There seems to be this assumption that if you're a conservative, than you're in bed with MS...
Well, the assumption is that if you call yourself conservative that means you're likely to be pro business as well, and thus pro Microsoft. You must admit, it's a fair assumption to make given how Republicans have treated Microsoft. Of course, a real conservative, rugged individualist type should be against all monopolies. A monopoly will abuse power and suppress individual freedoms as surely as any state.
2.) It is biased, and the vast majority of viewers share its viewpoint...making your viewpoint a small minority in this country
I'd just like to point out that this statement is not logically consistent.
"Cable news viewers" != "American public"
The sets intersect, but are not equivalent.
Thus, you cannot assert that, because a FoxNews is the most popular cable news channel with viewers, that the views it espouses are held by the majority of the American public.
And that's just the largest logical error you made, but it's enough to invalidate your argument.
When the project required changes to our customers' standards, by State Decree, the costs ballooned.
So you'd rather the costs balloon because of Market Decree? (and by "Market" I mean Monopoly, and by "Monopoly" I mean Microsoft)
The difference here is that the state is saying you must use a format that you can control and understand. Imagine that, the evil State is giving you more control! Whoda thunk it?
So go take your "I ain't gonna be controlled by the State" argument back to the hills, bubba. It doesn't apply here.
As a former journalist (defined by my 5 years of employment as a writer/photograhper at a daily newspaper in the Los Angeles metropolitan area with a circulation of over 100K)
So, you as a journalist working at a publication with circulation of over 100K (in a single metropolitan area) would get protection, while a blogger writing on a site with 1000K page hits per day (from all around the nation/world) would get none?
This is another example of our society's run-away liberal government mentality.
Right. This was proposed by a former member of a Republican administration, who was appointed and served at a time the Republicans controlled the White House, Senate, and House of Representatives.
"Freedom of speech" doesn't mean you're free from me speaking louder than you because I'm persuasive enough to get get several other people to join me (pool funds, whatever).
But it does mean that I should be free from some forms of persuasion. i.e. I can't persuade people to join me using a baseball bat. Why should your form of persuasion (financial power) be allowed? Why should some people get a greater voice because they can blugeon people to join them with bribes?
I am so tired of GC advocates talking smugly about theoretical scenarios. Who cares?. When I can run a Java app on an arbitrary JVM and not have it come to a grinding halt every once in a while as the garbage collector runs--or worse yet bring the machine to a grinding halt because the garbage collector never runs--only then will GC will be useful.
Well, I'm tired of any programmer talk about theoretical scenarios. I want a proof that any program they create will do exactly what they say it does. And then I want them to guarentee that it won't crash, on any operating system, on any hardware. Otherwise I won't find it useful.
(You do realize that my requests, as well as yours, are impossible, right? I'm talking both theoretically and practically...)
Those are emprical facts, and this article introduces no actual data to demonstrate otherwise.
I'd like to point out that, well, neither do you...
Which leads me to another point: Why are the big software corporations so eager to walk this destructive path? Is it that they think there will be no software industry in twenty years, so don't care if they destroy it in ten as long as they can suck the corpse dry first?
Google's founders and top execs are a few kids. Innocence.
On that note, we can now expect some damaging stories to leak about Google's founders and executives. One is sullen and angry, and lashes out at employees. Another is secretly homosexual. And SEC ot IRS probe is suspected to happen "soon." Heck, there may even be rumors of prostitutes and kiddie porn.
If innocence is their brand, expect to see stories that taint innocence. And expect to see AC's promoting them here.
Every day a one in a million event happens. So does a one in a thousand even. Are they both equally likely?
The post appears to be genuinely insightful, and since it has been moderated as such the moderation system is working correctly.
"This post appears (subjectively, to me) to be X, and since it has been moderated as X the moderation system is working correctly."
Do you see how circular your reasoning is? The effectiveness of the moderation system is not dependent on your agreement with it's results. If you disagreed with it, would it be less effective?
You really are quite naive. Moderation abuse happens all the time. You've obviously never had a batch of your comments modded down to -1 a week after you posted. Piss off the wrong people and you will.
My point is, don't let your perception of events be clouded simply because you agree with the poster. Just because you think the post is "right" does not mean that the moderation wasn't abusive. AC's being moderated highly is rare. (They start at 0, after all) Having the (presumably) same AC being modded up twice in the same thread is suspicious. It smells like moderation abuse. The "it's right because the post is correct" argument doesn't refute that evidence.
So what if Linux isn't being adopted as quickly as it should?
What's so great about "quick"?
All of these businessfolk, always wanting things to grow quickly. I'm much more concerned with Linux adoption growing the right way, than as quickly as possible.
I know what some of you are saying, "With that attitude the Linux world will lose a lot of business." Yep. Get over it. ANd don't be so greedy, kiddo.
I really have no idea why people keep holding to this idea. The "super mega ultra rich" are by no means the powerhouse they once were.
Oh, just wait! Another decade or so of Republican control and we'll get there.
They have -> We have
Let's just add a couple, shall we?
1) Complete access to health care -> Weak/expensive health insurance 2) Self perpetuating wealth (via tax loopholes, offshore accounts, etc) -> Constant taxation and standard of living cost increases
2 is the kicker, really. Once you attain a certain level of wealth, there are many financial vehicles available that can maintain the money, and even grow it a bit. Eliminating the estate tax will make this possible in perpetuity, effectively creating an aristocratic class in the US. Once this is accomplished (and it's only a matter of time with the Republicans in charge of everything) we will have the era of the "super mega ultra rich" back again.
When every object we posess contains some amount of copyrighted material, will companies successfully argue that we don't actually "own" anything?
Yep. Yet another example of right wing activist courts advancing their socialist adgenda. Yes, socialist! Except it's corporate socialism: only corporations can own property in that system. The average person can't be trusted to use property in a responsible manner, so they're not allowed to own it. For the greater good of the economy they must be denied ownership.
So the next time Bush mentions the "ownership society," you know what he really means...
Slashdot Mirror
There seems to be this assumption that if you're a conservative, than you're in bed with MS...
Well, the assumption is that if you call yourself conservative that means you're likely to be pro business as well, and thus pro Microsoft. You must admit, it's a fair assumption to make given how Republicans have treated Microsoft. Of course, a real conservative, rugged individualist type should be against all monopolies. A monopoly will abuse power and suppress individual freedoms as surely as any state.
2.) It is biased, and the vast majority of viewers share its viewpoint...making your viewpoint a small minority in this country
I'd just like to point out that this statement is not logically consistent.
"Cable news viewers" != "American public"
The sets intersect, but are not equivalent.
Thus, you cannot assert that, because a FoxNews is the most popular cable news channel with viewers, that the views it espouses are held by the majority of the American public.
And that's just the largest logical error you made, but it's enough to invalidate your argument.
Have a good day.
When the project required changes to our customers' standards, by State Decree, the costs ballooned.
So you'd rather the costs balloon because of Market Decree? (and by "Market" I mean Monopoly, and by "Monopoly" I mean Microsoft)
The difference here is that the state is saying you must use a format that you can control and understand. Imagine that, the evil State is giving you more control! Whoda thunk it?
So go take your "I ain't gonna be controlled by the State" argument back to the hills, bubba. It doesn't apply here.
I vaguely recall him being very involved in Project Bob, but I can't remember if that was as a developer or just a very interested manager.
He was a very interested manager. Melinda Gates (then Melinda French) was the project manager.
As a former journalist (defined by my 5 years of employment as a writer/photograhper at a daily newspaper in the Los Angeles metropolitan area with a circulation of over 100K)
So, you as a journalist working at a publication with circulation of over 100K (in a single metropolitan area) would get protection, while a blogger writing on a site with 1000K page hits per day (from all around the nation/world) would get none?
That makes...uh...sense?
This is another example of our society's run-away liberal government mentality.
Right. This was proposed by a former member of a Republican administration, who was appointed and served at a time the Republicans controlled the White House, Senate, and House of Representatives.
Oh yeah. We're overrun by run-away liberalism.
The company writting the code should be responsible for organizing such things.
Sure. So then coders not working for a company are screwed. Kiss independent open source development goodbye.
"Freedom of speech" doesn't mean you're free from me speaking louder than you because I'm persuasive enough to get get several other people to join me (pool funds, whatever).
But it does mean that I should be free from some forms of persuasion. i.e. I can't persuade people to join me using a baseball bat. Why should your form of persuasion (financial power) be allowed? Why should some people get a greater voice because they can blugeon people to join them with bribes?
Personally, I would prefer just to be in the fine department for my behavior. Where do I get these privileges?
Easy. It's called "being filthy rich." According to the American Dream, anyone can do it.
What gives?
Obviously, an infusion of alien technology must be involved. There is no other explanation.
I am so tired of GC advocates talking smugly about theoretical scenarios. Who cares?. When I can run a Java app on an arbitrary JVM and not have it come to a grinding halt every once in a while as the garbage collector runs--or worse yet bring the machine to a grinding halt because the garbage collector never runs--only then will GC will be useful.
Well, I'm tired of any programmer talk about theoretical scenarios. I want a proof that any program they create will do exactly what they say it does. And then I want them to guarentee that it won't crash, on any operating system, on any hardware. Otherwise I won't find it useful.
(You do realize that my requests, as well as yours, are impossible, right? I'm talking both theoretically and practically...)
Those are emprical facts, and this article introduces no actual data to demonstrate otherwise.
I'd like to point out that, well, neither do you...
Not if they take all of the spoils first.
Which leads me to another point: Why are the big software corporations so eager to walk this destructive path? Is it that they think there will be no software industry in twenty years, so don't care if they destroy it in ten as long as they can suck the corpse dry first?
Gee, that was quick...
Google's founders and top execs are a few kids. Innocence.
On that note, we can now expect some damaging stories to leak about Google's founders and executives. One is sullen and angry, and lashes out at employees. Another is secretly homosexual. And SEC ot IRS probe is suspected to happen "soon." Heck, there may even be rumors of prostitutes and kiddie porn.
If innocence is their brand, expect to see stories that taint innocence. And expect to see AC's promoting them here.
You'll find an AC at +5 in any thread.
Every day a one in a million event happens. So does a one in a thousand even. Are they both equally likely?
The post appears to be genuinely insightful, and since it has been moderated as such the moderation system is working correctly.
"This post appears (subjectively, to me) to be X, and since it has been moderated as X the moderation system is working correctly."
Do you see how circular your reasoning is? The effectiveness of the moderation system is not dependent on your agreement with it's results. If you disagreed with it, would it be less effective?
You really are quite naive. Moderation abuse happens all the time. You've obviously never had a batch of your comments modded down to -1 a week after you posted. Piss off the wrong people and you will.
My point is, don't let your perception of events be clouded simply because you agree with the poster. Just because you think the post is "right" does not mean that the moderation wasn't abusive. AC's being moderated highly is rare. (They start at 0, after all) Having the (presumably) same AC being modded up twice in the same thread is suspicious. It smells like moderation abuse. The "it's right because the post is correct" argument doesn't refute that evidence.
So what if Linux isn't being adopted as quickly as it should?
What's so great about "quick"?
All of these businessfolk, always wanting things to grow quickly. I'm much more concerned with Linux adoption growing the right way, than as quickly as possible.
I know what some of you are saying, "With that attitude the Linux world will lose a lot of business." Yep. Get over it. ANd don't be so greedy, kiddo.
When that AC's actually *right*, pretty high.
Thanks for the televangelist argument, d00d.
"What's the chance GOD will make a miracle in YOUR life? 100%, if you pray hard enough! Send your prayer donations now. Operators are standing by..."
This is moderator manipulated astroturfing. What is the probability that an AC would be moderated up twice for flamebait comments?
I really have no idea why people keep holding to this idea. The "super mega ultra rich" are by no means the powerhouse they once were.
Oh, just wait! Another decade or so of Republican control and we'll get there.
They have -> We have
Let's just add a couple, shall we?
1)
Complete access to health care -> Weak/expensive health insurance
2)
Self perpetuating wealth (via tax loopholes, offshore accounts, etc) -> Constant taxation and standard of living cost increases
2 is the kicker, really. Once you attain a certain level of wealth, there are many financial vehicles available that can maintain the money, and even grow it a bit. Eliminating the estate tax will make this possible in perpetuity, effectively creating an aristocratic class in the US. Once this is accomplished (and it's only a matter of time with the Republicans in charge of everything) we will have the era of the "super mega ultra rich" back again.
Vavrek has been giving away good music for some time. Check out the site: linky
And their hair. What's up with that? And their shifty, beady eyes...
When every object we posess contains some amount of copyrighted material, will companies successfully argue that we don't actually "own" anything?
Yep. Yet another example of right wing activist courts advancing their socialist adgenda. Yes, socialist! Except it's corporate socialism: only corporations can own property in that system. The average person can't be trusted to use property in a responsible manner, so they're not allowed to own it. For the greater good of the economy they must be denied ownership.
So the next time Bush mentions the "ownership society," you know what he really means...
I wasn't joking.
Capitalism has been bypassed here.
Precisely. This is a wonderful example of the right wing using activist courts to promote their economic adjenda.