I like the table at the bottom of the article best.
Installation - last year @ 30 minutes versus today @ 5 minutes. I think it was closer to five minutes last year that that, but it is getting harder to remember the days of 45 minute installs. Look at how far we've come!
You're missing my point. This isn't about wether innovations are possible. This is about whether *big* innovations are possible; innovations that will convince the masses of IE users to switch.
MS won by being "good enough". Now we have to make something *significantly* better in order to gain a big market share. But can we make something significantly better? What big innovations are possible in a mature product?
No, you're missing my point. Some of us remember a time when Mosaic was all there was (I don't, but that's not the point) Then it was Netscape, and now IE...
I find the following truths to be self-evident when it comes to the development of software, and the market share of the companies that do the developing:
The best technology does win. Even in the most famous case of Beta Max versus VHS this is true - vhs was cheaper, when you're trying to convince people they need something in their home that they've never even heard of before - cheaper is better regaurdless of what technological advantages the more expensive product may demonstrate. Right now the benefits of not having to install a web browser and having it integrated into the operating system seem to be the public's choice. I don't care about standards - when you're the biggest software company on the planet your opinion has a little more weight and IMHO - Microsoft has earned the right to set the standards (and they do, like it or not, with each subsequent release of IE & Frontpage, IIS, etc.) With power comes responsibility - in the end the industry speaks and if Microsoft is doing something stupid they'll find that most sites quit working with IE and they are the ones forced to change.
They key thing here is to believe in the market's ability to reward the best design. If we leave it at that then Microsoft can't be on top forever, eventually they will get comfortable and projects like the one we're talking about now will overtake Microsoft's market share. But if we encourage projects like this to just give up because there is nothing to improve, or encourage the government to get envolved and create yet another industry that nobody wants to touch for all the regulation - then we will secure a monopoly - be it Microsoft or some other company hand-picked by the government to "encourage competition" with Microsoft.
The innovation lies in making the engine that turns markup language into a layout on your screen faster and less buggy, resulting in a better web experience.
By the way, there is always room for innovation in every aspect of everything. There was a time when Columbus must have said, What is there "innovations" can you put in English ships. They are the best in the land"
Of course the innovative thing isn't immediatly obvious - if it was it wouldn't be called innovation would it?
...by default an application will always run against the component that it was built and tested against. Administrators will be able to override these rules for exceptional cases.
Not, really. The text above is from the article. I know I have to tell you that because you don't know how to click a friggin link and read a goddamn fucking article. But now I've sumarized it for ya. k? Good... glad to help, fucknut.
Another feature of Windows Server 2003 will be that.Net components will have no registration policy. "This means it will be easy to take a.Net component on server and copy to another server," he said. Microsoft is calling the feature xcopy deploy, after a command used in DOS to copy capability files, directories and even whole drives from one destination to another. "It is good for scaling out--it means you can copy applications instead of reinstalling them," said Salmre. "The whole process becomes much simpler."
Microsoft making it easier to "xcopy" an application from one server to the next in spite of obvious invitation for piracy. Could this be the answer to our prayers??! Is Microsoft really coming around?
No... No, it can't be. Don't trust them, we mustn't trust... We must NEVER trust Microsoft! Can't you see?! You fools!!! We've all been tricked!!! It's a trap of the evil empire, I tell you - turn back while you still can! Look to Linux for your salvation not some Microshaft technobizzle. Don't let them brainwash you - we've heard it all before, "Yup, should be reeaall stable this time.." We must not believe their lies!!!! Don't let them strong bind YOU.
States already tax the internet and all interstate commerce. It is called use tax and in most states it is the same as your sales tax. You are required to self-report all purchases each year with your personal state income taxes. I don't really know what states w/o income tax do.
That's funny - it seems to me I always hear about how we need campaign finance reform to stop evil corporate interests from electing evil Republicans to pass evil laws that favor *gasp* business.
The numbers here show 60% of all money reported on the website for this election cycle went to Democrats. This is odd, as the author of the page seems to favor Democrats (this is not 100% factual - I'm basing that on the fact that most big Democrat contributions are explained by some sort of "fear" of what the Bush administration will do to hard working Americans while most big Republican contributors are written off as "corporate interests")
It would seem that the idea of this page was to encourage campaign finance reform. For a look at what "reform" really means check this out (same source) This is the effect of "reform." The disproportional amount of money going to the Democrat party can be explained by finance reform focusing mostly on corporate donors while ignoring the big labor unions which, as you can see, donate as much money as any corporation.
This supports the idea that Congress should NOT try to regulate the amount of money spent on getting a message out about a particular candidate, as this is directly limiting how "free" a person's speech really is. (ie. Say what you want about whatever candidate you like - until you spend more than X amount saying it, then you'd better shut up or we'll throw you in jail)
For a good article on campaign finance reform, check here.
Agree But we have to remember how fast the tech idustry moves, especially when it comes to cell phones. Now it is no question at all that American companies are pathetically lagging behind in this area (especially when my new nextel phone advertises WAP browsing, 2way text messaging, and java apps as "new"(to you) technology) But I don't think it unlikely that good ol' American business can't take charge.
I agree on your last comment though - protectionism would help American companies initially but hurt them in the longrun. Just like breaking up Microsoft would help the tech industry initially, but in the long-run be bad for everyone.
1) What are the specific crimes you were convicted of that stacked up to 33 months in jail?
2) What other crimes have you been convicted of in the past? (aka Are warez offenders common criminals who commit all sorts of crimes?)
3) Given the sentence you are about to face, do you see yourself getting envolved with warez again in the future?
4) What moved you to help others steal software? Did you receive any benefit for your actions?
Re:Guardian Interview with Christopher Reeve
on
Politicizing Science
·
· Score: 1, Flamebait
Interesting - whatever you believe about stem cells, the subject seems to often bring up the subject of the "separation of church and state." It is interesting, given that the founders of our country picked no bones about having no such separation. In fact, the Declaration of Independence talks about the "Laws of Nature and of Nature's God" and of the need for its direct influence on manmade government.
Truth is, it is impossible to separate Church and State because the rock that our moral code is built upon comes from God. And a people's belief in and worship of God directly effects how they want to be governed.
I don't think that the argument that "they're just not separating church and state" stands on anything. The government does not dictate the church but the church certainly has everything to do with the creation of our government. Like it or not that's the way it is. Our currency carries our motto, "In God we Trust!" Our pledge states that we are a nation indivisible "under God" It is inseparable from the fabric of our nation and those that would support a separation would do better to leave the country than to try and change it. Sure, the pendulum has swung back and forth over the decades on this matter, but its not going to swing too much further left OR right than it already has.
This argument is especially stupid, when given the fact that stem cells can be derived and obtained from adult donors. It doesn't make sense to not obtain stem cells in this manner just because the medical industry can make a trillion more with better margins when they cannibalize our unborn children.
If we're going to debate this, lets at least cut through the smokescreen that's been out there and get to the real matter. The debate isn't whether or not we have the right to outlaw stem cells on a moral basis. After all, we outlawed murder on a moral basis and kidnapping, and sex offenses. The real question is: Is it moral and upright to take a growing child and pervert them in a way that doesn't allow them to live a normal life or not? And God's law says it isn't.
Is this stupid or what? Do we have to pass laws that people cannot fart or pick their teeth in public as well? This is just a common courtesy thing. If you're so important you can't possibly turn your phone off, then at least put the darn thing on vibrate. But do we really need legislation here? I don't think so. I go to meetings all the time and we used to get interrupted quite frequently by cell phones, until the glares that one got when receiving a call during a meeting got worse and worse. Now the worst case is someone getting vibrated then excusing themselves politly. If this has already happened in the business world, where cell phones have been the longes, then I think it is only a matter of time before we start to see cell phone ettiquite being practiced elsewhere.
Just some food for thought. Man, there were a lot of mis-spellings in that post...
Didn't they learn anything from the Sony's mistake? You can spend millions, but someone will always be able to defeat the technology. Ah, well, I guess they have to do something to protect their assets...
Re:Moving production to Asia?
on
IBM Spins Down
·
· Score: 2
You seem to have a lack of common sense and general logic in your post. But I can help you out with that:) Let me just respond to some of your comments here:
That would explain why the working man has less money than say Bill Gates. You don't earn wealth, you ride others to it. The hardest working people in America (assembly line workers) make the least (minimum wage).
You're not taking one thing into consideration. In order to make money you not only need to work hard, but also you need to work smart. Although an assembly line worker may work hard where you come from, they don't work very smart(ly). Now they don't have to have a high level of eduction, they just have to use their heads and provide a product or service that will get them income to give them the lifestyle that they want.
The system is the way it is to try to lessen the hurt of capitalism.
There are two ways that people are motivated. There is positive motivation and there is negative motivation. What you are describing as "the system" is a way in which the government has taken away one of the primary motivators of men. If there are no consequences to being lazy then we would all be lazy. By "lessening the hurt" of capitalism you are lessening the consequences of being lazy and that is the primary reason that socialist/communist countries can't perform at the level we can.
The system is the way it is to try to lessen the hurt of capitalism. Capitalism isn't about giving money to those who come up with ideas, it's about who promotes their product better. Bill Gates didn't come up with anything original on his part. He ripped off someone else and remarketed it. The idea of capitalism is much better than the reality. The man who made DOS wasn't really rewarded for his efforts.
In the case of Bill Gates and DOS - the inventor of DOS was given the full amount he thought he was worth. Bill Gates, who had more vision, was able to make more with the product. Both Bill Gates and the origional inventor of DOS were happy. The DOS programmer was happy because he made some money off of one of his programs? (he was happy because he obviously thought selling the program was worth the money he was receiving for it) and Bill Gates was happy to use DOS to create a small empire for himself. All men are created equal with the right to be unequal. If I want more I can have more - if you'll settle for less you'll get less. Take McDonnalds - McDonalds is named after the McDonald brothers, but Ray Crock is the gazillionair with the vision because he bought the franchise rights from the McD brothers and created one of the largest businesses in the world. The McDonald brothers would have liked to have the end result that Ray Crock has created but they weren't willing to do the work. They were very happy to sell the rights to ray for 1 million dollars and keep their business. They probably though he was crazy. But the McD brothers never would have made McDonalds into what it is today - they would have continued to put them in front of factories and nowhere else. Ray Crock had the vision that people would eventually eat out as much as they eat in their homes. Again, the McD's where happy with their reward for creating McDonnalds because they didn't have the vision of what it could be. And I'm sure if you ask Ray's family they are happy with their reward.
Usually, some company squeezes the invovation out of it's employees for only 1% of what the product is worth. Look through the BS and find that wealth is inherited or stole, rarely earned. No man is that much greater than another!
In the case of a company who employs someone to invent something and retains the rights they often provide the employee with resources he would never be able to provide himself and therefore he may never have been able to do what he did. Besides he is perfectly happy with the job when he agrees to do it (in America we don't often have people forced into slavery any more - although having a job is close to being a slave) Often the man doesn't believe that he will invent something great - or if he does he doesn't think he'll be able to market it. But he makes the agreement with the company - he isn't forced into anything.
How many times do I have to say this? Could you read the rest of the replies to my post and my replies to them before posting and starting a conversation that has already been had?
I'm not defending Verisign - I'm just saying that bitching about Verisign on/. will have no effect. Bitching TO Verisign with have slightly more effect but still not much.
Look at the FACTS:
1)the government has passed laws requiring companies to have the ability to wire tap
2)a deadline for having technology in place to do this is approaching
3)there is a legit need for a vendor for this sort of thing as companies MUST comply with federal law
4)Verisign is trying to fill the role of the vendor - if they don't, somebody else will or worse the government will
The effective way to make a difference here is to change the law that is causing you grief in the first place.
I'm a strong advocate of actually having a voice in government rather than bitching and complaining to everyone around you that your world sucks.
Re:Moving production to Asia?
on
IBM Spins Down
·
· Score: 2
Technology and Industrialization are direct results of a basic capitalist system. While communism and socialism stifle innovation and development by distributing the rewards that the innovative individual or organization would receive in a capitalist system among the people who have done nothing to contribute to the increase in wealth. That is why our system has outshined the rest of the world. That is why Russia couldn't win the arms race. Reagan did the best thing - we didn't need to beat them with bombs - just with capitalism. They were starving their people to build tanks and there was no incentive for their people to be passionate about their work. The laws of nature never change - even human nature does not, as civilized as we become it doesn't change. Rather than suggesting that we can outlaw sin or greed we need to accept the way things are and the best system to deal with that.
I didn't say it was OK because they make money - I said that putting them up on/. and griping isn't going to change anything, that's all...
Re:Moving production to Asia?
on
IBM Spins Down
·
· Score: 2
I would generally agree with that - although I do think that child labor and safety laws have gotten out of hand, especially considering recent changes in the economy. For example, child labor laws are a necessity in a manufacturing society if you want kids to grow up to be adults some day and not die in a coal mine. But in an information age, its just preventing them from earning extra cash. Enviornmental laws are definatly a necessity, as the consequences for polution are in some cases not even realized by the same generation, but I think we could do better with those - I love licensing models for polution - the more you polute the more you are taxed - the bottom line is always a great incentive for business.
Let's not give Verisign a hard time - they're just trying to make a buck by filling a need that is currently out there. If you really have a problem with this, you should focus on the politics that allow wire tapping in the first place and then consider taking an active role in government by contacting your Senator or Representative.
Re:Moving production to Asia?
on
IBM Spins Down
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
and take some away for his lack of personal experience on the issue, see how he feels about being "freed up" to pursue other employment avenues in 20 years time.
Hey, now, don't get me wrong - nobody likes to be laid off. The reason I can deal with it is because I understand the economics of it all - the economy is a delicate thing. Anything man has ever done to hinder the invisible hand of the free market has always backfired. I'd rather be out of a job for a few months in a prosperous country than to have a stable secure job working for the government in a country of distributed poverty. If you give me a hand-out when I'm laid off and make it easier on me, you stifle my innovation and rob the world of the ideas I would think up when it's sink or swim and I've got to swim if I want to feed my kids. One man's temporary discomfort is better to have than the wasted dreams of a nation living well below its potential because it chooses to distribute the weath of those who have earned it to those who have not.
Re:Moving production to Asia?
on
IBM Spins Down
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
What will stop Hitachi from firing everyone after three years and moving production to cheaper Asia?
Nothing. But that's not a bad thing. All that will happen is 24,000 or so people will be freed up to do something else in our economy. A company like this sounds like it belongs in Asia anyway - America isn't known for cheap duplication of already wide-spread technology. We're more well known for our R&D efforts contributing to the latest in technology. So, I wouldn't worry too much about it - with the speed that our economy is changing, we won't even notice the flux of 24,000 jobs.
The way the article describes the system it makes these devices out to be a lot like an "internet-device" style napster clone. Wonder if this ruling will have any effect precedent-wise for these type of companies in the future...
The main proponents of the law are pro-business groups seeking to tie up environmental and similar regulations by challenging the government's data.
Great. Its about time we get the ability to challenge many of the governments poorly done studies. Especially for businesses, as they often are forced to spend needless money due to regulations based on half-baked theories, such as global warming.
I'd have to disagree. These four companies, esp. Caldera and Suse have all made major contributions to the linux community, I think that their combined efforts do well to rival redhat's. Not to mention the endorsements on the right side of the homepage. With IBM and HP both favoring UnitedLinux, who does that leave to distribute RedHat? We alreadyknow that Dell isn't going to help them out.
Its good to see people taking rational and responsible steps towards solutions for such obvious problems in today's society. It is all to often these days that people jump to action not considering the side effects of their actions. I just think this is a great example of how to 'respond' to a situation, rather than react to one.
Slashdot Mirror
I like the table at the bottom of the article best.
Installation - last year @ 30 minutes versus today @ 5 minutes. I think it was closer to five minutes last year that that, but it is getting harder to remember the days of 45 minute installs. Look at how far we've come!
You're missing my point. This isn't about wether innovations are possible. This is about whether *big* innovations are possible; innovations that will convince the masses of IE users to switch. MS won by being "good enough". Now we have to make something *significantly* better in order to gain a big market share. But can we make something significantly better? What big innovations are possible in a mature product?
No, you're missing my point. Some of us remember a time when Mosaic was all there was (I don't, but that's not the point) Then it was Netscape, and now IE...
I find the following truths to be self-evident when it comes to the development of software, and the market share of the companies that do the developing:
The best technology does win. Even in the most famous case of Beta Max versus VHS this is true - vhs was cheaper, when you're trying to convince people they need something in their home that they've never even heard of before - cheaper is better regaurdless of what technological advantages the more expensive product may demonstrate. Right now the benefits of not having to install a web browser and having it integrated into the operating system seem to be the public's choice. I don't care about standards - when you're the biggest software company on the planet your opinion has a little more weight and IMHO - Microsoft has earned the right to set the standards (and they do, like it or not, with each subsequent release of IE & Frontpage, IIS, etc.) With power comes responsibility - in the end the industry speaks and if Microsoft is doing something stupid they'll find that most sites quit working with IE and they are the ones forced to change.
They key thing here is to believe in the market's ability to reward the best design. If we leave it at that then Microsoft can't be on top forever, eventually they will get comfortable and projects like the one we're talking about now will overtake Microsoft's market share. But if we encourage projects like this to just give up because there is nothing to improve, or encourage the government to get envolved and create yet another industry that nobody wants to touch for all the regulation - then we will secure a monopoly - be it Microsoft or some other company hand-picked by the government to "encourage competition" with Microsoft.
The innovation lies in making the engine that turns markup language into a layout on your screen faster and less buggy, resulting in a better web experience.
By the way, there is always room for innovation in every aspect of everything. There was a time when Columbus must have said, What is there "innovations" can you put in English ships. They are the best in the land"
Of course the innovative thing isn't immediatly obvious - if it was it wouldn't be called innovation would it?
...by default an application will always run against the component that it was built and tested against. Administrators will be able to override these rules for exceptional cases.
Not, really. The text above is from the article. I know I have to tell you that because you don't know how to click a friggin link and read a goddamn fucking article. But now I've sumarized it for ya.
k?
Good... glad to help, fucknut.
Another feature of Windows Server 2003 will be that .Net components will have no registration policy. "This means it will be easy to take a .Net component on server and copy to another server," he said. Microsoft is calling the feature xcopy deploy, after a command used in DOS to copy capability files, directories and even whole drives from one destination to another. "It is good for scaling out--it means you can copy applications instead of reinstalling them," said Salmre. "The whole process becomes much simpler."
Microsoft making it easier to "xcopy" an application from one server to the next in spite of obvious invitation for piracy. Could this be the answer to our prayers??! Is Microsoft really coming around?
No...
No, it can't be. Don't trust them, we mustn't trust...
We must NEVER trust Microsoft!
Can't you see?! You fools!!! We've all been tricked!!! It's a trap of the evil empire, I tell you - turn back while you still can!
Look to Linux for your salvation not some Microshaft technobizzle. Don't let them brainwash you - we've heard it all before, "Yup, should be reeaall stable this time.." We must not believe their lies!!!! Don't let them strong bind YOU.
States already tax the internet and all interstate commerce. It is called use tax and in most states it is the same as your sales tax. You are required to self-report all purchases each year with your personal state income taxes. I don't really know what states w/o income tax do.
That's funny - it seems to me I always hear about how we need campaign finance reform to stop evil corporate interests from electing evil Republicans to pass evil laws that favor *gasp* business.
The numbers here show 60% of all money reported on the website for this election cycle went to Democrats. This is odd, as the author of the page seems to favor Democrats (this is not 100% factual - I'm basing that on the fact that most big Democrat contributions are explained by some sort of "fear" of what the Bush administration will do to hard working Americans while most big Republican contributors are written off as "corporate interests")
It would seem that the idea of this page was to encourage campaign finance reform. For a look at what "reform" really means check this out (same source) This is the effect of "reform." The disproportional amount of money going to the Democrat party can be explained by finance reform focusing mostly on corporate donors while ignoring the big labor unions which, as you can see, donate as much money as any corporation.
This supports the idea that Congress should NOT try to regulate the amount of money spent on getting a message out about a particular candidate, as this is directly limiting how "free" a person's speech really is. (ie. Say what you want about whatever candidate you like - until you spend more than X amount saying it, then you'd better shut up or we'll throw you in jail)
For a good article on campaign finance reform, check here.
Agree
But we have to remember how fast the tech idustry moves, especially when it comes to cell phones. Now it is no question at all that American companies are pathetically lagging behind in this area (especially when my new nextel phone advertises WAP browsing, 2way text messaging, and java apps as "new"(to you) technology) But I don't think it unlikely that good ol' American business can't take charge.
I agree on your last comment though - protectionism would help American companies initially but hurt them in the longrun. Just like breaking up Microsoft would help the tech industry initially, but in the long-run be bad for everyone.
I still don't get this. It's like combining a nose hair trimmer with a toothbrush - sure you could combine those, but why would anyone want to?
1) What are the specific crimes you were convicted of that stacked up to 33 months in jail?
2) What other crimes have you been convicted of in the past? (aka Are warez offenders common criminals who commit all sorts of crimes?)
3) Given the sentence you are about to face, do you see yourself getting envolved with warez again in the future?
4) What moved you to help others steal software? Did you receive any benefit for your actions?
Interesting - whatever you believe about stem cells, the subject seems to often bring up the subject of the "separation of church and state." It is interesting, given that the founders of our country picked no bones about having no such separation. In fact, the Declaration of Independence talks about the "Laws of Nature and of Nature's God" and of the need for its direct influence on manmade government. Truth is, it is impossible to separate Church and State because the rock that our moral code is built upon comes from God. And a people's belief in and worship of God directly effects how they want to be governed. I don't think that the argument that "they're just not separating church and state" stands on anything. The government does not dictate the church but the church certainly has everything to do with the creation of our government. Like it or not that's the way it is. Our currency carries our motto, "In God we Trust!" Our pledge states that we are a nation indivisible "under God" It is inseparable from the fabric of our nation and those that would support a separation would do better to leave the country than to try and change it. Sure, the pendulum has swung back and forth over the decades on this matter, but its not going to swing too much further left OR right than it already has. This argument is especially stupid, when given the fact that stem cells can be derived and obtained from adult donors. It doesn't make sense to not obtain stem cells in this manner just because the medical industry can make a trillion more with better margins when they cannibalize our unborn children. If we're going to debate this, lets at least cut through the smokescreen that's been out there and get to the real matter. The debate isn't whether or not we have the right to outlaw stem cells on a moral basis. After all, we outlawed murder on a moral basis and kidnapping, and sex offenses. The real question is: Is it moral and upright to take a growing child and pervert them in a way that doesn't allow them to live a normal life or not? And God's law says it isn't.
Is this stupid or what? Do we have to pass laws that people cannot fart or pick their teeth in public as well? This is just a common courtesy thing. If you're so important you can't possibly turn your phone off, then at least put the darn thing on vibrate. But do we really need legislation here? I don't think so. I go to meetings all the time and we used to get interrupted quite frequently by cell phones, until the glares that one got when receiving a call during a meeting got worse and worse. Now the worst case is someone getting vibrated then excusing themselves politly. If this has already happened in the business world, where cell phones have been the longes, then I think it is only a matter of time before we start to see cell phone ettiquite being practiced elsewhere.
Just some food for thought. Man, there were a lot of mis-spellings in that post...
Didn't they learn anything from the Sony's mistake? You can spend millions, but someone will always be able to defeat the technology. Ah, well, I guess they have to do something to protect their assets...
You seem to have a lack of common sense and general logic in your post. But I can help you out with that :) Let me just respond to some of your comments here:
That would explain why the working man has less money than say Bill Gates. You don't earn wealth, you ride others to it. The hardest working people in America (assembly line workers) make the least (minimum wage).
You're not taking one thing into consideration. In order to make money you not only need to work hard, but also you need to work smart. Although an assembly line worker may work hard where you come from, they don't work very smart(ly). Now they don't have to have a high level of eduction, they just have to use their heads and provide a product or service that will get them income to give them the lifestyle that they want.
The system is the way it is to try to lessen the hurt of capitalism.
There are two ways that people are motivated. There is positive motivation and there is negative motivation. What you are describing as "the system" is a way in which the government has taken away one of the primary motivators of men. If there are no consequences to being lazy then we would all be lazy. By "lessening the hurt" of capitalism you are lessening the consequences of being lazy and that is the primary reason that socialist/communist countries can't perform at the level we can.
The system is the way it is to try to lessen the hurt of capitalism. Capitalism isn't about giving money to those who come up with ideas, it's about who promotes their product better. Bill Gates didn't come up with anything original on his part. He ripped off someone else and remarketed it. The idea of capitalism is much better than the reality. The man who made DOS wasn't really rewarded for his efforts.
In the case of Bill Gates and DOS - the inventor of DOS was given the full amount he thought he was worth. Bill Gates, who had more vision, was able to make more with the product. Both Bill Gates and the origional inventor of DOS were happy. The DOS programmer was happy because he made some money off of one of his programs? (he was happy because he obviously thought selling the program was worth the money he was receiving for it) and Bill Gates was happy to use DOS to create a small empire for himself. All men are created equal with the right to be unequal. If I want more I can have more - if you'll settle for less you'll get less. Take McDonnalds - McDonalds is named after the McDonald brothers, but Ray Crock is the gazillionair with the vision because he bought the franchise rights from the McD brothers and created one of the largest businesses in the world. The McDonald brothers would have liked to have the end result that Ray Crock has created but they weren't willing to do the work. They were very happy to sell the rights to ray for 1 million dollars and keep their business. They probably though he was crazy. But the McD brothers never would have made McDonalds into what it is today - they would have continued to put them in front of factories and nowhere else. Ray Crock had the vision that people would eventually eat out as much as they eat in their homes. Again, the McD's where happy with their reward for creating McDonnalds because they didn't have the vision of what it could be. And I'm sure if you ask Ray's family they are happy with their reward.
Usually, some company squeezes the invovation out of it's employees for only 1% of what the product is worth. Look through the BS and find that wealth is inherited or stole, rarely earned. No man is that much greater than another!
In the case of a company who employs someone to invent something and retains the rights they often provide the employee with resources he would never be able to provide himself and therefore he may never have been able to do what he did. Besides he is perfectly happy with the job when he agrees to do it (in America we don't often have people forced into slavery any more - although having a job is close to being a slave) Often the man doesn't believe that he will invent something great - or if he does he doesn't think he'll be able to market it. But he makes the agreement with the company - he isn't forced into anything.
Just some things to think about.
How many times do I have to say this? Could you read the rest of the replies to my post and my replies to them before posting and starting a conversation that has already been had? I'm not defending Verisign - I'm just saying that bitching about Verisign on /. will have no effect. Bitching TO Verisign with have slightly more effect but still not much.
Look at the FACTS:
1)the government has passed laws requiring companies to have the ability to wire tap
2)a deadline for having technology in place to do this is approaching
3)there is a legit need for a vendor for this sort of thing as companies MUST comply with federal law
4)Verisign is trying to fill the role of the vendor - if they don't, somebody else will or worse the government will
The effective way to make a difference here is to change the law that is causing you grief in the first place.
I'm a strong advocate of actually having a voice in government rather than bitching and complaining to everyone around you that your world sucks.
Technology and Industrialization are direct results of a basic capitalist system. While communism and socialism stifle innovation and development by distributing the rewards that the innovative individual or organization would receive in a capitalist system among the people who have done nothing to contribute to the increase in wealth. That is why our system has outshined the rest of the world. That is why Russia couldn't win the arms race. Reagan did the best thing - we didn't need to beat them with bombs - just with capitalism. They were starving their people to build tanks and there was no incentive for their people to be passionate about their work. The laws of nature never change - even human nature does not, as civilized as we become it doesn't change. Rather than suggesting that we can outlaw sin or greed we need to accept the way things are and the best system to deal with that.
I didn't say it was OK because they make money - I said that putting them up on /. and griping isn't going to change anything, that's all...
I would generally agree with that - although I do think that child labor and safety laws have gotten out of hand, especially considering recent changes in the economy. For example, child labor laws are a necessity in a manufacturing society if you want kids to grow up to be adults some day and not die in a coal mine. But in an information age, its just preventing them from earning extra cash. Enviornmental laws are definatly a necessity, as the consequences for polution are in some cases not even realized by the same generation, but I think we could do better with those - I love licensing models for polution - the more you polute the more you are taxed - the bottom line is always a great incentive for business.
Let's not give Verisign a hard time - they're just trying to make a buck by filling a need that is currently out there. If you really have a problem with this, you should focus on the politics that allow wire tapping in the first place and then consider taking an active role in government by contacting your Senator or Representative.
and take some away for his lack of personal experience on the issue, see how he feels about being "freed up" to pursue other employment avenues in 20 years time.
Hey, now, don't get me wrong - nobody likes to be laid off. The reason I can deal with it is because I understand the economics of it all - the economy is a delicate thing. Anything man has ever done to hinder the invisible hand of the free market has always backfired. I'd rather be out of a job for a few months in a prosperous country than to have a stable secure job working for the government in a country of distributed poverty. If you give me a hand-out when I'm laid off and make it easier on me, you stifle my innovation and rob the world of the ideas I would think up when it's sink or swim and I've got to swim if I want to feed my kids. One man's temporary discomfort is better to have than the wasted dreams of a nation living well below its potential because it chooses to distribute the weath of those who have earned it to those who have not.
What will stop Hitachi from firing everyone after three years and moving production to cheaper Asia?
Nothing. But that's not a bad thing. All that will happen is 24,000 or so people will be freed up to do something else in our economy. A company like this sounds like it belongs in Asia anyway - America isn't known for cheap duplication of already wide-spread technology. We're more well known for our R&D efforts contributing to the latest in technology. So, I wouldn't worry too much about it - with the speed that our economy is changing, we won't even notice the flux of 24,000 jobs.
The way the article describes the system it makes these devices out to be a lot like an "internet-device" style napster clone. Wonder if this ruling will have any effect precedent-wise for these type of companies in the future...
The main proponents of the law are pro-business groups seeking to tie up environmental and similar regulations by challenging the government's data.
Great. Its about time we get the ability to challenge many of the governments poorly done studies. Especially for businesses, as they often are forced to spend needless money due to regulations based on half-baked theories, such as global warming.
I'd have to disagree. These four companies, esp. Caldera and Suse have all made major contributions to the linux community, I think that their combined efforts do well to rival redhat's. Not to mention the endorsements on the right side of the homepage. With IBM and HP both favoring UnitedLinux, who does that leave to distribute RedHat? We already know that Dell isn't going to help them out.
Its good to see people taking rational and responsible steps towards solutions for such obvious problems in today's society. It is all to often these days that people jump to action not considering the side effects of their actions. I just think this is a great example of how to 'respond' to a situation, rather than react to one.