Most other businesses, large and small, realize the essential fickleness of the customer. That means that any barriers you place in his way will result in his finding another way. Now, that doesn't matter when the customer has no other way to get what he wants: that's how it was in the music industry for a long time. All that changed with Napster and the succession of sharing protocols and applications that have come along since. Yes, they tried (are still trying) to use the courts to suppress that "other way", but haven't met with any real success.
I don't know about that... that kind of anticompetitive behavior can still be illegal, regardless of your monopoly status, if you are misrepresenting your products or otherwise committing acts of fraud.
I had always thought that Steve Ballmer bears a substantial resemblance to a younger Peter Boyle in need of some serious anti-psychotic medication. That video confirms it.
UpdateLayeredWindow and TransparentBlit (and a ton of other very-well-documented graphics API calls) have been in there since Win2K, at least. I use them all the time to generate fades and other effects. It's not hard.
But... that's now. And I'm sure Microsoft still hides a lot of stuff.
Secret law, like secret courts, is inherently poisionous to the tree of liberty.
Secret law is, in fact, no law at all because those subject to such law must trust their leaders to be honest with them. Through all of human history, that has generally proven to be a mistake, often a fatal one. And when, as invariably happens, said leaders are not honest, the "secret law" can be anything. "Oh yes, the secret law clearly states that all females between the ages of 17 and 21 are to be delivered to Government House for personal inspection. Why? Oh, well, the law says I don't have to tell you. How do you know I'm not lying? You don't have to know. Just trust me."
WE DO. Period. End of statement. That's why we're a Republic and not a fascist state. It's why the Founding Fathers spent so much time working out a highly sophisticated system of checks and balances (since corrupted) to keep said government under control of the citizenry, and not the other way around.
Historically, the track record of virtually every government on this goddamned planet has not been good when it comes to civil liberties and extension of police powers, ours included. That being the case, whenever some two-bit politician or other government mouthpiece says, "we need power X", a smart citizenry pushes back hard, fights tooth and nail, and makes them justify, in excruciating detail, why that power is needed, why another long-standing right must be taken. In some instances they're right, they do need what they're asking for... but in the vast majority of cases they do not. They just want it, which is not the same thing.
In any event, just rolling over and accepting the verbiage being spewn forth by our current crop of ruling weasels is a huge mistake. They aren't our rulers! They are public servants, and as such are beholden to us and we have every right to make them explain themselves. Period. And may I point out that the TSA has not only been unwilling to explain itself (to anyone) but has repeatedly lied to Congress! These are not the people you want a. in charge of security at any level and b. deciding who can or cannot fly, because they have already clearly demonstrated that they cannot be trusted!
For some time now our elected (and, more importantly, unelected) officials have been arrogating powers to themselves without any authorization from We the People. That's a problem. That's bad. It's bloody dangerous. So, no matter how you may feel about the issue of airport security (speaking of unelected officials), the undeniable truth is the the United States Federal Government is way more powerful than it needs to be to perform its Constitutionally-limited functions.
The problem is that you are exhibiting one-dimensional, short-term thinking, looking at the current issues with civil liberties and individual rights as being an artifact of 9/11. They're not, they're systemic. Yes, I agree, the events of 9/11 did provide the government a rationale for a massive assumption of new police powers, but this has been going on for a long, long time. It has been happening too gradually for most of us to notice, but the stench of incrementalism is all around us.
There have been times when civil liberties were curtailed for a time, but were then restored. The FBI under Hoover reached the point where Congress had to rein it in and enforce some severe restrictions. Some rights were temporarily suspended during World War II, and again were restored. That was then, this is now: times have changed. Our modern Congress not only willing passed the ill-named Patriot Act, but when it came time to activate the sunset clause on some of its worst provisions refused to do so. I have no confidence that any rights taken in the name of counter-terrorism or "saving the children" or any other overblown cause will be returned to us. Not now, not ever.
Yes, but then again California and Texas are mere States, not independent nations, no matter how much those two (in particular) like to think they are.
Encouraging millions of its citizens to leave their homeland and take up residence in the United States, in flagrant violation of our laws and to the detriment of our citizens and our economy as a whole. It is hypocritical as hell... you only have to read Mexico's own immigration policy to understand why some people are upset by this.
I have family that lives in Arizona (not far from the Mexican border) and groups of illegals trespass on their property on a daily basis, on their way up North. Sometimes they steal things. What's most interesting about this (and you don't hear about it on the nightly news, but that's a can of worms in its own right) is that the Mexican government aids, abets and advises those who cross our border. I've seen handouts provided by said government that offer advice to the best places to go (and how to get there), how to dress, and how best to pass for an American.
Is that sufficient? Can you imagine the uproar that would occur if millions (millions!) of American citizens illegally entered another country (say, Mexico), began to set up shop, affect the economy of the target nation, and begin to infiltrate and influence the political process in that country? No? Well, that is precisely what is happening in America right now. Nor are we alone in this: other nations are having similar problems with illegal immigration. It doesn't look like they're having any more success in handling it than we are, but the America of the past 200-odd years is disappearing fast.
I don't know why it's considered to be politically incorrect to discuss what is going on all around us, yet it is. We can't seem to openly discuss anything of any importance anymore. You just watch how fast this post gets modded Flamebait.
Yes indeed. Whenever a substantial number of individuals maintain the same structured belief system, any weaknesses in that system can be exploited. This is similar to how a population exposed to a pathogen to which it has no immunity will die en-masse, or the popularity of a certain bug-ridden operating system allows malware to survive on a massive scale.
It just so happens that the best way yet discovered to encourage... nay, force people into a consistent pattern of belief and behavior is organized religion, although technically it is not required. People will generally tell another person who tries to coerce them to go to Hell... but if that person convinces you that he is speaking for your God, he pwns you. And when he's accomplished that much, subverting your faith in your chosen deity into something darker is surprisingly easy. You just have to read the history books to see just how often this happens, and the damage that occurs when bad people acquire such power.
Let alone the fact, that were it not for Disney's legal army, copyright terms would not currently stand at 99 years. That company has done far more damage than it is worth. Far more, and as for that little bastard Mickey... I hope somebody traps his ass. And not with one of those mamby-pamby "humane" traps, either. I want the life quickly squeezed out of him, so we can toss his moldering carcass on the scrap-heap of history.
And most of the damage to their cities was from non-nuclear sources, by far. People tend to forget about the fire-raids that devastated a lot more of Japan's cityscape than two comparatively tiny nukes.
The common misconception of a monopoly is that it has to have been gained by the ruthless suppression of competition. Here in the United States, we call that an "illegal monopoly". Google's "monopoly" (and I use the term loosely) is entirely dependent upon the quality of their services, and the value of those services to their customers. They could be displaced in a heartbeat if something better comes along.
However, I disagree with you slightly. While Google hasn't put up any artificial barriers to competition, in the way Microsoft or the RBOCs have done here in the U.S., any competition will likely be subject to Guilder's Law. In other words, they'll have to be many times better than Google in order to make me change my home page. I don't see that happening any time soon. In any event one can hardly penalize a company for having products that are too good, particularly when they're essentially free so far as the typical Web user is concerned.
Memes can be erased. It just takes some time in a sanitarium under the care of an ex-CIA brainwashing technician and copious quantities of appropriate hypnotics.
the donations should be mandatory before people become tycoons.
They are... it's called "income tax", and the Federal Government is by far the largest charity. Probably one of the most efficient too, which doesn't say much for most actual charities. Unfortunately, your average tycoon manages to weasel out of making most of those donations... I mean, paying most of those taxes.
Besides, most of Gates' wealth is in Microsoft stock, not cash. I read somewhere that every year he applies to the SEC for permission to sell a few hundred million dollars worth of said stock just to pay his personal expenses (houses and so forth.)
Slashdot Mirror
Most other businesses, large and small, realize the essential fickleness of the customer. That means that any barriers you place in his way will result in his finding another way. Now, that doesn't matter when the customer has no other way to get what he wants: that's how it was in the music industry for a long time. All that changed with Napster and the succession of sharing protocols and applications that have come along since. Yes, they tried (are still trying) to use the courts to suppress that "other way", but haven't met with any real success.
I don't know about that ... that kind of anticompetitive behavior can still be illegal, regardless of your monopoly status, if you are misrepresenting your products or otherwise committing acts of fraud.
I wonder why Microsoft calls the efforts to uncover the API differences criminal?
I think you mean "efforts to uncover the criminal API."
I had always thought that Steve Ballmer bears a substantial resemblance to a younger Peter Boyle in need of some serious anti-psychotic medication. That video confirms it.
UpdateLayeredWindow and TransparentBlit (and a ton of other very-well-documented graphics API calls) have been in there since Win2K, at least. I use them all the time to generate fades and other effects. It's not hard.
... that's now. And I'm sure Microsoft still hides a lot of stuff.
But
Secret law, like secret courts, is inherently poisionous to the tree of liberty.
Secret law is, in fact, no law at all because those subject to such law must trust their leaders to be honest with them. Through all of human history, that has generally proven to be a mistake, often a fatal one. And when, as invariably happens, said leaders are not honest, the "secret law" can be anything. "Oh yes, the secret law clearly states that all females between the ages of 17 and 21 are to be delivered to Government House for personal inspection. Why? Oh, well, the law says I don't have to tell you. How do you know I'm not lying? You don't have to know. Just trust me."
Who gets to decide? Who draws the line?.
... but in the vast majority of cases they do not. They just want it, which is not the same thing.
WE DO. Period. End of statement. That's why we're a Republic and not a fascist state. It's why the Founding Fathers spent so much time working out a highly sophisticated system of checks and balances (since corrupted) to keep said government under control of the citizenry, and not the other way around.
Historically, the track record of virtually every government on this goddamned planet has not been good when it comes to civil liberties and extension of police powers, ours included. That being the case, whenever some two-bit politician or other government mouthpiece says, "we need power X", a smart citizenry pushes back hard, fights tooth and nail, and makes them justify, in excruciating detail, why that power is needed, why another long-standing right must be taken. In some instances they're right, they do need what they're asking for
In any event, just rolling over and accepting the verbiage being spewn forth by our current crop of ruling weasels is a huge mistake. They aren't our rulers! They are public servants, and as such are beholden to us and we have every right to make them explain themselves. Period. And may I point out that the TSA has not only been unwilling to explain itself (to anyone) but has repeatedly lied to Congress! These are not the people you want a. in charge of security at any level and b. deciding who can or cannot fly, because they have already clearly demonstrated that they cannot be trusted!
For some time now our elected (and, more importantly, unelected) officials have been arrogating powers to themselves without any authorization from We the People. That's a problem. That's bad. It's bloody dangerous. So, no matter how you may feel about the issue of airport security (speaking of unelected officials), the undeniable truth is the the United States Federal Government is way more powerful than it needs to be to perform its Constitutionally-limited functions.
The problem is that you are exhibiting one-dimensional, short-term thinking, looking at the current issues with civil liberties and individual rights as being an artifact of 9/11. They're not, they're systemic. Yes, I agree, the events of 9/11 did provide the government a rationale for a massive assumption of new police powers, but this has been going on for a long, long time. It has been happening too gradually for most of us to notice, but the stench of incrementalism is all around us.
There have been times when civil liberties were curtailed for a time, but were then restored. The FBI under Hoover reached the point where Congress had to rein it in and enforce some severe restrictions. Some rights were temporarily suspended during World War II, and again were restored. That was then, this is now: times have changed. Our modern Congress not only willing passed the ill-named Patriot Act, but when it came time to activate the sunset clause on some of its worst provisions refused to do so. I have no confidence that any rights taken in the name of counter-terrorism or "saving the children" or any other overblown cause will be returned to us. Not now, not ever.
There already is a french googlish clone, exalead.com.
I'm surprised the French didn't call it Froogle instead.
Yes, but then again California and Texas are mere States, not independent nations, no matter how much those two (in particular) like to think they are.
I'd say it's anything that offers true resistance to the Borg.
Incrementalism at work again. You really have to keep an eye on these guys. Incredible, really ... they just can't seem to leave well enough alone.
But I have to say, between the GP's nick of "BlahSnarto" and your "Harmonious Botch" I'm having a hard time keeping a straight face.
I worry about anything our government does, just on principle.
Yes, it does, doesn't it. Diversity is a form of immunity to mass sociopathy.
just what exactly is Mexico doing to the US ?
... you only have to read Mexico's own immigration policy to understand why some people are upset by this.
Encouraging millions of its citizens to leave their homeland and take up residence in the United States, in flagrant violation of our laws and to the detriment of our citizens and our economy as a whole. It is hypocritical as hell
I have family that lives in Arizona (not far from the Mexican border) and groups of illegals trespass on their property on a daily basis, on their way up North. Sometimes they steal things. What's most interesting about this (and you don't hear about it on the nightly news, but that's a can of worms in its own right) is that the Mexican government aids, abets and advises those who cross our border. I've seen handouts provided by said government that offer advice to the best places to go (and how to get there), how to dress, and how best to pass for an American.
Is that sufficient? Can you imagine the uproar that would occur if millions (millions!) of American citizens illegally entered another country (say, Mexico), began to set up shop, affect the economy of the target nation, and begin to infiltrate and influence the political process in that country? No? Well, that is precisely what is happening in America right now. Nor are we alone in this: other nations are having similar problems with illegal immigration. It doesn't look like they're having any more success in handling it than we are, but the America of the past 200-odd years is disappearing fast.
I don't know why it's considered to be politically incorrect to discuss what is going on all around us, yet it is. We can't seem to openly discuss anything of any importance anymore. You just watch how fast this post gets modded Flamebait.
Yeah ... no kidding. If you want an actual picture, go watch the video of the "interview" the article talks about.
Yes indeed. Whenever a substantial number of individuals maintain the same structured belief system, any weaknesses in that system can be exploited. This is similar to how a population exposed to a pathogen to which it has no immunity will die en-masse, or the popularity of a certain bug-ridden operating system allows malware to survive on a massive scale.
... nay, force people into a consistent pattern of belief and behavior is organized religion, although technically it is not required. People will generally tell another person who tries to coerce them to go to Hell ... but if that person convinces you that he is speaking for your God, he pwns you. And when he's accomplished that much, subverting your faith in your chosen deity into something darker is surprisingly easy. You just have to read the history books to see just how often this happens, and the damage that occurs when bad people acquire such power.
It just so happens that the best way yet discovered to encourage
I think he's referring to the recent Tom Hanks flick, The Da Vinci Code or whatever it was.
Let alone the fact, that were it not for Disney's legal army, copyright terms would not currently stand at 99 years. That company has done far more damage than it is worth. Far more, and as for that little bastard Mickey ... I hope somebody traps his ass. And not with one of those mamby-pamby "humane" traps, either. I want the life quickly squeezed out of him, so we can toss his moldering carcass on the scrap-heap of history.
And most of the damage to their cities was from non-nuclear sources, by far. People tend to forget about the fire-raids that devastated a lot more of Japan's cityscape than two comparatively tiny nukes.
The common misconception of a monopoly is that it has to have been gained by the ruthless suppression of competition. Here in the United States, we call that an "illegal monopoly". Google's "monopoly" (and I use the term loosely) is entirely dependent upon the quality of their services, and the value of those services to their customers. They could be displaced in a heartbeat if something better comes along.
However, I disagree with you slightly. While Google hasn't put up any artificial barriers to competition, in the way Microsoft or the RBOCs have done here in the U.S., any competition will likely be subject to Guilder's Law. In other words, they'll have to be many times better than Google in order to make me change my home page. I don't see that happening any time soon. In any event one can hardly penalize a company for having products that are too good, particularly when they're essentially free so far as the typical Web user is concerned.
Otherwise you're just playing with the cool new stuff that you like, and that's not how work gets done in the real world.
Alas, that is how work gets done in the real world, which explains why so many sites work like crap. But I agree that it isn't professional.
I'm still trying to find the guy that invented the hold button ... he needs cancellation as well.
Memes can be erased. It just takes some time in a sanitarium under the care of an ex-CIA brainwashing technician and copious quantities of appropriate hypnotics.
Ah yes .... the patented CSI "reverse algorithmic". That one earned a chuckle from me.
the donations should be mandatory before people become tycoons.
... it's called "income tax", and the Federal Government is by far the largest charity. Probably one of the most efficient too, which doesn't say much for most actual charities. Unfortunately, your average tycoon manages to weasel out of making most of those donations ... I mean, paying most of those taxes.
They are
Besides, most of Gates' wealth is in Microsoft stock, not cash. I read somewhere that every year he applies to the SEC for permission to sell a few hundred million dollars worth of said stock just to pay his personal expenses (houses and so forth.)
{sigh} must be nice.