it can be from reading about religions), fake religion is when someone makes the decision for us.
Why don't more people study Eastern religion's cosmologies? I think it's because people in general like information spoon fed to them instead of researching and processing it on their own. Western psychology is now appreciating many Buddhist ideas that can help certain people with psychological problems and many quantum physicists have felt that Buddhism may have good insights to the ultimate nature of reality. In my view any theory that does not take consciousness into account is incomplete and not worth my basing a belief system around.