"Certifications are a waste, since only the unskilled seem to go after them.
Look at MCSE MCSA and A+"
When I worked for DEC they had a rule, "A+ or your ass is gone." To keep a job, certs come in real handy. To get a (new) job, certs come in real handy, too. Some employers (prospective or otherwise) may not care about how long you've done something, or if you've been in the field forever, but if you have the cred to "prove it."
Should we have a congolmerate authority? Or perhaps a list of accepted certs? Or one cert to rule them all...? Will there be a hierarchy or certs (my cert is better than your cert.)
In the end you may open up a can o' worms. But some regulation is needed, yes. How about a union? (but I don't want to pay dues, cuz that sux, so perhaps that's out as well.) I'd also like to see a unified pricing code as well.
"Charitable donations? What would you do about that? Keep them? Lose them?"
I forgot charities (stupid me).
Charitable deductions would be for cash or cash equiv. only. This way companies with really deep pockets (like Microsoft) won't "donate" copies of software, but rather give the money that the charities actually need. Give (for instance) $100 to someone and they can use it as they need at the time (whatever the pressing need is), but give them a $100 copy of Windows and that's all they have--plus they still have the problem that wasn't alleviated with the "donation."
Donations should be cash, it's the only way to really help without abusing the system.
The working poor are already paying about that much (ie: 18%). As it now stands, nearly 40% of my gross pay is gone before I even get the check. Those taxes would be lower for me (and everyone in the same boat as me), the rich would pay probably more taxes as there wouldn't be any more loopholes, the really poor (anyone under $10K/yr) wouldn't pay a cent. I lived on ~$10K/yr. It can be done, just not easily. And as everyone ought to know, education is the best hedge against inflation and poverty, that why 100% of tuition should be deductable (and that's why I mentioned it). People get educated, pay less taxes while doing so, improve their "station in life," and make more money at a better job, this completes the cycle.
"You are the ones the Federales will hang by the thumbs, not the Blockhead."
Then it would be H&R Block who ends up being the defendant in a new court case. They (H&R) have a fiduciary responsibility to fill the paperwork out in a reasonably correct manner. Failure to do so not only makes them look bad but can come back to haunt them. Plus, I could malign them all over the Internet--and since it would be based on true performance (like my rant about TT 2001) they couldn't do anything about it.
If only we went to a flat tax. 18% of your gross income for everything over 10000, -$600/kid (up to 4), -20% of your mortgage interest, -100% of tuition for any college degree (accredited, naturally). No other deductions.
For companies: 33% of gross income, -15% of non-executive payroll, -100% business expenses, -100% operating costs. No other deductions.
The IRS would collect roughly the same amount, some would benefit, some would not, and all the nightmarish paperwork goes away.
It was coming up with that I would need to pay in $500 federal tax. I freaked, naturally. Went to H&R Block, they did my taxes correctly, and I ended up paying in (even after you add in the H&R Block costs) less than what TurboTax said I owed in!
Learn from me: go to a tax prep specialist and stay the hell away from do-it-yourself software solutions.
Although that is true, the Berne Convention and other pre-existing arrangements may make the DMCA enforceable in other countries. Something at least worthy of concern.
"(a). Look at the new MS Licensing program and tell me MS customers haven't been hurt. Not to mention people who want to buy a PC without getting Windows crammed down their throat.
(b) You haven't told me the name of any company that is better off."
To answer your point "a", I don't know about you and your situation, but myself personally, and the company for which I work are BOTH saving money under the new plan. Additionally, if you check out all the options, and just don't blindly take one that looks good on the surface, you'd be saving too. The new licensing program MS has is "ok" but not "great." If I were grading it, I'd give it a "C+/B-" because there needs to be one or two more options, but other than that it's a Martha Stewart "good thing."
And to answer your point "b", Netscape is better off--having massive reserves of cash upon which they can draw as a result of the AOL-TW buyout. Apple (which I mentioned because it is almost always mentioned when talking about MS and monopoly) is in good shape too, with higher earnings than any time in the recent past. If you foolishly compare Apple's bottom-line to MS' you'd think they were getting their asses handed to them, but you'd be wrong. Look at sales, look at the simple fact that MS keeps making software for MacOS. If MS wanted to kill Apple utterly, they could by just saying "no more." But that would be the death-knell of MS as well, since the DOJ would see that (accurately, of course) as predatory elimination. SUN is bitching because that's what they do. Java isn't doing as well as they think it should so they're looking for scapegoats, nevermind the fact that Java is still broken and slow. Since SUN's Solaris never really competes against Windows (UNIX being in a different class of OS) one shouldn't assume that they can be directly compared--if that was the case, SUN would have a reasonable complaint and lawsuit against any number of Linux vendors since a lot of UNIX and Solaris use has gone to Linux.
"IN ADDITION, Microsoft was found to have ILLEGALLY used that monopoly to harm competition."
That claim will be debated 'til the Universe implodes. Careful analysis of every "affected" company shows that, with few exceptions, they are in a superior position now than before. Netscape purchased by AOL-TW. Result: a bad-ass company. Apple: better software, stronger in the market (still not huge percentage, but that's gonna take time.)
This can go on forever (naming companies and comparing before and after shots of them), and in almost each one, they're better off. So I ask you, how then:
(a) is the end consumer harmed; (b) are those companies harmed if they're in a superior position now.
Clearly, MS has a monopoly. Clearly, only a handful are injured and the rest, including the consumer, are enhanced. To penalize MS would promote an invalid competitor needlessly or harm a major market without understanding. Best to do absolutely nothing to MS. In 5 years the landscape of Internet commerce and technology as a whole will be so utterly different it won't matter.
But all this changes nothing of what SUN is doing: which is exactly what MS was berated for (giving away software.) You think SUN doesn't want to enhance its market in this manner, or that they're being altruistic? Crapola. They see this as "goose for the gander" and they need to be called on it.
And as for what Europe will do, who can say, the Europeans never were very bright.
That's funny, the two business degrees I have hanging on my wall seem to think different. Here's a definition for you: "The exclusive power, or privilege of selling a commodity; the exclusive power, right, or privilege of dealing in some article, or of trading in some market; sole command of the traffic in anything, however obtained; as, the proprietor of a patented article is given a monopoly of its sale for a limited time; chartered trading companies have sometimes had a monopoly of trade with remote regions; a combination of traders may get a monopoly of a particular product." Are you saying that SUN doens't control Solaris? That's interesting... Wrong, but interesting. SUN does have a monopoly over it's products, that is a key element of a free capitalist society, otherwise you have chaos and socialism. Thus my statements are correct.
Jackson is/was/forever-shall-be an ass who knew nothing, didn't understand technology nor the issues at hand, and was willing to tell the DOJ that they didn't know jack, thus his rejection of the letter. Ever wonder why MS almost always wins at the appellate level? It's because the plaintiffs didn't have their shit together, not because MS' high-priced lawyers are just that much better. MS in the way-back times of pre-Windows 95 told the DOJ exactly what they were going to do, MS at that time knew there would be concerns about it (especially with their claims of wanting to decomoditize the Internet--remember trying to find TCP/IP stack for DOS?), and the DOJ--the Government arm of the US who has jurisdiction over this matter, and is infinitely more knowledgable of the law than some schmuck judge, said in essence "go ahead, we don't see any problem." Only when deep pocketed Netscape got a boo-boo did anyone give a rat's ass.
"This is why MS's giving away and embedding IE in its OS was illegal."
Not according to the DOJ letter dated prior to Windows 95's release. It was after Windows 98 came out that the DOJ pitched a fit.
And, just so you know, I DO know what a Monopoly is, I simply use the standard definition of Monopoly that the average Slashdotter uses when yapping about MS' evil tactics.
Sun does have a monopoly over their products, but that's neither here nor there; and I would like to point out that MS had DOJ permission to do those things in advance, then the DOJ miraculously changed its mind. Which is probably why MS keeps winning in court. It all stems back to the DOJ letter they received granting permission.
Every producer has a monopoly over their products, be it Office, Solaris, Paradox, or Access. Just like in Highlander, there can be only one (who gets the right to maintain the product, licensing aside.)
From the snippet: "But there's a catch: It has yet to disclose the underlying XML dialect.'"
Just because the XML dialect isn't readily available people are already assuming MS will not make it open? Got news for ya, Office 11 is still in beta, that means things may still change. And as you all know, MS publishes an absolute shitload once they set their mind to it.
So, chill out a little, will ya? Wait for it, then bitch when it doesn't appear. It's almost like you guys are new at complaining, or something.
I am one of those non-zealot persons who can, do, and are willing to play the game first on whatever OS is available, beit windows or otherwise. I didn't want to wait, so I didn't. But for those of you who won't touch windows, then waiting (being your only option) will not be in vain.
I completed the game, and I can say that it's a blast! Plus, making your own modules is great. Patience for the linux client will be WELL worth it. Trust me.
"[Usenet] "As a Usenet discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one." There is a tradition in many groups that, once this occurs, that thread is over, and whoever mentioned the Nazis has automatically lost whatever argument was in progress. Godwin's Law thus practically guarantees the existence of an upper bound on thread length in those groups. However there is also a widely- recognized codicil that any intentional triggering of Godwin's Law in order to invoke its thread-ending effects will be unsuccessful."
It's only a faux tradition that the mentioner loses. And besides, Godwin's "law" is bullshit.
If the people in charge of the mastering process say that the end result DVD is exactly what they were making, could it possibly be that they're not lying? Maybe (for some odd reason) they chose to make things more red for a "warmer" glow to the picture? They are, after all, the only ones who have the authority to say what's true and what is not; any one else who argues with them therefore must be wrong. It's either that, or they just expect you to turn down the red hue on your TV, which is silly.
Slashdot Mirror
"Certifications are a waste, since only the unskilled seem to go after them. Look at MCSE MCSA and A+"
When I worked for DEC they had a rule, "A+ or your ass is gone." To keep a job, certs come in real handy. To get a (new) job, certs come in real handy, too. Some employers (prospective or otherwise) may not care about how long you've done something, or if you've been in the field forever, but if you have the cred to "prove it."
I'm gonna ramble a bit here...
Should we have a congolmerate authority?
Or perhaps a list of accepted certs?
Or one cert to rule them all...?
Will there be a hierarchy or certs (my cert is better than your cert.)
In the end you may open up a can o' worms. But some regulation is needed, yes. How about a union? (but I don't want to pay dues, cuz that sux, so perhaps that's out as well.) I'd also like to see a unified pricing code as well.
"Charitable donations? What would you do about that? Keep them? Lose them?"
I forgot charities (stupid me).
Charitable deductions would be for cash or cash equiv. only. This way companies with really deep pockets (like Microsoft) won't "donate" copies of software, but rather give the money that the charities actually need. Give (for instance) $100 to someone and they can use it as they need at the time (whatever the pressing need is), but give them a $100 copy of Windows and that's all they have--plus they still have the problem that wasn't alleviated with the "donation."
Donations should be cash, it's the only way to really help without abusing the system.
The working poor are already paying about that much (ie: 18%). As it now stands, nearly 40% of my gross pay is gone before I even get the check. Those taxes would be lower for me (and everyone in the same boat as me), the rich would pay probably more taxes as there wouldn't be any more loopholes, the really poor (anyone under $10K/yr) wouldn't pay a cent. I lived on ~$10K/yr. It can be done, just not easily. And as everyone ought to know, education is the best hedge against inflation and poverty, that why 100% of tuition should be deductable (and that's why I mentioned it). People get educated, pay less taxes while doing so, improve their "station in life," and make more money at a better job, this completes the cycle.
"You are the ones the Federales will hang by the thumbs, not the Blockhead."
Then it would be H&R Block who ends up being the defendant in a new court case. They (H&R) have a fiduciary responsibility to fill the paperwork out in a reasonably correct manner. Failure to do so not only makes them look bad but can come back to haunt them. Plus, I could malign them all over the Internet--and since it would be based on true performance (like my rant about TT 2001) they couldn't do anything about it.
If only we went to a flat tax. 18% of your gross income for everything over 10000, -$600/kid (up to 4), -20% of your mortgage interest, -100% of tuition for any college degree (accredited, naturally). No other deductions.
For companies: 33% of gross income, -15% of non-executive payroll, -100% business expenses, -100% operating costs. No other deductions.
The IRS would collect roughly the same amount, some would benefit, some would not, and all the nightmarish paperwork goes away.
It was coming up with that I would need to pay in $500 federal tax. I freaked, naturally. Went to H&R Block, they did my taxes correctly, and I ended up paying in (even after you add in the H&R Block costs) less than what TurboTax said I owed in!
Learn from me: go to a tax prep specialist and stay the hell away from do-it-yourself software solutions.
It's 15.6 Billion plus or minus 4.4 Billion. Jeez...
Uh... MLK, jr. is Dead. Can't arrest the dead, dude. (So when I die, expect me to commit many crimes! BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!) ;)
It's not Slander, it's Libel becuase the poster wrote it rather than spoke it in open forums.
Although that is true, the Berne Convention and other pre-existing arrangements may make the DMCA enforceable in other countries. Something at least worthy of concern.
That MS got something right after all since their interfaces keep getting copied.
;)
I know this will be modded redundant, but that's cool 'cuz I got Karma to spare!
"(a). Look at the new MS Licensing program and tell me MS customers haven't been hurt. Not to mention people who want to buy a PC without getting Windows crammed down their throat. (b) You haven't told me the name of any company that is better off."
To answer your point "a", I don't know about you and your situation, but myself personally, and the company for which I work are BOTH saving money under the new plan. Additionally, if you check out all the options, and just don't blindly take one that looks good on the surface, you'd be saving too. The new licensing program MS has is "ok" but not "great." If I were grading it, I'd give it a "C+/B-" because there needs to be one or two more options, but other than that it's a Martha Stewart "good thing."
And to answer your point "b", Netscape is better off--having massive reserves of cash upon which they can draw as a result of the AOL-TW buyout. Apple (which I mentioned because it is almost always mentioned when talking about MS and monopoly) is in good shape too, with higher earnings than any time in the recent past. If you foolishly compare Apple's bottom-line to MS' you'd think they were getting their asses handed to them, but you'd be wrong. Look at sales, look at the simple fact that MS keeps making software for MacOS. If MS wanted to kill Apple utterly, they could by just saying "no more." But that would be the death-knell of MS as well, since the DOJ would see that (accurately, of course) as predatory elimination. SUN is bitching because that's what they do. Java isn't doing as well as they think it should so they're looking for scapegoats, nevermind the fact that Java is still broken and slow. Since SUN's Solaris never really competes against Windows (UNIX being in a different class of OS) one shouldn't assume that they can be directly compared--if that was the case, SUN would have a reasonable complaint and lawsuit against any number of Linux vendors since a lot of UNIX and Solaris use has gone to Linux.
"IN ADDITION, Microsoft was found to have ILLEGALLY used that monopoly to harm competition."
That claim will be debated 'til the Universe implodes. Careful analysis of every "affected" company shows that, with few exceptions, they are in a superior position now than before. Netscape purchased by AOL-TW. Result: a bad-ass company. Apple: better software, stronger in the market (still not huge percentage, but that's gonna take time.)
This can go on forever (naming companies and comparing before and after shots of them), and in almost each one, they're better off. So I ask you, how then:
(a) is the end consumer harmed;
(b) are those companies harmed if they're in a superior position now.
Clearly, MS has a monopoly. Clearly, only a handful are injured and the rest, including the consumer, are enhanced. To penalize MS would promote an invalid competitor needlessly or harm a major market without understanding. Best to do absolutely nothing to MS. In 5 years the landscape of Internet commerce and technology as a whole will be so utterly different it won't matter.
But all this changes nothing of what SUN is doing: which is exactly what MS was berated for (giving away software.) You think SUN doesn't want to enhance its market in this manner, or that they're being altruistic? Crapola. They see this as "goose for the gander" and they need to be called on it.
And as for what Europe will do, who can say, the Europeans never were very bright.
"You obviously don't know what a monopoly is..."
That's funny, the two business degrees I have hanging on my wall seem to think different. Here's a definition for you: "The exclusive power, or privilege of selling a commodity; the exclusive power, right, or privilege of dealing in some article, or of trading in some market; sole command of the traffic in anything, however obtained; as, the proprietor of a patented article is given a monopoly of its sale for a limited time; chartered trading companies have sometimes had a monopoly of trade with remote regions; a combination of traders may get a monopoly of a particular product." Are you saying that SUN doens't control Solaris? That's interesting... Wrong, but interesting. SUN does have a monopoly over it's products, that is a key element of a free capitalist society, otherwise you have chaos and socialism. Thus my statements are correct.
Jackson is/was/forever-shall-be an ass who knew nothing, didn't understand technology nor the issues at hand, and was willing to tell the DOJ that they didn't know jack, thus his rejection of the letter. Ever wonder why MS almost always wins at the appellate level? It's because the plaintiffs didn't have their shit together, not because MS' high-priced lawyers are just that much better. MS in the way-back times of pre-Windows 95 told the DOJ exactly what they were going to do, MS at that time knew there would be concerns about it (especially with their claims of wanting to decomoditize the Internet--remember trying to find TCP/IP stack for DOS?), and the DOJ--the Government arm of the US who has jurisdiction over this matter, and is infinitely more knowledgable of the law than some schmuck judge, said in essence "go ahead, we don't see any problem." Only when deep pocketed Netscape got a boo-boo did anyone give a rat's ass.
"There's really no point debating this issue."
Yes, especially since you're wrong.
"This is why MS's giving away and embedding IE in its OS was illegal."
Not according to the DOJ letter dated prior to Windows 95's release. It was after Windows 98 came out that the DOJ pitched a fit.
And, just so you know, I DO know what a Monopoly is, I simply use the standard definition of Monopoly that the average Slashdotter uses when yapping about MS' evil tactics.
Sun does have a monopoly over their products, but that's neither here nor there; and I would like to point out that MS had DOJ permission to do those things in advance, then the DOJ miraculously changed its mind. Which is probably why MS keeps winning in court. It all stems back to the DOJ letter they received granting permission.
Every producer has a monopoly over their products, be it Office, Solaris, Paradox, or Access. Just like in Highlander, there can be only one (who gets the right to maintain the product, licensing aside.)
"Sun has agreed to provide Staroffice for free, or on a CD-ROM for 10 Danish crowns ($1.5)."
And how, exactly, is this dumping any different than the tactics Microsoft uses?
From the snippet: "But there's a catch: It has yet to disclose the underlying XML dialect.'"
Just because the XML dialect isn't readily available people are already assuming MS will not make it open? Got news for ya, Office 11 is still in beta, that means things may still change. And as you all know, MS publishes an absolute shitload once they set their mind to it.
So, chill out a little, will ya? Wait for it, then bitch when it doesn't appear. It's almost like you guys are new at complaining, or something.
Same as every year... $300 cash bonus.
I am one of those non-zealot persons who can, do, and are willing to play the game first on whatever OS is available, beit windows or otherwise. I didn't want to wait, so I didn't. But for those of you who won't touch windows, then waiting (being your only option) will not be in vain.
I completed the game, and I can say that it's a blast! Plus, making your own modules is great. Patience for the linux client will be WELL worth it. Trust me.
It would be the best purchase of a MS product I ever made.
Re-read Godwin's.
"[Usenet] "As a Usenet discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one." There is a tradition in many groups that, once this occurs, that thread is over, and whoever mentioned the Nazis has automatically lost whatever argument was in progress. Godwin's Law thus practically guarantees the existence of an upper bound on thread length in those groups. However there is also a widely- recognized codicil that any intentional triggering of Godwin's Law in order to invoke its thread-ending effects will be unsuccessful."
It's only a faux tradition that the mentioner loses. And besides, Godwin's "law" is bullshit.
If the people in charge of the mastering process say that the end result DVD is exactly what they were making, could it possibly be that they're not lying? Maybe (for some odd reason) they chose to make things more red for a "warmer" glow to the picture? They are, after all, the only ones who have the authority to say what's true and what is not; any one else who argues with them therefore must be wrong. It's either that, or they just expect you to turn down the red hue on your TV, which is silly.