Which one you ought to protect and support? Decide!
The decision is simple: I side with the right of an individual to make up his or her own mind on what he or she would do in any situation. I side against forcing or coercing anyone to do anything that disturbs that free will, so long as the person not being coerced or disturbed isn't trying to coerce or disturb someone else to begin with.
In your "starvation" analogy, I might give that person some food. However, if that person pissed me off in the past, or if that person was sponsoring terrorism against me and my family, or if I just felt like it, I would let that person starve and perhaps gain some small amount of amusement from it as I chowed down in plain sight of them. What goes around comes around, and you get what you deserve. It is not up to you to decide blanket morality issues for everyone else.
You also made an obviously exaggerated statement about New Line. Since that wouldn't happen, not in your lifetime at least, it's not fair to assume that its going on right now, and everyone is losing money because all pirates are hypocritical bastards that go around laughing in the face of people paying to see movies. It's simply not so, and you said it yourself.
No, it's not an "obviously exaggerated" statement about New Line, it's the logical conclusion of the whole "I can't afford it, therefore I wouldn't buy it, therefore nobody loses anything if I get it for free." You see, if some group of people decide they can't afford to pay $7 to see a movie, why should they be able to see it for free when the rest of us who can afford it must fork out $7 for the same privilege? How would you feel if you went to a car dealership where all the cars were free if you were destitute but cost $30,000 if you weren't. Is that fair to those who have to pay? The analogy is not perfect because cars are tangible and entertainment is not, but you see the point, I hope.
Your proposal sounds more like classic Marxism: "from each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs." That's all fine and dandy in theory, but it simply doesn't work in practice. Those who are paying for something that others get for free despise such arrangements and find ways to not pay for it as well. As the number of paying customers dwindles, one of two things must happen: (1) the cost per paying customer must go up as the number of paying customers goes down, or (2) the cost and/or quality of the item must go down. (2) generally results in an inferior product which only worsens the paying/non-paying situation (payers wonder why the hell they're wasting money on this tripe), and (1) just runs off more paying customers. It's a vicious cycle and it doesn't work.
Extending that line of thinking, they couldn't have supported the work anyway, even if they wanted to. So while they're losing nothing on the ticket sale (read above), the work is being depreciated because said people can't pay to see it.
You're completely dismissing the concept of earned privilege. If I work hard and earn money, I can use that money to purchase entertainment for myself, durable goods, food, whatever. If you suddenly remove the "earn" portion of that equation, the entire concept of working for a living suddenly starts to make no sense. Why should I work to afford things when I can just be destitute and have them given to me? After all, if it's good enough for entertainment, why not for everything you normally spend money for? Either the concept as you propose it is valid enough for general use or it's not. Which is it? You seem to be avoiding this issue quite stringently by indicating movies are somehow exempt from the laws of economics. Just because you cannot afford something does not mean you automatically deserve to get it for free. Sure, the MPAA shouldn't use these people as statistics to claim piracy, but on the other hand these people do not deserve the right to see the movie for free. They haven't worked for it, and they haven't earned it. Forget how many millions of dollars Lucas has in the bank, that's not what this is about. What it's about is earning the right to enjoy privileges in life. You don't get dessert unless you eat your vegetables. It's that simple.
I do have to laugh at the fact that you made no mention of my expressing and believing in what you're doing in the line right under your quote:
I'll be the first one to admit that I've pirated things the past. When I was in college, I snagged a pirate copy of 3D Studio for DOS and took it home to play with it. Over time I taught myself the program, and I eventually used it in a paying job for someone. I promptly took the paycheck and used it to purchase a legal copy of 3D Studio. I certainly didn't have to do that; I could've saved myself $3,000 by not doing so. But my conscie
I distribute a nice song. You, for some reason, can't buy it. By giving it away to you, I'd lose nothing (you wouldn't buy it anyway), you'd gain a nice song.
If you create the song, produce it, and elect to distribute it for free, that is your right. However, there is no universal rule that says everyone must do things exactly as you do. If someone else doesn't wish for their hard work to be given away, you have no right to override their desires simply because you wouldn't do it that way.
- Yea, pirating is a problem, but like music CD's the people that pirate movies might not have the money or the means to begin with that it takes to go see the movie, or buy the music, legitimately
And this entitles them the right to view the movie for free...why?
Look, I'm not trying to start a flamewar here (lord knows that's been done plenty of times before now on this very subject), but has anyone really deeply thought about this line of reasoning? "I can't afford to buy it, but I want it anyway, so it should be OK for me to get it without paying for it."
The sheer selfishness of that attitude amazes me because anyone thinking must also think that they are the only ones doing it. After all, if everyone thought this way, nobody would pay for the movie, then guess what would happen to the supply of blockbuster movies? Lord of the Rings trilogy? Forget about it. Star Wars? Nope. Indiana Jones? Sorry. It costs money to make films. Not all of it ends up lining the pockets of media bigwigs, overly-indulgent actors, and self-important director/producers. There are thousands of people involved in making these films that aren't driving around in gold-plated Hummer's, and despite what a lot of P2P'ers think, these people do actually work for a living just like the rest of us. Except for you...yes, you out there, reading this, still living in your mom's basement. Don't you have a job yet?
Anyway, it cost New Line Cinemas about $400 million dollars to make all three Lord of the Rings movies. The film's made money hand over fist, but if everyone pirated it the day it was released, it would have lost New Line $400 million to make. Therefore, New Line wouldn't have made it. Therefore, we'd have nothing to pirate anymore, and all of us would've been deprived of one of the greatest movie trilogies ever made. It's the whole "killed the goose that laid the golden egg" syndrome you heard about as a kid.
I'll be the first one to admit the MPAA has its head up its ass when it comes to movie distribution. I'd gladly pay $10 or more to be able to download a pristine, DVD-quality copy to my PC for a one-time viewing, which is essentially the same as if I were at the theater. I'm download RotS right now, though, because I despise standing in lines and dealing with overcrowded theaters and noisy, obnoxious kids. When the crowds die down, I will go see it. And when the DVD comes out I'll buy it. But the MPAA is stubbornly ignoring a very large potential market: those of us who want to legally download flicks but are not given any option to do so.
To get back to the point, though, the old "I can't afford it" argument is perhaps the most hypocritical one. It's also the most common one. Nobody ever said life was fair, and it's certainly not free. People have worked hard to produce these movies, and your slacker ass does not have any legitimate right saying you are deserving of the benefits of someone else's work for free. It doesn't matter whether or not you're "depriving" anyone else of their ability to view the movie because time and effort are not tangible. They are, however, valuable. And if you want something valuable, you must pay for it. Anything else is just dismissing someone else's hard work. If you've ever done any hard work in your life, I'm quite sure you wouldn't appreciate someone doing the same to you./rant
I am pretty sure many Americans agree that there are much better uses for their tax dollars than developing some scifi-weapons for which there doesn't seem to be any realistic use in the foreseable future.
I am pretty sure many Americans really don't care to have Finnish citizens determining the best interests of this nation. Or any other nation for that matter. As for whether there will be any realistic use for them in the forseeable future, I'd rather have the weapons and not need them, as opposed to needing them and not having them.
This isn't only about foreign politics, it's also about domestic politics. USA will pretty soon be bankcrupt, if it doesn't cut the spendings.
Contrary to popular belief (or is it wishful thinking?) we are not about to go bankrupt. In fact, the U.S. economy is growing faster and stronger than any other major developed nation on the planet at this time. That includes Finland, by the way. Germany and France, the two economic powerhouses of the Continent, have double-digit unemployement and a staggering amount of debt in social programs. I'd say we're in much better shape than most.
As if the military and all of its wars don't suck enough money already...
Unlike you, the current U.S. administration is capable of learning from history. If European history tells us anything, it's that when you let your military edge crumble, your enemies are emboldened. This has been true for hundreds of years. We don't intend to be made a military laughingstock like France. Nor do we intend to become a second-rate world power dreaming of former glory like Great Britain. We're on top, and we got here by hard work, blood, and shrewd tenacity. We're going to stay here as long as we can, and if someone wants to displace us, we're not going to just roll over and play dead like Spaniards after a train bombing. The U.S. has always fought for what it feels to be right, and we're going to keep doing it whether the rest of the world "approves" or not. After all, don't presume to think you're above all of this. If your country were in our position, it'd be doing the exact same thing.
First off, Europe is not a country, its a collection of sovereign states, with very different attitudes towards different aspects of their policy.
No shit, Mr. Obvious. However, as a useful generalization, Europe (or more appropriately, "Old Europe" or "Western Europe") is opposed to any U.S. policy that strengthens the U.S. position militarily, economically, or politically. After all, we must make way for the E.U. to assume it's rightful place as the dominator of world events so then they can do all the things they're so busily condemning us for.
It is worth noting that after 9/11, the US had more support, sympathy, and respect from Europe and most other countries in the world than ever before.
And all that heartwarming outpouring of sympathy was so nice, so comforting. But when we said "this shall not stand, we're going to root out these nests of terrorists so they can't threaten us or anyone else," everyone cried out in dismay. My goodness, the American's are actually going to do something about this problem instead of just standing around and wringing their hands like the rest of us! We can't allow that! It makes us look like pathetic wimps! Whatever shall we do? Oh, I know! Let's oppose it and call the Americans arrogant and imperialist! It worked for the Soviets, maybe it'll work for the E.U.!
Face it, those who hate our current foreign policy hate it because either (a) they can't stand any act that makes America stronger or (b) they can't stand looking like effeminate wimps while someone else cleans up a mess that everyone should be cleaning up together. Sometimes it is not enough to simply talk about fixing a problem (although you'd never guess this if you spent any time at the U.N.), you have to do something about it. See Neville Chamberlain.
France is in Europe, genius, and that was one of the nations that actively helped the United States of America against the British, sending armies and weapons to assist.
Again, no shit Mr. Obvious. Of course, if you think the French were doing it out of altruism, you're dumber than you look. They helped us because it worked against British interests, and hurting the Brits helped France. Now they're doing the same thing all over again, hurting American interests to further French dominance in the E.U. It's amazingly transparent, it's too bad you're too blind to see it.
The arabs hate you, slick, because you took a large part of their land and turned it into a refuge for Israel. This was largely sponsored by the religious right in US politics who actually want to bring about the apocalypse, and that can't happen until the jews are back in zion.
Ah, so the cloak finally falls from your argument. It's all the fault of the Jews! You'd make old uncle Adolf so proud...
Most Africans (thats a continent by the way, not a country, we call it gee-ogg-raffy) couldn't care less about America. They have enough troubles of their own.
See Somalia. And again, I'm well aware of Africa's status as a continent, but it's a useful generalization to say "Africans" when you're referring to the collection of African nations. I'm sure this simple concept is alien to you since you've obviously failed to grasp it.
The Japanese hate everyone, don't feel particularily special in that.
I see. So why aren't you whining about the injustice of this? You're obviously a champion of the downtrodden and oppressed. Better get busy, you're slacking off.
Two points for you here, Einstein, invading a country and holding a country are two entirely different things, as you are slowly working out in Iraq.
Again, you win the "Stating the Most Obvious" award. Invading has always been more difficult than holding. See post-war Europy, you silly clod.
Even assuming that a country has 10 nukes capable of hitting the US, which 10 cities would you like to permanently kiss goodbye to?
In Europe, we don't hate USA. We question your foreign policy and choice of leadership, but we don't hate USA. We cheer the American attitude in Cowboy-movies, but please, understand that this attitude gets you NOWHERE in the real world.
Really? So when Reagan stood up to Communism and everybody called him a cowboy, was that wrong? Should we have stepped back and let the Soviets take over Europe? Go talk to someone from the former Eastern Bloc. It was no "worker's paradise" there. The people there seem much more inclined to appreciate freedom (and the sacrifices necessary to maintain it) than the "enlightened" folk of Western Europe.
Sometimes, I think that all the blood spilled in Normandy was a complete and total waste. We stopped jackbooted Nazi's, but we left behind a bunch of pantywaists who think things like freedom and sovereignty can be maintained without sacrifice. Oh, you and the U.N. make all kinds of noises about respecting human rights, protecting the innocent, and so forth, but you're not willing to do anything about it. If it requires an effort in excess of a non-binding U.N. resolution, just leave Old Europe out of it. They're too busy prosecuting British grocery stores who've refused to eradicate all non-metric scales from their premises. Must have a sense of proportion, you see.
It benefits all parties to have good relations with other nations. Initiating the armament of space will not promote good relations.
Why not? Is Finland planning on attacking us with space-based weapons? If so, well, we've got a plan to stop you!
Of course, if Finland isn't planning on attacking the United States, you have absolutely no reason to bitch and moan, now, do you?
Now, to get to the meat of the issue, what this is really about isn't space-based weapons. What you're really objecting to is the fact that we're taking steps to make ourselves more powerful. Funny how China is doing much the same thing but I don't hear you complaining about them.
What we do hate you for is, that when we did learn from your example and introduced proper parliamentary democracy, freedom of speach etc., you turned the tables on us and became an endlessly more arrogant colonial opressor than we ever were! That is what pisses us off.
If you'll compare the excesses and low points of the British crown over the last 400 years with our ranking as "an endlessly more arrogant colonial oppressor," I think you'll find your argument to be, at best, a gross exaggeration and, at worst, an outright fabrication. I'll refer to you to how Britain treated India in particular. Oh, and there was that little war with those thirteen colonies. Who was the arrogant, aggressive colonial oppressor back then? Hmmm, let me think, I'm sure it'll come to me sooner or later. But, in the meantime, don't let these facts get in the way of your fantasies. I'm sure you like it better that way, and certainly don't want to do anything that would make you dislike me...things like reminding you of the aforementioned inconvenient facts.
ou see, it all boils down to each individual's right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness (does any of those words ring any bells with you..?)
Indeed they do. Those words were written by brave men labelled as traitors by the British government for demanding those very things denied it by that same government, and most were eventually killed or otherwise ruined because of their stance. Remind me again who was the arrogant oppressor in this debate we're having? Remind me again who's been the champion of individual freedoms and liberty throughout the last two hundred years? I'm sure you can find instances where this nation has faltered (it has occasionally elected Democrats to positions of power, after all...), you'll be hard pressed to find any nation that has done more and given more to help others. But we will pick and choose who we want to help. That is not a crime, nor is it arrogance.
And finally, has it ever occured to you that, if everyone didn't hate you (for, more or less, well founded reasons), things like 9-11, USS Cole, ebassy bombings, etc. wouldn't happen in the first place..?
Has it ever occured to you that, if the U.S. just sat back and let world affairs run without our input, the would might (a) get in another genocidal world war just like it did last time or (b) it might develop into something we don't like. While I'm sure you have no beef with (b) coming to pass, as Americans, we do. We want what's best for America, just like the Spaniards want what's best for Spain and the British want what's best for Britain. It's called enlightened self-interest. If you think we're wrong to have such a desire, perhaps you could convince us of our wrongness by getting the rest of the nations on this planet to demonstrate their altruism first. Good luck with that one.
Oh boy did I hit a nerve. Let's dissect you one "point" at a time, shall we?
"Anyone who doesn't like the leader is just jealous." Isn't that extremely simple-minded and conceited?
Let's start by not putting words in my mouth. I can make my own arguments quite well, thank you. No need for you to fabricate lies in an attempt to make me look bad, you're doing all you can to come up with your own set of lies to defend yourself.
So when you lot were mad at Clinton, you were just jealous?
Uh, no, I was mad because he perjured himself in a court of law.
When we hated Germany and Japan during WWII, we were just jealous?
Uh, no, it had something to do with Pearl Harbor and Nazi Germany declaring war on us. I can see you're a student of public schooling, where history has been altered to make it look like America is somehow at fault for all the bad things in the world's past.
People don't *hate* us because they envy us, they *hate* us because we go around killing them.
Remind me how many Afghans and Iraqis we were busily bombing, raping, and killing when 3,000 civilians were incinerated in New York a few years ago. Oh, that's right, we weren't. Oh, you can try some feeble attempt to say that economic sanctions on Iraq were starving hundreds/thousands/millions of men/women/children/other-pity-requiring-denominati on, but that's absurd. The Iraqi cease fire stipulated several conditions, almost all of which Saddam ignored. You no paya attention to da rules, you no getta da sanctions dropped.
People really don't like having some jerks from thousands of miles away come and tell them what to do, and siphon away their natural resources.
We don't tell anyone what to do. We tell them what we won't tolerate them doing, however, and fometing terrorism against us is definitely within the purveiw of defending the sovereingty of this nation. You no wanta da bombs on your camel, you no allowa da terrorists to camp in your back yard.
The rules for being a friend of the U.S. are simple: don't do anything to hurt us or to allow others to hurt us. If you violate that rule, you deserve whatever hell we deliver to your front door, preferrably with a laser seeker head and cherry on top.
We keep creating the people we have to take down: Noriega, Saddam, Osama.
Noriega: First sanctioned by a U.S. administration back in the 50's. And you want to hold this admistration responsible for it 50 years later?
Saddam: The enemy of my enemy is my friend, and Saddam was the enemy of our enemy, Iran. We also worked with one of the most brutal dictators in human history, Josef Stalin, to overthow an even more brutal dictator, Adolf Hitler. Should we have not worked with Stalin because he was a heinous murderer? You work with what you have, not with what you wish you had. Saddam served his purpose in his time, but got too big for his britches. That's why he's currently occupying a cell instead of a palace.
Osama: We "created" Osama? Well, if you consider helping free the Afghan people from the yoke of Communism "creating" Osama, we're guilty as charged. Where Osama got his beef from was how funding for his little terrorist operations dried up after the Soviets left Afghanistan. He was mad we didn't keep supplying him and his band of "freedom fighters." He was also pissed about us being in Saudi Arabia, but if you'll recall, that was because the Saudis were screaming so loudly that we needed to protect them from the evil Saddam.
So, to the point, your three examples are stupid and irrelevant, but that's no great departure for you thus far.
No, we lied and told the Saudis that Saddam was massing troops on his border with faked satellite photos. *They* didn't want us there at all. We also told Saddam it was alright if he wanted to invade Kuwait.
Two lies in one! You're on a roll here! I happen to have been in the
This isn't about "winning", it's about not provoking the rest of the world to hate us
Here's a little bit of a news flash: people hate us because we're on top of the world militarily, economically, and politically. It's envy, pure and simple.
The Europeans hate us because we had the nerve to get up and leave the oppressive regimes running the joint.
The Arabs hate us because they believe they're supposed to be running the world -- after all, it was only a few millenia ago that Arabs were on top scientifically and culturally.
The Africans hate us because of slavery, even though Africa is the only continent where slavery is still practiced.
The Japanese hate us because they thought they were supposed to be running the world by now. Oh, and there was that thing about two nuclear bombs.
In short, everybody is going to hate us anyway no matter what we do so long as we're on top, so we might as well do as we please without worrying about whether or not we ever win a popularity contest. Everybody thinks we're out to take over the world. We're accused of it regularly. So fine, let's just go ahead and do it. If we're going to be hated for doing something we aren't doing, we might as well just do it and reap the benefits of doing so. It's not like it's going to change world perception of us, now, is it?
But cheer up! In a century or so, the Chinese might be calling the shots worldwide. I hear they're real into the concepts of freedom. After all, didn't they prove that when they ground democracy protestors into the pavement?
Everybody loves to call the U.S. the Great Satan. Nobody really stops to think that, without us, your alternatives might be Hitler, Stalin, or a Chinese government willing to slaughter thousands of their own citizens who were merely demanding freedom. And then pretend nothing every happened.
Yep, people hate us...because they have no more use for us now that we've taken out the all the bad guys. Who was it who was screaming so loudly for us to come and defend them when Saddam invaded Kuwait? Oh, yeah, the Saudis...the same lot that's demanding we leave their terroritory. Who was it screaming for us to defend them when the Russians were threatening Berlin? Oh yeah, the Europeans. Who was is yelling for the U.S. to come save their bacon when Panzers were storming Paris? Oh yeah, the ever-grateful French. It seems the world loves to call us when something dangerous or dirty needs to be done, but after that, we're supposed to just go away and let everyone else run things. Sorry, ain't gonna happen.
The U.S. may not be perfect, but we're a damned sight better than anything else that's come into being on this blue and green ball. If someone else thinks they can do a better job, by all means let them step up and go play GloboCop for the rest of the world. Last time the U.S. decided to get introverted and isolationist, a German painter got busy and eventually instigated the deaths of around 100 million human beings.
So basically we're damned if you do, damned if you don't. Remind me again why I'm supposed to give a damn whether or not the world likes us?
a) they use a slower kind of encryption on the apache side, which makes apache seem slower.
This is a problem and has been noted as such.
b) they use a 2003 version of Red Hat with a 2.6 kernal whereas Linux is now up to a newer version.
There's a reason the test used RHEL instead of a something like FC3, namely one of support. If you're going to compare apples to apples in the enterprise space, no company is going to deploy an unsupported (yes, unsupported, as in "there's no support desk to call if you have problems") Linux distro. Right now, RHEL is the most widespread, best supported Linux distro out there, and it's still on the 2.4 tree. If you don't like the comparison, lobby RH to hurry up and move RHEL to the 2.6 tree, but there's absolutely nothing wrong with comparing the most modern supported Linux distribution against Microsoft's most modern supported OS.
c) they make other tuning decisions for the RH they do use in order to slow it down, and to speed Microsoft up.
You're implying a conspiracy here that I don't think exists. While it may be true that Windows was heavily tweaked for performance, it is not necessarily true that Apache was "slowed down." I don't see anything done to purposefully hurt Apache performance except for the encryption issue above. It is possible, however, that many Apache tweaks were not done, tweaks that might've helped Apache's score. This is not sabotaging Apache as you suggest, it is neglect. Even if it's intentional neglect, it's not sabotage.
You clearly have some sort of a chip on your shoulder that is preventing you from being rational about this situation. It's very likely that most if not all of your 300 attempts to find employment since 1998 have ended in failure because of your attitude, something which appears to be pretty obvious if one reads your posting. Angry? Bitter? Guess what? It shows, and I doubt that ingratiates you to many interviewers.
Your classification of outsourcing as "neo-slavery" is just the most ridiculous piece of tripe I've yet heard in the outsourcing argument. I'm in IT, and I've got no problems with outsourcing. If someone else can do my job as good as or better than me for less money, more power to them. If I can't cut it, I don't deserve my job. And given the relative cost of living in India, those in Bangalore working for American companies generally earn higher wages and better working conditions than most of the rest of India. I don't hear many of them complaining of being "slaves," and last I heard, you don't give paychecks to slaves either.
As for reputation being "the new HR toilet paper," I couldn't disagree more. Before I hire anyone for my IT staff, I find out as much as I can about their prior work history, including (but not limited to) meeting their former boss or co-workers for lunch. I've had many instances where good people were laid off because a company went sour, and their former boss gave them huge props for being a great worker. Right person in the wrong place at the wrong time. I've got several of them working for me now and they're damned fine employees. On the other hand, such "interviews" have helped me weed out potential troublemakers such as you appear to be. Perhaps I'm one of those who turned down one of your 300 resumes. If so, I don't regret it in the slightest. You're far to angry and emotional about this to show the ability to make rational judgements.
these guys get tripped up tring to get a SUPPORTED remote to work and don't even know how to add two commands to the window manager so they don't have to go to the CLI to run Gedit!!! Morons.
So what you're effectively saying here is that these guys who tried this, guys who probably have more than average knowledge of computers compared to the rest of civilization, couldn't get this product to work right and had trouble figuring out the simplest of operations on it.
Yeah, that seems about it. And people wonder why Linux has a reputation for being difficult to use and l33t Linux gurus with m4d sk1llz are elitist, snobbish, and generally condescending to everyone else.
Look, folks, at some point it's not FUD anymore. I spent the better part of two weeks building my own PVR (admittedly before KnoppMyth was available, but doing it was supposedly well documented) and came away frustrated and angry. Documentation that was supposed to be complete wasn't. Facts that were supposed to be correct weren't. And software that was supposed to work with my hardware didn't.
I finally got it to work (mostly) but I wouldn't want to wish that same experience on my worst enemy. And I've been working with computers for the better part of twenty years and working with Linux for the last ten of those years.
Now, if I'd wanted to, I could've had Windows Media Center edition up and running in under two hours, and it would've worked right the first time. I refused to use Win MCE for a number of reasons, though mainly because it didn't allow me the unfettered access to recorded files that I really wanted (DVD archival is so choice with HDTV source material). But the point is this: the Linux solution was exponentially harder, and it was only because I absolutely demanded certain features that I went through the trouble of screwing around with it.
You call it FUD, but those of us who don't have a Linux Religion chip on our shoulder call it reality. Is Microsoft beating Linux in the feature, security, or stability war? Absolutely not. Is it beating Linux in the ease-of-use war? It sure seems that way sometimes, and comments like yours simply reinforce the mentality that all is well in the Linux usability camp, so don't bother improving anything.
Keep it up. I hear Bill Gates loves it when his targets are smug with self-satisfaction. It makes it easier for him to sneak up, steal all the good parts of the competition's product, and "embrace and extinguish" them to death.
Microsoft's official licensing stance remains that one die = one CPU.
No, Microsoft's official licensing policy is one socket = one CPU. Therefore, a dual-socket Opteron motherboard with two dual-core chips would be licensed as a dual-CPU system, even though it has four separate cores.
I think your post was trying to get that idea across, but your statement of "one die = one CPU" is misleading to that effect.
What's odd about this is if you bought a dual-core, dual-CPU Xeon system supporting HyperThreading. If you opened up Task Manager you'd find eight CPU graphs. Not that you'd get anything near the performance of a eight-way system, though...
Microsoft's licensing is a bright spot when it comes to commercial software and multi-core CPU's. There are several firms still clinging to the "one core = one CPU" model, and dual core chips are going to immediately make such software very expensive.
I contacted Oracle a couple of weeks ago to clarify their position, and I was told then that dual-core chips would be considered a single CPU for the purposes of licensing. It seems that Microsoft's adherence to the "one socket = one core" idea is forcing its competitors into the same pricing model. Who woulda thunk Microsoft would actually be helpful in this situation?
There are "bleeding-heart liberals" in India, but NONE of them think the satellite programme should be scrapped in favour of feeding/educating the poor, as far as I know.
It's a pity we can't import those kind of people over here. Reagan said it best: "the closest thing you'll ever find to immortality is a government program." Anyone trying to cut a social program is compared to Gengis Khan, but space exploration budgets are slashed with impunity. At least Bush is trying to give NASA a little direction with his lunar and Mars mission proposals.
Yes, these people are illiterate, with low chance of "moving up in the world" and likely a low life expectancy. But from a budgetary point of view you can just assume they don't exist.
Which is precisely my point. You have half a billion people occupying land and consuming at least a portion of state services (despite their "self sufficiency"), yet their economic input is negligible.
The parent poster's use of words was ambiguous enough to permit two different meanings, and I chose the wrong one. That's obvious now. However, your insulting, condescending attitude can't make up for your illiterate use of poor grammar. Go look up the term "apostrophe" and get back to me when you're done. And while you're at it, get you might want to do something about that odd chip on your shoulder and that knee that keeps jerking around so uncontrollably.
If the Indian government completely ignored this segment of the population, they would simply emigrate.
To where? Who would have them? I'm not saying that to be cruel, but most nations have immigration controls in place that prevent mass migrations such as what you're suggesting. Countries get to decide who passes through their borders, and they would very likely decide that half a billion illiterate Indians would not be any more beneficial to their economy than they were to India's. It's cruel logic, but it is logical.
The sentence "Do not underestimate the significant drain half a million illiterates can pose on an economy" should read half a billion illiterates. Sorry, being from the U.S., I'm not used to speaking of populations in terms of billions.
52% of 1,065,070,607 is 553,836,715 and 97% of 293,027,571 is 284,236,743. That means India already has 269,599,972 more literate people than the US.
Yes, but you're forgetting the inverse of your argument. 3% of the U.S. population is 8,790,827. 48% of the Indian population is 511,233,891. That means India has almost twice the number of illiterate citizens as the U.S. has total citizens. Do not underestimate the significant drain half a million illiterates can pose on an economy. Most illiterates would be confined to agricultural or other menial-labor jobs, none of which pay very much. Low pay equals low (or no) taxes derived. And yet an illiterate individual represents the same consumption of any state-run services (such as healthcare) as a literate person would. Some would say an illiterate is a greater drain on resources simply because illiterates tend to be unable to provide for themselves. All this adds up to an economy where a significant portion of the population presents a zero-sum or net loss of per capita income.
What this does mean, however, is that whoever is productive in India is very damned productive. It also means they're probably taxed out the wazoo as well to support the lower-producing rest of the country.
If they spent their entire GDP on literacy, housing, healthcare, etc so that every Indian citizen would read, write, have a place to live, and food to eat, they wouldn't have any money for technological programs. At that point, people would lament how "backwards" the country was because it was existing largely on 19th century technology.
Very true, although I think you are missing my point. I was not lamenting the fact that India is spending money on rockets instead of rice, I was amazed that they could do it at all from a budgetary aspect. Space programs are fantastically expensive. I would imagine it might be politically difficult to get funding for such a program precisely because of the large segments of illiterates, most of which (by definition) contribute almost nothing in taxes but consume a disproportionate amount of state-run services (healthcare, welfare, etc.)
After all, we have a hard enough time getting NASA dollars approved, what with all the bleeding hearts out there screaming we need those dollars "for the CHIIILLLLLDREN!"
Uhm. And when you're robbed on the street, never give them your wallet. Get beaten, raped, killed. Just don't give them your wallet - they might just get tempted to do it again.
So let's try the inverse of your suggestion and see what we get:
Always give them your wallet, without question, without a fight. Therefore they know all they have to do is mildly threaten you and they get free cash. Not much a solution you're proposing there. Sounds more like a welfare system for hoodlums.
Here's a funny solution you seem to have ignored: arm yourself, take defensive shooting classes, and blow the fucker away when he tries to threaten you. True, dealing with the police paperwork after the fact is a bit tedious, but you can rest easy knowing you've rid the world of a lowlife scumbag who wasn't worth the oxygen he was consuming. Bernard Goetz had it right.
The only way to answer threats is with the threat of something worse. Anything less is either impotent or encouraging more threats.
Slashdot Mirror
Which one you ought to protect and support? Decide!
The decision is simple: I side with the right of an individual to make up his or her own mind on what he or she would do in any situation. I side against forcing or coercing anyone to do anything that disturbs that free will, so long as the person not being coerced or disturbed isn't trying to coerce or disturb someone else to begin with.
In your "starvation" analogy, I might give that person some food. However, if that person pissed me off in the past, or if that person was sponsoring terrorism against me and my family, or if I just felt like it, I would let that person starve and perhaps gain some small amount of amusement from it as I chowed down in plain sight of them. What goes around comes around, and you get what you deserve. It is not up to you to decide blanket morality issues for everyone else.
You also made an obviously exaggerated statement about New Line. Since that wouldn't happen, not in your lifetime at least, it's not fair to assume that its going on right now, and everyone is losing money because all pirates are hypocritical bastards that go around laughing in the face of people paying to see movies. It's simply not so, and you said it yourself.
No, it's not an "obviously exaggerated" statement about New Line, it's the logical conclusion of the whole "I can't afford it, therefore I wouldn't buy it, therefore nobody loses anything if I get it for free." You see, if some group of people decide they can't afford to pay $7 to see a movie, why should they be able to see it for free when the rest of us who can afford it must fork out $7 for the same privilege? How would you feel if you went to a car dealership where all the cars were free if you were destitute but cost $30,000 if you weren't. Is that fair to those who have to pay? The analogy is not perfect because cars are tangible and entertainment is not, but you see the point, I hope.
Your proposal sounds more like classic Marxism: "from each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs." That's all fine and dandy in theory, but it simply doesn't work in practice. Those who are paying for something that others get for free despise such arrangements and find ways to not pay for it as well. As the number of paying customers dwindles, one of two things must happen: (1) the cost per paying customer must go up as the number of paying customers goes down, or (2) the cost and/or quality of the item must go down. (2) generally results in an inferior product which only worsens the paying/non-paying situation (payers wonder why the hell they're wasting money on this tripe), and (1) just runs off more paying customers. It's a vicious cycle and it doesn't work.
Extending that line of thinking, they couldn't have supported the work anyway, even if they wanted to. So while they're losing nothing on the ticket sale (read above), the work is being depreciated because said people can't pay to see it.
You're completely dismissing the concept of earned privilege. If I work hard and earn money, I can use that money to purchase entertainment for myself, durable goods, food, whatever. If you suddenly remove the "earn" portion of that equation, the entire concept of working for a living suddenly starts to make no sense. Why should I work to afford things when I can just be destitute and have them given to me? After all, if it's good enough for entertainment, why not for everything you normally spend money for? Either the concept as you propose it is valid enough for general use or it's not. Which is it? You seem to be avoiding this issue quite stringently by indicating movies are somehow exempt from the laws of economics. Just because you cannot afford something does not mean you automatically deserve to get it for free. Sure, the MPAA shouldn't use these people as statistics to claim piracy, but on the other hand these people do not deserve the right to see the movie for free. They haven't worked for it, and they haven't earned it. Forget how many millions of dollars Lucas has in the bank, that's not what this is about. What it's about is earning the right to enjoy privileges in life. You don't get dessert unless you eat your vegetables. It's that simple.
I do have to laugh at the fact that you made no mention of my expressing and believing in what you're doing in the line right under your quote:
I'll be the first one to admit that I've pirated things the past. When I was in college, I snagged a pirate copy of 3D Studio for DOS and took it home to play with it. Over time I taught myself the program, and I eventually used it in a paying job for someone. I promptly took the paycheck and used it to purchase a legal copy of 3D Studio. I certainly didn't have to do that; I could've saved myself $3,000 by not doing so. But my conscie
I distribute a nice song. You, for some reason, can't buy it. By giving it away to you, I'd lose nothing (you wouldn't buy it anyway), you'd gain a nice song.
If you create the song, produce it, and elect to distribute it for free, that is your right. However, there is no universal rule that says everyone must do things exactly as you do. If someone else doesn't wish for their hard work to be given away, you have no right to override their desires simply because you wouldn't do it that way.
- Yea, pirating is a problem, but like music CD's the people that pirate movies might not have the money or the means to begin with that it takes to go see the movie, or buy the music, legitimately
/rant
And this entitles them the right to view the movie for free...why?
Look, I'm not trying to start a flamewar here (lord knows that's been done plenty of times before now on this very subject), but has anyone really deeply thought about this line of reasoning? "I can't afford to buy it, but I want it anyway, so it should be OK for me to get it without paying for it."
The sheer selfishness of that attitude amazes me because anyone thinking must also think that they are the only ones doing it. After all, if everyone thought this way, nobody would pay for the movie, then guess what would happen to the supply of blockbuster movies? Lord of the Rings trilogy? Forget about it. Star Wars? Nope. Indiana Jones? Sorry. It costs money to make films. Not all of it ends up lining the pockets of media bigwigs, overly-indulgent actors, and self-important director/producers. There are thousands of people involved in making these films that aren't driving around in gold-plated Hummer's, and despite what a lot of P2P'ers think, these people do actually work for a living just like the rest of us. Except for you...yes, you out there, reading this, still living in your mom's basement. Don't you have a job yet?
Anyway, it cost New Line Cinemas about $400 million dollars to make all three Lord of the Rings movies. The film's made money hand over fist, but if everyone pirated it the day it was released, it would have lost New Line $400 million to make. Therefore, New Line wouldn't have made it. Therefore, we'd have nothing to pirate anymore, and all of us would've been deprived of one of the greatest movie trilogies ever made. It's the whole "killed the goose that laid the golden egg" syndrome you heard about as a kid.
I'll be the first one to admit the MPAA has its head up its ass when it comes to movie distribution. I'd gladly pay $10 or more to be able to download a pristine, DVD-quality copy to my PC for a one-time viewing, which is essentially the same as if I were at the theater. I'm download RotS right now, though, because I despise standing in lines and dealing with overcrowded theaters and noisy, obnoxious kids. When the crowds die down, I will go see it. And when the DVD comes out I'll buy it. But the MPAA is stubbornly ignoring a very large potential market: those of us who want to legally download flicks but are not given any option to do so.
To get back to the point, though, the old "I can't afford it" argument is perhaps the most hypocritical one. It's also the most common one. Nobody ever said life was fair, and it's certainly not free. People have worked hard to produce these movies, and your slacker ass does not have any legitimate right saying you are deserving of the benefits of someone else's work for free. It doesn't matter whether or not you're "depriving" anyone else of their ability to view the movie because time and effort are not tangible. They are, however, valuable. And if you want something valuable, you must pay for it. Anything else is just dismissing someone else's hard work. If you've ever done any hard work in your life, I'm quite sure you wouldn't appreciate someone doing the same to you.
I am pretty sure many Americans agree that there are much better uses for their tax dollars than developing some scifi-weapons for which there doesn't seem to be any realistic use in the foreseable future.
I am pretty sure many Americans really don't care to have Finnish citizens determining the best interests of this nation. Or any other nation for that matter. As for whether there will be any realistic use for them in the forseeable future, I'd rather have the weapons and not need them, as opposed to needing them and not having them.
This isn't only about foreign politics, it's also about domestic politics. USA will pretty soon be bankcrupt, if it doesn't cut the spendings.
Contrary to popular belief (or is it wishful thinking?) we are not about to go bankrupt. In fact, the U.S. economy is growing faster and stronger than any other major developed nation on the planet at this time. That includes Finland, by the way. Germany and France, the two economic powerhouses of the Continent, have double-digit unemployement and a staggering amount of debt in social programs. I'd say we're in much better shape than most.
As if the military and all of its wars don't suck enough money already...
Unlike you, the current U.S. administration is capable of learning from history. If European history tells us anything, it's that when you let your military edge crumble, your enemies are emboldened. This has been true for hundreds of years. We don't intend to be made a military laughingstock like France. Nor do we intend to become a second-rate world power dreaming of former glory like Great Britain. We're on top, and we got here by hard work, blood, and shrewd tenacity. We're going to stay here as long as we can, and if someone wants to displace us, we're not going to just roll over and play dead like Spaniards after a train bombing. The U.S. has always fought for what it feels to be right, and we're going to keep doing it whether the rest of the world "approves" or not. After all, don't presume to think you're above all of this. If your country were in our position, it'd be doing the exact same thing.
First off, Europe is not a country, its a collection of sovereign states, with very different attitudes towards different aspects of their policy.
No shit, Mr. Obvious. However, as a useful generalization, Europe (or more appropriately, "Old Europe" or "Western Europe") is opposed to any U.S. policy that strengthens the U.S. position militarily, economically, or politically. After all, we must make way for the E.U. to assume it's rightful place as the dominator of world events so then they can do all the things they're so busily condemning us for.
It is worth noting that after 9/11, the US had more support, sympathy, and respect from Europe and most other countries in the world than ever before.
And all that heartwarming outpouring of sympathy was so nice, so comforting. But when we said "this shall not stand, we're going to root out these nests of terrorists so they can't threaten us or anyone else," everyone cried out in dismay. My goodness, the American's are actually going to do something about this problem instead of just standing around and wringing their hands like the rest of us! We can't allow that! It makes us look like pathetic wimps! Whatever shall we do? Oh, I know! Let's oppose it and call the Americans arrogant and imperialist! It worked for the Soviets, maybe it'll work for the E.U.!
Face it, those who hate our current foreign policy hate it because either (a) they can't stand any act that makes America stronger or (b) they can't stand looking like effeminate wimps while someone else cleans up a mess that everyone should be cleaning up together. Sometimes it is not enough to simply talk about fixing a problem (although you'd never guess this if you spent any time at the U.N.), you have to do something about it. See Neville Chamberlain.
France is in Europe, genius, and that was one of the nations that actively helped the United States of America against the British, sending armies and weapons to assist.
Again, no shit Mr. Obvious. Of course, if you think the French were doing it out of altruism, you're dumber than you look. They helped us because it worked against British interests, and hurting the Brits helped France. Now they're doing the same thing all over again, hurting American interests to further French dominance in the E.U. It's amazingly transparent, it's too bad you're too blind to see it.
The arabs hate you, slick, because you took a large part of their land and turned it into a refuge for Israel. This was largely sponsored by the religious right in US politics who actually want to bring about the apocalypse, and that can't happen until the jews are back in zion.
Ah, so the cloak finally falls from your argument. It's all the fault of the Jews! You'd make old uncle Adolf so proud...
Most Africans (thats a continent by the way, not a country, we call it gee-ogg-raffy) couldn't care less about America. They have enough troubles of their own.
See Somalia. And again, I'm well aware of Africa's status as a continent, but it's a useful generalization to say "Africans" when you're referring to the collection of African nations. I'm sure this simple concept is alien to you since you've obviously failed to grasp it.
The Japanese hate everyone, don't feel particularily special in that.
I see. So why aren't you whining about the injustice of this? You're obviously a champion of the downtrodden and oppressed. Better get busy, you're slacking off.
Two points for you here, Einstein, invading a country and holding a country are two entirely different things, as you are slowly working out in Iraq.
Again, you win the "Stating the Most Obvious" award. Invading has always been more difficult than holding. See post-war Europy, you silly clod.
Even assuming that a country has 10 nukes capable of hitting the US, which 10 cities would you like to permanently kiss goodbye to?
In Europe, we don't hate USA. We question your foreign policy and choice of leadership, but we don't hate USA. We cheer the American attitude in Cowboy-movies, but please, understand that this attitude gets you NOWHERE in the real world.
Really? So when Reagan stood up to Communism and everybody called him a cowboy, was that wrong? Should we have stepped back and let the Soviets take over Europe? Go talk to someone from the former Eastern Bloc. It was no "worker's paradise" there. The people there seem much more inclined to appreciate freedom (and the sacrifices necessary to maintain it) than the "enlightened" folk of Western Europe.
Sometimes, I think that all the blood spilled in Normandy was a complete and total waste. We stopped jackbooted Nazi's, but we left behind a bunch of pantywaists who think things like freedom and sovereignty can be maintained without sacrifice. Oh, you and the U.N. make all kinds of noises about respecting human rights, protecting the innocent, and so forth, but you're not willing to do anything about it. If it requires an effort in excess of a non-binding U.N. resolution, just leave Old Europe out of it. They're too busy prosecuting British grocery stores who've refused to eradicate all non-metric scales from their premises. Must have a sense of proportion, you see.
It benefits all parties to have good relations with other nations. Initiating the armament of space will not promote good relations.
Why not? Is Finland planning on attacking us with space-based weapons? If so, well, we've got a plan to stop you!
Of course, if Finland isn't planning on attacking the United States, you have absolutely no reason to bitch and moan, now, do you?
Now, to get to the meat of the issue, what this is really about isn't space-based weapons. What you're really objecting to is the fact that we're taking steps to make ourselves more powerful. Funny how China is doing much the same thing but I don't hear you complaining about them.
I do so love it when idiots like you pop up with such pithy, insightful commentary. It makes it so much easier for me to populate my "foes" list.
No, don't thank me, you've earned it.
What we do hate you for is, that when we did learn from your example and introduced proper parliamentary democracy, freedom of speach etc., you turned the tables on us and became an endlessly more arrogant colonial opressor than we ever were! That is what pisses us off.
If you'll compare the excesses and low points of the British crown over the last 400 years with our ranking as "an endlessly more arrogant colonial oppressor," I think you'll find your argument to be, at best, a gross exaggeration and, at worst, an outright fabrication. I'll refer to you to how Britain treated India in particular. Oh, and there was that little war with those thirteen colonies. Who was the arrogant, aggressive colonial oppressor back then? Hmmm, let me think, I'm sure it'll come to me sooner or later. But, in the meantime, don't let these facts get in the way of your fantasies. I'm sure you like it better that way, and certainly don't want to do anything that would make you dislike me...things like reminding you of the aforementioned inconvenient facts.
ou see, it all boils down to each individual's right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness (does any of those words ring any bells with you..?)
Indeed they do. Those words were written by brave men labelled as traitors by the British government for demanding those very things denied it by that same government, and most were eventually killed or otherwise ruined because of their stance. Remind me again who was the arrogant oppressor in this debate we're having? Remind me again who's been the champion of individual freedoms and liberty throughout the last two hundred years? I'm sure you can find instances where this nation has faltered (it has occasionally elected Democrats to positions of power, after all...), you'll be hard pressed to find any nation that has done more and given more to help others. But we will pick and choose who we want to help. That is not a crime, nor is it arrogance.
And finally, has it ever occured to you that, if everyone didn't hate you (for, more or less, well founded reasons), things like 9-11, USS Cole, ebassy bombings, etc. wouldn't happen in the first place..?
Has it ever occured to you that, if the U.S. just sat back and let world affairs run without our input, the would might (a) get in another genocidal world war just like it did last time or (b) it might develop into something we don't like. While I'm sure you have no beef with (b) coming to pass, as Americans, we do. We want what's best for America, just like the Spaniards want what's best for Spain and the British want what's best for Britain. It's called enlightened self-interest. If you think we're wrong to have such a desire, perhaps you could convince us of our wrongness by getting the rest of the nations on this planet to demonstrate their altruism first. Good luck with that one.
Oh boy did I hit a nerve. Let's dissect you one "point" at a time, shall we?
"Anyone who doesn't like the leader is just jealous." Isn't that extremely simple-minded and conceited?
Let's start by not putting words in my mouth. I can make my own arguments quite well, thank you. No need for you to fabricate lies in an attempt to make me look bad, you're doing all you can to come up with your own set of lies to defend yourself.
So when you lot were mad at Clinton, you were just jealous?
Uh, no, I was mad because he perjured himself in a court of law.
When we hated Germany and Japan during WWII, we were just jealous?
Uh, no, it had something to do with Pearl Harbor and Nazi Germany declaring war on us. I can see you're a student of public schooling, where history has been altered to make it look like America is somehow at fault for all the bad things in the world's past.
People don't *hate* us because they envy us, they *hate* us because we go around killing them.
Remind me how many Afghans and Iraqis we were busily bombing, raping, and killing when 3,000 civilians were incinerated in New York a few years ago. Oh, that's right, we weren't. Oh, you can try some feeble attempt to say that economic sanctions on Iraq were starving hundreds/thousands/millions of men/women/children/other-pity-requiring-denominati on, but that's absurd. The Iraqi cease fire stipulated several conditions, almost all of which Saddam ignored. You no paya attention to da rules, you no getta da sanctions dropped.
People really don't like having some jerks from thousands of miles away come and tell them what to do, and siphon away their natural resources.
We don't tell anyone what to do. We tell them what we won't tolerate them doing, however, and fometing terrorism against us is definitely within the purveiw of defending the sovereingty of this nation. You no wanta da bombs on your camel, you no allowa da terrorists to camp in your back yard.
The rules for being a friend of the U.S. are simple: don't do anything to hurt us or to allow others to hurt us. If you violate that rule, you deserve whatever hell we deliver to your front door, preferrably with a laser seeker head and cherry on top.
We keep creating the people we have to take down: Noriega, Saddam, Osama.
Noriega: First sanctioned by a U.S. administration back in the 50's. And you want to hold this admistration responsible for it 50 years later?
Saddam: The enemy of my enemy is my friend, and Saddam was the enemy of our enemy, Iran. We also worked with one of the most brutal dictators in human history, Josef Stalin, to overthow an even more brutal dictator, Adolf Hitler. Should we have not worked with Stalin because he was a heinous murderer? You work with what you have, not with what you wish you had. Saddam served his purpose in his time, but got too big for his britches. That's why he's currently occupying a cell instead of a palace.
Osama: We "created" Osama? Well, if you consider helping free the Afghan people from the yoke of Communism "creating" Osama, we're guilty as charged. Where Osama got his beef from was how funding for his little terrorist operations dried up after the Soviets left Afghanistan. He was mad we didn't keep supplying him and his band of "freedom fighters." He was also pissed about us being in Saudi Arabia, but if you'll recall, that was because the Saudis were screaming so loudly that we needed to protect them from the evil Saddam.
So, to the point, your three examples are stupid and irrelevant, but that's no great departure for you thus far.
No, we lied and told the Saudis that Saddam was massing troops on his border with faked satellite photos. *They* didn't want us there at all. We also told Saddam it was alright if he wanted to invade Kuwait.
Two lies in one! You're on a roll here! I happen to have been in the
You need some serious anger management counseling.
But, that aside, you appear too unintelligent to grasp the concept that faxed, mailed, and emailed resumes are a dime a dozen.
This isn't about "winning", it's about not provoking the rest of the world to hate us
Here's a little bit of a news flash: people hate us because we're on top of the world militarily, economically, and politically. It's envy, pure and simple.
The Europeans hate us because we had the nerve to get up and leave the oppressive regimes running the joint.
The Arabs hate us because they believe they're supposed to be running the world -- after all, it was only a few millenia ago that Arabs were on top scientifically and culturally.
The Africans hate us because of slavery, even though Africa is the only continent where slavery is still practiced.
The Japanese hate us because they thought they were supposed to be running the world by now. Oh, and there was that thing about two nuclear bombs.
In short, everybody is going to hate us anyway no matter what we do so long as we're on top, so we might as well do as we please without worrying about whether or not we ever win a popularity contest. Everybody thinks we're out to take over the world. We're accused of it regularly. So fine, let's just go ahead and do it. If we're going to be hated for doing something we aren't doing, we might as well just do it and reap the benefits of doing so. It's not like it's going to change world perception of us, now, is it?
But cheer up! In a century or so, the Chinese might be calling the shots worldwide. I hear they're real into the concepts of freedom. After all, didn't they prove that when they ground democracy protestors into the pavement?
Everybody loves to call the U.S. the Great Satan. Nobody really stops to think that, without us, your alternatives might be Hitler, Stalin, or a Chinese government willing to slaughter thousands of their own citizens who were merely demanding freedom. And then pretend nothing every happened.
Yep, people hate us...because they have no more use for us now that we've taken out the all the bad guys. Who was it who was screaming so loudly for us to come and defend them when Saddam invaded Kuwait? Oh, yeah, the Saudis...the same lot that's demanding we leave their terroritory. Who was it screaming for us to defend them when the Russians were threatening Berlin? Oh yeah, the Europeans. Who was is yelling for the U.S. to come save their bacon when Panzers were storming Paris? Oh yeah, the ever-grateful French. It seems the world loves to call us when something dangerous or dirty needs to be done, but after that, we're supposed to just go away and let everyone else run things. Sorry, ain't gonna happen.
The U.S. may not be perfect, but we're a damned sight better than anything else that's come into being on this blue and green ball. If someone else thinks they can do a better job, by all means let them step up and go play GloboCop for the rest of the world. Last time the U.S. decided to get introverted and isolationist, a German painter got busy and eventually instigated the deaths of around 100 million human beings.
So basically we're damned if you do, damned if you don't. Remind me again why I'm supposed to give a damn whether or not the world likes us?
a) they use a slower kind of encryption on the apache side, which makes apache seem slower.
This is a problem and has been noted as such.
b) they use a 2003 version of Red Hat with a 2.6 kernal whereas Linux is now up to a newer version.
There's a reason the test used RHEL instead of a something like FC3, namely one of support. If you're going to compare apples to apples in the enterprise space, no company is going to deploy an unsupported (yes, unsupported, as in "there's no support desk to call if you have problems") Linux distro. Right now, RHEL is the most widespread, best supported Linux distro out there, and it's still on the 2.4 tree. If you don't like the comparison, lobby RH to hurry up and move RHEL to the 2.6 tree, but there's absolutely nothing wrong with comparing the most modern supported Linux distribution against Microsoft's most modern supported OS.
c) they make other tuning decisions for the RH they do use in order to slow it down, and to speed Microsoft up.
You're implying a conspiracy here that I don't think exists. While it may be true that Windows was heavily tweaked for performance, it is not necessarily true that Apache was "slowed down." I don't see anything done to purposefully hurt Apache performance except for the encryption issue above. It is possible, however, that many Apache tweaks were not done, tweaks that might've helped Apache's score. This is not sabotaging Apache as you suggest, it is neglect. Even if it's intentional neglect, it's not sabotage.
You clearly have some sort of a chip on your shoulder that is preventing you from being rational about this situation. It's very likely that most if not all of your 300 attempts to find employment since 1998 have ended in failure because of your attitude, something which appears to be pretty obvious if one reads your posting. Angry? Bitter? Guess what? It shows, and I doubt that ingratiates you to many interviewers.
Your classification of outsourcing as "neo-slavery" is just the most ridiculous piece of tripe I've yet heard in the outsourcing argument. I'm in IT, and I've got no problems with outsourcing. If someone else can do my job as good as or better than me for less money, more power to them. If I can't cut it, I don't deserve my job. And given the relative cost of living in India, those in Bangalore working for American companies generally earn higher wages and better working conditions than most of the rest of India. I don't hear many of them complaining of being "slaves," and last I heard, you don't give paychecks to slaves either.
As for reputation being "the new HR toilet paper," I couldn't disagree more. Before I hire anyone for my IT staff, I find out as much as I can about their prior work history, including (but not limited to) meeting their former boss or co-workers for lunch. I've had many instances where good people were laid off because a company went sour, and their former boss gave them huge props for being a great worker. Right person in the wrong place at the wrong time. I've got several of them working for me now and they're damned fine employees. On the other hand, such "interviews" have helped me weed out potential troublemakers such as you appear to be. Perhaps I'm one of those who turned down one of your 300 resumes. If so, I don't regret it in the slightest. You're far to angry and emotional about this to show the ability to make rational judgements.
these guys get tripped up tring to get a SUPPORTED remote to work and don't even know how to add two commands to the window manager so they don't have to go to the CLI to run Gedit!!! Morons.
So what you're effectively saying here is that these guys who tried this, guys who probably have more than average knowledge of computers compared to the rest of civilization, couldn't get this product to work right and had trouble figuring out the simplest of operations on it.
Yeah, that seems about it. And people wonder why Linux has a reputation for being difficult to use and l33t Linux gurus with m4d sk1llz are elitist, snobbish, and generally condescending to everyone else.
Look, folks, at some point it's not FUD anymore. I spent the better part of two weeks building my own PVR (admittedly before KnoppMyth was available, but doing it was supposedly well documented) and came away frustrated and angry. Documentation that was supposed to be complete wasn't. Facts that were supposed to be correct weren't. And software that was supposed to work with my hardware didn't.
I finally got it to work (mostly) but I wouldn't want to wish that same experience on my worst enemy. And I've been working with computers for the better part of twenty years and working with Linux for the last ten of those years.
Now, if I'd wanted to, I could've had Windows Media Center edition up and running in under two hours, and it would've worked right the first time. I refused to use Win MCE for a number of reasons, though mainly because it didn't allow me the unfettered access to recorded files that I really wanted (DVD archival is so choice with HDTV source material). But the point is this: the Linux solution was exponentially harder, and it was only because I absolutely demanded certain features that I went through the trouble of screwing around with it.
You call it FUD, but those of us who don't have a Linux Religion chip on our shoulder call it reality. Is Microsoft beating Linux in the feature, security, or stability war? Absolutely not. Is it beating Linux in the ease-of-use war? It sure seems that way sometimes, and comments like yours simply reinforce the mentality that all is well in the Linux usability camp, so don't bother improving anything.
Keep it up. I hear Bill Gates loves it when his targets are smug with self-satisfaction. It makes it easier for him to sneak up, steal all the good parts of the competition's product, and "embrace and extinguish" them to death.
Microsoft's official licensing stance remains that one die = one CPU.
No, Microsoft's official licensing policy is one socket = one CPU. Therefore, a dual-socket Opteron motherboard with two dual-core chips would be licensed as a dual-CPU system, even though it has four separate cores.
I think your post was trying to get that idea across, but your statement of "one die = one CPU" is misleading to that effect.
What's odd about this is if you bought a dual-core, dual-CPU Xeon system supporting HyperThreading. If you opened up Task Manager you'd find eight CPU graphs. Not that you'd get anything near the performance of a eight-way system, though...
Microsoft's licensing is a bright spot when it comes to commercial software and multi-core CPU's. There are several firms still clinging to the "one core = one CPU" model, and dual core chips are going to immediately make such software very expensive.
I contacted Oracle a couple of weeks ago to clarify their position, and I was told then that dual-core chips would be considered a single CPU for the purposes of licensing. It seems that Microsoft's adherence to the "one socket = one core" idea is forcing its competitors into the same pricing model. Who woulda thunk Microsoft would actually be helpful in this situation?
There are "bleeding-heart liberals" in India, but NONE of them think the satellite programme should be scrapped in favour of feeding/educating the poor, as far as I know.
It's a pity we can't import those kind of people over here. Reagan said it best: "the closest thing you'll ever find to immortality is a government program." Anyone trying to cut a social program is compared to Gengis Khan, but space exploration budgets are slashed with impunity. At least Bush is trying to give NASA a little direction with his lunar and Mars mission proposals.
Yes, these people are illiterate, with low chance of "moving up in the world" and likely a low life expectancy. But from a budgetary point of view you can just assume they don't exist.
Which is precisely my point. You have half a billion people occupying land and consuming at least a portion of state services (despite their "self sufficiency"), yet their economic input is negligible.
The parent poster's use of words was ambiguous enough to permit two different meanings, and I chose the wrong one. That's obvious now. However, your insulting, condescending attitude can't make up for your illiterate use of poor grammar. Go look up the term "apostrophe" and get back to me when you're done. And while you're at it, get you might want to do something about that odd chip on your shoulder and that knee that keeps jerking around so uncontrollably.
In the meantime, consider yourself foelisted.
If the Indian government completely ignored this segment of the population, they would simply emigrate.
To where? Who would have them? I'm not saying that to be cruel, but most nations have immigration controls in place that prevent mass migrations such as what you're suggesting. Countries get to decide who passes through their borders, and they would very likely decide that half a billion illiterate Indians would not be any more beneficial to their economy than they were to India's. It's cruel logic, but it is logical.
The sentence "Do not underestimate the significant drain half a million illiterates can pose on an economy" should read half a billion illiterates. Sorry, being from the U.S., I'm not used to speaking of populations in terms of billions.
52% of 1,065,070,607 is 553,836,715 and 97% of 293,027,571 is 284,236,743. That means India already has 269,599,972 more literate people than the US.
Yes, but you're forgetting the inverse of your argument. 3% of the U.S. population is 8,790,827. 48% of the Indian population is 511,233,891. That means India has almost twice the number of illiterate citizens as the U.S. has total citizens. Do not underestimate the significant drain half a million illiterates can pose on an economy. Most illiterates would be confined to agricultural or other menial-labor jobs, none of which pay very much. Low pay equals low (or no) taxes derived. And yet an illiterate individual represents the same consumption of any state-run services (such as healthcare) as a literate person would. Some would say an illiterate is a greater drain on resources simply because illiterates tend to be unable to provide for themselves. All this adds up to an economy where a significant portion of the population presents a zero-sum or net loss of per capita income.
What this does mean, however, is that whoever is productive in India is very damned productive. It also means they're probably taxed out the wazoo as well to support the lower-producing rest of the country.
If they spent their entire GDP on literacy, housing, healthcare, etc so that every Indian citizen would read, write, have a place to live, and food to eat, they wouldn't have any money for technological programs. At that point, people would lament how "backwards" the country was because it was existing largely on 19th century technology.
Very true, although I think you are missing my point. I was not lamenting the fact that India is spending money on rockets instead of rice, I was amazed that they could do it at all from a budgetary aspect. Space programs are fantastically expensive. I would imagine it might be politically difficult to get funding for such a program precisely because of the large segments of illiterates, most of which (by definition) contribute almost nothing in taxes but consume a disproportionate amount of state-run services (healthcare, welfare, etc.)
After all, we have a hard enough time getting NASA dollars approved, what with all the bleeding hearts out there screaming we need those dollars "for the CHIIILLLLLDREN!"
Uhm. And when you're robbed on the street, never give them your wallet. Get beaten, raped, killed. Just don't give them your wallet - they might just get tempted to do it again.
So let's try the inverse of your suggestion and see what we get:
Always give them your wallet, without question, without a fight. Therefore they know all they have to do is mildly threaten you and they get free cash. Not much a solution you're proposing there. Sounds more like a welfare system for hoodlums.
Here's a funny solution you seem to have ignored: arm yourself, take defensive shooting classes, and blow the fucker away when he tries to threaten you. True, dealing with the police paperwork after the fact is a bit tedious, but you can rest easy knowing you've rid the world of a lowlife scumbag who wasn't worth the oxygen he was consuming. Bernard Goetz had it right.
The only way to answer threats is with the threat of something worse. Anything less is either impotent or encouraging more threats.