Microsoft funds AdTI, which came up with that balony all on its own.
Can you back up this assertion? Has either party opened their books to show who funded the study?
Regardless of whether Bill Gates personally directed Ken Brown to write the Samizdat FUD, there is a pretty clear relationship there. And ADTI is a known FUD mill posing as a think tank. Why would a company fund a FUD mill? Maybe to generate FUD?
Because apparently even Microsoft saw right through that
I merely questioned how slick MS could really be, given that they funded this study. I didn't say that they were complete idiots; obviously they would back away when the study turned out to be "unhelpful". Your characterizing their actions of backing away from a stinking turd that they helped foist on the world as "saw right through that" makes me question your intentions here. Your characterization would almost lead one to believe that MS is at the forefront of fighting anti-linux FUD.
You've stated that you don't believe that MS is engaging in any of the current round of FUD but is laying back and waiting for their moment. While no doubt MS has much more in reserve, they have not been laying back. Their fingerprints are everywhere.
I'm all for taking a critical look or two before jumping on a band wagon, but you seem more intent on muddying the water than clearing anything up. You shouldn't jump to the opposite conclusion if you question the basis for someone else's conclusion.
It's an even better bargain. If I decide to modify GPL code, but not distribute the code, i.e., use it in house, I don't even need to GPL my code modifications!
If Microsoft were involved in a big way, they wouldn't be doing so many completely stupid things to destroy their credibility. Bill's got enough minions to figure out that will backfire
If MS is so slick, how do you explain why they funded that Linux "study" at AdTI?
I'd argue with your terms. When I think of Socialism, the goal is state ownership of the means of production. What you seem to be talking about is Social Welfare programs (which might fall under a general Socialist program, but are not the exclusive domain of Socialism).
I think Social Welfare programs* are a good thing in general for a number of reasons. They can ameliorate some of the excesses of Capitalism. They can help social mobility, so that the the ruling classes are not de facto hereditary. They help create a healthy, productive working class, they provide a safety net for those who fall below the working class. Publically funded education helps to level the playing field, giving more opportunity for a good life to more people.
Even deeper, Society should be for the common benefit, not just for the benefit of the ruling class. Those with power and money are able to enjoy their positions because of a stable society, because of the system, yet the system is not (or shouldn't be) there merely to serve their purposes. Those with money and power do benefit the most, however, so I would argue that they should pay the most in taxes.
This is not to say that Welfare Programs can fund themselves. Without a vibrant capitalist system to create wealth, there could be no such programs. High priority (but not total priority) must be given to encouraging wealth creation. So really, Capitalism is potentially better for the majority when part of the wealth it generates is used for the common welfare.
One of the problems we face currently is Corporate Welfare. These programs range from the obvious, such as bail outs and huge contracts without bids, to the more nefarious, such as creating legislation to stifle competition and innovation (I'm thinking of various recent copyright laws as well as the continuing problems with patent law in the US). Of underfunding regulatory agencies (think SEC) or of appointing agency heads whose agenda is counter to the charter of those agencies (think EPA and FCC).
*I'm not speaking specifically of the dole, but of social programs in general: healthcare, education, low income housing, afterschool programs.
the article in the Chronicle was geared towards that mainstream audience.
A mainstream San Francisco audience is a very different thing from a mainstream Des Moines audience. I don't mean that people from Frisco (heh) are more jaded, just that they're more jaded, I mean, open minded.
And then the millenia old Harrier Jump-jets turn up. That still work, despite the oodles of millenia they've been lying around. They then manage to fly one of the hardest to fly aircraft in existance with no training.
In the director's cut, they all read Jump Jets for Dummies, so it's really not a plot hole.
1) Sean Connery with a braided pony tail and wearing red leather short-shorts and red leather hip boots. Must see!
2) The dialogue is either incredibly weird, incredibly bad, or both. For instance, the giant head you mentioned? It broadcasts, "The Gun is good, the Penis is evil."
As I mentioned elsewhere, this is my all time favorite bad movie.
Pre-hollywood John Woo is pure genius. If he didn't create the endless clip of bullets, at least he's the guy that made it absurdly obvious. (Dirty Harry's "Make my day" line wouldn't work in a John Woo movie).
His gunfight scenes are always amazing. If you think The Killer was over the top, you should see Hardboiled. Truly amazing movie.
Part of the charm of a movie like Manos is the unintentional shoddy technique. When a movie such as the Coneheads has "great cinematography" and totally stinks, it's just pitiful.
But I agree with your last point. We should have two lists. One for the greatest worst movies, and another for the merely mediocre.
I've got to disagree. Water World would have been just as bad had it's budget been $4. It just stank. 5th Element I rather liked. There was something very Mobius about it.
Let me see if I got this straight. Some slashdotters don't read the article. Others don't read the story that links to the article. You didn't even read the headline?
Ask Slashdot: What's the Worst Movie You've Ever Seen?
Welcome to the pleasures, guilty or not, of "Badfilm". Battlefield Earth is a great example but there are many others. My all time favorite is Zardoz, which has some great lines. It stars Sean Connery and was directed by John Boorman.
Not all terrible movies qualify as great Badfilms, but they're pretty easy to spot.
It is really ugly, but I feel that is part of it's charm. And once I got used to the way the site functions (which was different than what I was used to, but really not difficult), I found it to be quite functional.
Just think of it as mostly steak, and very little sizzle.
No, the only real danger is a shareholder lawsuit. If ebay was unhappy with a management position, they could really hamstring CL through litigation, even if the claims were groundless.
Dude, if you go into the big room, there's a roughly 50% (varies by season) that the Really Big Light will be on, probably causing temporary blindness. To avoid permanent damage to your eyes, don't stare directly at the Really Big Light. And use lots of "Really Big Light Screen" on you skin, to avoid Really Big Light burn.
Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft funds AdTI, which came up with that balony all on its own.
Can you back up this assertion? Has either party opened their books to show who funded the study?
Regardless of whether Bill Gates personally directed Ken Brown to write the Samizdat FUD, there is a pretty clear relationship there. And ADTI is a known FUD mill posing as a think tank. Why would a company fund a FUD mill? Maybe to generate FUD?
Because apparently even Microsoft saw right through that
I merely questioned how slick MS could really be, given that they funded this study. I didn't say that they were complete idiots; obviously they would back away when the study turned out to be "unhelpful". Your characterizing their actions of backing away from a stinking turd that they helped foist on the world as "saw right through that" makes me question your intentions here. Your characterization would almost lead one to believe that MS is at the forefront of fighting anti-linux FUD.
You've stated that you don't believe that MS is engaging in any of the current round of FUD but is laying back and waiting for their moment. While no doubt MS has much more in reserve, they have not been laying back. Their fingerprints are everywhere.
I'm all for taking a critical look or two before jumping on a band wagon, but you seem more intent on muddying the water than clearing anything up. You shouldn't jump to the opposite conclusion if you question the basis for someone else's conclusion.
Probably think Santa Cruz Operation is some sort of railroad company.
I thought they made skateboards and beach wear.
It's an even better bargain. If I decide to modify GPL code, but not distribute the code, i.e., use it in house, I don't even need to GPL my code modifications!
If Microsoft were involved in a big way, they wouldn't be doing so many completely stupid things to destroy their credibility. Bill's got enough minions to figure out that will backfire
If MS is so slick, how do you explain why they funded that Linux "study" at AdTI?
Grant for a moment that you might have trouble with hypotheticals. It could be a problem reading the word "if".
I'd argue with your terms. When I think of Socialism, the goal is state ownership of the means of production. What you seem to be talking about is Social Welfare programs (which might fall under a general Socialist program, but are not the exclusive domain of Socialism).
I think Social Welfare programs* are a good thing in general for a number of reasons. They can ameliorate some of the excesses of Capitalism. They can help social mobility, so that the the ruling classes are not de facto hereditary. They help create a healthy, productive working class, they provide a safety net for those who fall below the working class. Publically funded education helps to level the playing field, giving more opportunity for a good life to more people.
Even deeper, Society should be for the common benefit, not just for the benefit of the ruling class. Those with power and money are able to enjoy their positions because of a stable society, because of the system, yet the system is not (or shouldn't be) there merely to serve their purposes. Those with money and power do benefit the most, however, so I would argue that they should pay the most in taxes.
This is not to say that Welfare Programs can fund themselves. Without a vibrant capitalist system to create wealth, there could be no such programs. High priority (but not total priority) must be given to encouraging wealth creation. So really, Capitalism is potentially better for the majority when part of the wealth it generates is used for the common welfare.
One of the problems we face currently is Corporate Welfare. These programs range from the obvious, such as bail outs and huge contracts without bids, to the more nefarious, such as creating legislation to stifle competition and innovation (I'm thinking of various recent copyright laws as well as the continuing problems with patent law in the US). Of underfunding regulatory agencies (think SEC) or of appointing agency heads whose agenda is counter to the charter of those agencies (think EPA and FCC).
*I'm not speaking specifically of the dole, but of social programs in general: healthcare, education, low income housing, afterschool programs.
We're being blitzed by a Multics astroturfing campaign! Everyone into the trenches!
While it's obvious you're one of Apple's hired astroturfers, I'll answer you anyway.
Was that the blitz? Was that the blitz? Shouldn't we be getting into an air raid shelter?
the article in the Chronicle was geared towards that mainstream audience.
A mainstream San Francisco audience is a very different thing from a mainstream Des Moines audience. I don't mean that people from Frisco (heh) are more jaded, just that they're more jaded, I mean, open minded.
In the director's cut, they all read Jump Jets for Dummies, so it's really not a plot hole.
two things that need to be elaborated:
1) Sean Connery with a braided pony tail and wearing red leather short-shorts and red leather hip boots. Must see!
2) The dialogue is either incredibly weird, incredibly bad, or both. For instance, the giant head you mentioned? It broadcasts, "The Gun is good, the Penis is evil."
As I mentioned elsewhere, this is my all time favorite bad movie.
Pre-hollywood John Woo is pure genius. If he didn't create the endless clip of bullets, at least he's the guy that made it absurdly obvious. (Dirty Harry's "Make my day" line wouldn't work in a John Woo movie).
His gunfight scenes are always amazing. If you think The Killer was over the top, you should see Hardboiled. Truly amazing movie.
The only thing that did for us was getting me horny and she sleppy.
So it worked out for you.
Kelly's Heroes is a fine movie that was on cable recently.
You forgot to mention Catch 22, which might be one of the all time great WW2 movies.
Personally, I'd like to see an adaptation of Gravity's Rainbow, but they'd need to do it as a mini-series.
Part of the charm of a movie like Manos is the unintentional shoddy technique. When a movie such as the Coneheads has "great cinematography" and totally stinks, it's just pitiful.
But I agree with your last point. We should have two lists. One for the greatest worst movies, and another for the merely mediocre.
When are they going to do "Cowbell: The Movie"?
I've got to disagree. Water World would have been just as bad had it's budget been $4. It just stank. 5th Element I rather liked. There was something very Mobius about it.
Let me see if I got this straight. Some slashdotters don't read the article. Others don't read the story that links to the article. You didn't even read the headline?
Ask Slashdot: What's the Worst Movie You've Ever Seen?
Welcome to the pleasures, guilty or not, of "Badfilm". Battlefield Earth is a great example but there are many others. My all time favorite is Zardoz, which has some great lines. It stars Sean Connery and was directed by John Boorman.
Not all terrible movies qualify as great Badfilms, but they're pretty easy to spot.
It is really ugly, but I feel that is part of it's charm. And once I got used to the way the site functions (which was different than what I was used to, but really not difficult), I found it to be quite functional.
Just think of it as mostly steak, and very little sizzle.
How do you figure that? 25% of the company would mean 25% of any existing company assets, should the company be liquidated.
No, the only real danger is a shareholder lawsuit. If ebay was unhappy with a management position, they could really hamstring CL through litigation, even if the claims were groundless.
Dude, if you go into the big room, there's a roughly 50% (varies by season) that the Really Big Light will be on, probably causing temporary blindness. To avoid permanent damage to your eyes, don't stare directly at the Really Big Light. And use lots of "Really Big Light Screen" on you skin, to avoid Really Big Light burn.
Only one American? They should start sending out CDs to get more subscribers or something. Maybe offer free hours to get more Americans interested.
That was you? Damn! I shouldn't have waited. Does anyone know of a good mirror site for the internet?