God damn it! This puts me over the edge. I've been meaning to join our northerly brethren for a while now and I think this just about gives me the final reason to make my promise good. Onward Kanooks! Eh?
I've seen a lot of comments here about how this is government intrusion and has no place in a free market.
That, dear friends, is complete bullshit.
People seem to equate "free market" with "freedom for companies to do whatever the hell they want." But it doesn't work that way. A free market is a market in which there are multiple companies all competing on the same level with the same rules. And it provides consumers with multiple choices so that they have the power to decide what's the best product to use.
The key point here is that if the product is a foundation for other products, such as telephone lines, cable service, computer hardware or computer software, you need to set some rules so that everyone has the chance to compete on the same level.
Think of it like a football game, where one team provides the playing field, the locker rooms and all the other assorted stuff that goes along with a normal game. The visiting team plays at a disadvantage because most of the fans are rooting for the home team, but they still play with the same rules, independent referees, the same size goal posts and end-zone. The home team doesn't get the ability to have things however they want it just because it's their field. There are rules, and they must be adhered to.
Remember, a free market economy's prime benefactor is the consumer, not the company. When companies become so large that they can influence the consumer's choices no matter what, you lose the benefits of free markets. That is why anti-trust laws were created and one of the reasons you need governments in the first place.
So, don't think that a free market economy needs no supervision. It needs lots of it, for the benefit of the consumer. In the end, everyone wins, not just one producer of products.
(BTW, on a completely different note, this is partly the same argument that can be made for affirmative action and programs like it, in order to create a level playing field so that everyone progresses and moves forward, rather than just a select group).
Uh, but if the sysadmin was in charge of the backup system...
Tolkient Anti-Progress???
on
David Brin On LOTR
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
Bah! Brin is out of his mind. Although he has a lot of good thoughts in that article, I think he has read too much into his analysis. In fact, he negates his own commentary at a few points by noting that Tolkien was the most critical of the "Romantic" portions of his world, i.e., the elves and their desire to keep the world as it is and not allow progress.
In fact, this is the whole point of the books! It may be regrettable that the elves have to journey across the sea and Middle-Earth loses a part of itself that it can never get back. But that is the price of progress. And according to Tolkien, it is *inevitable* that we move forward; that progress happens. We will keep tokens of that older time in our lives, so that we don't forget it, but we will still move forward.
Tolkien strives for the balance that we all wish for - between the romanticism of the past in the context of technological progress.
Examples: 1) Gimli keeps a lock of hair of Galadriel, in order to remember her beauty, with the plan to encase it in a construct of dwarvish metalworking. Nature in Technology. 2) Later in the story, Gimli shows his desire for progress as he laments the decay of Minis Tirith and the ability of dwarvish *technology* to bring it back to life. Again, technology will provide the solutions to the ills of the world. 3) Gimli's description of the Caves of Aglarond, where he comments on their beauty to Legolas. Legolas, being an elf (one of those romantics Brin so despises), laments that dwarves would ruin the beauty if they found out, but Gimli immediately scolds him, saying the no dwarf could ruin such beauty. They would use their technology to *improve* the natural beauty. Clearly, Gimli illustrates Tolkien's desire for the balance between nature and science, the romantic past vs. the technological future. 4) It is the elves who are leaving Middle Earth. If the stories were so full of Romanticism, the elves would have stayed and continued to affect the non-progress of Middle Earth. 5) Arwen, an elf, turns away from her birthright and chooses the path of mortality. That is Tolkien's clearest indication anywhere that the progress of men is desired more than the ways of the romantic elves. 6) When the party stays in Lothlorien, at the end Aragorn comments that time flows slowly in the land of the elves, but they must leave soon because events continue on the outside world. If they intend to fight evil, they must move forward. Again, the romantic elves are not the path to enlightenment and freedom. 7) Gandalf gives Aragorn a directive and a challenge at the end of the stories that it is now the time of men. Much that has been will now pass away, but that does not mean that Aragorn should neglect his future. He should hold in his thoughts and heart the beauty of the past and use it to guide his way as he makes progress into the future.
In my opinion, Brin is completely off the mark in his analysis of LotR. I think Tolkien had the essence of progress in his heart as he wrote the books. He laments that the beauty of the elves is fading, but knows that it was that same group who caused the sufferering in the world and it is best for them to leave and for the race of men to guide things toward a more prosperous future.
Well, I wasn't really talking about history here. I was talking about current proposed (and recently failed) legislation before Congress, which are mostly related
1) background checks, 2) waiting periods and 3) gun safety (trigger locks and the such).
Sorry, but from what I've seen, most recent gun legislation is trying to do just that - focus on the people and not the guns. Yes, there is legislation about guns themselves (such as outlawing assault weapons), the majority of legislation is about background checks and the such.
And now we return you to "Days of our Sad and Boring-Ass Lives."
"When last we saw Billy, he was demonstrating his lack of social skills by building a circular train track in his crap-infested apartment. Look at it go, Billy! Around, and around, and around, and around, and around..."
Ughh, who actually read this story? Crapola to the max, man!
As everyone knows, most kids who go to Catholic school end up rebelling against the system in larger numbers than kids who go to traditional, secular, public schools. Walk into any private high school in this country and count the number of people wearing black and sporting skateboards on their backs. Walk into the public school down the block and see the difference.
Therefore, the best way to create a more open and accepting society is to put more kids in catholic schools, filter their access to the internet, keep them indoors after 9 pm, don't let them date until they're 18, yada, yada, yada. By the time the Conservatives realize what a huge mess they've created, it'll be too late and they'll be in the supreme minority of government. Didn't anyone see _Pleasantville_? Balck and white baby! Bring it on Mr. Bush! I welcome your plans!
Of course, the rest of us have to endure the torture in the meantime... Oh well.
Guess what's gonna happen to laws like these when Bush gets to appoint judges to the supreme court? Anyone want a recount now?
Actually, I think OSS will eventually lead, but not by itself. I think commercial companies using OSS methods to develop their software will be the end-all be-all. In fact, all Microsoft has to do to lead the pack and wipe Linux off the face of the earth would be to switch to this joint development methodology. Protect their IP with sensible IP laws, yet allow developers to improve upon existing code or provide new functionality to works in progress. Benefits provided, of course (such as free software, or employment for the most active and best contributors).
All software development is best done by small teams of developers. Even open source is best when led by a small team of devoted people. The benefits of commercial companies is obviously money. The developers can rely on stable income to support them while they devote all their time to the projects they work on. The benefits of OSS is obviously lots of eyes looking at the code. By combining the two, you provide the ability to create extraordinary products by funding the core development team, but allowing outside parties to contribute their ideas as well.
Sorry you feel that way. I care to make people safe and happy too. I also care to make the world around me vibrant and full of life, rather than a rotting trash dump of festering crud.
Morals have nothing to do with survivability. I will kill in order to survive and I will make damn sure that no one dumps shit in my streams so that I can survive and I'll kick major butt on anyone who decides that lining their pocketbooks from the sale of toxic waste is more important that my health.
I guess we do have different morals. Take your relativist attitudes and shove them up your ass. While your at it, shove some nuclear waste up there as well to clean out all your shit. I'm sure you'll be pleased with the monetary compensation.
Conservatives love to talk about how global warming is just a natural process and we should let mother nature run its course, but the moment someone tells them to leave the trees alone, keep their waste out of the air and water, and let the wolves roam free, i.e. let mother nature run its course, they go whining on about the economy and jobs. Two-faced, I'd call that.
Uh, microsoft empoyees are not the only microsoft developers in the world. In fact, a large number of open source developers (including myself) use Windows platforms to do their development.
Having tasted a variety of development environments, I do have to say that Visual Studio is one of my favorites. And with the newer versions becoming 99% standards compliant (C/C++), I doubt I'll be moving off it anytime soon. There's just no competition in the open source world for that kind of integrated development environment. Sorry, but emacs doesn't cut it. Open Source does _NOT_ have most of the functionality of Microsoft's offerings. And if your comparison is stability, I will just say one thing: Windows 2000. In fact, applications on my windows 2000 machine crash far less frequently than applications on my new red hat 8 machine.
Microsoft is nowhere near failing and anyone who thinks otherwise is kidding themselves. Co-existence is the name of the game, ladies and gents. OSS is here to stay. It has great qualities, but it's not the end-all be-all of software development.
I agree, we can't assume that global warming is a man-made event.
But we can sure as hell do better with out environment anyway. There is no excuse for air-pollution, water-polution, encroaching upon wildlife, tearing down forests willy-nilly, heedlesly diverting natural waterways for irrigation, recklessly wasting our money on inefficient and limited energy supplies and all that other fucking crazy shit that goes on in the world today. Our lives, our health, our economy, our world and every other fucking thing we can think of will be a hell of a lot better off if we start working with mother nature, instead of against her. That means preserving the natural cycles that were already there, replanting what we take from the earth, not moving habitats around the world just because we feel like it, investing in renewable, efficient and cost-effective energy sources, and doing whatever it takes to make sure the world we live in continues to be able to sustain our quickly growing global population.
Very true, but I never said Democrats aren't evil. I'm just pointing out who's more evil.
However, telling a democrat lawmaker that a law is anti-consumer garners much more of a concerned response than telling a republican lawmaker the same thing.
But, in the end, it's all about the money. Which is why I'm planning to move to another country...:-)
If I hear anymore Republicans talk about "Self-Regulation, Self-Regulation! Waaa! Waaa! Self-Regulation," I'm gonna scream. THIS telco shit, ladies and gentlemen, is what self-regulation brings. Anyone who thinks government shouldn't get involved in this, please step forward so I can kick you in the nuts.
Slashdot Mirror
God damn it! This puts me over the edge. I've been meaning to join our northerly brethren for a while now and I think this just about gives me the final reason to make my promise good. Onward Kanooks! Eh?
Unregulated Capitalism is the EVIL of the world.
Imagine a Tolkien Cluster of those!
I've seen a lot of comments here about how this is government intrusion and has no place in a free market.
That, dear friends, is complete bullshit.
People seem to equate "free market" with "freedom for companies to do whatever the hell they want." But it doesn't work that way. A free market is a market in which there are multiple companies all competing on the same level with the same rules. And it provides consumers with multiple choices so that they have the power to decide what's the best product to use.
The key point here is that if the product is a foundation for other products, such as telephone lines, cable service, computer hardware or computer software, you need to set some rules so that everyone has the chance to compete on the same level.
Think of it like a football game, where one team provides the playing field, the locker rooms and all the other assorted stuff that goes along with a normal game. The visiting team plays at a disadvantage because most of the fans are rooting for the home team, but they still play with the same rules, independent referees, the same size goal posts and end-zone. The home team doesn't get the ability to have things however they want it just because it's their field. There are rules, and they must be adhered to.
Remember, a free market economy's prime benefactor is the consumer, not the company. When companies become so large that they can influence the consumer's choices no matter what, you lose the benefits of free markets. That is why anti-trust laws were created and one of the reasons you need governments in the first place.
So, don't think that a free market economy needs no supervision. It needs lots of it, for the benefit of the consumer. In the end, everyone wins, not just one producer of products.
(BTW, on a completely different note, this is partly the same argument that can be made for affirmative action and programs like it, in order to create a level playing field so that everyone progresses and moves forward, rather than just a select group).
Uh, but if the sysadmin was in charge of the backup system...
Bah! Brin is out of his mind. Although he has a lot of good thoughts in that article, I think he has read too much into his analysis. In fact, he negates his own commentary at a few points by noting that Tolkien was the most critical of the "Romantic" portions of his world, i.e., the elves and their desire to keep the world as it is and not allow progress.
In fact, this is the whole point of the books! It may be regrettable that the elves have to journey across the sea and Middle-Earth loses a part of itself that it can never get back. But that is the price of progress. And according to Tolkien, it is *inevitable* that we move forward; that progress happens. We will keep tokens of that older time in our lives, so that we don't forget it, but we will still move forward.
Tolkien strives for the balance that we all wish for - between the romanticism of the past in the context of technological progress.
Examples:
1) Gimli keeps a lock of hair of Galadriel, in order to remember her beauty, with the plan to encase it in a construct of dwarvish metalworking. Nature in Technology.
2) Later in the story, Gimli shows his desire for progress as he laments the decay of Minis Tirith and the ability of dwarvish *technology* to bring it back to life. Again, technology will provide the solutions to the ills of the world.
3) Gimli's description of the Caves of Aglarond, where he comments on their beauty to Legolas. Legolas, being an elf (one of those romantics Brin so despises), laments that dwarves would ruin the beauty if they found out, but Gimli immediately scolds him, saying the no dwarf could ruin such beauty. They would use their technology to *improve* the natural beauty. Clearly, Gimli illustrates Tolkien's desire for the balance between nature and science, the romantic past vs. the technological future.
4) It is the elves who are leaving Middle Earth. If the stories were so full of Romanticism, the elves would have stayed and continued to affect the non-progress of Middle Earth.
5) Arwen, an elf, turns away from her birthright and chooses the path of mortality. That is Tolkien's clearest indication anywhere that the progress of men is desired more than the ways of the romantic elves.
6) When the party stays in Lothlorien, at the end Aragorn comments that time flows slowly in the land of the elves, but they must leave soon because events continue on the outside world. If they intend to fight evil, they must move forward. Again, the romantic elves are not the path to enlightenment and freedom.
7) Gandalf gives Aragorn a directive and a challenge at the end of the stories that it is now the time of men. Much that has been will now pass away, but that does not mean that Aragorn should neglect his future. He should hold in his thoughts and heart the beauty of the past and use it to guide his way as he makes progress into the future.
In my opinion, Brin is completely off the mark in his analysis of LotR. I think Tolkien had the essence of progress in his heart as he wrote the books. He laments that the beauty of the elves is fading, but knows that it was that same group who caused the sufferering in the world and it is best for them to leave and for the race of men to guide things toward a more prosperous future.
Remember, this is speculation on the part of META, and has to do with back-end software, not Office.
And if META's conclusion was that the TCO of Linux was *lower* than Microsoft, would that be speculation too?
Well, I wasn't really talking about history here. I was talking about current proposed (and recently failed) legislation before Congress, which are mostly related
1) background checks,
2) waiting periods and
3) gun safety (trigger locks and the such).
Sorry, but from what I've seen, most recent gun legislation is trying to do just that - focus on the people and not the guns. Yes, there is legislation about guns themselves (such as outlawing assault weapons), the majority of legislation is about background checks and the such.
I guess this just give more validity to the "Microsoft as Borg" line of thinking...
and giving plenty more tag-lines to Linux PR - "Who's handling your Enterprise software these days? Linux, where no company has gone before."
Urghh.... Must... Stop... Stupid... Puns... Kill... Timothy... for... starting... it...
And now we return you to "Days of our Sad and Boring-Ass Lives."
"When last we saw Billy, he was demonstrating his lack of social skills by building a circular train track in his crap-infested apartment. Look at it go, Billy! Around, and around, and around, and around, and around..."
Ughh, who actually read this story? Crapola to the max, man!
Wonder what a Beowulf cluster of these things would be like...
hahaha, I'm so funny. Laugh at my stupid played-out beowulf cluster joke...
What would Jesus use to do his backups? I mean, I already asked myself "What would Jesus drive?" this morning, so it was a logical next step.
You'd be amazed at what you can discover by just asking yourself what Jesus would do!
More "disposable" technology to fill our landfills with...
Hear me out!
As everyone knows, most kids who go to Catholic school end up rebelling against the system in larger numbers than kids who go to traditional, secular, public schools. Walk into any private high school in this country and count the number of people wearing black and sporting skateboards on their backs. Walk into the public school down the block and see the difference.
Therefore, the best way to create a more open and accepting society is to put more kids in catholic schools, filter their access to the internet, keep them indoors after 9 pm, don't let them date until they're 18, yada, yada, yada. By the time the Conservatives realize what a huge mess they've created, it'll be too late and they'll be in the supreme minority of government. Didn't anyone see _Pleasantville_? Balck and white baby! Bring it on Mr. Bush! I welcome your plans!
Of course, the rest of us have to endure the torture in the meantime... Oh well.
Guess what's gonna happen to laws like these when Bush gets to appoint judges to the supreme court? Anyone want a recount now?
Actually, I think OSS will eventually lead, but not by itself. I think commercial companies using OSS methods to develop their software will be the end-all be-all. In fact, all Microsoft has to do to lead the pack and wipe Linux off the face of the earth would be to switch to this joint development methodology. Protect their IP with sensible IP laws, yet allow developers to improve upon existing code or provide new functionality to works in progress. Benefits provided, of course (such as free software, or employment for the most active and best contributors).
All software development is best done by small teams of developers. Even open source is best when led by a small team of devoted people. The benefits of commercial companies is obviously money. The developers can rely on stable income to support them while they devote all their time to the projects they work on. The benefits of OSS is obviously lots of eyes looking at the code. By combining the two, you provide the ability to create extraordinary products by funding the core development team, but allowing outside parties to contribute their ideas as well.
Sorry you feel that way. I care to make people safe and happy too. I also care to make the world around me vibrant and full of life, rather than a rotting trash dump of festering crud.
Morals have nothing to do with survivability. I will kill in order to survive and I will make damn sure that no one dumps shit in my streams so that I can survive and I'll kick major butt on anyone who decides that lining their pocketbooks from the sale of toxic waste is more important that my health.
I guess we do have different morals. Take your relativist attitudes and shove them up your ass. While your at it, shove some nuclear waste up there as well to clean out all your shit. I'm sure you'll be pleased with the monetary compensation.
Conservatives love to talk about how global warming is just a natural process and we should let mother nature run its course, but the moment someone tells them to leave the trees alone, keep their waste out of the air and water, and let the wolves roam free, i.e. let mother nature run its course, they go whining on about the economy and jobs. Two-faced, I'd call that.
Uh, microsoft empoyees are not the only microsoft developers in the world. In fact, a large number of open source developers (including myself) use Windows platforms to do their development.
Having tasted a variety of development environments, I do have to say that Visual Studio is one of my favorites. And with the newer versions becoming 99% standards compliant (C/C++), I doubt I'll be moving off it anytime soon. There's just no competition in the open source world for that kind of integrated development environment. Sorry, but emacs doesn't cut it. Open Source does _NOT_ have most of the functionality of Microsoft's offerings. And if your comparison is stability, I will just say one thing: Windows 2000. In fact, applications on my windows 2000 machine crash far less frequently than applications on my new red hat 8 machine.
Microsoft is nowhere near failing and anyone who thinks otherwise is kidding themselves. Co-existence is the name of the game, ladies and gents. OSS is here to stay. It has great qualities, but it's not the end-all be-all of software development.
I live in the U.S. too. If you don't see environmental havoc, open your eyes. WE is everyone in the world. Don't flatter yourself.
I agree, we can't assume that global warming is a man-made event.
But we can sure as hell do better with out environment anyway. There is no excuse for air-pollution, water-polution, encroaching upon wildlife, tearing down forests willy-nilly, heedlesly diverting natural waterways for irrigation, recklessly wasting our money on inefficient and limited energy supplies and all that other fucking crazy shit that goes on in the world today. Our lives, our health, our economy, our world and every other fucking thing we can think of will be a hell of a lot better off if we start working with mother nature, instead of against her. That means preserving the natural cycles that were already there, replanting what we take from the earth, not moving habitats around the world just because we feel like it, investing in renewable, efficient and cost-effective energy sources, and doing whatever it takes to make sure the world we live in continues to be able to sustain our quickly growing global population.
Or will the nice age be localized to the western-hemishpere?
Yeah, it's called "Nuclear Winter."
*slap* *slap*
"You like that, bitch?"
*slap* *slap*
"You want some more, bitch?"
*slap* "
Yeah?"
*slap*
"Uh, huh!"
*slap*
"That's right, byatch!"
*slap* *slap*
I just saw a bitch-slapping by Linus, and oooooh, I liked it!
Very true, but I never said Democrats aren't evil. I'm just pointing out who's more evil.
:-)
However, telling a democrat lawmaker that a law is anti-consumer garners much more of a concerned response than telling a republican lawmaker the same thing.
But, in the end, it's all about the money. Which is why I'm planning to move to another country...
93 Worst offenders.
74 - Republican
19 - Democrat
Consider yourself informed. We live with a two-party system (mostly). One of them is more consumer friendly than the other. Vote accordingly.
If I hear anymore Republicans talk about "Self-Regulation, Self-Regulation! Waaa! Waaa! Self-Regulation," I'm gonna scream. THIS telco shit, ladies and gentlemen, is what self-regulation brings. Anyone who thinks government shouldn't get involved in this, please step forward so I can kick you in the nuts.
Monkeys have been known to put together a nice piece of work when given a typewriter. Doesn't change the fact that they're still monkeys.