This is Slashdot the moderation is neither fair or unbiased.
I catch your drift, but I have found that many slashdotters, when confronted with a rational argument, will at least attempt to think it through. Which is why this topic is so frustrating- people clearly do not think it through. Simple observation shows that Americans can earn a good living through personal drive and hard work. There are more 'new millionares' here than anywhere else. Logic would dictate that there is something right about it.
Besides, I dont' want everyone to have eqaul paying jobs. I want to have equal opportunity, with pay commensurate with performance
Then you and I agree 100%. And I believe that in a capitalist, free society, this is most likely to happen. Sure, you'll have Enrons and WorldComs, but for the most part, if you want to and work hard, you can do very well in the US. This is not the case in dictatorial countries and whatever term you have for USSR, Cuba, and China.
And before you defend those evil, greedy businessmen, maybe you haven't worked for the same people I have
Nobody's defending evil, greedy businessmen. I am defending the honest millionare who's worked hard and earned a good living. Before you jump to conclusions about what's formed my opinion on this matter, let me say: I'm not rich at all, I have worked for lousy people, and I lost a thousand dollars to WorldCom. What I am really defending is my right to work hard and earn a living without a bunch of socialists taking my hard-earned money and telling me I'm wrong for earning it.
Here though, is the question no socialist or liberal can answer: Given the choice between a politician, a businessman, and yourself, who do you think is more concerned with your well-being?
Canada, England, France, Germany, Italy, etc., etc. Seems to work pretty well for their citizens
Which is why they routinely send critical patients to the US, right? Or why people flock from all over the globe to start a business in the US? All of the countries you list have removed competition from various markets inside their countries, and without exception those markets suffer from lack of innovation and quality. That's not to say there is no value in their work, or they are incompetent- just that they would be better off if they were less socialist.
As for the Cuba remark, it was not intended as a straw-man. I do, however, think that most people who advocate socialism do not take it to its logical conclusions and do not realize that what they advocate has marked negative affect on markets- and on their personal quality of life.
You have done a similar thing by implying that America is on the other extreme. This is not the case- in America, people have laws against fraud, and unfair labor practices. In my opinion, it is America's laws that balance market forces, social welfare, AND personal freedom to achieve one's goals. There is, however, a marked swing toward imbalance with excessive emphasis on "social welfare" that has already caused problems in energy and healthcare.
My main point is that true social welfare is brought about by creating an atmosphere in which competing markets can innovate and create quality goods and services at reasonable prices. "Socialist" and "Liberal" philosopies seem to advocate social welfare, but typically do this by enacting legislation- which time and again fails actually hurts those it claims to help.
To risk sounding like Seinfeld: What is the deal with anti-capitalists? Seriously. There's so much of it rampant on slashdot and elsewhere: those evil businesses, those greedy businessmen. When confronted with the alternative, though, people rarely have the gumption to be consistent in their beliefs: Don't like 'big business'? Think everybody should have equal paying jobs? Read up on Marxism and it's success this past century. If you still think 'free enterprise sucks' then at least be logical and apply that belief to your life- move to Cuba.
Sure, I feel for anybody who doesn't have a job, but consider for a second all the people who not only have no job, but no roof over their head, no water or food- or heaven forbid- no internet access to publish essays on. Where are they? In the dictatorial, socialist, and communist countries for the most part. Clearly, if you really want to do this guy and others a favor, the right thing to do is support free enterprise.
I just designed a GPS-based delivery tracking system, and I kind of doubt this will work exactly as advertised. For one thing, your options for transmitting GPS information are limited: you can use cellular data networks, which have limited reception, or satellite networks (which the article implies), which are expensive and require larger transmitters. All of the combo xmit/gps devices I've seen are larger than Coke cans. Though a cellular-based one could be concievably made in about that form factor with existing technology, it would almost definitely be heavier, especially if you plan to put batteries in it.
The other issue is that GPS typically require a clear view of the sky. In testing my system, the antenna had to be hung out my office window, because the signal could not be recieved through one story. In a vehicle, they do not recieve beneath metal (hence roof-mount antennas).
There are other issues that design would need to get around: aside from weight, the RF transmitter would be easily detectable. This could be prevented by using a timer or signal to 'wake up' the devices on d-day.
I am suspicious this is another Microsoft Loo. That said, I hope it's not- I could really use a small, inexpensive GPS transponder.
The optimist in me says 'I always wanted to know more about the adiabatic approximation and Berry's phase.' The pessimist says 'methinks this will only lead to an increase in the number of people who think they know what they are talking about.'
Yeah. I just lamblasted some poor Chat Tech today because of some JavaScript bug in their WebMail app. That said, I had more problems with TW Road Runner support. They would give me a whole list of things to do to my machine, only to finally admit their servers (usenet, DHCP, etc.) were down... I think that's a problem with pretty much any ISP though- support is all outsourced and has 0 tech knowledge.
Ah, yes, the North Koreas, Cubas, and other dictatorial countries of the world are the envy of us all because they have such great power systems!
the failure of a single wire or the interruption of a satellite uplink can become a major issue and form a great vulnerability.
Not if the market dictates that businesses should build in redundancy and scalability to their networks.
Of course free markets have rules- fraud is illegal. Excessive monopolies are illegal. But excessive, targeted laws cause businesses and systems to fail. Think of a developer's analogy: You have a project, with a set of general requirements. If your customer or boss begins dictating too much, such as "The entire financial system must be written in a single DOS batch file," your project is likely to fail. At the very least, you will not be innovative in your solution. Now consider a system in which you and your co-developers "compete" to come up with the best solution given a set of use-cases. Which do you think will be more successful?
A few months back, I found a deal with Earthlink's cable service that was about $10 cheaper/mo than Time Warner. Plus you get a much cleaner ISP- better Usenet servers, webmail, dialup access, etc. Funny thing is, the bill still comes from Time Warner with a "Earthlink" line item! Anyway, I've never had much problem with the speed, and haven't got kicked for badwidth over-use (yet).
PHP is more analagous to ASP or JSP, not.NET or JAVA. It is a scripting language, like ASP (VBScript) and JSP (JScript)..NET and JAVA are compiled, even in ASP.NET. Sure, there's cross over- you could do classes in ASP, and can in later PHPs- but the whole thing is interpreted and run at each request.
One other point I thought I'd throw in the hat: alot of the more vocal complaints on this thread are also opposed to Bill Gates giving millions to public education... Kinda illogical IMHO.
I realize that "from the inside" it may seem impossible, but I've seen so many people who were dirt-poor, orphans, ex-cons, druggies, mentally ill, etc. and simply worked extra hard to earn a place for themselves. To say that they were "just really lucky" kind of detracts from their accomplishment, doesn't it?
I agree in principal that government has a responsibility to create equal opportunity, but again- I've seen so many people take the opportunities that are there and succeed, and so many rich, smart snobs goof off and wind up in lousy jobs, that I have a hard time believing it's impossible for anybody.
Maybe all that is antecdotal evidence, but I heard on NPR (of all places) recently that America has the largest percent of new millionares- more people go from poor -> rich here than anywhere else. Must be doing something right.
That said, I hope you find- er, I mean earn =) your break soon.
In America, the "poor sucker working for 5$ hour in a factory" has the freedom to get a better education, start his own business, or secretly look for a better job.
As I mentioned in the previous post, your idea of "taxing the rich to the high heavens" is essentially communism, and though it sounds "fair", will inevitably end up with a) nobody having anything or b) a few government officials having everything and everybody else having nothing. Read Animal Farm for a better explanation. It is much, much more fair to create an environment with equal opportunity where even the poorest can get a good education and do well.
in the past, it was Media tycoons, publishers, industrialists, bankers who got rich
Not so. America has always been the place people come to make a fresh start and earn a living doing just about anything they want. In the past, it was a good thing when somebody went from rags to riches. But nowadays success stories like this are demonized.
"it is always on the backs of the poor that they tread."
Again, a false generalization. We may not like much of MS's business practices, but how many people have used Word or Excel or other windows software to start their own business? The mere fact that people like Gates or Dave Thomas can go from nothing to billionare shows that the same "poor" whose backs are "being tread" can do the same if they wish.
I would challenge you that the philosophy you're buying into is socialism at best and communism at worst. Would you rather have a cap on personal wealth? Perhaps the government should just keep all the money and dole it out equally? No, the real problem is a welfare mentality that tells poor people exactly what you are advocating: we deserve something for nothing from these mean rich people. This mentality removes motivation to work and actually earn a living, which explains the jobless numbers and socioeconomic separation you see. I'm all for giving everybody a fair chance, but having gone through public education, I know the reality is some people take those opportunities and some don't. Those who do go on to earn a living, those who don't are on welfare. Don't think I'm saying all this as a rich man either.
How does Microsoft make money from.NET on Linux?
The same way anybody else can make money on Linux. If you believe this is impossible, it follows logically that companies other than Microsoft cannot make money from x on linux.
How does it help MS control the market?
Well, if they played it right, they'd be the #1 provider of tools for cross-platform.NET development. More importantly, they are clearly moving applications like Office to.NET. Think about that: Office, IE, etc. all become cross-platform, and MS doesn't have to drop a dime beyond support for a.NET standard to do it.
I can see the point of those who don't trust MS because of past & current business practices, but I guess I'm just not as militant about it. It seems like a more reasonable reaction, if one is _really_ opposed to Microsoft, to push for _more_ development in Linux.NET. For example, what if Ford depended on Mono in their new Linux system? I think Microsoft would have a hard time pulling the plug on it then.
Could be wrong, but I think Microsoft actually "sees the light" in some respects, especially when it comes to a development platform. It makes sense- it builds a larger base of developers using.NET. Maybe not to the degree/.ers would want, but judging by the amount of open-source sites and projects that have a Microsoft affiliation, I think they're moving more that way.
As for "just System.*" being an open standard, it's important to realize that comprises all of.NET. Other libraries build on that functionality (such as Microsoft Application Blocks), but the entire core functionality is in System.*
Whether you think this is a "good(tm)" or "bad(tm)" thing, I think it's important to realize that Microsoft, or more accurately, the individuals at Microsoft, have the right to spend their money in any legal way they choose. If it is so ethically offensive to some, they should counter not by saying Microsoft (and the kids) should be punished, but by doing the same or better themselves. Where's the hoard of geeks raising $100 mil for schools?
I'm not exactly sure what the article and you mean by 'lack of support for SSL', but I am currently making webservice calls over an ssl connection- simply by setting up the server with SSL and specifying https:// for the url of the WebRequest and setting a certificate policy.
On a lower level it may not be supported natively, but even then, I would think the encryption namespace would have something to help out for rolling your own, or there's these guys: http://www.mentalis.org/soft/projects/ssock et/
Don't mean to be nitpicky, but it's really not the end of physical media as much as a change in media and transport methods. The physical media becomes the hard drives on the servers and user PCs and set tops. The biggest change is that the transport method shifts from a sneaker net based on optical discs and the postal system to a wired network, which is still "physical" in that packets of electrons through air and wire become the transport medium. Just more efficient.
The illogic of your comment is that it ignores the other side of the coin. As long as there is profit to be made stopping spam, capitalism will find the cheapest, best way to do so- much cheaper and much better than any politician ever could. It also, as this century has proven for marxism, ignores the fact that where there is profit to be made, there will always be an enterprising politician to take advantage.
Your analogy is also incorrect. Snake oil salesmen were frauds. Fraud became illegal, not snake oil. I may buy snake oil (or magnet bracelets or crystals) as long as the seller is honest about what it is. Spammers may be frauds also, but the point is, if they are frauds-or in violation of other existing laws- then they should be prosecuted under those laws. If new laws are needed to clarify what sorts of advertisement are illegal, they should not deal with the technology but rather the core issue (ie. it is illegal to advertise indecent material to minors.)
I have a feeling most/.ers, if they thought about it, would trust technology over a politician any day...
While I'm not 100% sure of the facts in Niagra, I think in a general sense, "deregulation problems" are due to poor implementation. California's a prime example. They "deregulated", but continued to over-regulate other aspects of the power companies' business, which meant they could not effectively compete.
Fundamentally, it comes down to an economics issue: do you believe that competition drives down prices and up quality of goods and services, or do you believe that state-owned industries provide cheaper, better goods and services. The trouble with "deregulation" is that they try to walk the fence and end up failing at both...
Slashdot Mirror
Now, where have I heard something like this before. Aye! Now me recollect. They seems to have stole a page from tha pirates 'emselves.
I'm from MS, so I can say this. The reason that this works is because we talk half as fast.
This is Slashdot the moderation is neither fair or unbiased.
I catch your drift, but I have found that many slashdotters, when confronted with a rational argument, will at least attempt to think it through. Which is why this topic is so frustrating- people clearly do not think it through. Simple observation shows that Americans can earn a good living through personal drive and hard work. There are more 'new millionares' here than anywhere else. Logic would dictate that there is something right about it.
Besides, I dont' want everyone to have eqaul paying jobs. I want to have equal opportunity, with pay commensurate with performance
Then you and I agree 100%. And I believe that in a capitalist, free society, this is most likely to happen. Sure, you'll have Enrons and WorldComs, but for the most part, if you want to and work hard, you can do very well in the US. This is not the case in dictatorial countries and whatever term you have for USSR, Cuba, and China.
And before you defend those evil, greedy businessmen, maybe you haven't worked for the same people I have
Nobody's defending evil, greedy businessmen. I am defending the honest millionare who's worked hard and earned a good living. Before you jump to conclusions about what's formed my opinion on this matter, let me say: I'm not rich at all, I have worked for lousy people, and I lost a thousand dollars to WorldCom. What I am really defending is my right to work hard and earn a living without a bunch of socialists taking my hard-earned money and telling me I'm wrong for earning it.
Here though, is the question no socialist or liberal can answer: Given the choice between a politician, a businessman, and yourself, who do you think is more concerned with your well-being?
Canada, England, France, Germany, Italy, etc., etc. Seems to work pretty well for their citizens
Which is why they routinely send critical patients to the US, right? Or why people flock from all over the globe to start a business in the US? All of the countries you list have removed competition from various markets inside their countries, and without exception those markets suffer from lack of innovation and quality. That's not to say there is no value in their work, or they are incompetent- just that they would be better off if they were less socialist.
As for the Cuba remark, it was not intended as a straw-man. I do, however, think that most people who advocate socialism do not take it to its logical conclusions and do not realize that what they advocate has marked negative affect on markets- and on their personal quality of life.
You have done a similar thing by implying that America is on the other extreme. This is not the case- in America, people have laws against fraud, and unfair labor practices. In my opinion, it is America's laws that balance market forces, social welfare, AND personal freedom to achieve one's goals. There is, however, a marked swing toward imbalance with excessive emphasis on "social welfare" that has already caused problems in energy and healthcare.
My main point is that true social welfare is brought about by creating an atmosphere in which competing markets can innovate and create quality goods and services at reasonable prices. "Socialist" and "Liberal" philosopies seem to advocate social welfare, but typically do this by enacting legislation- which time and again fails actually hurts those it claims to help.
To risk sounding like Seinfeld: What is the deal with anti-capitalists? Seriously. There's so much of it rampant on slashdot and elsewhere: those evil businesses, those greedy businessmen. When confronted with the alternative, though, people rarely have the gumption to be consistent in their beliefs: Don't like 'big business'? Think everybody should have equal paying jobs? Read up on Marxism and it's success this past century. If you still think 'free enterprise sucks' then at least be logical and apply that belief to your life- move to Cuba.
Sure, I feel for anybody who doesn't have a job, but consider for a second all the people who not only have no job, but no roof over their head, no water or food- or heaven forbid- no internet access to publish essays on. Where are they? In the dictatorial, socialist, and communist countries for the most part. Clearly, if you really want to do this guy and others a favor, the right thing to do is support free enterprise.
I just designed a GPS-based delivery tracking system, and I kind of doubt this will work exactly as advertised. For one thing, your options for transmitting GPS information are limited: you can use cellular data networks, which have limited reception, or satellite networks (which the article implies), which are expensive and require larger transmitters. All of the combo xmit/gps devices I've seen are larger than Coke cans. Though a cellular-based one could be concievably made in about that form factor with existing technology, it would almost definitely be heavier, especially if you plan to put batteries in it.
The other issue is that GPS typically require a clear view of the sky. In testing my system, the antenna had to be hung out my office window, because the signal could not be recieved through one story. In a vehicle, they do not recieve beneath metal (hence roof-mount antennas).
There are other issues that design would need to get around: aside from weight, the RF transmitter would be easily detectable. This could be prevented by using a timer or signal to 'wake up' the devices on d-day.
I am suspicious this is another Microsoft Loo. That said, I hope it's not- I could really use a small, inexpensive GPS transponder.
The optimist in me says 'I always wanted to know more about the adiabatic approximation and Berry's phase.' The pessimist says 'methinks this will only lead to an increase in the number of people who think they know what they are talking about.'
Yeah. I just lamblasted some poor Chat Tech today because of some JavaScript bug in their WebMail app. That said, I had more problems with TW Road Runner support. They would give me a whole list of things to do to my machine, only to finally admit their servers (usenet, DHCP, etc.) were down... I think that's a problem with pretty much any ISP though- support is all outsourced and has 0 tech knowledge.
Ah, yes, the North Koreas, Cubas, and other dictatorial countries of the world are the envy of us all because they have such great power systems!
the failure of a single wire or the interruption of a satellite uplink can become a major issue and form a great vulnerability.
Not if the market dictates that businesses should build in redundancy and scalability to their networks.
Of course free markets have rules- fraud is illegal. Excessive monopolies are illegal. But excessive, targeted laws cause businesses and systems to fail. Think of a developer's analogy: You have a project, with a set of general requirements. If your customer or boss begins dictating too much, such as "The entire financial system must be written in a single DOS batch file," your project is likely to fail. At the very least, you will not be innovative in your solution. Now consider a system in which you and your co-developers "compete" to come up with the best solution given a set of use-cases. Which do you think will be more successful?
A few months back, I found a deal with Earthlink's cable service that was about $10 cheaper/mo than Time Warner. Plus you get a much cleaner ISP- better Usenet servers, webmail, dialup access, etc. Funny thing is, the bill still comes from Time Warner with a "Earthlink" line item! Anyway, I've never had much problem with the speed, and haven't got kicked for badwidth over-use (yet).
Yeah, I didn't get why they'd use VB.NET as opposed to C#, which would be much closer and familiar syntax to PHP...
This will probably go over like a lead brick, but this is interesting...
PHP is more analagous to ASP or JSP, not .NET or JAVA. It is a scripting language, like ASP (VBScript) and JSP (JScript). .NET and JAVA are compiled, even in ASP.NET. Sure, there's cross over- you could do classes in ASP, and can in later PHPs- but the whole thing is interpreted and run at each request.
One other point I thought I'd throw in the hat: alot of the more vocal complaints on this thread are also opposed to Bill Gates giving millions to public education... Kinda illogical IMHO.
I realize that "from the inside" it may seem impossible, but I've seen so many people who were dirt-poor, orphans, ex-cons, druggies, mentally ill, etc. and simply worked extra hard to earn a place for themselves. To say that they were "just really lucky" kind of detracts from their accomplishment, doesn't it?
I agree in principal that government has a responsibility to create equal opportunity, but again- I've seen so many people take the opportunities that are there and succeed, and so many rich, smart snobs goof off and wind up in lousy jobs, that I have a hard time believing it's impossible for anybody.
Maybe all that is antecdotal evidence, but I heard on NPR (of all places) recently that America has the largest percent of new millionares- more people go from poor -> rich here than anywhere else. Must be doing something right.
That said, I hope you find- er, I mean earn =) your break soon.
In America, the "poor sucker working for 5$ hour in a factory" has the freedom to get a better education, start his own business, or secretly look for a better job.
As I mentioned in the previous post, your idea of "taxing the rich to the high heavens" is essentially communism, and though it sounds "fair", will inevitably end up with a) nobody having anything or b) a few government officials having everything and everybody else having nothing. Read Animal Farm for a better explanation. It is much, much more fair to create an environment with equal opportunity where even the poorest can get a good education and do well.
in the past, it was Media tycoons, publishers, industrialists, bankers who got rich
Not so. America has always been the place people come to make a fresh start and earn a living doing just about anything they want. In the past, it was a good thing when somebody went from rags to riches. But nowadays success stories like this are demonized.
"it is always on the backs of the poor that they tread."
Again, a false generalization. We may not like much of MS's business practices, but how many people have used Word or Excel or other windows software to start their own business? The mere fact that people like Gates or Dave Thomas can go from nothing to billionare shows that the same "poor" whose backs are "being tread" can do the same if they wish.
I would challenge you that the philosophy you're buying into is socialism at best and communism at worst. Would you rather have a cap on personal wealth? Perhaps the government should just keep all the money and dole it out equally? No, the real problem is a welfare mentality that tells poor people exactly what you are advocating: we deserve something for nothing from these mean rich people. This mentality removes motivation to work and actually earn a living, which explains the jobless numbers and socioeconomic separation you see. I'm all for giving everybody a fair chance, but having gone through public education, I know the reality is some people take those opportunities and some don't. Those who do go on to earn a living, those who don't are on welfare. Don't think I'm saying all this as a rich man either.
How does Microsoft make money from .NET on Linux?
.NET development. More importantly, they are clearly moving applications like Office to .NET. Think about that: Office, IE, etc. all become cross-platform, and MS doesn't have to drop a dime beyond support for a .NET standard to do it.
.NET. For example, what if Ford depended on Mono in their new Linux system? I think Microsoft would have a hard time pulling the plug on it then.
The same way anybody else can make money on Linux. If you believe this is impossible, it follows logically that companies other than Microsoft cannot make money from x on linux.
How does it help MS control the market?
Well, if they played it right, they'd be the #1 provider of tools for cross-platform
I can see the point of those who don't trust MS because of past & current business practices, but I guess I'm just not as militant about it. It seems like a more reasonable reaction, if one is _really_ opposed to Microsoft, to push for _more_ development in Linux
Could be wrong, but I think Microsoft actually "sees the light" in some respects, especially when it comes to a development platform. It makes sense- it builds a larger base of developers using .NET. Maybe not to the degree /.ers would want, but judging by the amount of open-source sites and projects that have a Microsoft affiliation, I think they're moving more that way.
.NET. Other libraries build on that functionality (such as Microsoft Application Blocks), but the entire core functionality is in System.*
As for "just System.*" being an open standard, it's important to realize that comprises all of
Whether you think this is a "good(tm)" or "bad(tm)" thing, I think it's important to realize that Microsoft, or more accurately, the individuals at Microsoft, have the right to spend their money in any legal way they choose. If it is so ethically offensive to some, they should counter not by saying Microsoft (and the kids) should be punished, but by doing the same or better themselves. Where's the hoard of geeks raising $100 mil for schools?
I'm not exactly sure what the article and you mean by 'lack of support for SSL', but I am currently making webservice calls over an ssl connection- simply by setting up the server with SSL and specifying https:// for the url of the WebRequest and setting a certificate policy.
k et/
On a lower level it may not be supported natively, but even then, I would think the encryption namespace would have something to help out for rolling your own, or there's these guys:
http://www.mentalis.org/soft/projects/ssoc
Don't mean to be nitpicky, but it's really not the end of physical media as much as a change in media and transport methods. The physical media becomes the hard drives on the servers and user PCs and set tops. The biggest change is that the transport method shifts from a sneaker net based on optical discs and the postal system to a wired network, which is still "physical" in that packets of electrons through air and wire become the transport medium. Just more efficient.
The illogic of your comment is that it ignores the other side of the coin. As long as there is profit to be made stopping spam, capitalism will find the cheapest, best way to do so- much cheaper and much better than any politician ever could. It also, as this century has proven for marxism, ignores the fact that where there is profit to be made, there will always be an enterprising politician to take advantage.
/.ers, if they thought about it, would trust technology over a politician any day...
Your analogy is also incorrect. Snake oil salesmen were frauds. Fraud became illegal, not snake oil. I may buy snake oil (or magnet bracelets or crystals) as long as the seller is honest about what it is. Spammers may be frauds also, but the point is, if they are frauds-or in violation of other existing laws- then they should be prosecuted under those laws. If new laws are needed to clarify what sorts of advertisement are illegal, they should not deal with the technology but rather the core issue (ie. it is illegal to advertise indecent material to minors.)
I have a feeling most
While I'm not 100% sure of the facts in Niagra, I think in a general sense, "deregulation problems" are due to poor implementation. California's a prime example. They "deregulated", but continued to over-regulate other aspects of the power companies' business, which meant they could not effectively compete.
Fundamentally, it comes down to an economics issue: do you believe that competition drives down prices and up quality of goods and services, or do you believe that state-owned industries provide cheaper, better goods and services. The trouble with "deregulation" is that they try to walk the fence and end up failing at both...