The fact that you've got albums you've listened to twice isn't anything other than a pretty good indication that you make poor economic choices in general.
The fact that they are Christmas albums could explain it. Like most AC posts by people who are afraid to use their nicks, the rest of your comment is drivel.
We consider a CD to be "less than" a DVD because, among other things, it is "only" audio information.
How about considering that I can get a movie (that cost $100 million to make) on DVD (a more expensive medium) for the same price as as a CD containing a 30-year-old album that originally cost several tens of thousands to produce. Please don't counter with the debunked theater-revenue argument. That old album brought in profits on vinyl and then tape as well as concerts before it was put on CD. Why does it still cost nearly $20?
The fact that we may listen to a CD 50 times over, while we watch a movie on a DVD we buy twice, is overlooked.
The fact that I have CDs I've listened to twice at the most, while the kids have watched certain DVDs at least 30 times, makes that argument meaningless. The fact is that the CD generally contains about 6 minutes of wanted entertainment (the rest being filler) while the DVD contains 90-plus minutes of entertainment and was far more expensive to produce. There is an obvious disparity.
Don't like it? Don't post - its still a free country. Don't like your Microsoft-worshipping posts getting modded -999? Tough - you were asking for it.
You seem to be advertising your reading comprehension problems as well as your problems with logic. The OP was was about people getting modded down for making jokes about Microsoft. And if "its [sic] still a free country", that would imply there is still free speech. Take a chill pill, learn to tolerate people who aren't as intelligent as you, and Merry Christmas.
Frankly, I don't want to hear about windows. I fucking hate it. I only want to read about why Linux is good, etc. Hearing about M$ is about as fun as eating shit. And that's not very fun. . . In summary, fuck microsoft. And this most isn't flamebait, I'm sure other people want to say the same thing.
Well, I'm no MS fan either. I use Linux. That does not mean that MS fanboys should be modded down just because they state their preference. Nor should people be modded down because they make a joke about Microsoft. If you think they should, then you'd better go read the faq about moderation, and you need to get a life - it will give you some perspective, and it will make the teensy irritants easier to bear. Oh, BTW, Merry Christmas, and have a less stressed New Year.
Perhaps where you come from, "real-time" is short for "hard real-time".
Where I come from, "real-time" is short for "real-time". Talking about game playing and language interpreters in embedded real-time is just plain silly. Change your sig, and Merry Christmas!
"Soft" means that e.g. in a video game, it's OK to skip an occasional frame.
Well, I've been out of that arena for a few years, but that is not real-time. Video games don't even come close to the requirements of real-time embedded firmware.
The reason were 2 posts above mine. They were moded trolls and mine would appear as such also. I hate being moded as troll whenever I tell what I think of Microsoft and their OS.
And that is pretty much what I said. And I also said I am doing my part to protect such opinions from biased moderation. So, are you complaining or what?
Why do people make statements such as this? We all know that mods can be biased, the system is imperfect, and karma really doesn't matter. What does matter is having the ability to state one's opinions/beliefs and being able to defend them.
I think the reason may be that lots of satiric or humorous comments about Microsoft are being modded down (then up, then down, then up). With the new *Funny = no karma* rule, posting satire or humor concerning Microsoft is an invitation to have your karma removed. It seems reasonable for such a poster to react to previous "biased" moderation. While karma isn't going to affect your salary or add two inches, good karma does get your comments read by more slashbots.
I have gotten really tough on down-mods while metamoderating. If it looks at all ideological (rather than about the worth of the content) in either direction, then I mark it unfair. If others do the same, hopefully, many of the moderators who let their bias show can be removed, and we won't need comments with disclaimers about the intent.
I wish I had seen this sooner. If you're going to call someone a liar, you should have the courage to do it directly.
Don't thank him. It's a snow-job. Neither the sources quoted on that page, nor the definitions it presents, are correct.
It's not my link. If anyone is doing a snow job, it's you. Either that or you're just ignorant.
What it comes down to is that the USA is both a Republic and a Democracy. There's no conflict between those words- no reason one country can't be both.
You should really take some classes in national politics and history. In a democracy, you could not have a construct like the electoral college. You might want to note that the person who won a plurality of the vote did not win the presidency in the last election. And you obviously need a better dictionary. Mine, Webster's, says that a republic is a representative form of government, i.e., your representative casts the vote that matters. A democracy is one-person-one-vote with no intervention. If you can't see the distinction, that's your problem.
The founding fathers expressly did not want a democracy, some likening it to mob rule. "Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch" - Ben Franklin.
My understanding, which could be wrong, is that they have turned the corner, which was related to old obligations and the French version of Chapter 11, and are back into profitable operations.
bY definition, a business exists to make a profit. If an organization isn't seeking a prfit, it isn't a business.
Actually not all businesses exist to make a "prfit". Some are non-profit corporations. In reality, businesses (corporations, specifically) exist to comply with their articles of incorporation, which may contain pretty much anything, and the ones I've seen do not make claims about short-term profit.
I didn't say it does, and the vast majority in businesses today do neither.
I will do my best to parse that sentence and get back to you, but I think you've had more to drink than I have.:)
Obviously targetted at ideologues angry at Red Hat, this is a lame marketing ploy by Mandrake to rally True Believers in another attempt to sell product.
Or perhaps it is simply a reaffirmation to users that Mandrake will not abandon the model it has committed to, despite Red Hat's actions.
The primary ethical obligation of a business is to turn a profit. That's what Red Hat chose to do, and that is exactly what Mandrake is doing with this self-serving advertisement.
It's beliefs like that that are turning America into a corporate cesspool. If there are any "ethical" obligations of a corporation, the first is to perform its duties in keeping with the company's articles of incorporation. These generally say that the company will obey the laws and do its best to protect the shareholders' value.
Any other assumptions about "ethical obligations" and profits is nonsense. The real "ethical" obligations of any company should be to work for the long-term good of the company, which is the employees and shareholders. It should not be about this quarter's profits.
Please, choose either the "Free beer vs. Free speech" option, or the "Gratis vs. Libre" option, not both.
From the article: A download version of Mandrake Linux, consisting entirely of Open Source software, will continue to be released, provided without cost, and supported.
It is software libre, and it is as free as a proffered beer (by download). So what's your problem, and why were you modded insightful?
It seems that clearly Mandrake is discovering its audience and is trying to distance itself from seeming anything near the debacle that SCO has become. With several of these "Golden Rules" (coincidentally released just now) it seems that they are practically screaming, "Don't worry, we're not SCO!".
I've read your comment several times, and I have no idea why you are trying to draw a parallel between SCO, a company trying to subvert Linux and OSS, and Mandrake, a company that has always fully supported Linux, OSS, and the GPL. If anything, Mandrake is saying "we are not Red Hat". I'm surprised you were modded insightful instead of troll.
I think that it is especially interesting that Mandrake, which is known, and sometimes derided, for being easy to install and friendly to newbies, is doing this.
And that's a good point that raises the question: Why is Mandrake considered a n00b distro, and why is it derided for installing easily? The first time I installed Mandrake was because Red Hat would not install on my machine, and a friend offered me his Mandrake download discs.
Mandrake has the same kernel and the same GNU tools as all the other distros. By default it will install the KDE or Gnome desktop (or, if you choose, both or others). Once installed, it does all the same things that every other distro does. It does do some default things during installation that will keep a n00b out of trouble, and it asks you first. So how is that a bad thing? It is so much better than the Lindows run-as-root default.
We've still got a huge group of people claiming Linux isn't ready for the desktop because it's too hard to install, but Mandrake is far easier to install than Windows 98 (admittedly the last time I installed Windows). The other group thinks Mandrake is too easy to install. Maybe I'm just getting old, because I write software and think it ought to be fairly easy to install. I don't get it.
I realize you're having a problem with the OP's phrasing, but yes, they do make money. Besides the free download version, they offer a boxed set, a *professional* (more stuff) version, a server version, and a firewall product that all have a price tag. There are also quite a few users who support Mandrake's efforts with yearly contributions as a form of payback and in exchange for a few perks. The support for the free product is generally community support and the forums. Hope that helps you get over your hysteria.
It might be fun to get rid of the Legal Fiction. Then people could file Bankruptcy inducing lawsuits against indiviual members of non profit corporations like PETA and Greenpeace.
I think that's an excellent idea. (Heaven knows someone should sue PETA for that *rats have rights* tripe that we had to endure.) But, seriously, since you are talking about non-profits, that's a different group held to different standards.
I think holding individual owners in for-profit corporations liable up to their loss of investment would be a good thing (and an old thing). It would require people to actively investigate and *buy into* the company's ideals and management before investing and risking their money and privilege of *ownership*. These educated owners might hold company executives to *gasp* standards, just like it was intended. That was the whole point before the current *corporate no-fault* laws. The way it is now, anyone can invest in any sleazy company, claim no knowledge of sleaze, demand insane profits, deny responsibility, and sue if they don't get what they want. That's just ridiculous. So, thanks for bringing it back in perspective! I wish we could get back there again.
If it's the readers that mod as opposed to the editors, that's called democracy....
If the readers are the ones who supplied the forum, then I would agree with you. But, since neither you nor I are subscribers, I don't think the democracy model applies to Slashdot - unless you think you are somehow entitled to bread and circuses.
Until we have instant run-off voting we do NOT have a democracy in the United States.
The United States is not and never was a democracy, nor did the founding fathers want it to be one. The U.S. was and is a republic with some traits of a representative democracy. (I do agree with the Nader quote, though.)
I Dislike Liberals because they forget (or ignore) the fact that the owners of those corporations are human beings who have rights. The "Rights" of a corporation are derived from the rights of the indiviuals who own it.
First, the "rights" of a corporation is a legal fiction to protect the principals of the corporation from the consequences of bad management. How many corporations have you seen sent to prison? The only real corporate rights are the rights to shelter company executives and board members from prosecution while they remove money from the pockets of employees and shareholders. The government has repeatedly mangled the laws so badly in the name of *corporate reform* that we are left with a total monster designed by (corporate paid-for) committee. BTW, I'm neither liberal nor Libertarian - I'm a conservative.
Slashdot Mirror
The fact that you've got albums you've listened to twice isn't anything other than a pretty good indication that you make poor economic choices in general.
The fact that they are Christmas albums could explain it. Like most AC posts by people who are afraid to use their nicks, the rest of your comment is drivel.
We consider a CD to be "less than" a DVD because, among other things, it is "only" audio information.
How about considering that I can get a movie (that cost $100 million to make) on DVD (a more expensive medium) for the same price as as a CD containing a 30-year-old album that originally cost several tens of thousands to produce. Please don't counter with the debunked theater-revenue argument. That old album brought in profits on vinyl and then tape as well as concerts before it was put on CD. Why does it still cost nearly $20?
The fact that we may listen to a CD 50 times over, while we watch a movie on a DVD we buy twice, is overlooked.
The fact that I have CDs I've listened to twice at the most, while the kids have watched certain DVDs at least 30 times, makes that argument meaningless. The fact is that the CD generally contains about 6 minutes of wanted entertainment (the rest being filler) while the DVD contains 90-plus minutes of entertainment and was far more expensive to produce. There is an obvious disparity.
Don't like it? Don't post - its still a free country. Don't like your Microsoft-worshipping posts getting modded -999? Tough - you were asking for it.
You seem to be advertising your reading comprehension problems as well as your problems with logic. The OP was was about people getting modded down for making jokes about Microsoft. And if "its [sic] still a free country", that would imply there is still free speech. Take a chill pill, learn to tolerate people who aren't as intelligent as you, and Merry Christmas.
Frankly, I don't want to hear about windows. I fucking hate it. I only want to read about why Linux is good, etc. Hearing about M$ is about as fun as eating shit. And that's not very fun. . . In summary, fuck microsoft. And this most isn't flamebait, I'm sure other people want to say the same thing.
Well, I'm no MS fan either. I use Linux. That does not mean that MS fanboys should be modded down just because they state their preference. Nor should people be modded down because they make a joke about Microsoft. If you think they should, then you'd better go read the faq about moderation, and you need to get a life - it will give you some perspective, and it will make the teensy irritants easier to bear. Oh, BTW, Merry Christmas, and have a less stressed New Year.
Perhaps where you come from, "real-time" is short for "hard real-time".
Where I come from, "real-time" is short for "real-time". Talking about game playing and language interpreters in embedded real-time is just plain silly. Change your sig, and Merry Christmas!
"Soft" means that e.g. in a video game, it's OK to skip an occasional frame.
Well, I've been out of that arena for a few years, but that is not real-time. Video games don't even come close to the requirements of real-time embedded firmware.
The reason were 2 posts above mine. They were moded trolls and mine would appear as such also. I hate being moded as troll whenever I tell what I think of Microsoft and their OS.
And that is pretty much what I said. And I also said I am doing my part to protect such opinions from biased moderation. So, are you complaining or what?
DISCLAIMER: I come from an embedded, soft-real-time programming background.
What the heck is SOFT real-time? Is that like Win-CE?
Why do people make statements such as this? We all know that mods can be biased, the system is imperfect, and karma really doesn't matter. What does matter is having the ability to state one's opinions/beliefs and being able to defend them.
I think the reason may be that lots of satiric or humorous comments about Microsoft are being modded down (then up, then down, then up). With the new *Funny = no karma* rule, posting satire or humor concerning Microsoft is an invitation to have your karma removed. It seems reasonable for such a poster to react to previous "biased" moderation. While karma isn't going to affect your salary or add two inches, good karma does get your comments read by more slashbots.
I have gotten really tough on down-mods while metamoderating. If it looks at all ideological (rather than about the worth of the content) in either direction, then I mark it unfair. If others do the same, hopefully, many of the moderators who let their bias show can be removed, and we won't need comments with disclaimers about the intent.
I am not the one doing a snow job on you. You might want to check my response to his rather clueless post.
I wish I had seen this sooner. If you're going to call someone a liar, you should have the courage to do it directly.
Don't thank him. It's a snow-job. Neither the sources quoted on that page, nor the definitions it presents, are correct.
It's not my link. If anyone is doing a snow job, it's you. Either that or you're just ignorant.
What it comes down to is that the USA is both a Republic and a Democracy. There's no conflict between those words- no reason one country can't be both.
You should really take some classes in national politics and history. In a democracy, you could not have a construct like the electoral college. You might want to note that the person who won a plurality of the vote did not win the presidency in the last election. And you obviously need a better dictionary. Mine, Webster's, says that a republic is a representative form of government, i.e., your representative casts the vote that matters. A democracy is one-person-one-vote with no intervention. If you can't see the distinction, that's your problem.
The founding fathers expressly did not want a democracy, some likening it to mob rule. "Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch" - Ben Franklin.
My understanding, which could be wrong, is that they have turned the corner, which was related to old obligations and the French version of Chapter 11, and are back into profitable operations.
bY definition, a business exists to make a profit. If an organization isn't seeking a prfit, it isn't a business.
Actually not all businesses exist to make a "prfit". Some are non-profit corporations. In reality, businesses (corporations, specifically) exist to comply with their articles of incorporation, which may contain pretty much anything, and the ones I've seen do not make claims about short-term profit.
I didn't say it does, and the vast majority in businesses today do neither.
I will do my best to parse that sentence and get back to you, but I think you've had more to drink than I have. :)
Thanks, now I know I'm not the only one!
Obviously targetted at ideologues angry at Red Hat, this is a lame marketing ploy by Mandrake to rally True Believers in another attempt to sell product.
Or perhaps it is simply a reaffirmation to users that Mandrake will not abandon the model it has committed to, despite Red Hat's actions.
The primary ethical obligation of a business is to turn a profit. That's what Red Hat chose to do, and that is exactly what Mandrake is doing with this self-serving advertisement.
It's beliefs like that that are turning America into a corporate cesspool. If there are any "ethical" obligations of a corporation, the first is to perform its duties in keeping with the company's articles of incorporation. These generally say that the company will obey the laws and do its best to protect the shareholders' value.
Any other assumptions about "ethical obligations" and profits is nonsense. The real "ethical" obligations of any company should be to work for the long-term good of the company, which is the employees and shareholders. It should not be about this quarter's profits.
Please, choose either the "Free beer vs. Free speech" option, or the "Gratis vs. Libre" option, not both.
It is software libre, and it is as free as a proffered beer (by download). So what's your problem, and why were you modded insightful?
It seems that clearly Mandrake is discovering its audience and is trying to distance itself from seeming anything near the debacle that SCO has become. With several of these "Golden Rules" (coincidentally released just now) it seems that they are practically screaming, "Don't worry, we're not SCO!".
I've read your comment several times, and I have no idea why you are trying to draw a parallel between SCO, a company trying to subvert Linux and OSS, and Mandrake, a company that has always fully supported Linux, OSS, and the GPL. If anything, Mandrake is saying "we are not Red Hat". I'm surprised you were modded insightful instead of troll.
I think that it is especially interesting that Mandrake, which is known, and sometimes derided, for being easy to install and friendly to newbies, is doing this.
And that's a good point that raises the question: Why is Mandrake considered a n00b distro, and why is it derided for installing easily? The first time I installed Mandrake was because Red Hat would not install on my machine, and a friend offered me his Mandrake download discs.
Mandrake has the same kernel and the same GNU tools as all the other distros. By default it will install the KDE or Gnome desktop (or, if you choose, both or others). Once installed, it does all the same things that every other distro does. It does do some default things during installation that will keep a n00b out of trouble, and it asks you first. So how is that a bad thing? It is so much better than the Lindows run-as-root default.
We've still got a huge group of people claiming Linux isn't ready for the desktop because it's too hard to install, but Mandrake is far easier to install than Windows 98 (admittedly the last time I installed Windows). The other group thinks Mandrake is too easy to install. Maybe I'm just getting old, because I write software and think it ought to be fairly easy to install. I don't get it.
What? You meant it? "They make money?"
I realize you're having a problem with the OP's phrasing, but yes, they do make money. Besides the free download version, they offer a boxed set, a *professional* (more stuff) version, a server version, and a firewall product that all have a price tag. There are also quite a few users who support Mandrake's efforts with yearly contributions as a form of payback and in exchange for a few perks. The support for the free product is generally community support and the forums. Hope that helps you get over your hysteria.
It might be fun to get rid of the Legal Fiction. Then people could file Bankruptcy inducing lawsuits against indiviual members of non profit corporations like PETA and Greenpeace.
I think that's an excellent idea. (Heaven knows someone should sue PETA for that *rats have rights* tripe that we had to endure.) But, seriously, since you are talking about non-profits, that's a different group held to different standards.
I think holding individual owners in for-profit corporations liable up to their loss of investment would be a good thing (and an old thing). It would require people to actively investigate and *buy into* the company's ideals and management before investing and risking their money and privilege of *ownership*. These educated owners might hold company executives to *gasp* standards, just like it was intended. That was the whole point before the current *corporate no-fault* laws. The way it is now, anyone can invest in any sleazy company, claim no knowledge of sleaze, demand insane profits, deny responsibility, and sue if they don't get what they want. That's just ridiculous. So, thanks for bringing it back in perspective! I wish we could get back there again.
If it's the readers that mod as opposed to the editors, that's called democracy....
If the readers are the ones who supplied the forum, then I would agree with you. But, since neither you nor I are subscribers, I don't think the democracy model applies to Slashdot - unless you think you are somehow entitled to bread and circuses.
Until we have instant run-off voting we do NOT have a democracy in the United States.
The United States is not and never was a democracy, nor did the founding fathers want it to be one. The U.S. was and is a republic with some traits of a representative democracy. (I do agree with the Nader quote, though.)
I Dislike Liberals because they forget (or ignore) the fact that the owners of those corporations are human beings who have rights. The "Rights" of a corporation are derived from the rights of the indiviuals who own it.
First, the "rights" of a corporation is a legal fiction to protect the principals of the corporation from the consequences of bad management. How many corporations have you seen sent to prison? The only real corporate rights are the rights to shelter company executives and board members from prosecution while they remove money from the pockets of employees and shareholders. The government has repeatedly mangled the laws so badly in the name of *corporate reform* that we are left with a total monster designed by (corporate paid-for) committee. BTW, I'm neither liberal nor Libertarian - I'm a conservative.
India actually has one of the largest foreign-born worker populations in the world, mostly low-skilled labour. . .
Do doctors count in that group, as the OP indicated? Do skilled IT workers? Not from what I've read. You don't import that which you are exporting.
Perhaps they'll import doctors from Indonesia (or whatever the current low-status country is).
Now, that's funny! India importing workers from other countries. First, they'll have to change their regulations to accommodate that.