goes to show how much they hate microsoft in germany
I have nothing whatsoever to back this up, but I wonder if things had been different had it been Red Hat vs. MS and not Suse? I know parent was trolling, but it does bring up something of a point.
280m is not anywhere near the size of the European population. But I post without access to facts, as true./ers always do!
First, that's not as far off as you'd think. Particularly if we're defining "europe" as "EU members." Comes to 380M, which is about 1/3 bigger. Second, Europe's never had an election, and has yet to be integrated into anything resembling a whole. Using the same currency doesn't count. If that was all, every country that pegged its currency to the dollar would be American. Doesn't work that way. Doesn't bring the same problems of scale.
Here, they could maybe do the eastern seaboard, or parts of it. 'Course, that's a big chunk of people, so I am surprised it hasn't been done more than it has.
It can be reversed with rational policies that foster local investment at the expense of unchecked corporate profits. What happens when you have corporations that are invested in a locality? They don't ship the jobs overseas just to save a buck.
Yep. Seems to me like we sent all this business overseas figuring that it would give us cheaper goods (like you say). And this works just fine as long as the foreign governments where we're sending this business take that investment and turn it into guns, graft, corruption, and basically nothing else.
But now they invest in schools and infrastructure! Uh-oh! Now we have actual competition and we don't like it.
Well, it's time to deal with it. And this is self-levelling - eventually, as all these up-and-coming countries become consumers instead of cheap labor markets, their standard of living increases and their labor becomes not so cheap.
So, in the meantime, we'll deal with a lot of racism and general xenophobia from people with inferiority complexes afraid that the entire Asian continent is trying to steal their job.
Ultimately, however, just as globalizing manufacturing has helped everybody in the world, globalizing labor will do the same. Protectionist policies do nothing but reduce world productivity.
And you didn't consider, the European Union has about 367 million inhabitants.
Since 1995, the 15-member Union has become the world's first economic power.
Actually, I did consider the EU, though it's not really a fully political entity. And no offense, but you've seen what a mess it's become, though it certainly has its advantages. And that's without any sort of elections that span the continent. Politics and economies don't always scale easily, eh?;)
Jesus H. Christ. Sometimes the ignorance of the slashdot readership leaves me fighting for breath. Norway, Finland and Australia had real representative democracies when white America was still beating the shit out of its slaves. (Unless, of course, "modern democracy" means slavery and genocide.)
Then it looks like that lack of oxygen to your brain killed a few cells up there. We were a democracy when Australia was still a bunch of fucking criminals. Some say they still are. And yes, a democracy is still a democracy when it doesn't have 100% representation. That's the definition, deal with it. Check out the policies of Athens sometime, the world's first democracy. I didn't make the rules, dickhead.
I appreciate that "America was the first modern democracy" is drummed into you in ethics class (right after they make you salute a flag), but that don't make it the truth.
Again, check the def. of democracy. And I don't salute shit, so piss off. And where the fuck are you from, AC?
I would say a lot of the problems today aren't to do with being first at fashioning a modern democracy, but rather the revolutionary nature of that democracy. Things that are no longer particularly pertinent to the modern world have been set in stone and are no very hard to change.
What, you are implying our 2nd amendment might be slightly unsuited to modern society? How dare you!;) That is a good point though, I certainly agree.
But then what do I know? I come from a country with no single constitutional document that evolved (and still evolves) in to a modern democracy over a thousand years.;)
When will Americans learn that leaving it to business will always be an inadequate solution? When will Americans learn that they pay for it either way: taxes or consumer costs (either directly for a company's products/services, or indirectly through other companies' products/servies that the price has trickled down to.) There are some things I would rather the government legislated on as they are *supposed* to be our representatives, whereas businesses only represent themselves or their shareholders.
Oh, we understand that. Doing something about it when you have an incredibly strong and politically active business sector is rather difficult, actually. And here, with 280M people, political campaigns are very expensive. Hence, congressmen have to sidle up to Big Business.
You have to remember, because America is so huge, we're faced with some interesting problems that Europe doesn't typically consider. Also, since we fashioned our modern democracy first, perhaps we didn't do it best, allowing others to learn from our mistakes in some ways.
However, none of that means that Americans don't realize how we're getting bent over in a lot of ways.
The only product that Microsoft could make that wouldn't suck is a vacuum cleaner. It would blow.
What if they made a hooker? Would it do both (suck and blow)? Would it have compatibility problems with my penis (round peg, square hole)? Would it try to kill all wives and girlfriends and monopolize the nookie market? Would it come without condoms enabled, exposing me to tons of viruses? Would it be prone to "back-door" exploits from malicious users (like my shady roommate)?
I absolutely agree that names are important. But again, the author of the article doesn't know what he's talking about. The browser aspect of the Mozilla suite will be called "Mozilla Browser" but for development purposes it will be codenamed "Firebird." The mail aspect of the Mozilla suite will be called "Mozilla Mail" but for development purposes it will be codenamed "Minotaur."
I was actually unaware of that as well - I thought those were ship names; If not, then no worries certainly. Branding Mozilla as much as possible is a good thing.
If the author's bottom line is indeed that "the Mozilla team isn't doing a lot to make themselves accessible to the general public," that's way offbase too. It's quite easy to access members of the Mozilla team through any of a number of methods, including newsgroups, Bugzilla, and Mozillazine. I've had a few conversations with Mozilla developers via private email, too. So short of phone calls and face-to-face meetings, I can't imagine how to make the Mozilla team more accessible to the general public.
I don't know - I think that depends what your definition of the general public. Mine is "The idiots populating NASCAR chat rooms." Yours seems to be more tailored to "People who frequent sourceforge, slashdot, and the like." Two very different crowds, really. I might contest that the goals of the mozilla project haven't made it a candidate for mass acceptance. Not that that's a bad thing.
Mozilla as a suite has always been a showcase of technology. It's never been meant for mass consumption. This was always a mistake in my mind, and one that has (I hope) been fixed with the new direction the project has taken.
I (and I believe the author) would agree with the first statement - Mozilla certainly hasn't (in the past) been ready for wide consumption. It has always been a "bleeding edge" browser, being quick to add all the modern bells and whistles (tabbed browsing, mouse gestures, Bayesian mail filtering, etc). Personally, I love that, but it just adds more confusion to the preference section for a newbie. I am certainly interested in seeing where they go from here. Honestly, I hope it doesn't compromise the ideals they've had in the past, though. Can they be accessible to computer idiots without being too dumbed down for power users?
Basically what I'd like to see is a browser that let you decide exactly what features to compile in, sort of like a simplified version of the linux kernel. Make it small and light, but contain all the features you like.
The point is that Moz 1.4 is the last of the releases that will be presented as a monolithic suite. After this, the browser will be separate from the mail client which will be separate from the chat client. You will be able to download just the browser, and it will be svelte (it's currently at 6mb, but I figure it'll get even smaller).
Of course you're right, so it's a bit of a dead horse. I must disclose that I use Mozilla exclusively for mail and browsing, so that should say a bit about how "unhappy" I am with them. I think they're moving largely in the right direction.
The original article said this is exactly what the Mozilla Project needs to do. How unfortunate for the author that he was out of the loop and didn't know that we've already been there and done that.
I wouldn't say completely - he seemed to be using sort of a split argument. They're too bloated now, and by the time they "get it," they're going to rename everything and kill their branding. I do think it's a terrible idea to rename everything.
I suppose his "bottom line" point is that the Mozilla team isn't doing a lot to make themeselves accessible to the general public. That's OK if they don't care about the general public, but I think they do. Therefore, a consistent name and a streamlined configuration interface (even as an option) might be a good idea. I think the next version of mozilla will be great for my needs, but I don't know how generally accessible it will be.
Right, but that's part of the problem. Because they use the same guts, let's say my mail portion is chugging - I bring up the browser and it doesn't refresh. Integrating things that tightly makes for some significant bulk. Admittedly, they seem to realize this, but it means that Mozilla, as of 1.4, is bulky as heck.
Point is, if you don't use Mozilla's mail and such, then it's effectively a browser to you. And you still get the bulk and such.
Apparently this guys has been out of the loop. I agree the silly name changes, and change in directions hurt, (hell it confused me too), but now they are on a strict roadmap. The Firebird browser is on a strict diet, it's slicker, leaner and meaner than anything Microsoft has to offer.
Come on, that's like saying that if I went to fat camp I'd be the skinniest person there. IE ain't the poster child for a lithe browser, and Mozilla (not even 1.4) isn't either.
...I guess I can take the Bust of myself next to Sagan off the shelf too!
No, you still have a great chance to blather on about aliens and write crappy coffee table books and start a four-letter agency that doesn't accomplish a damned thing in 20 years. Don't sell yourself short.;)
You are moron to say that someone had the sense to shoot a president. I don't care how much you didn't like him...it is not ok to kill a president. I don't like George Bush but I would never want to see him shot.
Actually, that would make me insensitive, not a moron, but I'll forgive you not being good with adjectives. Second, if he had another term, he might have gotten us killed. One man dies so 200 million don't risk their lives? Fair odds to me.
Weak anthropic principle here, sort of - We're only discussing it because it worked. If it hadn't we might not exist. Bottom line is "nuclear chicken" ain't the greatest idea. Fortunately, the presidents we have had since Kennedy have been smart enough to realize it.
The tough break for Khruschev was that unlike Eisenhower, who carried enough of the people's trust that he didn't need to respond bellicosely every time the Soviets did something, Kennedy did. He even did it proactively, making a statement that the placement of any offensive nuclear weapons in the region would not be allowed. He then was stuck backing it up to keep his own people happy.
Yeah, Kennedy was a moron. So let's get this straight, Mr. President - your strategy is to play "nuclear chicken" with a guy who took off his shoe at the UN, banged it on the table, and screamed "We will bury you!"??? Sheer brilliance there. Thank God someone had the sense to have him shot.
Actually, if you're a democrat, you only blame the gunmakers, NOT the users or the file-sharing systems. The user not taking responsibility for their own actions is the foundation of being a Democrat these days.
Totally right. I forgot that was society's fault - a cry for help, is it?;)
5 points for a guy who apparently didn't even bother to try linux emulation? And didn't mention a reason for not bothering? --/.
Here you go: First, because some of the stuff I have to use, like vmware, doesn't work under linux emu from what I'm told (I did mention that). Second, because it means that installing anything that doesn't come tgz'd is a royal pain in the ass, generally. And third, ports aren't released at a rate that is sufficient to take care of 1) and 2) above, though they seem to generally do a good job.
First of all, when downloading, you have the benefit of instantly recieving the file that you need, as opposed to waiting at least a day for your shipment to arrive.
As it says in the article, anything more than say a terabyte will take longer to download at internet speeds that one-day air. You could start the download at the same time your friend sent you the computer, and you would have the computer before the d/l was done.
Secondly, remember that bandwidth is probably cheaper than postage. Shipping a carton with a few hard disks and proper insulation would cost at least $30 to overnight it.
Again, quoting from the article:
JG It's cheaper to send the machine. The phone bill, at the rate Microsoft pays, is about $1 per gigabyte sent and about $1 per gigabyte received--about $2,000 per terabyte. It's the same hassle for me whether I send it via the Internet or an overnight package with a computer. I have to copy the files to a server in any case. The extra step is putting the SneakerNet in a cardboard box and slapping a UPS label on it. I have gotten fairly good at that.
So, not only is shipping cheaper, buying your friend a computer is cheaper.
If both have a several gigabit OC line, then perhaps uploading it would be faster.
Which might be possible if they're in the same building. But then you could unplug the machine and walk it over in 5 minutes, which would be much faster.
Slashdot Mirror
I have nothing whatsoever to back this up, but I wonder if things had been different had it been Red Hat vs. MS and not Suse? I know parent was trolling, but it does bring up something of a point.
First, that's not as far off as you'd think. Particularly if we're defining "europe" as "EU members." Comes to 380M, which is about 1/3 bigger. Second, Europe's never had an election, and has yet to be integrated into anything resembling a whole. Using the same currency doesn't count. If that was all, every country that pegged its currency to the dollar would be American. Doesn't work that way. Doesn't bring the same problems of scale.
Here, they could maybe do the eastern seaboard, or parts of it. 'Course, that's a big chunk of people, so I am surprised it hasn't been done more than it has.
Yep. Seems to me like we sent all this business overseas figuring that it would give us cheaper goods (like you say). And this works just fine as long as the foreign governments where we're sending this business take that investment and turn it into guns, graft, corruption, and basically nothing else.
But now they invest in schools and infrastructure! Uh-oh! Now we have actual competition and we don't like it.
Well, it's time to deal with it. And this is self-levelling - eventually, as all these up-and-coming countries become consumers instead of cheap labor markets, their standard of living increases and their labor becomes not so cheap.
So, in the meantime, we'll deal with a lot of racism and general xenophobia from people with inferiority complexes afraid that the entire Asian continent is trying to steal their job.
Ultimately, however, just as globalizing manufacturing has helped everybody in the world, globalizing labor will do the same. Protectionist policies do nothing but reduce world productivity.
Actually, I did consider the EU, though it's not really a fully political entity. And no offense, but you've seen what a mess it's become, though it certainly has its advantages. And that's without any sort of elections that span the continent. Politics and economies don't always scale easily, eh? ;)
Then it looks like that lack of oxygen to your brain killed a few cells up there. We were a democracy when Australia was still a bunch of fucking criminals. Some say they still are. And yes, a democracy is still a democracy when it doesn't have 100% representation. That's the definition, deal with it. Check out the policies of Athens sometime, the world's first democracy. I didn't make the rules, dickhead.
I appreciate that "America was the first modern democracy" is drummed into you in ethics class (right after they make you salute a flag), but that don't make it the truth.
Again, check the def. of democracy. And I don't salute shit, so piss off. And where the fuck are you from, AC?
What, you are implying our 2nd amendment might be slightly unsuited to modern society? How dare you! ;) That is a good point though, I certainly agree.
But then what do I know? I come from a country with no single constitutional document that evolved (and still evolves) in to a modern democracy over a thousand years. ;)
I'll grant you 788 years, and no more! ;)
Oh, we understand that. Doing something about it when you have an incredibly strong and politically active business sector is rather difficult, actually. And here, with 280M people, political campaigns are very expensive. Hence, congressmen have to sidle up to Big Business.
You have to remember, because America is so huge, we're faced with some interesting problems that Europe doesn't typically consider. Also, since we fashioned our modern democracy first, perhaps we didn't do it best, allowing others to learn from our mistakes in some ways.
However, none of that means that Americans don't realize how we're getting bent over in a lot of ways.
What if they made a hooker? Would it do both (suck and blow)? Would it have compatibility problems with my penis (round peg, square hole)? Would it try to kill all wives and girlfriends and monopolize the nookie market? Would it come without condoms enabled, exposing me to tons of viruses? Would it be prone to "back-door" exploits from malicious users (like my shady roommate)?
I must know!
I was actually unaware of that as well - I thought those were ship names; If not, then no worries certainly. Branding Mozilla as much as possible is a good thing.
If the author's bottom line is indeed that "the Mozilla team isn't doing a lot to make themselves accessible to the general public," that's way offbase too. It's quite easy to access members of the Mozilla team through any of a number of methods, including newsgroups, Bugzilla, and Mozillazine. I've had a few conversations with Mozilla developers via private email, too. So short of phone calls and face-to-face meetings, I can't imagine how to make the Mozilla team more accessible to the general public.
I don't know - I think that depends what your definition of the general public. Mine is "The idiots populating NASCAR chat rooms." Yours seems to be more tailored to "People who frequent sourceforge, slashdot, and the like." Two very different crowds, really. I might contest that the goals of the mozilla project haven't made it a candidate for mass acceptance. Not that that's a bad thing.
Mozilla as a suite has always been a showcase of technology. It's never been meant for mass consumption. This was always a mistake in my mind, and one that has (I hope) been fixed with the new direction the project has taken.
I (and I believe the author) would agree with the first statement - Mozilla certainly hasn't (in the past) been ready for wide consumption. It has always been a "bleeding edge" browser, being quick to add all the modern bells and whistles (tabbed browsing, mouse gestures, Bayesian mail filtering, etc). Personally, I love that, but it just adds more confusion to the preference section for a newbie. I am certainly interested in seeing where they go from here. Honestly, I hope it doesn't compromise the ideals they've had in the past, though. Can they be accessible to computer idiots without being too dumbed down for power users?
Basically what I'd like to see is a browser that let you decide exactly what features to compile in, sort of like a simplified version of the linux kernel. Make it small and light, but contain all the features you like.
Of course you're right, so it's a bit of a dead horse. I must disclose that I use Mozilla exclusively for mail and browsing, so that should say a bit about how "unhappy" I am with them. I think they're moving largely in the right direction.
The original article said this is exactly what the Mozilla Project needs to do. How unfortunate for the author that he was out of the loop and didn't know that we've already been there and done that.
I wouldn't say completely - he seemed to be using sort of a split argument. They're too bloated now, and by the time they "get it," they're going to rename everything and kill their branding. I do think it's a terrible idea to rename everything.
I suppose his "bottom line" point is that the Mozilla team isn't doing a lot to make themeselves accessible to the general public. That's OK if they don't care about the general public, but I think they do. Therefore, a consistent name and a streamlined configuration interface (even as an option) might be a good idea. I think the next version of mozilla will be great for my needs, but I don't know how generally accessible it will be.
Right, but that's part of the problem. Because they use the same guts, let's say my mail portion is chugging - I bring up the browser and it doesn't refresh. Integrating things that tightly makes for some significant bulk. Admittedly, they seem to realize this, but it means that Mozilla, as of 1.4, is bulky as heck.
Point is, if you don't use Mozilla's mail and such, then it's effectively a browser to you. And you still get the bulk and such.
Is that source? ;) Mozilla 1.4 comes in at between 12 and 20 MB for a zipfile, varying by platform. It's no Explorer, admittedly, but it ain't thin.
Firebird may be a different story.
Come on, that's like saying that if I went to fat camp I'd be the skinniest person there. IE ain't the poster child for a lithe browser, and Mozilla (not even 1.4) isn't either.
Dammit, everybody knows those foreigners can't program. Best take their fucking visa's and hire some real Americans. Get some work done around here.
It's 3:04 - do you know where your karma is? Well then burn it!
No, you still have a great chance to blather on about aliens and write crappy coffee table books and start a four-letter agency that doesn't accomplish a damned thing in 20 years. Don't sell yourself short. ;)
Actually, that would make me insensitive, not a moron, but I'll forgive you not being good with adjectives. Second, if he had another term, he might have gotten us killed. One man dies so 200 million don't risk their lives? Fair odds to me.
Weak anthropic principle here, sort of - We're only discussing it because it worked. If it hadn't we might not exist. Bottom line is "nuclear chicken" ain't the greatest idea. Fortunately, the presidents we have had since Kennedy have been smart enough to realize it.
Yeah, Kennedy was a moron. So let's get this straight, Mr. President - your strategy is to play "nuclear chicken" with a guy who took off his shoe at the UN, banged it on the table, and screamed "We will bury you!"??? Sheer brilliance there. Thank God someone had the sense to have him shot.
...they have quality Russian-made pressure suits. ;)
Totally right. I forgot that was society's fault - a cry for help, is it? ;)
Here you go: First, because some of the stuff I have to use, like vmware, doesn't work under linux emu from what I'm told (I did mention that). Second, because it means that installing anything that doesn't come tgz'd is a royal pain in the ass, generally. And third, ports aren't released at a rate that is sufficient to take care of 1) and 2) above, though they seem to generally do a good job.
As it says in the article, anything more than say a terabyte will take longer to download at internet speeds that one-day air. You could start the download at the same time your friend sent you the computer, and you would have the computer before the d/l was done.
Secondly, remember that bandwidth is probably cheaper than postage. Shipping a carton with a few hard disks and proper insulation would cost at least $30 to overnight it.
Again, quoting from the article:
JG It's cheaper to send the machine. The phone bill, at the rate Microsoft pays, is about $1 per gigabyte sent and about $1 per gigabyte received--about $2,000 per terabyte. It's the same hassle for me whether I send it via the Internet or an overnight package with a computer. I have to copy the files to a server in any case. The extra step is putting the SneakerNet in a cardboard box and slapping a UPS label on it. I have gotten fairly good at that.
So, not only is shipping cheaper, buying your friend a computer is cheaper.
If both have a several gigabit OC line, then perhaps uploading it would be faster.
Which might be possible if they're in the same building. But then you could unplug the machine and walk it over in 5 minutes, which would be much faster.
I felt like a little improv. ;)
Mike Judge really needs to make some more movies.
I'd settle for him NOT making King of the Hill.
What the fuck's a TPS report? Did we discuss that last week while I was still drunk from the night before? Am I fired?