Good point. Agreed. Keep making this point because it can sometimes be hard to remember that people of certain types don't necessarily represent all people of the same type.
On Monday, Mirecki was treated at a Lawrence hospital for head injuries after he said he was beaten by two men on a country road. He said the men referred to the creationism course. Law enforcement officials were investigating.
Isn't that just a bit extreme?
Oh Hell yeah.
I happened to catch a book-signing talk by John Gibson about his new book "The War on Christmas," a few weeks back. In his talk he mentioned several incidents where people had removed references to Christianity or Christmas from a public place and subsequently received death threats. He even said that one of those men had to move his wife and kids out of town for the holidays because he feared for their safety. Let me reiterate, the ones getting threatened were the seculars and they were getting threatened by people who were presumably very much Christian.
My girlfriend raised her hand and asked why Gibson was claiming seculars were perpetuating a war when his own examples showed Christians doing all the threatening behavior and she pointed out that he had said several times how nice the seculars seemed to be when he interviewed them. Gibson gave a very watered down reply that there are two sides to any war while the crowd proceeded to turn around and try to shout down my girlfriend. They neither noticed the substance of what she said, nor the fact that the she was taking every part of her point directly from the rhetoric of the author they had come to see. They didn't seem upset in the least that Christians were engaged in threatening behavior.
I certainly don't have an agenda against Christianity, but I must say that in my mind Christians are doing very big damage to their reputations with these kind of antics. Death threats and beatings are so over-the-top wrong that it amazes me when I hear Christians give the contradictory proclamation that Christianity is about Love. That it's about turning the other cheek.
I'm not against Islam, but I'm very much against Muslims who fly planes into tall buildings. I'm not against Christianity, but I'm very much against Christians who beat college professors on country roads. I don't think there's anything remotely like a war on Christianity right now, but if Christians keep insisting on beating and threatening people who disagree, they shouldn't be surprised when we eventually fight back.
a) Because he's a long-time industry insider who knows what is possible with software.
b) Because he's an end-user and knows what he'd like to see in software.
c) But why Woz and not someone else? Well, we do listen to those other guys too. You, me and a bunch of other people rant on a pretty regulare basis here on/. about what we think is good or what sucks in software. I think we should listen to Woz for pretty close to the same reason I hope the software industry listens to us.
For "valid at one point" consider using "always valid".
Absolutely correct, and yet provides no insight into the topic at hand. Please consider posting insightful comments related to ajax in future replies to this thread.
If the EFF has such a poor track record, maybe they should...
Does the EFF have a poor track record? The first post pointed to the EFF victories page which is chock full of good work. Yes, I agree with your sentiment. If the EFF sucked, we shouldn't let them hold us down. But I don't happen to hear a sucking sound at the moment, and unless you do, maybe you (and the author of TFA) could save the potential doom and gloom of the results of such suckage until it actually happens.
All good points (except the mower, you can actually get a ticket for riding them on the streets:-) but they miss the main one. Even though it's technically possible to travel without ID, the methods are so impractitcal or limiting that they don't constitute a serious freedom.
It's like giving your old 286 to charity. Technically you just gave them a functioning computer, only it's not one they can seriously make use of in our modern, networked society. No matter how much you (accurately) protest that you gave a computer to the needy, everyone will (accurately) know that what you've really given them is nothing.
Technically they're not denying you travel, they're denying you access to most mass transit. No planes, only some trains, maybe boats(I have no idea). You're free to hoof it, or ride a bike or horse (can't drive a car, motorcycle, or truck, though). You can ride with somebody, hire a car service (maybe), and (someplaces) hitchhike.
I love arguments like this. It get's really ridiculous really fast.
Hoof it, bike, horse:
-Can't do it on limited access highways because it's illegal.
-Can't do it cross country, because most of it is private and therefore would get you trespassing charges. Public land will often find you with similar charges.
-Can't do it to meet court deadlines on the other side of the country because the method of travel would take longer then the typical limit for most courts.
Hitchiking: illegal in many places.
Cab: Most cabs won't go long distances.
Rail: They're thinking about implementing mandatory ID as well.
Charter: Maybe. Will they let you pay in cash? Will they insist on an ID in case of damage to the vehicle?
Bus: Probably good for now.
I'm not the supreme court and the real supreme court might not even care about the issue. But if I were a judge and I were tasked with determining what constitutes freedom to travel anonymously, I would say that there is currently no real freedom to travel anonymously in the US. Does that equate to a violation of the constitution? I don't know. I'd love to hear an opinion on the matter. Does it equal something pretty close to Soviet-style travel restrictions? Not exactly, but the time is rapidly approaching and this CDC requirement ("but it's for your own good!") comes close to putting us over the top.
Life in the U.S. requires an ID right now in a defacto sense. Arguing you don't need one is like arguing you don't need a shirt. It's technically legal, but ignores the fact that you can't get a job, can't go into most places of business and the judge will throw you out of court if you show up dressed like that. YOU NEED AN ID! (and a shirt)
The real question is: Should you need one? My answer is no, but, heck, I'm not the one making all the rules.
The Massachusetts case has nothing to do with the quality of software, its about policy makers making broad rules based on ideology without regard to the specific needs of individuals and organizations.
It's actually about the policy makers making broad rules base on the specific ideology that lock-in does not meet the specific needs of the individuals and organizations. It's an ideology that predicts that open standards will increase competition and therefore raise the quality and lower the cost of software in the long run, while simultaneously meeting the needs of state workers and lowering the cost to the state budget in the short run.
Everyone has ideology. Your state, for example, probably has an ideology about buying American made products. Mass. was able to stick to its ideology and meet its needs at the same time. I don't understand why anyone would cry foul over that.
The problem for them is, as I said before, these are game machines and gamers are not loyal.
Halo III, Project Gotham Racing III and the Sega Genesis vs. PS2 console cycle say a different story. ATI vs. nVidia and Unreal Tournament vs. Quake say a similar story on the PC side.
Gamers can be nearly as loyal as Coke vs. Pepsi and Chevy vs. Ford. and when they start with a certain game, they tend to want every one in the series. I'm not sure if MS will succeed in their overall mission, but if we could see what percentage of 360 owners were origional xbox owners, I'm sure we'd see they've been quite successful at building loyalty.
The part I love is the people who stand in line and pay premium prices for this privilege.
Seriously though, it is possible to do better. Although not problem-free, the PSP, the iPod and many other devices initially shipped with few problems. Windows 2000 was amazing at launch, both in comparison to it's predecessors and as a polished product. The re-wrote nearly the whole damn thing and it worked very well on the "gold" disk.
If this is just a few xboxes with issues, I don't really care. But if no one can get past the first lap of Gotham out of the box, someone or some department needs to be fired. Everyone has a few tweeks to make on a new product, but it shows a special disdain for your customers if the vast majority of them can't use it as intended.
I'm going to assume that you're simply ignorant as to the wide-held understanding of the scientific theory of evolution. Simply put, it's about as solidly understood as the shape of the Earth. There is no such thing as a mainstream biological scientist either unsure or, or actually studying an alternate theory to, the theory of evolution. These scientists are not "militant athiests" (whatever that is), and characterizing them as such signals very clearly that you've never really looked into the matter in a serious way. I suggest you take the time to look into it now. It'll be an eye-opener for you.
In the end, I'd much rather that companies don't take a stand. Not about evolution, not about politics, not about anything else.
Thank goodness Intel took a stand on the theory of ultraviolet lithography. Thank goodness Boeing took a stand on the theory of aerodynamic lift. Thank goodness Dole took a stand on the theory that biological contamination can cause disease (did you know you can't even see bacteria?). Thank goodness all the corporations that develop AIDS medicine have taken a stand on biological evolution because otherwise they wouldn't have a chance at understanding the disease they're trying to fight.
Yes, I'm glad that corporations DO take stands. This is not an iffy subject. Not taking as stand on evolution is like not taking a stand on the existence of electricity.
I know my reply will probably just get caught in the shuffle, but I wanted to say thanks, you're post perfectly said what needed to be said. I loved seeing it as a first post.
-Will they allow changes in the standard after submission? -Will they use those changed standards in their own products? -Will they not release new formats until approved by the standards board?
One of the problems with OO.o, and a lot of other software that clones existing document formats, is that they're always late to the game. If Microsoft released Office 12 today with a new document format that no one has seen, even if it was immediately released to the standards body it would be months or years until an open source product could be released that would duplicate the format. As long as Microsoft leads, everyone else has no choice but to follow.
Listening to someones does not mean agreeing with them. This is a common misconception of partisans everywhere.
I would have been quite happy with honest disagreement rather than demonizing the dissenter.
I know I'm way off topic here, but many of the biggest problems of this administration can be linked directly with building a climate where only yes-men are listened to. If you allow honest dissent then you get to see a much clearer picture of how things look, you gain advanced notice when things aren't going so well and you gain valuable insight into the flaws of your plan. If you don't listen to honest dissent then you voluntarily put blinders on, people become afraid to tell you about problems and you gain the false impression that your plan is perfect, even though it would be much better if you just tweaked a few things.
Even if you believe that the Iraq war was a good idea, which I do not, certainly you can see how doing a few things differently might have helped. Some people told Bush to take more troops. Some people gave Bush advice that more resources were necessary to rebuild Iraq when the war was done. Some people told Bush that we would face guerilla fighters after the war who would refuse to surrender. If Bush had listened to this dissent then he may have still prosecuted the war, but he would have done a better job of it. Less people would be dead, Iraq would be more stable and we'd be that much closer to bringing everyone home. Pouring out wine and renaming fries helped ensure that these dissenting views were marginalized and ignored. Frankly, it helped ensure in my mind that our president does not have the capacity to lead wisely.
They let their staff download and use OS software for more than a year and now the project is accelerating. It's not the definitive answer we'd like to see, but the evidence is that the employees liked what they got. Put another way, if there had been a big backlash then it would be difficult to see them pushing so boldly forward.
You are really going to try to Karma Whore with likening it to real war where people are getting killed?
They wouldn't be if we had stopped to listened to the French. Hey, here's a bright idea, why don't we actually have a dialogue with our allies instead of pouring their wine down our gutters when they dare to disagree? It's just possible they may have a good point of two.
I believe his point was that most bands have day jobs, or should.
The part I disagree with is the "or should."
Think about your proffession. Do you spend 40 hours a week at work? 60 hours? More? It takes time and effort to do what you do well. I work in IT and I'm challenged every day. New technologies come out, I need to think of creative ways to use old ones, I need to make both kinds easy to use. I'm sure that whatever proffesion you're in has difficult challenges that must be addressed on a daily basis.
The question is, do you really believe that artists don't face difficult challenges as well? It takes many, many years to refine the vocal cords to the point that you can sing proffesional opera. Advanced photography is as difficult as IT. You will not be able to recreate the statue of David on weekends. And yes, rock and roll is often about far more than "maybe get a blister on your little finger, maybe get a blister on your thumb."
Think what you want about the quality of Britney Spear's music, but when she puts on a show she goes all out. The girl practices dancing and showmanship on a daily basis. The fact that our society cares enough about her art that she can do that full time says something good about us. The fact that your brother in law can play some great gigs on the weekend shouldn't take away from that.
Anyone know why Intel, with all their resources, didn't have a decent x64, multi-core product before AMD? Never mind one that uses fewer watts.
With Microsoft set to require 64-bit on servers, perhaps Dell wanted to make sure they could take advantage of AMDs superior reputation in this arena. Sure, Intel has a solution, but the people who buy servers are far more likely to be influenced by a spec sheet than a 3-D alien or dancing dudes in bunny suits.
But we all know that "security" is not really about security. It's about giving people a "feel-good" product that earns some people vast amounts of money.
Standard security personnel may not be especially useful at catching highly intelligent bad guys, but, thankfully, many (most?) of the bad guys do not fall in the "highly intelligent" category.
In regards to U.S. thieves, I've said for years, "if they're not smart enough to get a job, what makes them think they're smart enough to get away with theft?" For every stupid security guard story you hear, the papers are chock full of stories of thieves that are lucky to have not killed themselves brushing their teeth that morning. You add in drug use and these guys are at a serious disadvantage.
Personally I think that the better security you get, the more natural selection will breed even better criminals. But those guys will still be in the minority. Luckily, due to the nature of criminal behavior there will always be many left that are so stupid even the laziest, least trained, most dull-witted security guards will be able to catch them.
Claiming these aren't monopolies because there are alteratives is exactly the same as claiming Windows isn't a monopoly because of the existance of OS X.
From Wikipedia:
Industries which are dominated by a single firm may allow the firm to act as a near-monopoly or "de facto monopoly", a practice known in economics as monopolistic competition. Common historical examples arguably include corporations such as Microsoft and Standard Oil (Standard's market share of refining was 64% in competition with over 100 other refiners at the time of the trial that resulted in the government-forced breakup). Practices which these entities may be accused of include dumping products below cost to harm competitors, creating tying arrangements between their products, and other practices regulated under antitrust law.
I'm not an Apple basher. My daughter has an iPod that I bought her. But iTunes combined with the iPod are big time monopolies.
Supply and demand gets messed up by monopolies. iTunes is every bit as much a monopoly as Windows. Economics 101 says that when monopolies dominate a market, prices go up.
Trust me, you won't choose a Britney spears album over an Elvis album because Britney is cheaper. You might, however, pick up your Elvis album at one store as opposed to another due to price. If iTunes is the only store in town, as it is for more than 80% of the market, they you'll end up paying more in the long run if prices are allowed to fluctuate.
Slashdot Mirror
Good point. Agreed. Keep making this point because it can sometimes be hard to remember that people of certain types don't necessarily represent all people of the same type.
TW
Oh Hell yeah.
I happened to catch a book-signing talk by John Gibson about his new book "The War on Christmas," a few weeks back. In his talk he mentioned several incidents where people had removed references to Christianity or Christmas from a public place and subsequently received death threats. He even said that one of those men had to move his wife and kids out of town for the holidays because he feared for their safety. Let me reiterate, the ones getting threatened were the seculars and they were getting threatened by people who were presumably very much Christian.
My girlfriend raised her hand and asked why Gibson was claiming seculars were perpetuating a war when his own examples showed Christians doing all the threatening behavior and she pointed out that he had said several times how nice the seculars seemed to be when he interviewed them. Gibson gave a very watered down reply that there are two sides to any war while the crowd proceeded to turn around and try to shout down my girlfriend. They neither noticed the substance of what she said, nor the fact that the she was taking every part of her point directly from the rhetoric of the author they had come to see. They didn't seem upset in the least that Christians were engaged in threatening behavior.
I certainly don't have an agenda against Christianity, but I must say that in my mind Christians are doing very big damage to their reputations with these kind of antics. Death threats and beatings are so over-the-top wrong that it amazes me when I hear Christians give the contradictory proclamation that Christianity is about Love. That it's about turning the other cheek.
I'm not against Islam, but I'm very much against Muslims who fly planes into tall buildings. I'm not against Christianity, but I'm very much against Christians who beat college professors on country roads. I don't think there's anything remotely like a war on Christianity right now, but if Christians keep insisting on beating and threatening people who disagree, they shouldn't be surprised when we eventually fight back.
TW
So do you know:
:-)
The first line to LA Woman, by The Doors?
The lyrics that follow "Blinded by the light.." in the Bay City Rollers/Manfred Mann/Bruce Spingsteen song "Blinded by the light"?
I've heard the answer to both, and they make sense, but it was fun being very confused for a number of years
TW
Why should I care about Woz and his "opinions"?
/. about what we think is good or what sucks in software. I think we should listen to Woz for pretty close to the same reason I hope the software industry listens to us.
a) Because he's a long-time industry insider who knows what is possible with software.
b) Because he's an end-user and knows what he'd like to see in software.
c) But why Woz and not someone else? Well, we do listen to those other guys too. You, me and a bunch of other people rant on a pretty regulare basis here on
TW
Please, please, please ignore my previous post. Your post is obviously quite relevant. I thought you were saying something different.
:-(
(taking foot out of mouth)
Sorry,
TW
For "valid at one point" consider using "always valid".
Absolutely correct, and yet provides no insight into the topic at hand. Please consider posting insightful comments related to ajax in future replies to this thread.
TW
If the EFF has such a poor track record, maybe they should...
Does the EFF have a poor track record? The first post pointed to the EFF victories page which is chock full of good work. Yes, I agree with your sentiment. If the EFF sucked, we shouldn't let them hold us down. But I don't happen to hear a sucking sound at the moment, and unless you do, maybe you (and the author of TFA) could save the potential doom and gloom of the results of such suckage until it actually happens.
TW
All good points (except the mower, you can actually get a ticket for riding them on the streets :-) but they miss the main one. Even though it's technically possible to travel without ID, the methods are so impractitcal or limiting that they don't constitute a serious freedom.
It's like giving your old 286 to charity. Technically you just gave them a functioning computer, only it's not one they can seriously make use of in our modern, networked society. No matter how much you (accurately) protest that you gave a computer to the needy, everyone will (accurately) know that what you've really given them is nothing.
TW
Technically they're not denying you travel, they're denying you access to most mass transit. No planes, only some trains, maybe boats(I have no idea). You're free to hoof it, or ride a bike or horse (can't drive a car, motorcycle, or truck, though). You can ride with somebody, hire a car service (maybe), and (someplaces) hitchhike.
I love arguments like this. It get's really ridiculous really fast.
Hoof it, bike, horse:
-Can't do it on limited access highways because it's illegal.
-Can't do it cross country, because most of it is private and therefore would get you trespassing charges. Public land will often find you with similar charges.
-Can't do it to meet court deadlines on the other side of the country because the method of travel would take longer then the typical limit for most courts.
Hitchiking: illegal in many places.
Cab: Most cabs won't go long distances.
Rail: They're thinking about implementing mandatory ID as well.
Charter: Maybe. Will they let you pay in cash? Will they insist on an ID in case of damage to the vehicle?
Bus: Probably good for now.
I'm not the supreme court and the real supreme court might not even care about the issue. But if I were a judge and I were tasked with determining what constitutes freedom to travel anonymously, I would say that there is currently no real freedom to travel anonymously in the US. Does that equate to a violation of the constitution? I don't know. I'd love to hear an opinion on the matter. Does it equal something pretty close to Soviet-style travel restrictions? Not exactly, but the time is rapidly approaching and this CDC requirement ("but it's for your own good!") comes close to putting us over the top.
Life in the U.S. requires an ID right now in a defacto sense. Arguing you don't need one is like arguing you don't need a shirt. It's technically legal, but ignores the fact that you can't get a job, can't go into most places of business and the judge will throw you out of court if you show up dressed like that. YOU NEED AN ID! (and a shirt)
The real question is: Should you need one? My answer is no, but, heck, I'm not the one making all the rules.
TW
The Massachusetts case has nothing to do with the quality of software, its about policy makers making broad rules based on ideology without regard to the specific needs of individuals and organizations.
It's actually about the policy makers making broad rules base on the specific ideology that lock-in does not meet the specific needs of the individuals and organizations. It's an ideology that predicts that open standards will increase competition and therefore raise the quality and lower the cost of software in the long run, while simultaneously meeting the needs of state workers and lowering the cost to the state budget in the short run.
Everyone has ideology. Your state, for example, probably has an ideology about buying American made products. Mass. was able to stick to its ideology and meet its needs at the same time. I don't understand why anyone would cry foul over that.
TW
The problem for them is, as I said before, these are game machines and gamers are not loyal.
Halo III, Project Gotham Racing III and the Sega Genesis vs. PS2 console cycle say a different story. ATI vs. nVidia and Unreal Tournament vs. Quake say a similar story on the PC side.
Gamers can be nearly as loyal as Coke vs. Pepsi and Chevy vs. Ford. and when they start with a certain game, they tend to want every one in the series. I'm not sure if MS will succeed in their overall mission, but if we could see what percentage of 360 owners were origional xbox owners, I'm sure we'd see they've been quite successful at building loyalty.
TW
The part I love is the people who stand in line and pay premium prices for this privilege.
Seriously though, it is possible to do better. Although not problem-free, the PSP, the iPod and many other devices initially shipped with few problems. Windows 2000 was amazing at launch, both in comparison to it's predecessors and as a polished product. The re-wrote nearly the whole damn thing and it worked very well on the "gold" disk.
If this is just a few xboxes with issues, I don't really care. But if no one can get past the first lap of Gotham out of the box, someone or some department needs to be fired. Everyone has a few tweeks to make on a new product, but it shows a special disdain for your customers if the vast majority of them can't use it as intended.
TW
I'm going to assume that you're simply ignorant as to the wide-held understanding of the scientific theory of evolution. Simply put, it's about as solidly understood as the shape of the Earth. There is no such thing as a mainstream biological scientist either unsure or, or actually studying an alternate theory to, the theory of evolution. These scientists are not "militant athiests" (whatever that is), and characterizing them as such signals very clearly that you've never really looked into the matter in a serious way. I suggest you take the time to look into it now. It'll be an eye-opener for you.
TW
In the end, I'd much rather that companies don't take a stand. Not about evolution, not about politics, not about anything else.
Thank goodness Intel took a stand on the theory of ultraviolet lithography. Thank goodness Boeing took a stand on the theory of aerodynamic lift. Thank goodness Dole took a stand on the theory that biological contamination can cause disease (did you know you can't even see bacteria?). Thank goodness all the corporations that develop AIDS medicine have taken a stand on biological evolution because otherwise they wouldn't have a chance at understanding the disease they're trying to fight.
Yes, I'm glad that corporations DO take stands. This is not an iffy subject. Not taking as stand on evolution is like not taking a stand on the existence of electricity.
TW
I know my reply will probably just get caught in the shuffle, but I wanted to say thanks, you're post perfectly said what needed to be said. I loved seeing it as a first post.
TW
And:
-Will they allow changes in the standard after submission?
-Will they use those changed standards in their own products?
-Will they not release new formats until approved by the standards board?
One of the problems with OO.o, and a lot of other software that clones existing document formats, is that they're always late to the game. If Microsoft released Office 12 today with a new document format that no one has seen, even if it was immediately released to the standards body it would be months or years until an open source product could be released that would duplicate the format. As long as Microsoft leads, everyone else has no choice but to follow.
TW
Listening to someones does not mean agreeing with them. This is a common misconception of partisans everywhere.
I would have been quite happy with honest disagreement rather than demonizing the dissenter.
I know I'm way off topic here, but many of the biggest problems of this administration can be linked directly with building a climate where only yes-men are listened to. If you allow honest dissent then you get to see a much clearer picture of how things look, you gain advanced notice when things aren't going so well and you gain valuable insight into the flaws of your plan. If you don't listen to honest dissent then you voluntarily put blinders on, people become afraid to tell you about problems and you gain the false impression that your plan is perfect, even though it would be much better if you just tweaked a few things.
Even if you believe that the Iraq war was a good idea, which I do not, certainly you can see how doing a few things differently might have helped. Some people told Bush to take more troops. Some people gave Bush advice that more resources were necessary to rebuild Iraq when the war was done. Some people told Bush that we would face guerilla fighters after the war who would refuse to surrender. If Bush had listened to this dissent then he may have still prosecuted the war, but he would have done a better job of it. Less people would be dead, Iraq would be more stable and we'd be that much closer to bringing everyone home. Pouring out wine and renaming fries helped ensure that these dissenting views were marginalized and ignored. Frankly, it helped ensure in my mind that our president does not have the capacity to lead wisely.
TW
They let their staff download and use OS software for more than a year and now the project is accelerating. It's not the definitive answer we'd like to see, but the evidence is that the employees liked what they got. Put another way, if there had been a big backlash then it would be difficult to see them pushing so boldly forward.
TW
You are really going to try to Karma Whore with likening it to real war where people are getting killed?
They wouldn't be if we had stopped to listened to the French. Hey, here's a bright idea, why don't we actually have a dialogue with our allies instead of pouring their wine down our gutters when they dare to disagree? It's just possible they may have a good point of two.
TW
I believe his point was that most bands have day jobs, or should.
The part I disagree with is the "or should."
Think about your proffession. Do you spend 40 hours a week at work? 60 hours? More? It takes time and effort to do what you do well. I work in IT and I'm challenged every day. New technologies come out, I need to think of creative ways to use old ones, I need to make both kinds easy to use. I'm sure that whatever proffesion you're in has difficult challenges that must be addressed on a daily basis.
The question is, do you really believe that artists don't face difficult challenges as well? It takes many, many years to refine the vocal cords to the point that you can sing proffesional opera. Advanced photography is as difficult as IT. You will not be able to recreate the statue of David on weekends. And yes, rock and roll is often about far more than "maybe get a blister on your little finger, maybe get a blister on your thumb."
Think what you want about the quality of Britney Spear's music, but when she puts on a show she goes all out. The girl practices dancing and showmanship on a daily basis. The fact that our society cares enough about her art that she can do that full time says something good about us. The fact that your brother in law can play some great gigs on the weekend shouldn't take away from that.
TW
Not to dis your general point, but do you realize that a four member band making $100,000 per year only brings home $25,000 per member?
I don't mean to imply that these guys should have some sort of right to be rich, but I would hope the good bands could at least make a living.
TW
With Microsoft set to require 64-bit on servers, perhaps Dell wanted to make sure they could take advantage of AMDs superior reputation in this arena. Sure, Intel has a solution, but the people who buy servers are far more likely to be influenced by a spec sheet than a 3-D alien or dancing dudes in bunny suits.
TW
But we all know that "security" is not really about security. It's about giving people a "feel-good" product that earns some people vast amounts of money.
Standard security personnel may not be especially useful at catching highly intelligent bad guys, but, thankfully, many (most?) of the bad guys do not fall in the "highly intelligent" category.
In regards to U.S. thieves, I've said for years, "if they're not smart enough to get a job, what makes them think they're smart enough to get away with theft?" For every stupid security guard story you hear, the papers are chock full of stories of thieves that are lucky to have not killed themselves brushing their teeth that morning. You add in drug use and these guys are at a serious disadvantage.
Personally I think that the better security you get, the more natural selection will breed even better criminals. But those guys will still be in the minority. Luckily, due to the nature of criminal behavior there will always be many left that are so stupid even the laziest, least trained, most dull-witted security guards will be able to catch them.
TW
Look at the market shares of iPods and iTunes vs Internet Explorer and Windows. It's an eye-opener that is not heavily reported on.
check this out
and this
Claiming these aren't monopolies because there are alteratives is exactly the same as claiming Windows isn't a monopoly because of the existance of OS X.
From Wikipedia:
I'm not an Apple basher. My daughter has an iPod that I bought her. But iTunes combined with the iPod are big time monopolies.
TW
Supply and demand gets messed up by monopolies. iTunes is every bit as much a monopoly as Windows. Economics 101 says that when monopolies dominate a market, prices go up.
Trust me, you won't choose a Britney spears album over an Elvis album because Britney is cheaper. You might, however, pick up your Elvis album at one store as opposed to another due to price. If iTunes is the only store in town, as it is for more than 80% of the market, they you'll end up paying more in the long run if prices are allowed to fluctuate.
TW