"But how did lessened melanin production and "whiteness" spread in Europe? Likely through founder's effect in small and isolated inbreeding populations -- but certainly not because of any "Aryan" superiority."
Ever shave a gorilla? A chimpanzee? What color was their skin under the hair? If you said "white" (well pinkish really but what we consider white for these purposes) you'd be correct in most cases! Whatever the case it certainly isn't what we'd consider to be "dark" for this converstation. Where do these sorts of primates live? Africa!
Here's a thought - whiteness didn't spread to European people, those of our species who migrated to Europe were already "white". Darker skin is an adaptation to different living conditions. Those of our species who remained in (or moved to) climates which encouraged it evolved darker skin pigmentation - not the other way around. Remember, the climate of today or even the last few ten thousand years is very different from what it was when our species started out and has undergone drastic changes throughout that time.
"If you're out on the street, our laws say you don't."
What law would that be exactly? What section of the Constitution? What part of the Bill of Rights? What amendment? What legal precedent? If you can't find such a thing, then there is no such law, "the way our laws are set up right now" - ie. unless explicitly stated, laws do not exist and are not inferred in the U.S.
I'm not trying to troll, I'm really curious as to where this law is stated and how it reads - because I highly doubt any of the founders of the U.S. would have even considered such a thing, much less enacted it.
Also, the "rules" that he establishes were not arbitrarily chosen, but were based on a court decision that stated that McD's food was perfectly fine to eat for every meal of every day.
Point, Set and Match. The original poster conveniently left out the entire impetus for the film which was the above. The original poster also misrepresents other parts of the film. How the original poster got modded up to where it is is beyond me - it's a straw man comment. Besides, even if you think you knew the food was bad for you, I don't think most of us realized HOW bad it could be for you - which was a very important result of this film.
If they want to gorge and eat an UltraMegaSized Triple Big Mac with extra mayo, why should you care?
Reason 1 to care, for the strictly self interested: Because we all end up paying for it. In the U.S. we're an over 30% obese population and climbing steadily.* That puts an incredible amount of unecessary strain on our already malfunctioning health care system. It also results in increasing abuses of the already overworked legal system as cases are brought more often relating to health problems. And everybody who pays taxes, health care insurance or any medical related cost in the U.S. has to foot part of those bills.
Reason 2 for the humanitarians: Because this now rampant problem is really a sad thing for those so effected. I'm not saying everyone should be runway model slim (far from it, that's just as unhealthy), but the anguish that truly obese people suffer is sad to see. And I've seen it first hand from a couple of friends. I wish I could put it more eloquently, but all I can say is its simply a bad thing to have your fellow humans suffer this way. I realize all you people of steel have no time or sympathy for others who "lack personal responsibility" or are "weak willed", but others of us do have some empathy and would like to see things get better for people like this.
That's interesting/informative to hear. I had no idea. Sounds like that was quite some time ago, I'm surprised that they haven't given it another shot, considering how the environment for that kind of thing has changed.
and I have a few possible answers in mind, but I've always wanted to ask:
With all the other things that MS bundles with its OS, why the heck have they never included an anti virus program? I mean really, that would be one of the very few useful things they could bundle, there's been AV software around for ages so they could have easily "innovated" one by now, and it's obviously something every MS user needs. So what gives?
"It's better to boycott Disney's draconian DRM and have them loosen it than to not have any DRM and content distribution at all."
I disagree. I don't "need content" enough to support Digital Restriction Management and the subsequent crippling of technology which I should have a right to use however I see fit. Despite what the marketing tells you, large corporations have a vested interest in reducing your freedom of choice in regards to what you can do with technology. In this example the marketing is we'll have more freedom choice due to more availability of "content" (as dictated solely by the corporations), the reality is we'll have less freedom of choice in how we use the technology to not only experience but also to produce new "content" of our very own. This kind of thinking eventually impoverishes us all for the benefit of very few. End of story.
In other words fuck them, their "content", and the subsequent shackles they want to put on the common man - I don't want it or need it.
100 or so years ago there was no recording industry because the technology wasn't there. I figure about 10 to 20 years from now there will again be no recording industry (at least not one resembling anything we've had to suffer through these last 30 years) because the technology is here. We're close to a complete music industry meltdown, not because of illegal filesharing, but simply because the means of production (more acurrately re-production) are available to just about everyone now at little cost. Advertising/promotion is also losing its barriers to entry for similar reasons. Certainly sound engineering and recording will last a bit longer until home studio type software and equipment comes down in price - although I doubt some "pro" equipment will ever become cheap enough for ubiquitous adoption by everyone who wants it. In short the "services" once provided by the music industry (and the printing industry, etc. etc.) will by and large no longer be required - the party is just about over for these clowns.
Looking inevitable extinction right in the face what do the geniuses pulling down seven or eight figure salaries to run things do? Take advantage of the current opportunity to sell their copies at virtually no cost to themselves and make an obscene amount of profit by making it easy and cheap for everyone with access to a computer to be able to pay them for their product? Heck no - lets jack up the price, make using the "product" a pain in the butt, and prosecute would be consumers for sampling what should be viewed as free advertising for their product. Its truly pathetic that these clowns can't reign in their greed just a smidge in order to give a new lease on life to their out of touch business model. Instead they're shoveling dirt on the industry's grave faster than a couple thousand college kids can download the latest NippleExposureTastic garbage fest from talent bereft plasticine pop whores like Janet Jackson.
Thanks record execs, you just brought the future a few years closer to happening, and though you won't have a place in it in your current capacities I'm sure you'll figure out how to leach off the next big thing, whatever that is. So I suppose we'll see you next when you're trying to put DRM on virtual reality cyber sex parlor "content" - at least that may give Brittney a new job.
I don't really have a point here, other than to lift a cold one in celebration of the impending conflagration of an industry so blindingly corrupt, greedy and parasitical that it can't see it's killing itself. Who's with me?
Firstly, I don't know of any guys on the pro golf circuit who got there because they're the man at sim golf. I doubt that I'd want someone who kicks butt at rollercoaster tycoon making amusement parks and rollcosters for public use. You get the idea.
Sure you have simulators which people use for training - but those are incredibly expensive incredibly specialized pieces of equipment. Real life pilots aren't using MS flight simulator to get their licenses. And this war game stuff sure doesn't sound like anything more than Everquest set in a modern day war zone.
Secondly, do we really need to be spending more public funding to reach an even larger audience to teach them the best way to kill people? Even if it's just the abstract virtual kind of killing with no "real" repercussions. I mean, if you want to be a soldier, go ahead and sign up, get the real training, see what it's like to actually have to wake up at 0500 and hit the obstacle course, fire off a few rounds, get disciplined, maybe even go off and have to be personally responsible for the death and maiming of a few other human beings because that's your job. Do we really need an MMORPG for this? Shouldn't we be spending this money on teaching people how NOT to kill each other, or adressing the issues that make it so people want to kill their fellow man in the first place? Then we might not need so many soldiers.
Sorry, that's just crazy talk - by all means it's a great idea to teach Johnny and Janie how to frag. That's invaluable job skill training that will benefit humanity. Heck in that case, why not make it a required course to graduate High School? Sponsored by the military-industrial complex near you.
Have some fun and write carly fiorina to let "it" know what you think.
Here's my submission:
In response to your comments in this http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/ 20040107/ap_on_bi_ge/technology_jobs_5 article, as well as numerous other comments and decisions you have made in your tenure with HP, I wished to inform you that you have lost a customer. As a previous purchasor and owner of only several HP printers and CD devices, this may not be of great importance to you. However, I wished to take the time to remind you that you also have no "god given right" to the patronage of this U.S. citizen, and that my money will now be going to your competitors, perhaps even offshore competitors who will provide me with capability and quality comparable to or better than that found in HP products - with lower cost to myself. In addition, I will advise all I know to stay away from HP products while you are involved with the company in any capacity.
Here's what my pal Adam Schiff will be getting in his inbox (it may be too invective laced but he's trampled on our rights so many times I don't really care any more):
It is recorded (http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2003/roll649.xml) that you voted YEA for the bill: Intelligence Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2004. The act contains measures which are blatantly in direct opposition to amendment 4 of the Bill Of Rights. Not only is your vote repugnant, it is unconstitutional and thereby illegal. You have taken a position out of fear and cowardice and subjugated the rights of the citizens of this country as a result for no benefit to any citizen - this is inexcusable and unforgivable. This is yet another example showing that you do not deserve your office. Sadly, exposition of your compliance in this and other transgressions against the citizens of this country and the rights they hold will probably give you no pause to consider that you are obviously unfit to serve and should resign your office to someone better able to be a REPRESENTATIVE of their constituents.
You will admit none of this of course, but whether you do or not, you have guaranteed that I will vote for whichever candidate seems most likely to defeat you or whomever you support in the next election for your position.
Parent post is correct. It seems the grandparent post has confused options with short selling. As long as you can make your margin calls on your short position (depositing more equity in the face of a short position that has moved against you), you can hold your short position indefinitely.
The trick is to be able to make margin calls. That's why short selling is one of the riskiest types of trades you can do - your potential loss is infinite (though that is not likely).
Talk to everyone you know, everyone who'll listen and inform them of what's going on. That is the absolute best thing you can do. If everyone on this site would do that the message would certainly reach a large number of people quickly. Be accurate, be concise, be calm - keep it strictly to the facts, no preaching - and most importantly keep it simple at first.
I had a conversation about this several months ago with my father, aunt, uncle and some others. These are not stupid people by any stretch, but they could not believe what I was telling them in regards to these sorts of things. They were uninformed on this topic. I simply forwarded them links to text and analysis of the PATRIOT act, DMCA and a few other gems. Next time I talked to them they all agreed that it was bad news, really bad news. It definitely has given a new view of our current government.
Put the information out there and get people to see it - that's the kind of thing that will result in change. And it's something you can do yourself on a person by person basis.
There is at least one Demo candidate who has revoking the PATRIOT act as a part of his platform - he's also got some good ideas about other problems in the U.S. Check it out:
The problem is, this bill has already been passed. We never saw it comming. Certainly writing now will let your congresspeople know your concerns, but it's too late for this one. That's the real stench of this, it got snuck in and the public didn't even know it was being voted on.
I know we have a wonderful history of attaching riders and pork barrel legislation in congress, but isn't it about time we took steps to abolish such things? I have a hard time seeing any benefit to such practices anymore. Bills should address a single problem, should be clearly named/described, and should always be made available for public analysis - The U.S. government has much more capacity to ruin the lives of U.S. citizens than any band of "terrorists" ever will, there is no justification for refusal of public disclosure of laws or proposed laws affecting U.S. citizens, period. There is no valid reason for a spending bill to have this kind of legislation attached, period.
In relation to this bill, I fail to see how having this additionaly capacity will help prevent "terrorism" moreso than what the FBI already has. Lack of information was not the problem in 9/11 - lack of correctly addressing the known information was. In any proposed expansion of powers such as this one should have to affirmatively answer the question "would the powers in question, if granted, have prevented an event like 9/11". The answer in this case is no, thus indicating ulterior motives for this legislation, and subsequently the undesireability of the proposed legislation.
Then again appealing to common sense seems to have become a waste of time in regard to the U.S. government.
IT is only important inasmuch as any other part of an endeavor's infrastructure. As such it's up there probably with things like your physical plant, accounting department, etc. You probably can't operate without it at this point and be big, but having it is not going to give you any competitive advantage.
I think recently the "right" IT "solution" has been viewed as the sack full of magic beans that will turn shoddy business concepts or a bunch of ne'er do wells into world beaters, or the secret sauce that will make you better than your closest competitors. I think many have been burned by thinking this way over the last few years.
In light of this realization I think the pendulum of perceived value of IT has swung (perhaps a bit too far) back into line with the actual value provided by IT. IT today is like steno pools, typewriters and courriers of several decades ago. You never heard businesses hyping their "high powered technologically advanced" steno pools before - so now too with IT. IT is not a business advantage, just an underlying, non noteworthy part of doing business.
What's also important to realize is that more often than not it's the personell in the IT department that are the value rather than a particular technology. Being able to skillfully recommend, acquire, deploy, maintain and perhaps even create custom technologies in harmony with the requirements of a given business is much more important than any particular IT technology in and of itself, and that is the realm of people (either consultants or in house), not technology.
Both of these realizations are of course dissonant to the concerns of those who like to sell IT "solutions", so it's no surprise that they are fighting this reality so strongly.
I've pretty much stopped watching T.V. altogether. I'm not paying for any service, don't even have an antenna. I'm not going to pay to watch commercials and the mindless trash that occupies most of the "content." I'll watch a DVD now and then, catch a game at a friend's or relative's but that's about it.
You can have your streams.
Here's a radical change - stop watching life and start living it.
Should anyone's software be treated differently from the auto industry?
I figure when MS can start charging $20,000 per OS license, then maybe we can expect bullet proof software safety. The kind of engineering required to give some kind of guarantee or waranty against "bad things" that these people are expecting would cause the cost of software to be prohibitive. Heck it may not even be possible if the software is complex enough. At some point you have to say well we've gotten it as hardened as is feasible, but there will always be some risk.
Sure MS stuff could be better engineered, but there's a point of diminishing returns for everyone involved. If YOU want guarantees, YOU pay to develop your own unbreakable system and use that. Otherwise the old "buyer beware" caveat still holds - especially in the case where the licensing agreement TELLS YOU they are not liable. If you don't like that by all means don't use the software. But don't sue the manufacturer of the car when they warn you in advance that the car could get stolen, that they're not liable if it gets stolen, you don't do what's required to prevent it getting stolen and then by gum it gets stolen!
This whole shuffling of responsibility through litigation is sinking this country faster than any liberal welfare policy or conservative defense budget.
I don't think cases like this are good for the industry in general, MS or no MS.
"Fact #3: A Visitors visa is different from a Work visa (just like USA) Fact #4: If you travel on visitors visa, you cannot change it to work visa unless you leave the country first. Basically you cannot transfer visas without changing your port of entry (guess what? just like the good ol' USA) Fact #5: This guy traveled to India on a work visa and applied for a job Fact #6: Following fact #4, he got denied a visa."
Maybe it's just me, but I don't see how "Fact #6" follows from "Fact #4"
If what you say in "Fact #5" is true, that he traveled to India on a work visa, then it seems as far as visas go he had the right one according to "Fact 3" - the one that would allow him to work in India. Care to get your "Facts" straight?
What in the above serves as justification for him being denied work in India?
No problem. Just make sure I get to pay $5 for a copy of the U.S. software that's now being produced in India rather than the $200 it used to cost when the coding was done in the U.S. - you know because the company saved so much money by outsourcing, they can afford to charge less to us people here who are now earning less. Same goes for shoes made in Korea by U.S.corporations and sold to people in the U.S for $150, etc., etc.
Never seems to happen does it?
More importantly, how am I or anyone supposed to pay that $150 when the only jobs left in my nation will be paying $30 grand a year? How are all these overpriced items going to be purchased if neither the workers in the U.S. or India can afford them due to cut rate salaries? What happens to your economy and corporations then?
I guess we should all become lawyers and accountants (if you're not lucky enough to make it in the entertainment business) then, and leave the actual productive fields to all the other nations of the world until we're poor enough to be considered cheap labor too. Or we should all be clerks selling each other things. There's a workable solution. Great idea. I really want to live in your country chief.
I'm all for bringing up the standard of living everywhere - but I'm not seeing it. I'd be o.k. with the outsourcing if there was some equality, if by doing so standards of living were rising in general, but that's not the case - the richest just get that much richer and everyone else becomes poorer. I'm seeing corporations taking the profits and the standard of living staying just about the same in the places getting the jobs, while it gets significantly worse for the place where the jobs were moved from. Sure ultimately the corporations themselves will take a hit when no one can afford what they're charging for their products. Guess what happens when the corporations start going under?
Sorry, I don't feel like turning the keys over to corporations while they run around playing musical chairs with national economies. That's a surefire recipie for disaster. But you go ahead and play the good corporate stooge and call it freedom. Just let me know what you'll be doing when your job and any job that can be done cheaper somewhere else is sent to Sri Lanka. What's your "freedom" going to look like then. I'd bet it would look something like a nation full of very unhappy, impoverished folk - kind of like the places these corporations are currently exploiting in their continual outsourcing. Regulation isn't optional if you want to have stability - it's mandatory at this point because those who run corporations have proven time and again that they can't be trusted to work in the best interests of society or economies in general. You're mistaken if you think that is what capitalism is about in any way shape or form.
Adapt or die? What kind of vision for humanity is that? Sure makes a nice sound bite though, eh tough guy?
Economically Illiterate indeed. I'm a person, not cheap labor up for exploitation and its the same the world over. Start considering people as human beings rather than salary/consumption buckets and maybe we'd all have a better standard of living.
For the sake of completeness here is a snippet of what McBride has said taken from a transcript posted in this slashdot thread involving the SCO conference call of Aug 5:
"What is at issue is more than SCO and Red Hat. What is at issue is intellectual property rights in the age of the Internet....don't ask, don't tell policy.... important debate...proprietary or communal property according to Richard Stallman's vision."
I believe I saw a few other mentions of targeting Stallman in some other statements by SCO execs, but I can't find them right now, however the above is more than enough to support my main point.
" Just trying to push up the stock prices. The SCO executives will be selling off all their stocks soon enough."
You know I thought it was as simple as this, up until yesterday. Yesterday mention was made that McBride had started mentioning targeting Stallman as one of those responsible for infringing on SCO IP. Stallman is certainly well known to most of us here, however to the stock broker and day trader monkeys he and his ideas are way too esoteric (for better or worse) to have any meaning at all in an attempt to manipulate stock price. Indeed Stallman has gone to great lengths to distance himself from the linux kernel (the only part of the GNU/linux package currently under contention by SCO), and is deeply involved in developing the independent HURD kernel - in these ways he is a completely incorrect target for the stock manipulation purpose.
I'm starting to think (with credit to others who have ruminated on the idea as well) there's something more insidious to all this than just a stock manipulation scheme. We've heard it before a dozen times - we'll just switch to a BSD, or we'll just remove the offending lines of code, or we'll just drop in HURD for the kernel instead of linux - our linux "problems" from SCO's perspective are seemingly easily solved, and in the short run you'd probably be right. But the scope of the SCO attack is too broad based (and seemingly getting more broad daily) to be simply focused on corrupting the linux kernel now - that is too easily thwarted - and if we can see it I'm sure someone at SCO sees it too. (Sorry chums we're not the only +5 insightful people on the planet)
I think that this is more about someone (and it has been suggested before on these boards by others, but bears repeating) is trying very hard to cut the legs out from under the entire OSS movement here and now. I think interested parties have come to realize that the time is near when it will no longer to be possible to perpetuate the proprietary program for rent business model of software development due to OSS having gained far too much momentum and widespread adoption. Even despite things like the SCO suits, we get more reports of more and larger businesses, governments and institutions committing firmly to integrating OSS and OSS products into their infrastructures on an almost daily basis. If those who wish to stop this are going to do so, they must do so now. I think this isn't only a last desperate gasp by SCO for some money, I think its a desperate gambit by proprietary software interests to kill OSS before it kills them. The stock manipulation thing is too transparent to be the only goal of the SCO attacks.
Or maybe I'm just giving too much credit and being too conspiracy theory. What the heck, it's interesting to consider.
As an aside, how bitter is the cup of vindication Stallman must be sipping from right now? And those who thought he was a bit too evangelical in his stance must at least be taking a moment to reflect that what he has been warning and working against is now beginning to happen right in front of us. Additionally, had people been more willing to acquiesce to the idea of using GNU/Linux as the name of the package used, it may have been more readily appearant to even laymen that even were SCO's claims valid their "contributions" still represent a ridiculously small amount of the overall package and thus their claim would have been more obviously worthless. I'll leave that for others to debate.
Anyone else just plain fed up and disgusted with things at this point? I don't care who the players are, who or what is being "wronged" or "infringed upon" - I took one look at this topic and felt utterly sick to my stomach. All this litigiousness - it serves no one except for some lawyers and a CEO or two. Anyone really think you I or anyone who actually works on or uses "unix" will benefit from this, regardless of who "wins"?
That's just on this subject - I think my reaction is just a result of a long accumulation of the bile accruing from coming in contact with corporate U$A. The corporation was something that was granted by US the people, to serve US the people, then the corporation became a person itself, and now it seems we serve corporations. But I'll refer back to the original intent of corporations (ie. that they exist mainly to serve the public interest) in asking the following questions. What practical good will these lawsuits do for a majority of the people, directly or indirectly? Where's the benefit to mankind here? Where's the consideration of facilitating free exchange of ideas? Where's the thought toward allowing humanity to progress? Where's the cooperation leading to greater advancements? Where's the interest in posterity, the acknowledgement of building a positive future? Where's the f**king common sense?
If there aren't good answers to these questions at this point, I don't think these things should be taking up time, money, people and resources allocated from money we all pay to support the legal system abused by garbage like this. Basically all we have is some bizzaro world of corporate kindergarten where our petulant companies run to teacher any time they don't get their way and everyone else has to sit back and get screwed by the result. The system doesn't serve us anymore, and I can't even find representatives to get behind who might make things better. Run for office myself? Sorry I don't have the multi millions required to run for office, so I guess I get no representation.
Very depressing. There's got to be something better than what we've got now - and I'm pretty certain it involves putting a pretty short leash on our corporations - a tall order at this point.
To sum up, I hope they both lose - because everyone else already has.
Thanks for that. It was my understanding (and this may again be wrong) that in cases like this there needs to be some notification to the "offending" party of their transgression and an opportunity for them to correct the transgression before things can go to court. This discussion has been had before here, and it seemed to me that you are not allowed to sit on on infringement, knowingly racking up the damages and then start suing people out of nowhere when you feel there's enough money to be had at that point. Ie. SCO has known for some time of this problem - it seems they needed to notify as soon as they became aware of it if they expected to collect damages. Similar to the GIF case I believe - but I certainly could be wrong.
Slashdot Mirror
groovus-bookmark
"But how did lessened melanin production and "whiteness" spread in Europe? Likely through founder's effect in small and isolated inbreeding populations -- but certainly not because of any "Aryan" superiority."
Ever shave a gorilla? A chimpanzee? What color was their skin under the hair? If you said "white" (well pinkish really but what we consider white for these purposes) you'd be correct in most cases! Whatever the case it certainly isn't what we'd consider to be "dark" for this converstation. Where do these sorts of primates live? Africa!
Here's a thought - whiteness didn't spread to European people, those of our species who migrated to Europe were already "white". Darker skin is an adaptation to different living conditions. Those of our species who remained in (or moved to) climates which encouraged it evolved darker skin pigmentation - not the other way around. Remember, the climate of today or even the last few ten thousand years is very different from what it was when our species started out and has undergone drastic changes throughout that time.
"If you're out on the street, our laws say you don't."
What law would that be exactly? What section of the Constitution? What part of the Bill of Rights? What amendment? What legal precedent? If you can't find such a thing, then there is no such law, "the way our laws are set up right now" - ie. unless explicitly stated, laws do not exist and are not inferred in the U.S.
I'm not trying to troll, I'm really curious as to where this law is stated and how it reads - because I highly doubt any of the founders of the U.S. would have even considered such a thing, much less enacted it.
Reason 1 to care, for the strictly self interested: Because we all end up paying for it. In the U.S. we're an over 30% obese population and climbing steadily.* That puts an incredible amount of unecessary strain on our already malfunctioning health care system. It also results in increasing abuses of the already overworked legal system as cases are brought more often relating to health problems. And everybody who pays taxes, health care insurance or any medical related cost in the U.S. has to foot part of those bills.
Reason 2 for the humanitarians: Because this now rampant problem is really a sad thing for those so effected. I'm not saying everyone should be runway model slim (far from it, that's just as unhealthy), but the anguish that truly obese people suffer is sad to see. And I've seen it first hand from a couple of friends. I wish I could put it more eloquently, but all I can say is its simply a bad thing to have your fellow humans suffer this way. I realize all you people of steel have no time or sympathy for others who "lack personal responsibility" or are "weak willed", but others of us do have some empathy and would like to see things get better for people like this.
*http://www.niddk.nih.gov/health/nutrit/pubs/sta tobes.htm#preval
That's interesting/informative to hear. I had no idea. Sounds like that was quite some time ago, I'm surprised that they haven't given it another shot, considering how the environment for that kind of thing has changed.
and I have a few possible answers in mind, but I've always wanted to ask:
With all the other things that MS bundles with its OS, why the heck have they never included an anti virus program? I mean really, that would be one of the very few useful things they could bundle, there's been AV software around for ages so they could have easily "innovated" one by now, and it's obviously something every MS user needs. So what gives?
Let the conspiracy theories fly!
"It's better to boycott Disney's draconian DRM and have them loosen it than to not have any DRM and content distribution at all."
I disagree. I don't "need content" enough to support Digital Restriction Management and the subsequent crippling of technology which I should have a right to use however I see fit. Despite what the marketing tells you, large corporations have a vested interest in reducing your freedom of choice in regards to what you can do with technology. In this example the marketing is we'll have more freedom choice due to more availability of "content" (as dictated solely by the corporations), the reality is we'll have less freedom of choice in how we use the technology to not only experience but also to produce new "content" of our very own. This kind of thinking eventually impoverishes us all for the benefit of very few. End of story.
In other words fuck them, their "content", and the subsequent shackles they want to put on the common man - I don't want it or need it.
100 or so years ago there was no recording industry because the technology wasn't there. I figure about 10 to 20 years from now there will again be no recording industry (at least not one resembling anything we've had to suffer through these last 30 years) because the technology is here. We're close to a complete music industry meltdown, not because of illegal filesharing, but simply because the means of production (more acurrately re-production) are available to just about everyone now at little cost. Advertising/promotion is also losing its barriers to entry for similar reasons. Certainly sound engineering and recording will last a bit longer until home studio type software and equipment comes down in price - although I doubt some "pro" equipment will ever become cheap enough for ubiquitous adoption by everyone who wants it. In short the "services" once provided by the music industry (and the printing industry, etc. etc.) will by and large no longer be required - the party is just about over for these clowns.
Looking inevitable extinction right in the face what do the geniuses pulling down seven or eight figure salaries to run things do? Take advantage of the current opportunity to sell their copies at virtually no cost to themselves and make an obscene amount of profit by making it easy and cheap for everyone with access to a computer to be able to pay them for their product? Heck no - lets jack up the price, make using the "product" a pain in the butt, and prosecute would be consumers for sampling what should be viewed as free advertising for their product. Its truly pathetic that these clowns can't reign in their greed just a smidge in order to give a new lease on life to their out of touch business model. Instead they're shoveling dirt on the industry's grave faster than a couple thousand college kids can download the latest NippleExposureTastic garbage fest from talent bereft plasticine pop whores like Janet Jackson.
Thanks record execs, you just brought the future a few years closer to happening, and though you won't have a place in it in your current capacities I'm sure you'll figure out how to leach off the next big thing, whatever that is. So I suppose we'll see you next when you're trying to put DRM on virtual reality cyber sex parlor "content" - at least that may give Brittney a new job.
I don't really have a point here, other than to lift a cold one in celebration of the impending conflagration of an industry so blindingly corrupt, greedy and parasitical that it can't see it's killing itself. Who's with me?
Ever see that movie?
I'm not so sure this is a great idea.
Firstly, I don't know of any guys on the pro golf circuit who got there because they're the man at sim golf. I doubt that I'd want someone who kicks butt at rollercoaster tycoon making amusement parks and rollcosters for public use. You get the idea.
Sure you have simulators which people use for training - but those are incredibly expensive incredibly specialized pieces of equipment. Real life pilots aren't using MS flight simulator to get their licenses. And this war game stuff sure doesn't sound like anything more than Everquest set in a modern day war zone.
Secondly, do we really need to be spending more public funding to reach an even larger audience to teach them the best way to kill people? Even if it's just the abstract virtual kind of killing with no "real" repercussions. I mean, if you want to be a soldier, go ahead and sign up, get the real training, see what it's like to actually have to wake up at 0500 and hit the obstacle course, fire off a few rounds, get disciplined, maybe even go off and have to be personally responsible for the death and maiming of a few other human beings because that's your job. Do we really need an MMORPG for this? Shouldn't we be spending this money on teaching people how NOT to kill each other, or adressing the issues that make it so people want to kill their fellow man in the first place? Then we might not need so many soldiers.
Sorry, that's just crazy talk - by all means it's a great idea to teach Johnny and Janie how to frag. That's invaluable job skill training that will benefit humanity. Heck in that case, why not make it a required course to graduate High School? Sponsored by the military-industrial complex near you.
My tax dollars at work indeed.
Have some fun and write carly fiorina to let "it" know what you think.
/ 20040107/ap_on_bi_ge/technology_jobs_5 article, as well as numerous other comments and decisions you have made in your tenure with HP, I wished to inform you that you have lost a customer. As a previous purchasor and owner of only several HP printers and CD devices, this may not be of great importance to you. However, I wished to take the time to remind you that you also have no "god given right" to the patronage of this U.S. citizen, and that my money will now be going to your competitors, perhaps even offshore competitors who will provide me with capability and quality comparable to or better than that found in HP products - with lower cost to myself. In addition, I will advise all I know to stay away from HP products while you are involved with the company in any capacity.
Here's my submission:
In response to your comments in this http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap
Because after all, you "have to compete" right?
Here's hoping your job is outsourced soon.
Here's what my pal Adam Schiff will be getting in his inbox (it may be too invective laced but he's trampled on our rights so many times I don't really care any more):
It is recorded (http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2003/roll649.xml) that you
voted YEA for the bill: Intelligence Authorization Act for Fiscal Year
2004. The act contains measures which are blatantly in direct opposition
to amendment 4 of the Bill Of Rights. Not only is your vote repugnant, it
is unconstitutional and thereby illegal. You have taken a position out of
fear and cowardice and subjugated the rights of the citizens of this
country as a result for no benefit to any citizen - this is inexcusable
and unforgivable. This is yet another example showing that you do not
deserve your office. Sadly, exposition of your compliance in this and
other transgressions against the citizens of this country and the rights
they hold will probably give you no pause to consider that you are
obviously unfit to serve and should resign your office to someone better
able to be a REPRESENTATIVE of their constituents.
You will admit none of this of course, but whether you do or not, you have
guaranteed that I will vote for whichever candidate seems most likely to
defeat you or whomever you support in the next election for your position.
Parent post is correct. It seems the grandparent post has confused options with short selling. As long as you can make your margin calls on your short position (depositing more equity in the face of a short position that has moved against you), you can hold your short position indefinitely.
The trick is to be able to make margin calls. That's why short selling is one of the riskiest types of trades you can do - your potential loss is infinite (though that is not likely).
Talk to everyone you know, everyone who'll listen and inform them of what's going on. That is the absolute best thing you can do. If everyone on this site would do that the message would certainly reach a large number of people quickly. Be accurate, be concise, be calm - keep it strictly to the facts, no preaching - and most importantly keep it simple at first.
I had a conversation about this several months ago with my father, aunt, uncle and some others. These are not stupid people by any stretch, but they could not believe what I was telling them in regards to these sorts of things. They were uninformed on this topic. I simply forwarded them links to text and analysis of the PATRIOT act, DMCA and a few other gems. Next time I talked to them they all agreed that it was bad news, really bad news. It definitely has given a new view of our current government.
Put the information out there and get people to see it - that's the kind of thing that will result in change. And it's something you can do yourself on a person by person basis.
There is at least one Demo candidate who has revoking the PATRIOT act as a part of his platform - he's also got some good ideas about other problems in the U.S. Check it out:
http://www.kucinich.us/issues/patriot_act.php
The problem is, this bill has already been passed. We never saw it comming. Certainly writing now will let your congresspeople know your concerns, but it's too late for this one. That's the real stench of this, it got snuck in and the public didn't even know it was being voted on.
I know we have a wonderful history of attaching riders and pork barrel legislation in congress, but isn't it about time we took steps to abolish such things? I have a hard time seeing any benefit to such practices anymore. Bills should address a single problem, should be clearly named/described, and should always be made available for public analysis - The U.S. government has much more capacity to ruin the lives of U.S. citizens than any band of "terrorists" ever will, there is no justification for refusal of public disclosure of laws or proposed laws affecting U.S. citizens, period. There is no valid reason for a spending bill to have this kind of legislation attached, period.
In relation to this bill, I fail to see how having this additionaly capacity will help prevent "terrorism" moreso than what the FBI already has. Lack of information was not the problem in 9/11 - lack of correctly addressing the known information was. In any proposed expansion of powers such as this one should have to affirmatively answer the question "would the powers in question, if granted, have prevented an event like 9/11". The answer in this case is no, thus indicating ulterior motives for this legislation, and subsequently the undesireability of the proposed legislation.
Then again appealing to common sense seems to have become a waste of time in regard to the U.S. government.
IT is only important inasmuch as any other part of an endeavor's infrastructure. As such it's up there probably with things like your physical plant, accounting department, etc. You probably can't operate without it at this point and be big, but having it is not going to give you any competitive advantage.
I think recently the "right" IT "solution" has been viewed as the sack full of magic beans that will turn shoddy business concepts or a bunch of ne'er do wells into world beaters, or the secret sauce that will make you better than your closest competitors. I think many have been burned by thinking this way over the last few years.
In light of this realization I think the pendulum of perceived value of IT has swung (perhaps a bit too far) back into line with the actual value provided by IT. IT today is like steno pools, typewriters and courriers of several decades ago. You never heard businesses hyping their "high powered technologically advanced" steno pools before - so now too with IT. IT is not a business advantage, just an underlying, non noteworthy part of doing business.
What's also important to realize is that more often than not it's the personell in the IT department that are the value rather than a particular technology. Being able to skillfully recommend, acquire, deploy, maintain and perhaps even create custom technologies in harmony with the requirements of a given business is much more important than any particular IT technology in and of itself, and that is the realm of people (either consultants or in house), not technology.
Both of these realizations are of course dissonant to the concerns of those who like to sell IT "solutions", so it's no surprise that they are fighting this reality so strongly.
Offtopic:
I've pretty much stopped watching T.V. altogether. I'm not paying for any service, don't even have an antenna. I'm not going to pay to watch commercials and the mindless trash that occupies most of the "content." I'll watch a DVD now and then, catch a game at a friend's or relative's but that's about it.
You can have your streams.
Here's a radical change - stop watching life and start living it.
Should anyone's software be treated differently from the auto industry?
I figure when MS can start charging $20,000 per OS license, then maybe we can expect bullet proof software safety. The kind of engineering required to give some kind of guarantee or waranty against "bad things" that these people are expecting would cause the cost of software to be prohibitive. Heck it may not even be possible if the software is complex enough. At some point you have to say well we've gotten it as hardened as is feasible, but there will always be some risk.
Sure MS stuff could be better engineered, but there's a point of diminishing returns for everyone involved. If YOU want guarantees, YOU pay to develop your own unbreakable system and use that. Otherwise the old "buyer beware" caveat still holds - especially in the case where the licensing agreement TELLS YOU they are not liable. If you don't like that by all means don't use the software. But don't sue the manufacturer of the car when they warn you in advance that the car could get stolen, that they're not liable if it gets stolen, you don't do what's required to prevent it getting stolen and then by gum it gets stolen!
This whole shuffling of responsibility through litigation is sinking this country faster than any liberal welfare policy or conservative defense budget.
I don't think cases like this are good for the industry in general, MS or no MS.
"Fact #3: A Visitors visa is different from a Work visa (just like USA)
Fact #4: If you travel on visitors visa, you cannot change it to work visa unless you leave the country first. Basically you cannot transfer visas without changing your port of entry (guess what? just like the good ol' USA)
Fact #5: This guy traveled to India on a work visa and applied for a job
Fact #6: Following fact #4, he got denied a visa."
Maybe it's just me, but I don't see how "Fact #6" follows from "Fact #4"
If what you say in "Fact #5" is true, that he traveled to India on a work visa, then it seems as far as visas go he had the right one according to "Fact 3" - the one that would allow him to work in India. Care to get your "Facts" straight?
What in the above serves as justification for him being denied work in India?
No problem. Just make sure I get to pay $5 for a copy of the U.S. software that's now being produced in India rather than the $200 it used to cost when the coding was done in the U.S. - you know because the company saved so much money by outsourcing, they can afford to charge less to us people here who are now earning less. Same goes for shoes made in Korea by U.S.corporations and sold to people in the U.S for $150, etc., etc.
Never seems to happen does it?
More importantly, how am I or anyone supposed to pay that $150 when the only jobs left in my nation will be paying $30 grand a year? How are all these overpriced items going to be purchased if neither the workers in the U.S. or India can afford them due to cut rate salaries? What happens to your economy and corporations then?
I guess we should all become lawyers and accountants (if you're not lucky enough to make it in the entertainment business) then, and leave the actual productive fields to all the other nations of the world until we're poor enough to be considered cheap labor too. Or we should all be clerks selling each other things. There's a workable solution. Great idea. I really want to live in your country chief.
I'm all for bringing up the standard of living everywhere - but I'm not seeing it. I'd be o.k. with the outsourcing if there was some equality, if by doing so standards of living were rising in general, but that's not the case - the richest just get that much richer and everyone else becomes poorer. I'm seeing corporations taking the profits and the standard of living staying just about the same in the places getting the jobs, while it gets significantly worse for the place where the jobs were moved from. Sure ultimately the corporations themselves will take a hit when no one can afford what they're charging for their products. Guess what happens when the corporations start going under?
Sorry, I don't feel like turning the keys over to corporations while they run around playing musical chairs with national economies. That's a surefire recipie for disaster. But you go ahead and play the good corporate stooge and call it freedom. Just let me know what you'll be doing when your job and any job that can be done cheaper somewhere else is sent to Sri Lanka. What's your "freedom" going to look like then. I'd bet it would look something like a nation full of very unhappy, impoverished folk - kind of like the places these corporations are currently exploiting in their continual outsourcing. Regulation isn't optional if you want to have stability - it's mandatory at this point because those who run corporations have proven time and again that they can't be trusted to work in the best interests of society or economies in general. You're mistaken if you think that is what capitalism is about in any way shape or form.
Adapt or die? What kind of vision for humanity is that? Sure makes a nice sound bite though, eh tough guy?
Economically Illiterate indeed. I'm a person, not cheap labor up for exploitation and its the same the world over. Start considering people as human beings rather than salary/consumption buckets and maybe we'd all have a better standard of living.
For the sake of completeness here is a snippet of what McBride has said taken from a transcript posted in this slashdot thread involving the SCO conference call of Aug 5: "What is at issue is more than SCO and Red Hat. What is at issue is intellectual property rights in the age of the Internet....don't ask, don't tell policy. ... important debate ...proprietary or communal property according to Richard Stallman's vision."
I believe I saw a few other mentions of targeting Stallman in some other statements by SCO execs, but I can't find them right now, however the above is more than enough to support my main point.
" Just trying to push up the stock prices. The SCO executives will be selling off all their stocks soon enough."
You know I thought it was as simple as this, up until yesterday. Yesterday mention was made that McBride had started mentioning targeting Stallman as one of those responsible for infringing on SCO IP. Stallman is certainly well known to most of us here, however to the stock broker and day trader monkeys he and his ideas are way too esoteric (for better or worse) to have any meaning at all in an attempt to manipulate stock price. Indeed Stallman has gone to great lengths to distance himself from the linux kernel (the only part of the GNU/linux package currently under contention by SCO), and is deeply involved in developing the independent HURD kernel - in these ways he is a completely incorrect target for the stock manipulation purpose.
I'm starting to think (with credit to others who have ruminated on the idea as well) there's something more insidious to all this than just a stock manipulation scheme. We've heard it before a dozen times - we'll just switch to a BSD, or we'll just remove the offending lines of code, or we'll just drop in HURD for the kernel instead of linux - our linux "problems" from SCO's perspective are seemingly easily solved, and in the short run you'd probably be right. But the scope of the SCO attack is too broad based (and seemingly getting more broad daily) to be simply focused on corrupting the linux kernel now - that is too easily thwarted - and if we can see it I'm sure someone at SCO sees it too. (Sorry chums we're not the only +5 insightful people on the planet)
I think that this is more about someone (and it has been suggested before on these boards by others, but bears repeating) is trying very hard to cut the legs out from under the entire OSS movement here and now. I think interested parties have come to realize that the time is near when it will no longer to be possible to perpetuate the proprietary program for rent business model of software development due to OSS having gained far too much momentum and widespread adoption. Even despite things like the SCO suits, we get more reports of more and larger businesses, governments and institutions committing firmly to integrating OSS and OSS products into their infrastructures on an almost daily basis. If those who wish to stop this are going to do so, they must do so now. I think this isn't only a last desperate gasp by SCO for some money, I think its a desperate gambit by proprietary software interests to kill OSS before it kills them. The stock manipulation thing is too transparent to be the only goal of the SCO attacks.
Or maybe I'm just giving too much credit and being too conspiracy theory. What the heck, it's interesting to consider.
As an aside, how bitter is the cup of vindication Stallman must be sipping from right now? And those who thought he was a bit too evangelical in his stance must at least be taking a moment to reflect that what he has been warning and working against is now beginning to happen right in front of us. Additionally, had people been more willing to acquiesce to the idea of using GNU/Linux as the name of the package used, it may have been more readily appearant to even laymen that even were SCO's claims valid their "contributions" still represent a ridiculously small amount of the overall package and thus their claim would have been more obviously worthless. I'll leave that for others to debate.
Anyone else just plain fed up and disgusted with things at this point? I don't care who the players are, who or what is being "wronged" or "infringed upon" - I took one look at this topic and felt utterly sick to my stomach. All this litigiousness - it serves no one except for some lawyers and a CEO or two. Anyone really think you I or anyone who actually works on or uses "unix" will benefit from this, regardless of who "wins"?
That's just on this subject - I think my reaction is just a result of a long accumulation of the bile accruing from coming in contact with corporate U$A. The corporation was something that was granted by US the people, to serve US the people, then the corporation became a person itself, and now it seems we serve corporations. But I'll refer back to the original intent of corporations (ie. that they exist mainly to serve the public interest) in asking the following questions. What practical good will these lawsuits do for a majority of the people, directly or indirectly? Where's the benefit to mankind here? Where's the consideration of facilitating free exchange of ideas? Where's the thought toward allowing humanity to progress? Where's the cooperation leading to greater advancements? Where's the interest in posterity, the acknowledgement of building a positive future? Where's the f**king common sense?
If there aren't good answers to these questions at this point, I don't think these things should be taking up time, money, people and resources allocated from money we all pay to support the legal system abused by garbage like this. Basically all we have is some bizzaro world of corporate kindergarten where our petulant companies run to teacher any time they don't get their way and everyone else has to sit back and get screwed by the result. The system doesn't serve us anymore, and I can't even find representatives to get behind who might make things better. Run for office myself? Sorry I don't have the multi millions required to run for office, so I guess I get no representation.
Very depressing. There's got to be something better than what we've got now - and I'm pretty certain it involves putting a pretty short leash on our corporations - a tall order at this point.
To sum up, I hope they both lose - because everyone else already has.
Thanks for that. It was my understanding (and this may again be wrong) that in cases like this there needs to be some notification to the "offending" party of their transgression and an opportunity for them to correct the transgression before things can go to court. This discussion has been had before here, and it seemed to me that you are not allowed to sit on on infringement, knowingly racking up the damages and then start suing people out of nowhere when you feel there's enough money to be had at that point. Ie. SCO has known for some time of this problem - it seems they needed to notify as soon as they became aware of it if they expected to collect damages. Similar to the GIF case I believe - but I certainly could be wrong.