Not so much hate it as see it as a portent - after all, it'd be crazy to imagine that they weren't offering Dell a fairly substantial monetary incentive to go Vista-only, which presumably has just landed back in their laps with a "thanks, but we don't need it". If Dell is already doing well enough from selling hardware, how long before the company eschews its "special relationship" altogether and starts talking seriously to Ubuntu and Red Hat?
Don't be - you can't tell. All we know is that he thinks the law about it is a waste of court resources. Indeed, chances are that a lot of judges feel this way, and are none too enamoured of the people who keep bringing these cases in the first place... and when Mr Haselton publicly castigates a judge who found in his favour for "making a mistake", whilst not only being forced to admit that he hadn't read the reference on which the judge based his decision but displaying no evidence of having read it since, let alone a convincing refutation - they might reasonably conclude that he doesn't have the kind of respect for the judicial system that would endear it to him in return. An opinion that would be somewhat strengthened by this kind of stunt, it must be said.
He's probably cooked his goose now, and possibly the goose of anyone else with a similar grievance; but anyone wishing to follow in Mr Haselton's footsteps might have more success if they displayed more tact towards the custodians of a system they'd like to be well-disposed to them. After all, if someone asked you to settle an issue and started their request with "I know you're a lazy incompetent asshat who won't give me a fair hearing, but...", would you want to find in their favour if you could possibly avoid it, no matter how strong their case or just their cause?
"I don't get your statement. I get up in the morning, feed my child, take a shower, go to work, go home, do my wife, go to bed. The same as I did before the government took away all my rights."
And are you going to wait until the government takes away your right to work before deciding it did affect you after all? Or your wife's rights to own property? Or your right to have another child?...Or your family?
Which would be a perfectly good analogy if they weren't releasing it for the Mac - but the situation here is more that McDonald's have promised to develop a new sauce recipe that they will not only use in their own burgers, but will also keep Burger King supplied with indefinitely for free; but requests for donations from the local soup kitchen have been met with the response: "Piss off, you hippies! If homeless people want to eat, they should get jobs and buy Big Macs."
Anything starting with the words "scrap it and start again" has Second System Syndrome written all over it - the more widespread (and especially decentralised) the first system, the more likely any such project is to be doomed to failure well before it comes within sniffing distance of usefulness.
Which is not to say that it couldn't be forced into success - but pretty much the only means would be if the legislatures du jour could be prevailed upon to legislate such a system into monopoly status, which would involve banning not only the existing ad-hoc, wildly inefficient collection of networks, systems and protocols that together constitute "the internet", but also all existing networking hardware (which otherwise might allow the widespread creation and adoption of eg. p2p mesh nets as an alternative). Government initiatives which force people to go out and replace stuff that already works perfectly well have never exactly been successful or well-received, for some reason.
Right. A does something stupid. B reports it, starting a chain of events that gets him fired.
Who do you attack? C, who doesn't actually appear to be connected to anything....Gotta say, I think you just disqualified yourself from passing comment on idiocy.
There's a much more egregious issue with considering corporations as people.
The thing is, people cannot be enslaved. I believe there was even a war about it. All people are free agents, able to determine their own fates and work towards their own ends, unless they are either incapable of making those judgements (insane or children) or have demonstrated an inability to make the right choices (criminals).
However, corporations are not free agents, and have no such right of self-determination; they are owned by their shareholders, and legally required to work for the benefit of their owners. As defined by those owners. All other duties - to obey the laws of the land, to act in a responsible manner, even to ensure the long-term survival of the business - are irrelevant if the shareholders decide it's not in their interests.
What is particularly ironic about this is that the piece of legislation used to define them as individuals was introduced as an anti-slavery measure. Perhaps the same legal doctrine could be used one day to bring an end to the doctrine of corporate purpose, on the grounds that it is merely another form of slavery?
Yeah. That campaign's going to succeed. I can really see the public rallying round someone openly condemning fairness. Maybe he should have called it "letmecheat.com" and really cleaned up...
(In related news, today I discovered that the phrase "too stupid to use a computer" no longer has any value. Thanks, Xerox.)
"I actually had a 20 year old burst into tears about two years ago because I chewed him out for drilling through the work bench."
You might just have stumbled across a sensitive 20 year old. I'm 32 and I'd still burst into tears today if someone yelled at me - even if I thought they had a point, the shame, frustration, and the knowledge that you've fucked up can be overwhelming. (Of course, humiliation isn't acceptable workplace behaviour under any circumstances, so I'm assuming such a chewing out would happen in private.)
The rest of your statement may or may not be justified (although the same thing happens to debate quality anywhere the number of participants is constantly growing - it's happened on reddit and USEnet, and every web forum I've ever seen - and I don't think it's unique to the age). But either that little anecdote doesn't support "entitlement culture" the way you think it does, or there's a fair bit more to the story you're leaving out. (Or you're just a bully. I hope it's not that.)
Am I the only person wondering what happened to the concept of experimental feedback here? Given that the point at issue is whether or not human activity has substantially contributed to global warming, would it not be a good idea to embark on a global experiment - to temporarily tone down those activities and see what happens? Then, at least, the question can be discussed with some meaningful data - and if, after a few years of reduced emissions, global warming ploughs on just as much as ever, we can all go back to burning as much oil as we can find; whereas if global warming shows sudden signs of slowing down or backing off, then we'll know to be a bit more careful in future.
Also, whilst I know next to nothing about the science involved, the complaints against such a course of action seem to me to be primarily voiced by the fuel companies and the NIMBY contingent, and voiced in shrill, over-emotive tones - indeed, it reminds me of nothing so much as the tobacco companies' insistence that smoking, whether active or passive, isn't (that) harmful. Needless to say, that presents an immediate credibility issue - at least for me.
True, but then by British standards even British politics has become right v right; I never thought I'd see the day when a Labour Home Secretary would make Michael Howard look like a bastion of liberalism, for instance. Anything more liberal or libertarian has pretty much disappeared from view; the remaining arguments are merely tribal sparrings, where identity (as Labour or Tory) is argued about more ferociously than anything else because it's all that's left to argue about.
You appear to be confusing "open discussion isn't valued" with "people who don't properly back up their points get ripped a new one". If open discussion were truly not allowed, you wouldn't see any flames or disagreements anywhere; people tearing each other to shreds is actually the sign of a community which encourages open discussion, not the reverse. Your characterisation makes about as much sense as claiming that America is a society which doesn't welcome open discussion about politics because of the attitudes exhibited by commenters on LGF and the Daily Kos.
Slashdot Mirror
Not so much hate it as see it as a portent - after all, it'd be crazy to imagine that they weren't offering Dell a fairly substantial monetary incentive to go Vista-only, which presumably has just landed back in their laps with a "thanks, but we don't need it". If Dell is already doing well enough from selling hardware, how long before the company eschews its "special relationship" altogether and starts talking seriously to Ubuntu and Red Hat?
Don't be - you can't tell. All we know is that he thinks the law about it is a waste of court resources. Indeed, chances are that a lot of judges feel this way, and are none too enamoured of the people who keep bringing these cases in the first place... and when Mr Haselton publicly castigates a judge who found in his favour for "making a mistake", whilst not only being forced to admit that he hadn't read the reference on which the judge based his decision but displaying no evidence of having read it since, let alone a convincing refutation - they might reasonably conclude that he doesn't have the kind of respect for the judicial system that would endear it to him in return. An opinion that would be somewhat strengthened by this kind of stunt, it must be said.
He's probably cooked his goose now, and possibly the goose of anyone else with a similar grievance; but anyone wishing to follow in Mr Haselton's footsteps might have more success if they displayed more tact towards the custodians of a system they'd like to be well-disposed to them. After all, if someone asked you to settle an issue and started their request with "I know you're a lazy incompetent asshat who won't give me a fair hearing, but...", would you want to find in their favour if you could possibly avoid it, no matter how strong their case or just their cause?
"I don't get your statement. I get up in the morning, feed my child, take a shower, go to work, go home, do my wife, go to bed. The same as I did before the government took away all my rights."
...Or your family?
And are you going to wait until the government takes away your right to work before deciding it did affect you after all? Or your wife's rights to own property? Or your right to have another child?
Which would be a perfectly good analogy if they weren't releasing it for the Mac - but the situation here is more that McDonald's have promised to develop a new sauce recipe that they will not only use in their own burgers, but will also keep Burger King supplied with indefinitely for free; but requests for donations from the local soup kitchen have been met with the response: "Piss off, you hippies! If homeless people want to eat, they should get jobs and buy Big Macs."
But contributors HAVE "written the software they want". Free software equivalents exist for pretty much all commercial purposes.
And just as soon as YouTube offers videos in Ogg Theora format, we'll be able to use it too.
And you're lucky if you get sympathy. Much more likely that you'll be regarded as anything from a madman to a terrorist.
> And why isn't Granpa online and Granny is?
Women live several years longer than men, on average. Chances are Granpa's dead and Granny's bored.
Anything starting with the words "scrap it and start again" has Second System Syndrome written all over it - the more widespread (and especially decentralised) the first system, the more likely any such project is to be doomed to failure well before it comes within sniffing distance of usefulness.
Which is not to say that it couldn't be forced into success - but pretty much the only means would be if the legislatures du jour could be prevailed upon to legislate such a system into monopoly status, which would involve banning not only the existing ad-hoc, wildly inefficient collection of networks, systems and protocols that together constitute "the internet", but also all existing networking hardware (which otherwise might allow the widespread creation and adoption of eg. p2p mesh nets as an alternative). Government initiatives which force people to go out and replace stuff that already works perfectly well have never exactly been successful or well-received, for some reason.
I guess that's why habeas corpus and the presumption of innocence are so unnecessary.
Right. A does something stupid. B reports it, starting a chain of events that gets him fired.
...Gotta say, I think you just disqualified yourself from passing comment on idiocy.
Who do you attack? C, who doesn't actually appear to be connected to anything.
There's a much more egregious issue with considering corporations as people.
The thing is, people cannot be enslaved. I believe there was even a war about it. All people are free agents, able to determine their own fates and work towards their own ends, unless they are either incapable of making those judgements (insane or children) or have demonstrated an inability to make the right choices (criminals).
However, corporations are not free agents, and have no such right of self-determination; they are owned by their shareholders, and legally required to work for the benefit of their owners. As defined by those owners. All other duties - to obey the laws of the land, to act in a responsible manner, even to ensure the long-term survival of the business - are irrelevant if the shareholders decide it's not in their interests.
What is particularly ironic about this is that the piece of legislation used to define them as individuals was introduced as an anti-slavery measure. Perhaps the same legal doctrine could be used one day to bring an end to the doctrine of corporate purpose, on the grounds that it is merely another form of slavery?
So by SCO's logic, don't IBM and/or Novell have a perfectly good reason to subpoena Bill Gates or Steve Ballmer?
"the developers are said to be working on a suitable general license"
So as usual, if it hasn't been fiddled with by Oxonians, it doesn't exist yet... but then they write their own dictionary too, you know.
Yes, but that list includes Nettwerk:
s ues_riaa/
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/01/27/nettwerk_
Hell, a worryingly high proportion of the readers here will never see *a* woman in real life...
Yeah. That campaign's going to succeed. I can really see the public rallying round someone openly condemning fairness. Maybe he should have called it "letmecheat.com" and really cleaned up...
(In related news, today I discovered that the phrase "too stupid to use a computer" no longer has any value. Thanks, Xerox.)
Or DEC, etching "VAX: For those who care enough to steal the very best", in Russian, on the silicon of their computers' ICs...?
Depends on the RAD tool. A traditional Forth environment would sit very nicely under such constrained conditions.
"I actually had a 20 year old burst into tears about two years ago because I chewed him out for drilling through the work bench."
You might just have stumbled across a sensitive 20 year old. I'm 32 and I'd still burst into tears today if someone yelled at me - even if I thought they had a point, the shame, frustration, and the knowledge that you've fucked up can be overwhelming. (Of course, humiliation isn't acceptable workplace behaviour under any circumstances, so I'm assuming such a chewing out would happen in private.)
The rest of your statement may or may not be justified (although the same thing happens to debate quality anywhere the number of participants is constantly growing - it's happened on reddit and USEnet, and every web forum I've ever seen - and I don't think it's unique to the age). But either that little anecdote doesn't support "entitlement culture" the way you think it does, or there's a fair bit more to the story you're leaving out. (Or you're just a bully. I hope it's not that.)
Am I the only person wondering what happened to the concept of experimental feedback here? Given that the point at issue is whether or not human activity has substantially contributed to global warming, would it not be a good idea to embark on a global experiment - to temporarily tone down those activities and see what happens? Then, at least, the question can be discussed with some meaningful data - and if, after a few years of reduced emissions, global warming ploughs on just as much as ever, we can all go back to burning as much oil as we can find; whereas if global warming shows sudden signs of slowing down or backing off, then we'll know to be a bit more careful in future.
Also, whilst I know next to nothing about the science involved, the complaints against such a course of action seem to me to be primarily voiced by the fuel companies and the NIMBY contingent, and voiced in shrill, over-emotive tones - indeed, it reminds me of nothing so much as the tobacco companies' insistence that smoking, whether active or passive, isn't (that) harmful. Needless to say, that presents an immediate credibility issue - at least for me.
True, but then by British standards even British politics has become right v right; I never thought I'd see the day when a Labour Home Secretary would make Michael Howard look like a bastion of liberalism, for instance. Anything more liberal or libertarian has pretty much disappeared from view; the remaining arguments are merely tribal sparrings, where identity (as Labour or Tory) is argued about more ferociously than anything else because it's all that's left to argue about.
What might happen before that is a bunch of people walking into selected foreign embassies and requesting political asylum.
You appear to be confusing "open discussion isn't valued" with "people who don't properly back up their points get ripped a new one". If open discussion were truly not allowed, you wouldn't see any flames or disagreements anywhere; people tearing each other to shreds is actually the sign of a community which encourages open discussion, not the reverse. Your characterisation makes about as much sense as claiming that America is a society which doesn't welcome open discussion about politics because of the attitudes exhibited by commenters on LGF and the Daily Kos.
"Windows has detected you clicked on a submit button...
Cancel or allow?"
[Yes] [No] [Abort]
"masturbation is a GATEWAY to ORAL SEX and even INTERCOURSE!"
I guess I got stuck in the turnstile...