Re:GLOBALIZATION ON WHOSE TERMS?
on
Defining Globalism
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
You simply aren't being fair. First of all, the suggestion that globalization makes the size of an organization (be it a company, a government, a university, a charity, a political group) effect its voice is contrary to the evidence. A few points to make on that:
The fall of the Soviet Union. Many scholars attribute this, and other political uprisings to the free flow of cultures and information.
The Internet.
Consider non-globalized cultures. Besides the standard middle-east ones we've talked about lately (Iran, Iraq, Taliban-controlled-Afghanistan), consider countries in Africa and Asia. Do you see a lot of free flow of ideas there? Fully globalized cultures like the America, Canada, (most of) Europe, some of South America, Japan, etc. -- all these cultures value freedom of speech. Free flow of ideas and information is what globalization is all about.
Just because some developing countries (PC for third world) have one component of globization (say, trade) but not the other (say, free speech), doesn't mean one won't lead to another (again, fall of the Soviet Union).
Secondly, you assert that cheap labor is exploitation and the people in third world countries embrace it because they "don't know better?" They embrace it because working, bettering your conditions, and feeding your family is desirable to poverty! A wage of $1/day may seem like exploitation, but if the cost of living is $1/day, it's not so bad. When competition and trade is fully permitted, competition for workers grows and wages go up. A government is also free to set minimum wages -- it's all part of competition, even competition between nations on who has the lower wages!
Consider this analogy. The United States passed a constitutional amendment allowing states to regulate their own inter-state trade. California decided to produce its own goods. Why? Factories in West Virginia were exploitative: they only paid their workers minimum wage, hardly enough to live in in San Fransisco, Los Angeles, or most other Californian cities. Of course, the cost of living in Cali is very different from the cost of living in West Virginia. The same is true internationally.
As for human rights. Because China doesn't give its people freedom, we America won't give its people the freedom to buy Chinese goods? That hardly seems reasonable.
Re:GLOBALIZATION ON WHOSE TERMS?
on
Defining Globalism
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
I think the mention of Japan is important. Japan, and what has happened to it over the past fifty years is the image of globalization. From competing with western industry in production of cars, to the integration of cultures. A few things to consider...
Japan, although it has a suffering economy, represents a very strong concentration of economic power for such a relatively small country.
Japan's old culture has certainly not been destroyed. Many anti-globalization voices argue globalization destroys cultures. Not exactly. Japan's old culture, old values, have been mixed and integrated with western ones. Anything American sells well in Japan, while Japanise cartoons sell well in America. The key issue being, both were altered in the process of being exported to another culture.
Japan has become modern, industrial, and an ECONOMIC superpower. Japan is the face of globalization. Thanks to billions of dollars in aid and reconstruction from the US, it has mostly avoided the negative backlash to globaization some developing countries see.
You might note that few would say American industry has exploited Japan and its workers, infact American industry has been damaged by competition. The idea that globalization has anything to do with exploitation should take note of this.
Well, a friend of mine was an English major in college, spent ten years editing books and whatnot, and decided to become a Unix admin/engineer. Fortunately, he made his decision in the 2000 economy, not the 2001 economy. So, he went to an employment agency, and they placed him with the company I was working with. The employers look beyond your experience and certifications to see what kind of an employee you can be.
If you can find a company like that, you're in. The problem is, in this economy it's hard to find that kind of openness. My advice is to wait a year or whatever for things to get back to normal, then try going to an employment agency and seeing if they can place you. And, ignore the stated qualifications in newspaper ads. They ALL say BS in that, whatever in this, it's just for show. That's never a requirement.
It's not really computer science you're tired of. What school do you go to? It doesn't really matter, actually, most of them are the same: they teach you how to do specific tasks, not how to really innovate or even develop real-world applications.
It's like this. A carpenter enjoys working with wood and making creative designs, right? What if to learn carpentry, they tough you how to make every specific shape they can think of -- as apposed to how to craft things in general.
Realize now that you're in school for the peice of paper you get, at least with computer science. Thousands of students feel, and should feel, the way you do: let down by the education system. If you want that peice of paper to help you get a career, go for it. But sadly, at least in this field, most schools aren't really teaching you much.
That's my two cents anyway. I'm sure the regents of your university disagree.
Their economic system sucks, and as I said, it doesn't promote a strong middle class. It is imposed by their government, we support their government. That is certainly true.
However, I assure you that if we withdraw support for the Saudi Arabian government, and it were to callapse (which is still unlikely), a democracy would not replace it. Another totalitarian government would impose itself, and probably be more brutal than the existing one.
If we impose a democracy, we will be blamed for imposing our values on other countries. In Israel we prop-up a democracy that's even supported overwhelmingly by the people in Israel. Yet we are blamed for over-involving our selves in the middle east. If we prop up a democracy in Suadi Arabia, the outrage will be even louder.
One of the basic principals of democracy is education. One cannot exist without the other, and visa versa. We should probably push Saudi Arabia's government to properly educate its public, but establishing a fair economic system any time soon there is simply not realistic.
What we are doing right now isn't perfect, but it isn't an atrocity either. We are promoting our interest in the region, that interest being oil.
Re:Actually...
on
Globalization
·
· Score: 3, Redundant
A few observations.
Americans of today are disliked because they strive for homogeny; they want to always have access to their Starbucks lattes and their McDonalds' happy meals. Americans want to drive their SUVs, shop at malls, watch Must-See TV, and rely on others to make crucial decisions for them. Most importantly, Americans always want to blame someone else.
Do you know what the most popular restaurant in Paris is? McDonalds. The only reason SUVs don't sell well in Europe and Asia is the price of gasoline is higher. Every nation has shopping malls, and Must-See TV is syndicated around the world.
America isn't perfect. We have our Christian fundamentalists (abortion clinic bombings anyone?), we have poverty, we need to work out more and eat better (which again, would be a sign of consumerism and wealth), we even have a legislature that is showing less and less willingness to preserve the Bill of Rights. That said, it's still a pretty decent place to live.
I admit I am feeling pretty nationalistic after 9-11. I'm a libertarian, I don't support capitalism at all costs, but I don't sing along with the brainwashed-politicly-correct Madison/Berkley/MIT dogma. That dogma being, no matter what the facts, you can feel good about yourself if you Blame America First.
I'm sorry, but you're living in a fool's paradise and I don't want to die in your fool's paradise.
Indeed, we certainly can learn from the past, and social scientists can accurately predict what social conditions promote fundamentalism. Poverty and social uncertainty lead to nazism in Germany, and probably did lead to terrorism in Afghanistan. In in the future, certainly need to realize what conditions lead to the spread of terrorism. But in our current situation, that's water under the bridge.
Right now, someone has to lose and someone has to win. I'd prefer to be on the winning side. When we have toppled the Taliban we need to do what we did with Japan: rebuild it.
We also need to address the deplorable conditions in other countries that will grow terrorism.
But blaming terror on some kind of social injustice created by global capitalism is not the answer.
It's capitalism, not social policy, that has made America wealthy. As my numbers point out, if we dedicated 1/4 of everything we make to the rest of the world, it wouldn't accumulate anything but even the lowest paying sallary for a few months.
If, no the other hand, we embrace global trade and commerce, we can increase our wealth along with everyone else's. I'm not a pecismist, I'm a realist, and I can see a very good future for the world. No one is suggesting that globalization can't involve environment protection, can't have minimum wage regulations, and can't respect others' cultures.
If you want to know why capitalism doesn't make us hated around the world, consider Japan. No more than 5 decades ago, Japan was our mortal enemy. Now we are close allies and business partners. Do Japanise people hate us for bringing our capitalistic values to their society? NO. And neither do the wealthy few from Saudi Arabia who profit from trade with America.
Two observations: If you add up all the non-American charity, in the world, it comes to less than half of our charitible efforts. That is, we GIVE twice what the entire rest of the world gives combined. We gave Afghanistan their independence, by giving them weapons and training to fight the USSR.
We give Muslims trillions of dollars in money for oil. We give them charity, foreign aid, and technology. It's good for us, it's good for them. The fact that THEIR economic systems do not promote a strong middle class is their problem and their choice, not ours. We are blamed because we promote capitalism and trade in Saudi Arabia. But when we refuse to trade and refuse to invest our values in Iraq, we are blamed.
I never said I hate anyone. I didn't say anything specifically about Afghanistan. We didn't "hate" the German people when Nazism threatened us. We didn't "hate" the Japanise either.
The simple fact of the matter is, the controlling factions of Afghanistan have committed an act of war, a war crime at that, and we must respond. If you disagree with this, I have an exercise you might try. Have someone hit you. You don't hate them, so you won't retiate. They hit you again, only harder. You don't retaliate, again, because you don't "hate."
Eventually one of two things will happen. You will defend yourself at the expense of someone you "don't hate." Or, you will be very seriously injured. This is no different. We can have a few dozen Afghan innocents die, or just keep letting Americans die. I'll take the former. If you think war means hate, I suggest you go sing "Give Peace a Chance" around a bond fire with some middle east militants and see if how long you live.
Re:Actually...
on
Globalization
·
· Score: 2, Flamebait
That's wholey absurd. "Why do they hate us?" "How can we make them like us?" "What can we do to earn their trust?" -- all of these questions are signs of ignorance. Why do the Slashdot trolls post comments about hot grits? WHO CARES! The only things we need to learn about fundamentalists is what will help us DESTROY them, not appease them!
This is a long explanation, but I think the anti-globalization argument is connected to "But why do they hate us argument." They are both equally ignorant points of view. If you are ready for some patriotism, read on. Otherwise, go back to Berkley!
Did we ask why Hitler hated Jews? No. Would it have helped? No.
The Blame America First Club (tm) has made it a mission to explain to the masses of compassionate Americans why their wealth, their entertainment, and their freedoms have made so many others unhappy. They say we should share are wealth to be loved around the world. Let's see how that would work:
The GDP (Gross Domestic Product) is about 10 trillion dollars a year. Let's say we gave away 1/4 of that, destroying our economy and impairing our ability to contribute in the future. That would be 2.5 trillion dollars, divided by the population of the earth (6 billion), that comes down to $416 we could give to each person around the earth. They could then piss away that wealth because they don't understand how to invest it or use it to earn more wealth.
Or, we could allow capitalism to create wealth around the world. Yes, the minimum-wage-labor bigots would cry that we are exploiting 3rd world countries. If we ignore them, they will eventually accumulate wealth, understand the value of currency, and create wealth themselves.
Simple facts: They hate us because we're powerful, wealthy, intelligent, educated, and yes, free. Nothing but the destruction of all of these will quench their thirst for destruction. And yes, we can and will kill all the terrorists.
"You know what the great thing about martyers are? They're dead." -- Mike Rosen
Indeed, I know of a similar program. Microsoft has taken a proactive role in turning thugs into developers. By teaming up with the MPAA and RIAA, Microsoft has formed the new charity that aims to turn common criminals into productive members of society.
That's right. Criminals who do such things as copy their audio CD's to mp3's, use only one license for both of their computers, view DVDs, and even reverse-engineer software are converted to happy-go-lucky Windows users who subscribe to MSN.
Has Slashdot started a new department entitled "Yet-Another-Intro-To-Open-Source-Article Department." Not to be critical, but the only thing his article shows us is that C|Net continues to cover and introduce Open Source through tough economic times.
Of course, for those of you unaware of Open Source software, read the article.
Being from mp3.com, he's probably trying to point out Linux's age to potential investors and skeptics out there. In a day when three-year-old companies with one-year-old products go belly up daily, basing your product on one that's been around for a decade probably makes good business sense.
Lemon policies are more common in other industries too. Since the computer industry seems to wish it was like the car industry (or that's the common comparison), I'd look at lemon policies in the car industry. In the back of many manuals, you'll find that you can ask for something called "arbitration" as a last resort in dealing with you and the dealer or factory.
I knew someone who purchased a brand-spanking-new "catty" (yeah, kind of an old guy). Everything in this car broke. Everything. I'm not making this up -- virtually everything broke in the first six months. Of course, it was all covered by the warranty, but going back to the dealer on a weekly basis was getting unreasonable. He found in his manual that he could ask for arbitration, and got it. The panel consisted of an auto dealer, a mechanic, and a lawyer, who listened to him and a representative from GM. When the panel asked him what remedy he desired, he explained that he either wanted his money back, OR a replacement. Amazingly, they gave him BOTH.
At least in respect to computer hardware, I think something similar should be instituted in the computer industry. In regard to software quality assurance? (Insert Microsoft joke here).
I think this shows are hard it is to have a niche OS market. Aside from wireless and imbedded technologies, it seems to me very unlikely that something as huge as an OS can exist on what basicly amounts to a niche. Where there are so many layers to an OS, adopting a whole new set of standards just to have a multi-media optimized OS just wasn't realistic.
That's what's so wonderful about distributions. You can make a niche distribution without the overhead of Yet Another EVERYTHING.
No, worst case scenario: it gets cracked big time and there are millions of cases of identity fraud, overwhelming the nation's law enforcement, crashing the economy, and leaving many consumers in the rough.
You are missing my point. If you are smoking crack and driving in the same road with me, I assure you, you aren't just effecting yourself. It just so happens that republicans have the objective of more efficient economics, which they'd rather have an efficient economy than a pretty skyline. Democrats would rather have a pretty skyline than low-cost transportation for everyone.
The real point is, that in SSSCA, smog controls, the "drug war," and every other issue, politics is based on personal gain, not ideals. Both liberals and conservatives.
In this case, the supporting companies would not have government interfere with
them. If I develop some kind of "intellectual property" and ask the government to intrude into OTHERS' rights, the government is not interfering with my rights.
Similar example: Democrats don't want government intrusion in abortion and reproductive rights, but they are fine with government dictating what parents teach their kids. They oppose government road blocks that search for illegal drugs, they support mandated smog testing.
My point: 99% of politics is not fundamental principal, it's a matter of convenience.
I think this is article is accurate, to an extent. In my experience, the geeks lacking social skill in high school often develop it later on. Plenty of 'geeks' end up funny, socialable, and rich. The combination of the three feed of each other, in the business community.
I think the idea behind Gnu is that although it may not make as much short-term business sense, it makes long-term freedom sense. There have been plenty of examples in history when the ethical decision isn't a business decision, but ultimatly what's good for society is good for business.
In a free country, people are innocent until proven guilty. In the United States, you are guilty until proven innocent -- you simply aren't sentanced for any crime until a trial is over. But whether you win or loose the trial, you'll still have your life ruined.
It's not a move toward desktop, though. Linux 2.4 has some very advanced routing features that before BSD users have had over Linux. Some BSD users said Linux was a fine desktop but didn't cut it as a server as a result. 2.4 is making Linux a more viable desktop, server, dancing monkey -- whatever.:)
I think that's true. Companies that put that in there because they don't think it could hurt. I don't like the suggestion of it regardless of whether it can be enforced or not. I think the idea to to just re-inforce the trade secret stuff.
I'd like to see KDE and Gnome get together and share helixcode's installer. There is enough fragmentation in the Linux installer region (RPM, Deb, tgz) as far as packaging goes, but desktop install programs needn't be so. If Gnome and KDE can agree on an installer, it's one step toward a centralized installation/packaging...
Slashdot Mirror
- The fall of the Soviet Union. Many scholars attribute this, and other political uprisings to the free flow of cultures and information.
- The Internet.
- Consider non-globalized cultures. Besides the standard middle-east ones we've talked about lately (Iran, Iraq, Taliban-controlled-Afghanistan), consider countries in Africa and Asia. Do you see a lot of free flow of ideas there? Fully globalized cultures like the America, Canada, (most of) Europe, some of South America, Japan, etc. -- all these cultures value freedom of speech. Free flow of ideas and information is what globalization is all about.
Just because some developing countries (PC for third world) have one component of globization (say, trade) but not the other (say, free speech), doesn't mean one won't lead to another (again, fall of the Soviet Union).Secondly, you assert that cheap labor is exploitation and the people in third world countries embrace it because they "don't know better?" They embrace it because working, bettering your conditions, and feeding your family is desirable to poverty! A wage of $1/day may seem like exploitation, but if the cost of living is $1/day, it's not so bad. When competition and trade is fully permitted, competition for workers grows and wages go up. A government is also free to set minimum wages -- it's all part of competition, even competition between nations on who has the lower wages!
Consider this analogy. The United States passed a constitutional amendment allowing states to regulate their own inter-state trade. California decided to produce its own goods. Why? Factories in West Virginia were exploitative: they only paid their workers minimum wage, hardly enough to live in in San Fransisco, Los Angeles, or most other Californian cities. Of course, the cost of living in Cali is very different from the cost of living in West Virginia. The same is true internationally.
As for human rights. Because China doesn't give its people freedom, we America won't give its people the freedom to buy Chinese goods? That hardly seems reasonable.
- Japan, although it has a suffering economy, represents a very strong concentration of economic power for such a relatively small country.
- Japan's old culture has certainly not been destroyed. Many anti-globalization voices argue globalization destroys cultures. Not exactly. Japan's old culture, old values, have been mixed and integrated with western ones. Anything American sells well in Japan, while Japanise cartoons sell well in America. The key issue being, both were altered in the process of being exported to another culture.
Japan has become modern, industrial, and an ECONOMIC superpower. Japan is the face of globalization. Thanks to billions of dollars in aid and reconstruction from the US, it has mostly avoided the negative backlash to globaization some developing countries see.You might note that few would say American industry has exploited Japan and its workers, infact American industry has been damaged by competition. The idea that globalization has anything to do with exploitation should take note of this.
Well, a friend of mine was an English major in college, spent ten years editing books and whatnot, and decided to become a Unix admin/engineer. Fortunately, he made his decision in the 2000 economy, not the 2001 economy. So, he went to an employment agency, and they placed him with the company I was working with. The employers look beyond your experience and certifications to see what kind of an employee you can be.
If you can find a company like that, you're in. The problem is, in this economy it's hard to find that kind of openness. My advice is to wait a year or whatever for things to get back to normal, then try going to an employment agency and seeing if they can place you. And, ignore the stated qualifications in newspaper ads. They ALL say BS in that, whatever in this, it's just for show. That's never a requirement.
It's not really computer science you're tired of. What school do you go to? It doesn't really matter, actually, most of them are the same: they teach you how to do specific tasks, not how to really innovate or even develop real-world applications.
It's like this. A carpenter enjoys working with wood and making creative designs, right? What if to learn carpentry, they tough you how to make every specific shape they can think of -- as apposed to how to craft things in general.
Realize now that you're in school for the peice of paper you get, at least with computer science. Thousands of students feel, and should feel, the way you do: let down by the education system. If you want that peice of paper to help you get a career, go for it. But sadly, at least in this field, most schools aren't really teaching you much.
That's my two cents anyway. I'm sure the regents of your university disagree.
Their economic system sucks, and as I said, it doesn't promote a strong middle class. It is imposed by their government, we support their government. That is certainly true.
However, I assure you that if we withdraw support for the Saudi Arabian government, and it were to callapse (which is still unlikely), a democracy would not replace it. Another totalitarian government would impose itself, and probably be more brutal than the existing one.
If we impose a democracy, we will be blamed for imposing our values on other countries. In Israel we prop-up a democracy that's even supported overwhelmingly by the people in Israel. Yet we are blamed for over-involving our selves in the middle east. If we prop up a democracy in Suadi Arabia, the outrage will be even louder.
One of the basic principals of democracy is education. One cannot exist without the other, and visa versa. We should probably push Saudi Arabia's government to properly educate its public, but establishing a fair economic system any time soon there is simply not realistic.
What we are doing right now isn't perfect, but it isn't an atrocity either. We are promoting our interest in the region, that interest being oil.
Americans of today are disliked because they strive for homogeny; they want to always have access to their Starbucks lattes and their McDonalds' happy meals. Americans want to drive their SUVs, shop at malls, watch Must-See TV, and rely on others to make crucial decisions for them. Most importantly, Americans always want to blame someone else.
Do you know what the most popular restaurant in Paris is? McDonalds. The only reason SUVs don't sell well in Europe and Asia is the price of gasoline is higher. Every nation has shopping malls, and Must-See TV is syndicated around the world.
America isn't perfect. We have our Christian fundamentalists (abortion clinic bombings anyone?), we have poverty, we need to work out more and eat better (which again, would be a sign of consumerism and wealth), we even have a legislature that is showing less and less willingness to preserve the Bill of Rights. That said, it's still a pretty decent place to live.
I admit I am feeling pretty nationalistic after 9-11. I'm a libertarian, I don't support capitalism at all costs, but I don't sing along with the brainwashed-politicly-correct Madison/Berkley/MIT dogma. That dogma being, no matter what the facts, you can feel good about yourself if you Blame America First.
I'm sorry, but you're living in a fool's paradise and I don't want to die in your fool's paradise.
Indeed, we certainly can learn from the past, and social scientists can accurately predict what social conditions promote fundamentalism. Poverty and social uncertainty lead to nazism in Germany, and probably did lead to terrorism in Afghanistan. In in the future, certainly need to realize what conditions lead to the spread of terrorism. But in our current situation, that's water under the bridge.
Right now, someone has to lose and someone has to win. I'd prefer to be on the winning side. When we have toppled the Taliban we need to do what we did with Japan: rebuild it.
We also need to address the deplorable conditions in other countries that will grow terrorism.
But blaming terror on some kind of social injustice created by global capitalism is not the answer.
It's capitalism, not social policy, that has made America wealthy. As my numbers point out, if we dedicated 1/4 of everything we make to the rest of the world, it wouldn't accumulate anything but even the lowest paying sallary for a few months.
If, no the other hand, we embrace global trade and commerce, we can increase our wealth along with everyone else's. I'm not a pecismist, I'm a realist, and I can see a very good future for the world. No one is suggesting that globalization can't involve environment protection, can't have minimum wage regulations, and can't respect others' cultures.
If you want to know why capitalism doesn't make us hated around the world, consider Japan. No more than 5 decades ago, Japan was our mortal enemy. Now we are close allies and business partners. Do Japanise people hate us for bringing our capitalistic values to their society? NO. And neither do the wealthy few from Saudi Arabia who profit from trade with America.
Two observations: If you add up all the non-American charity, in the world, it comes to less than half of our charitible efforts. That is, we GIVE twice what the entire rest of the world gives combined. We gave Afghanistan their independence, by giving them weapons and training to fight the USSR.
We give Muslims trillions of dollars in money for oil. We give them charity, foreign aid, and technology. It's good for us, it's good for them. The fact that THEIR economic systems do not promote a strong middle class is their problem and their choice, not ours. We are blamed because we promote capitalism and trade in Saudi Arabia. But when we refuse to trade and refuse to invest our values in Iraq, we are blamed.
See a double standard there?
Because killing them will just make their neighbours hate you more and turn them into terrorists.
Two points: (A) We aren't running out of bullets, (B) not every neighbour has a death wish or $200,000,000.
I never said I hate anyone. I didn't say anything specifically about Afghanistan. We didn't "hate" the German people when Nazism threatened us. We didn't "hate" the Japanise either.
The simple fact of the matter is, the controlling factions of Afghanistan have committed an act of war, a war crime at that, and we must respond. If you disagree with this, I have an exercise you might try. Have someone hit you. You don't hate them, so you won't retiate. They hit you again, only harder. You don't retaliate, again, because you don't "hate."
Eventually one of two things will happen. You will defend yourself at the expense of someone you "don't hate." Or, you will be very seriously injured. This is no different. We can have a few dozen Afghan innocents die, or just keep letting Americans die. I'll take the former. If you think war means hate, I suggest you go sing "Give Peace a Chance" around a bond fire with some middle east militants and see if how long you live.
That's wholey absurd. "Why do they hate us?" "How can we make them like us?" "What can we do to earn their trust?" -- all of these questions are signs of ignorance. Why do the Slashdot trolls post comments about hot grits? WHO CARES! The only things we need to learn about fundamentalists is what will help us DESTROY them, not appease them!
This is a long explanation, but I think the anti-globalization argument is connected to "But why do they hate us argument." They are both equally ignorant points of view. If you are ready for some patriotism, read on. Otherwise, go back to Berkley!
Did we ask why Hitler hated Jews? No. Would it have helped? No.
The Blame America First Club (tm) has made it a mission to explain to the masses of compassionate Americans why their wealth, their entertainment, and their freedoms have made so many others unhappy. They say we should share are wealth to be loved around the world. Let's see how that would work:
The GDP (Gross Domestic Product) is about 10 trillion dollars a year. Let's say we gave away 1/4 of that, destroying our economy and impairing our ability to contribute in the future. That would be 2.5 trillion dollars, divided by the population of the earth (6 billion), that comes down to $416 we could give to each person around the earth. They could then piss away that wealth because they don't understand how to invest it or use it to earn more wealth.
Or, we could allow capitalism to create wealth around the world. Yes, the minimum-wage-labor bigots would cry that we are exploiting 3rd world countries. If we ignore them, they will eventually accumulate wealth, understand the value of currency, and create wealth themselves.
Simple facts: They hate us because we're powerful, wealthy, intelligent, educated, and yes, free. Nothing but the destruction of all of these will quench their thirst for destruction. And yes, we can and will kill all the terrorists.
"You know what the great thing about martyers are? They're dead." -- Mike Rosen
Indeed, I know of a similar program. Microsoft has taken a proactive role in turning thugs into developers. By teaming up with the MPAA and RIAA, Microsoft has formed the new charity that aims to turn common criminals into productive members of society.
That's right. Criminals who do such things as copy their audio CD's to mp3's, use only one license for both of their computers, view DVDs, and even reverse-engineer software are converted to happy-go-lucky Windows users who subscribe to MSN.
Has Slashdot started a new department entitled "Yet-Another-Intro-To-Open-Source-Article Department." Not to be critical, but the only thing his article shows us is that C|Net continues to cover and introduce Open Source through tough economic times.
Of course, for those of you unaware of Open Source software, read the article.
Being from mp3.com, he's probably trying to point out Linux's age to potential investors and skeptics out there. In a day when three-year-old companies with one-year-old products go belly up daily, basing your product on one that's been around for a decade probably makes good business sense.
Lemon policies are more common in other industries too. Since the computer industry seems to wish it was like the car industry (or that's the common comparison), I'd look at lemon policies in the car industry. In the back of many manuals, you'll find that you can ask for something called "arbitration" as a last resort in dealing with you and the dealer or factory.
I knew someone who purchased a brand-spanking-new "catty" (yeah, kind of an old guy). Everything in this car broke. Everything. I'm not making this up -- virtually everything broke in the first six months. Of course, it was all covered by the warranty, but going back to the dealer on a weekly basis was getting unreasonable. He found in his manual that he could ask for arbitration, and got it. The panel consisted of an auto dealer, a mechanic, and a lawyer, who listened to him and a representative from GM. When the panel asked him what remedy he desired, he explained that he either wanted his money back, OR a replacement. Amazingly, they gave him BOTH.
At least in respect to computer hardware, I think something similar should be instituted in the computer industry. In regard to software quality assurance? (Insert Microsoft joke here).
I think this shows are hard it is to have a niche OS market. Aside from wireless and imbedded technologies, it seems to me very unlikely that something as huge as an OS can exist on what basicly amounts to a niche. Where there are so many layers to an OS, adopting a whole new set of standards just to have a multi-media optimized OS just wasn't realistic.
That's what's so wonderful about distributions. You can make a niche distribution without the overhead of Yet Another EVERYTHING.
No, worst case scenario: it gets cracked big time and there are millions of cases of identity fraud, overwhelming the nation's law enforcement, crashing the economy, and leaving many consumers in the rough.
Buyer-be-ware only goes so far.
You are missing my point. If you are smoking crack and driving in the same road with me, I assure you, you aren't just effecting yourself. It just so happens that republicans have the objective of more efficient economics, which they'd rather have an efficient economy than a pretty skyline. Democrats would rather have a pretty skyline than low-cost transportation for everyone.
The real point is, that in SSSCA, smog controls, the "drug war," and every other issue, politics is based on personal gain, not ideals. Both liberals and conservatives.
In this case, the supporting companies would not have government interfere with
them. If I develop some kind of "intellectual property" and ask the government to intrude into OTHERS' rights, the government is not interfering with my rights.
Similar example: Democrats don't want government intrusion in abortion and reproductive rights, but they are fine with government dictating what parents teach their kids. They oppose government road blocks that search for illegal drugs, they support mandated smog testing.
My point: 99% of politics is not fundamental principal, it's a matter of convenience.
I think this is article is accurate, to an extent. In my experience, the geeks lacking social skill in high school often develop it later on. Plenty of 'geeks' end up funny, socialable, and rich. The combination of the three feed of each other, in the business community.
I think the idea behind Gnu is that although it may not make as much short-term business sense, it makes long-term freedom sense. There have been plenty of examples in history when the ethical decision isn't a business decision, but ultimatly what's good for society is good for business.
In a free country, people are innocent until proven guilty. In the United States, you are guilty until proven innocent -- you simply aren't sentanced for any crime until a trial is over. But whether you win or loose the trial, you'll still have your life ruined.
It's not a move toward desktop, though. Linux 2.4 has some very advanced routing features that before BSD users have had over Linux. Some BSD users said Linux was a fine desktop but didn't cut it as a server as a result. 2.4 is making Linux a more viable desktop, server, dancing monkey -- whatever. :)
I think that's true. Companies that put that in there because they don't think it could hurt. I don't like the suggestion of it regardless of whether it can be enforced or not. I think the idea to to just re-inforce the trade secret stuff.
My (pretty obvious) two cents.