Re:would you like some cheese with that w(h)ine?
on
Amazon.Heartbreak
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
Ignoring the statistic you cite (which I am interested in but isn't really important to my thoughts on this subject), I am reading over what you wrote and here is what I think.
In response to your referencing of Adam Smith, I'd say this to you: The view of capitalism that Adam Smith had is not the one that currently exists in America. I was neither endorsing nor attacking this system - merely pointing out that Daisey should have been aware of the way things are (as you seem to be with the obvious conclusion you're making that a small class of people is exploiting the majority) and not been so surprised or sickened by it. As for your questioning of me as to what the point of making as much money as possible is, I cannot tell you. I didn't claim that this was my view. Again, you have to read what I wrote a bit more carefully. In America, this is what corporations do. They are not very concerned with social progress or development but instead are only focused on the bottom line. It seems to me like you're trying to make an argument against an argument I did not make. Nowhere in my statement did I say that the way corporations operate is right or morally justified but instead was merely pointing out that Daisey should have understood what corporations are and not expected anything but what he got. I hope this clears things up for you as you seem to have missed my main point.
Re:would you like some cheese with that w(h)ine?
on
Amazon.Heartbreak
·
· Score: 1
75% of all jobs? Prove it to me. Where are you coming up with this figure? I don't buy it.
Re:would you like some cheese with that w(h)ine?
on
Amazon.Heartbreak
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
"Quirky" corporations? Hmm, I suppose it could work but why would anyone think that would be a sound business model? You're much more likely to make the money you want by going the "megamall" route. I don't understand why Daisey has such blind idealism. Can't he see that corporations exist in order to make money and as much money as possible? To bemoan Amazon because they weren't "fun" or "hip" or "quirky" is naive and shows a fundamental problem in his understanding of capitalism. I'm not saying Amazon is a darling corporation but I'm saying I am not surprised by their practices. If I went to work for Amazon, I'd expect the typical corporate environment - similar across companies.
The problem stems from the fact that as the government takes more power to look into your lives, what happens when they decide to add some new laws? Perhaps you're not doing anything illegal right now but this erosion of rights can lead to further erosion of rights. Do you have the right to plan your own wedding? (Silly example perhaps but bold enough so you can see my point.) Right now, you do. But if the government can take away the privacy afforded to you in the Constitution, why can't they take away your freedom of marriage? With their omnipresent eye, they'll be able to catch you in the act of marrying, toss you in jail, and ruin your honeymoon. Constant vigilence is needed to make the government better. We can't that the government is trustworthy nor can we assume that having faith in the government not to abuse privileges. To make a further example: I'm sure your fiancee is very attractive but let's suppose that the chief of police notices this. If the Patriot Act and acts like it take away the need for the government to have a reason to spy on you, what's to stop the chief of police from fulfilling his voyueristic fantasies by installing a few bedroom cameras in your house/apartment? You assume the government will only invade the privacy of criminals while I believe that the government, unchecked, will expand the scope of what is criminal and ALSO invade the privacy of non-criminals (just in case).
But before you go and buy into that, you should consider the link you followed. Rather than posting a link to the text of the Patriot Act, a link was offered to a group that is strongly opposed to the Patriot Act so, of course, they are going to present you with a description of the act that isn't as wholesome as the US government wants you to believe. My quarrel with this is that the link text was simply "Patriot Act" - which implies that this watchdog organization's view of the Patriot Act is the only view. Don't get me wrong, I think the Patriot Act is a horrible piece of legislation that is trampling our freedoms and should be challenged and, eventually, overturned as unconstitutional but if a link is being provided with the text "Patriot Act", it should go to the text of the Patriot Act. Let's assume for a moment that most readers are intelligent enough to make their own informed decisions and don't need everything interpretted for them. That's my thought on this story.
You might want to read the blurb a bit closer (or follow a few of the links). It's not "Verizon" but "Verisign"
Verizon is not the same company as Verisign. Two different companies.
For those of you in the Schenectady NY, and in hopes of getting a good turnout, there will be a Mozilla Release Party in North College in room 312. Please come by and celebrate with us. Punch and pie will be provided along with a live band. It should be a good time for all. The party will last a few hours but all are welcome to stay for as long as desired. There will be a nice theatre setup and we've got Empire queued up and ready to be played.;-)
I am not exactly sure why, in posting a positive review about a movie, Katz has to bring in Star Wars and insult the movie and fans of the movie. It's a bit small of Katz to mention Star Wars and I wonder why exactly he is so bitter about the film. I mean, Star Wars is just a movie. If Katz didn't like it, he can post that in a review of Star Wars. In a review of a completely unrelated movie, the mentioning of Star Wars is out of place. It's similar to writing a review of some Linux distro and mentioning how awful you think Windows is. That opinion is fine but in a review, you generally focus on what you're reviewing. I've not seen this odd practice often and am really curious as to what the motivation is behind it. Why Jon? Why? By the way, "groupies" normally has a sexual lining to its meaning and you should probably substitute something like "rabid fan-boys." Although, as a fan of Star Wars, I'd appreciate it if you didn't go out of your way to belittle what I enjoy. You've implied that you're better than me because I enjoy Star Wars. Not nice Katz, not nice.
This is part of a continuing pattern that I've noticed. The major corporate entites which are embracing Linux aren't normally leaving some variant of Windows behind but instead are dropping Unix. The stranglehold Microsoft has on Office and the problems introduced by switching from Windows to Linux (in terms of a possible inability to access old files) is really hurting Linux in the War against Windows. But what these companies need to realize is that they can convert their old files into plain text files, using the very version of Office which is trying to tie them into an ugprade cycle of doom, using some simple batch scripts. This would be quite a chore, obviously - but in the long run companies would save. I don't know why this solution isn't being offered to companies. From what I understand, many companies are hesitant to drop Windows for this very reason: loss of access to old files. But again, Bill Gates doesn't really lose on this one. Linux gains some but not in the area where I'd like to see it.
"Sorry pal, but if this fellow is not telling the truth then the burden of proof is on you to prove him a liar, until then his story is true."
By this "logic", if you are charged with a crime and arrested, you have to prove yourself innocent. Because the government is stating a story, their version of your crime, and you are going to assume it's true until you have proven it false. It's an interesting form of logic you are using but I'm afraid you should realize that international law, as dictated by the UN, says that all criminals are innocent until proven guilty. Now, the UN doesn't agree with your "logic" and neither do I. But thanks for trying!;-)
I question the truth of this post. It's rather simple to make sweeping 'man on the street' statements about a company's practice without giving any hard details about the story and this type of attack can lead to some rather convincing evidence, in the public's mind. But what we have here is a story that is quite flimsy. As much as Microsoft controls the media, it's a bit odd that the author of this post offers no link to a news bulletin about this. I mean, certainly it was covered somewhere. The local paper should have picked up on it. Where is the link, my friend? And a few 486s running Win95? Microsoft has much bigger fish to fry.
It's not that I'm implying that you're a liar. It's that I am calling you a liar.
Note: this isn't flamebait. I just want people to give some proof of the statements they make when they are not simply voicing opinions. I really don't think this story is true.
You are arguing that because it takes time and is diffficult to create a video game, it is art. This is a highly flawed argument. Allow me to demonstrate with a simple corresponding analogy of the same form you posted your critique in.
I mean really when you consider the amount of work that goes into one single execution relative to the amount of work in say a 4'X 3' painting, you really appreciate exactly what an art it is.
You make the mistake of not understanding what art is at all. Video games are an art form but it is not because they are somehow difficult or time-consuming.
Re:All I want to know is..
on
Bitter Java
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
Well, that's a really intelligent question - very entertaining as well. In a post that actually relates to the book, I think that Tate does a nice job in this book of really showing proper object oriented programming. So often OOP gets used as such a buzzword that if you, as a programmer, don't embrace and beat it into the ground, you're somehow seen as substandard or writing poor code. There are tools for every job. That's why people need to get a better grasp on OOP and understand when it should and shouldn't be used. One thing that this review did not mention is Tate's crisp writing style. He writes with a slightly conversational tone but one that won't become annoying by the 50th page or so. This is a very good book and I suggest you pick it up if you believe that OOP is the cure for all of society's ills.
Slashdot Mirror
Ignoring the statistic you cite (which I am interested in but isn't really important to my thoughts on this subject), I am reading over what you wrote and here is what I think.
In response to your referencing of Adam Smith, I'd say this to you: The view of capitalism that Adam Smith had is not the one that currently exists in America. I was neither endorsing nor attacking this system - merely pointing out that Daisey should have been aware of the way things are (as you seem to be with the obvious conclusion you're making that a small class of people is exploiting the majority) and not been so surprised or sickened by it. As for your questioning of me as to what the point of making as much money as possible is, I cannot tell you. I didn't claim that this was my view. Again, you have to read what I wrote a bit more carefully. In America, this is what corporations do. They are not very concerned with social progress or development but instead are only focused on the bottom line. It seems to me like you're trying to make an argument against an argument I did not make. Nowhere in my statement did I say that the way corporations operate is right or morally justified but instead was merely pointing out that Daisey should have understood what corporations are and not expected anything but what he got. I hope this clears things up for you as you seem to have missed my main point.
75% of all jobs? Prove it to me. Where are you coming up with this figure? I don't buy it.
"Quirky" corporations? Hmm, I suppose it could work but why would anyone think that would be a sound business model? You're much more likely to make the money you want by going the "megamall" route. I don't understand why Daisey has such blind idealism. Can't he see that corporations exist in order to make money and as much money as possible? To bemoan Amazon because they weren't "fun" or "hip" or "quirky" is naive and shows a fundamental problem in his understanding of capitalism. I'm not saying Amazon is a darling corporation but I'm saying I am not surprised by their practices. If I went to work for Amazon, I'd expect the typical corporate environment - similar across companies.
The problem stems from the fact that as the government takes more power to look into your lives, what happens when they decide to add some new laws? Perhaps you're not doing anything illegal right now but this erosion of rights can lead to further erosion of rights. Do you have the right to plan your own wedding? (Silly example perhaps but bold enough so you can see my point.) Right now, you do. But if the government can take away the privacy afforded to you in the Constitution, why can't they take away your freedom of marriage? With their omnipresent eye, they'll be able to catch you in the act of marrying, toss you in jail, and ruin your honeymoon. Constant vigilence is needed to make the government better. We can't that the government is trustworthy nor can we assume that having faith in the government not to abuse privileges. To make a further example: I'm sure your fiancee is very attractive but let's suppose that the chief of police notices this. If the Patriot Act and acts like it take away the need for the government to have a reason to spy on you, what's to stop the chief of police from fulfilling his voyueristic fantasies by installing a few bedroom cameras in your house/apartment? You assume the government will only invade the privacy of criminals while I believe that the government, unchecked, will expand the scope of what is criminal and ALSO invade the privacy of non-criminals (just in case).
But before you go and buy into that, you should consider the link you followed. Rather than posting a link to the text of the Patriot Act, a link was offered to a group that is strongly opposed to the Patriot Act so, of course, they are going to present you with a description of the act that isn't as wholesome as the US government wants you to believe. My quarrel with this is that the link text was simply "Patriot Act" - which implies that this watchdog organization's view of the Patriot Act is the only view. Don't get me wrong, I think the Patriot Act is a horrible piece of legislation that is trampling our freedoms and should be challenged and, eventually, overturned as unconstitutional but if a link is being provided with the text "Patriot Act", it should go to the text of the Patriot Act. Let's assume for a moment that most readers are intelligent enough to make their own informed decisions and don't need everything interpretted for them. That's my thought on this story.
You might want to read the blurb a bit closer (or follow a few of the links). It's not "Verizon" but "Verisign"
Verizon is not the same company as Verisign. Two different companies.
For those of you in the Schenectady NY, and in hopes of getting a good turnout, there will be a Mozilla Release Party in North College in room 312. Please come by and celebrate with us. Punch and pie will be provided along with a live band. It should be a good time for all. The party will last a few hours but all are welcome to stay for as long as desired. There will be a nice theatre setup and we've got Empire queued up and ready to be played. ;-)
I am not exactly sure why, in posting a positive review about a movie, Katz has to bring in Star Wars and insult the movie and fans of the movie. It's a bit small of Katz to mention Star Wars and I wonder why exactly he is so bitter about the film. I mean, Star Wars is just a movie. If Katz didn't like it, he can post that in a review of Star Wars. In a review of a completely unrelated movie, the mentioning of Star Wars is out of place. It's similar to writing a review of some Linux distro and mentioning how awful you think Windows is. That opinion is fine but in a review, you generally focus on what you're reviewing. I've not seen this odd practice often and am really curious as to what the motivation is behind it. Why Jon? Why? By the way, "groupies" normally has a sexual lining to its meaning and you should probably substitute something like "rabid fan-boys." Although, as a fan of Star Wars, I'd appreciate it if you didn't go out of your way to belittle what I enjoy. You've implied that you're better than me because I enjoy Star Wars. Not nice Katz, not nice.
This is part of a continuing pattern that I've noticed. The major corporate entites which are embracing Linux aren't normally leaving some variant of Windows behind but instead are dropping Unix. The stranglehold Microsoft has on Office and the problems introduced by switching from Windows to Linux (in terms of a possible inability to access old files) is really hurting Linux in the War against Windows. But what these companies need to realize is that they can convert their old files into plain text files, using the very version of Office which is trying to tie them into an ugprade cycle of doom, using some simple batch scripts. This would be quite a chore, obviously - but in the long run companies would save. I don't know why this solution isn't being offered to companies. From what I understand, many companies are hesitant to drop Windows for this very reason: loss of access to old files. But again, Bill Gates doesn't really lose on this one. Linux gains some but not in the area where I'd like to see it.
By this "logic", if you are charged with a crime and arrested, you have to prove yourself innocent. Because the government is stating a story, their version of your crime, and you are going to assume it's true until you have proven it false. It's an interesting form of logic you are using but I'm afraid you should realize that international law, as dictated by the UN, says that all criminals are innocent until proven guilty. Now, the UN doesn't agree with your "logic" and neither do I. But thanks for trying!
I question the truth of this post. It's rather simple to make sweeping 'man on the street' statements about a company's practice without giving any hard details about the story and this type of attack can lead to some rather convincing evidence, in the public's mind. But what we have here is a story that is quite flimsy. As much as Microsoft controls the media, it's a bit odd that the author of this post offers no link to a news bulletin about this. I mean, certainly it was covered somewhere. The local paper should have picked up on it. Where is the link, my friend? And a few 486s running Win95? Microsoft has much bigger fish to fry.
It's not that I'm implying that you're a liar. It's that I am calling you a liar.
Note: this isn't flamebait. I just want people to give some proof of the statements they make when they are not simply voicing opinions. I really don't think this story is true.
You make the mistake of not understanding what art is at all. Video games are an art form but it is not because they are somehow difficult or time-consuming.
Well, that's a really intelligent question - very entertaining as well. In a post that actually relates to the book, I think that Tate does a nice job in this book of really showing proper object oriented programming. So often OOP gets used as such a buzzword that if you, as a programmer, don't embrace and beat it into the ground, you're somehow seen as substandard or writing poor code. There are tools for every job. That's why people need to get a better grasp on OOP and understand when it should and shouldn't be used. One thing that this review did not mention is Tate's crisp writing style. He writes with a slightly conversational tone but one that won't become annoying by the 50th page or so. This is a very good book and I suggest you pick it up if you believe that OOP is the cure for all of society's ills.