Yeah, no kidding. I could never figure out why IBM didn't push OS/2 on the PowerPC. I remember they did have that "blue lightening" chip that was intel compatible, but even that chip was marketed at running Windows and not OS/2. That and it was short lived.
I'll agree with the comment that it's a little late in the game, but I have mixed feelings about the whole "porting" venture.
In the hindsight arguement, what if they based OS/X on NetBSD instead of FreeBSD? I don't know the rationale for their desicion, but if at the time they were thinking of jumping to a new hardware platform down the road, why did they choose FreeBSD?
Just imagine how this whole "to port or not to port" discussion would play out if they used NetBSD as the base for Darwin instead. They could have had an underlieing archetecture capible of running on multiple completely different hardware platforms. They could have choosen the PowerPC as the Apple hardware platform of choice, but marketed OS/X for Intel, Arm, SPARC,... Then the argument for switching platforms would be far less a dramatic change.
Re:While Sunss marketing improved they still rock
on
Merrill Lynch Rips Sun
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
I differ on this perspective. Whether it was a good move or a bad move for Sun to structure their company to a thin client system, I respect the initative for them to "pratice what they preach". They have a vision that thin clients are the way to go. To a certain degree, I completely agree with them. What I find great is that they actually use the technology that they're trying to sell. Not many companies do this and I find it a lack of faith in their own products. For example, I've done a tour of duty at Xerox and I was completely amazed at how many HP printers ran the office environments. I was in the systems testing lab, and although HP was beating up Xerox in the market, I can tell you that under the hood the Xerox printers had a much better engine. Yet, when it came to running their company, they supported their competition. Yeah, look at them now...hmmm.
Anyway, good or bad on Sun's decision. I completely respect their decision to use their OWN technology to run their company. That alone makes me want to buy their product. It's companies like IBM that (at the time) were pushing OS/2 and running Windows instead that just make me sick. Again, at the time, OS/2 was completely superior to Windows, yet they didn't even use it themselves. No wonder it (OS/2) died.
You say they need to run the competition product in order to know what their competition is...that's what testing labs are for! A better test is to actually USE your product/technology to PROVE it's usefulness. If you can't do that, then face it...the product is crap and by not using it is telling your customers just what you think of it. Remember the controversy a while back about Microsoft using FreeBSD to power their web sites? As much as I hate Microsoft, it was a damn good thing they made the rapid switch to start using their own product. In all, I dislike Scott for his over-focused smear campain against Microsoft, but I think he definitely made the right decision to structure the company to USE their vision of the future.
A 5yr cash reserve is just good planning. Congrats! I don't think anyone can tell you what you should or should not do. Everyone's situation is different. I would suggest that you just concider what's important. Think of what memories you'll have later in life. You also have to play "what if". You may be a top dog now in your profession, but will it always be that way? You know the saying, "Get while the getting is good." That money pot may not be there tomorrow. Think of your health (this is a big one for me). If you're in your prime of life now, no money in the future will buy that health back. Above anything else, take your health very serious. If you have childern, no money will buy back time spent with them when they're young. And if you don't have childern, do you really want to wait until your 40 to have them? You sound like you have a good plan now and I wish you the best of luck. Just remember, money isn't everything.
My own personal story. My prime of life was a few years back. I made a decent salary and I worked for a Wall Street firm. I was recently married and my wife and I were just turning 30. We wanted kids, but with both of us working long hours, we just couldn't see it happening. The money was so nice, that it was hard to leave. We finally made the decision that having a family sooner was better than waiting. We left the big city and moved to a smaller place near our folks (to be grandparents). We decided family was better than money. Looking back, it was the right decision to make. My former job was on the 103rd floor of the World Trade Center. I worked for Cantor and I left in 2000. I know that's not a good example and tragety can happen at any time anywhere. Still, my wife and I can't help but call it fate.
Today we have a beutiful baby girl and I stand a very good chance of loosing my job. Honestly, it doesn't bother us to the least. Where there's a will there's a way. I may never be rich, but I'm alive and happy. You just need to prioritize what's important in your life. Use your head and follow your heart...or said differently...think things over and do what You feel is right for you. Best of luck!
The thing is regardless about "global warming", we should be changing our lifestyles based on other issues. Acid rain and smog are reason enough to have a strict emmision standards in place.
First, I have made it clear that I was talking about the "floating" ice cap. I understand the issue is with the ice on the land mass that's of concern, but from all the expedition videos I've seen of the antartic, it appears to have lots of "exposed" land. I'm sure there's some areas that have ice several 100's of feet thick, but most of the land seemed barrien. I don't question the size of the antartic land mass, but I think the calculations of sea levels rising by 30 feet may be a little on the high side. Again, no science...just a guess and maybe some improper assumptions.
On your second issue with the expansion of water, again, regardless of the studies, I question the results. All molecules expand with heat, but liquids and solids expand very little. I'll agree that a warmer climate may raise the sea level by a fraction, but that fraction I think would be so small that compared to the "ice cap" delemma would be unnoticable. And although I didn't check your science reference, if the general jist is about molecule expansion as a result of a small temperature different, could one make the arguement that the mass of Earth itself would increase in size due to a 1 degree K shift. The spherical size of earth would increase and so would it's land mass. Another wild guess, but some of that land mass expansion may just cancel out some of the water molecule expansion in regards to the actual sea level change.
Note, I'm being very unscientific with my arguments and I may appear ignorant for doing so. I don't doubt the science or the results. I do question some of the theories and speculation based on the results. In the case of warmer climate = rise in water level and hense bad. I think many of those studies assume no other changes to the system. What's to say a one degree rise in temperature doesn't increase the size of our atmosphere by 10 feet due to water evaporation. There's alot of variables to concider with global warming and what it's REAL effects are. For me, the issue is more with pollution in general. I argue for the environmentalist in that man kind should be placing a cap on our effects to the environment. As for issues like global warming, that may very well be out of our control. Having a clean place to live is in our control.
Have you ever dropped a salt-water fish into a fresh-water tank?
No, and I'm not sure about the effects. But I do know that a healthy fresh water tank needs a certain amount of salt added. This I never understood and I think it only applies to "tropical" fresh water fish (ie: Oscars, Dempsies, Tetras, etc.) I don't know if salt is added to northen fresh water tanks like pike and bass.
I'm sure the extra percentage of fresh water added to the ocean wouldn't be too detremental. I'm thinking it'd be like adding 2 gallons of fresh water to a 50 gallon salt tank. I have no science to back that statement up. Just taking a wild guess.
I have a different perspective on the whole "green house" gas issue. It's like an alien conspiracy theory with the whole, "rise in global temperature" and how bad CO2 is. I remember watching one show where the whole simulation of a rise in CO2 caused a rise in temperature with the side benefit that vegetation growth boomed. The model predicted that polution had the benificial effect of increasing tropical vegetation. A very plausible explaination.
The other scare that many have is that if the global temperature was to rise, the ice caps would melt and the world would be flooded. If we're mainly talking about the ice caps as in the "floating" ice caps, then 90% of the ice is below water anyway. And of the 10% above water that would contribute to the rise in global water line, concider that water is more dense than ice. That 90% ice that's below water is really displacing a certain amount of water too, thus that 10% above may really just balance out that 90% below and thus no increase in water level. To illustrate my point, take a glass of water and drop an ice cube in it. Make a mark of the water line. Then wait for the ice to melt. Make another mark. Not much of a difference if any at all. By the way, no scientific data here. I'm just using common sense and my logic may be seriously flawed, so excuse my lack of insight if this is a much more technical discussion. Also, I'm only taking about the "floating" ice cap and not what's on land. I'm sure someone would have to run numbers, but my own feelings are that the ice cap melting wouldn't really have a huge impact on the land mass of the earth.
That being said, I also think of the CO2 issue like the Atkins diet. Let's just say for the sake of argument that CO2 gases are actually benificial to the environment. The more CO2, the more vegetation. The warmer it gets, the less ice we have. The less cold climates we have, the more area of the earth is habbitible for man. In theory, it's argued that CO2 is a win win situation. The same is said about the Atkins diet. Hey look, you can eat all that good tasting fat and red meat (or whatever is in the diet plan) and you benifit by loosing weight and looking good. Again, a deceptual win win situation. Common sense tells me that the Atkins diet will kill you in the long run (clogged arteries or something). I'd much rather eat what I concider is healthy and spend the effort to excersize to loose weight instead. I have the same perspective on the CO2 arguments. Regardless of the "science" involved, common sense tells me that polluting the environment, regardless of the short term effects, in the long run, it'll just kill the planet.. I don't really care about all the studies, and theories involved. Common sense just tells me we should be taking our pollution issue far more serious. For that reason, I'd definitely concider myself an environmentalist. I don't buy into the arguments for or against the CO2 and global warming issues. To me, treating the environment with respect is just the right thing to do.
Yeah, no kidding. SWK has become a cyber pop star. I'd love to see some of his fancy moves make it into the III episode.
Some slashdotter's feel they have some kind of dork bond with him. Other slashdotters may just be jealous of his fame. I just think the circumstances of his fame is a riot. Yeah he may have looked funny and might have been embarrassed from his exposer. That's not what I find funny though. What I find harlarious about SWK's rise to fame is how he was catapulted to instant fame overnight by net nobodies like ourselves. The kids looking to embarass him really turned him into a cyber superstar.
Re:Mo Money! Mo Money! Mo Money!
on
Windows ATMs by 2005
·
· Score: 5, Interesting
The banking industry is one where cutting corners simply isn't allowed.
You'ld be surprized at just how cheap banks and money institutions can be. Although it wasn't a bank, I once worked for the largest government bonds firm as a sysadmin. Their clients were banks themselves. Bonds were traded in lots of 10 million and in one day you'ld get serveral thousands of transactions. I was amazed at just how much money use to flow through the systems I was running. As a brokerage firm, they made their commision with a few pennies on every transaction. They were making tons of cash daily. Money was everywhere, but what amazed me most was the equiptment. Many of the hub servers were old SPARC 5's and if it was a bigger client, they got a spanky Ultra 5. Not even servers! For such a critical app, I suggested they buy into Netra's or something teco grade that could withstand a beating. The response I got was it was too much money. I couldn't believe it. Here's they'd pull in 20 million in one day from a single client, and they couldn't spend $1000 to upgrade the server. Then it was explained to me by another admin who's worked that arena a while. He said the cheapest companies you'll ever work for (from a sysadmin perspective) will be banking institutions and financal firms. They're filthy rich, but you can't squeeze a penny from them.
That's been my only experience with being a sysadmin at a money institution, but from that experience, it wouldn't surprize me at all to hear how banks would opt for the lowest bidder for any project. Hell, these guys were so cheap, they'd try to avoid buying directly from Sun and go with some third party refurbish vendor. Just unbelievible how cheap they'd be....but they all wore very nice suites. And just so you know....yes....they're still in buisness and they're still the largest bonds brokerage firm in the world. Pretty scary from a tech perspective.
I wouldn't call it a marvel of engineering achievement, but I do like the concept of bluring the laptop/desktop footprint. It's not for everyone, but I think it's a great concept.
If I was to refine the design, I would lean it more towards a desktop. Give it a compact keyboard (ie: no numeric pad), but beef up the keys and don't worry so much about the laptop size of it. Think of it more as a portable, because if someone really wanted this thing for laptop features, they'd be buying a laptop. I think most people who do own laptops don't really use them on the road. They generally just like being able to lug their computer home everyday or take it on a trip. I think the market for this thing should be geared towards thin clients and not the coder on the road. The fact that you could pack the thing up easy and take it with you is a nice advantage for thin clients, road shows, or just plain remote mobile offices. I'm probably a minority, but I like the concept.
Why do I have visions of a Vietnam style POW camp?
Far from the truth, but I can see from my writing style how that could have been interpreted...and the:
How my jealousy of my womanizing brother-in-law...
comment probably isn't too far from the truth. The rape example I gave was just ficticous. It just plays into the typical example of parents with corrupt kids and how they'll do anything to protect them. I believe in sticking up for one's kids, but not when you know they did wrong. That's all I was talking about. So your reference to humor was pretty far off base.
In regards to jealously....yeah, I suppose I would be guilty of that. What guy wouldn't get jealous when you see some smuck make it with so many chicks. No, not some honest good looking guy with a great personality that swoons all the women. That I can deal with. No, I'm talking about the dishonest ill intentioned types that can pull that sort of thing off. Hard to explain as many probably wouldn't get it.
Suffice it to say, yes, I suppose there's a little envy in his abilities. The main jealously is that he gets away with it. It bothers my wife more than me. I only have to hear about it. Her brother is the golden boy. Whereas she'll do all the work, he'll get all the credit. I'm not religious, but remember that bible story about the Prodical Son? In summary: a father has two sons. One works hard for the father, while the other demands his inherritance up front. The wayward son blows all his money on the fast life and returns home poor. When he arrives, the father is joyous and treats him like a King. The hard working son gets no praise and becomes jealous. The father scolds his hard working son for being jealous while praising the wayward son for coming home. I probably messed that story up a bit, but maybe you get the picture. Jealously is bad, that I agree. My wife and I would be totally guilty of playing the part of the jealous son.
The comments about how my mother would treat my borther-in-law were grossly misinterrpreted. My folks were strict, but not how you're thinking. They just didn't take crap from anyone. They never bowed down to us kids even when we were overdemmanding. If we did something bad, they let us know how they felt. They didn't act like scared parents such as what my parent-in-laws are like. Too afraid to tell their son how they feel for fear he'll stop coming home...please! The real sad thing is me acting like a jackass talking about it. It's a pet pieve and it's painful to see after a while. You are right about one thing, and that's your distain for my moral issues. I'll give you that. I too dislike being preached to, and yes that would make me a hypocrit (to some extent). All your attempts at humor were off base, but your purpose was correct.
That's a good point, and we can take that argument to the level of obsurdity....if we haven't ready.
The parents want to blame a video game for giving inspiration. I've also heard the argument for blaming the film studios for cranking out trashy violent films. All of which supposedly "influence" kids one way or another. So what about the 6 o'clock news or the news paper? Say some dumbass kid got all wrapped up in the 9/11 tragety. They all the sudden have it in their minds that flying a plane into a building is a cool thing and hell, they're bored anyway right?
Didn't this sort of thing actually happen already? So what's stopping the parents of that dumbass kid from sueing the news media and hell, go ahead and sue al-Qaida. It's the same mentallity right? Dumbass kids sees or hears about something bad, they go out and do it, then put all blaim on the initial inspiration that led to their dumbass decision.
These people just make me sick. Yeah, it's sad that these kids are dumbasses. I feel bad for the parents and the victums involved. But hears a novel idea: instead of trying to point fingers at why the kids turned out to be so stupid, how about we just blame the kids? I know, the parents are partly to blame. Like they had to know about the violent games their kids were playing, and where did the gun come from anyways?
In the end, the kids were just stupid. If you go by the numbers of how many people play this game and how many turned out to be killers....I think that's pretty much the same stats you have for regular society. I call it my dumbass percentage rule. No matter where you go, no matter what the age, you'll always have a percentage of dumbasses. You do something bad, you alone should be held accountible and that's my feelings. Even if someone trained me how to kill and put a gun in my hands and made me play Doom for 2 straight weeks. If I'm the one that actually goes out and pulls the trigger on someone, then I'm the one to blame. Not the video game, not the gun manufacture, and not the person providing influence. We need to hold people accountible for their own dumb decisions. Just my feelings.
Re:ESR and Perens and some slashbot jackass
on
Back To SCO
·
· Score: 1
Obvious troll eh? It was an unbiased response and frankly I'm surprised it was met with such ridicule. Spell checking? Sorry, just too lazy. Didn't think that quallified for troll status.
None the less, such useless responses as your own don't contribute anything. If you disagree with my post, show your wit and express your disagreement. As for serious poster, that would be no. Just expressing my own feelings. On this particular subject, I respect the figure heads of the open source community for their contributions, but I disagree with their image. If these guys want to be taken serious, then they should put alittle more thought into their responses. To the rest of the world, or the common non-geek, they appear as trolls.
It's ironic that many in the geek community like using that "troll" word to label the rest of the world (and even themselves). It's nothing but a low level of name calling. Something indicative of 12 year olds. The true meaning of the word "troll" is reserved for the ones that use it. At least that's my interpretation....yeah yeah...how dare me not think like the rest of you....have a nice day anyway.
Re:ESR and Perens and some slashbot jackass
on
Back To SCO
·
· Score: -1, Troll
Your comment was rather abrasive....but truethful none the less. Although, I've never concidered liking SCO.
I enjoy open source as much as the next guy, but whenever I read comments from figure heads in the open source community. Mostly ERS and RMS. Just makes me want to keep my distance. I respect these guys with their great intellect, but to hear them speak freely is like listening to a bunch of 12 year olds.
Darell is a fool. He sounds like an idiot with his bogus claims. And even if SCO's claim have the slightest of merrit, his delivery of the evidence (or lack there of) does him a disservice. So why does the open source community stoop to his childish banter? Yes, I believe the community should respond to SCO's false claims....but do it in a professional manner. Have a lawer draft a letter or someone who can word a clear representation of the open source stance on the issue. Refrain from the childish banter for a responce. Stuff like that gives the whole community a bad name. If corporations start pulling away from open source solutions, I'd say advocates like RMS and ESR are to blaim. Not bogus lawsuits from SCO.
For the leaders in the open source community, I suggest that you start acting like ones. Use speech writers to conveigh your ideas. Maybe use a few proof readers? SCO accuses the whole open source community and the guys up top respond as individuals. ERS and Perens issue a responce. How many people do you think they consulted with before sending the letter? If the open source community wants to be taken serious by the world, then act a little more professional.
My own take is that the open source responces read worst then McBrides accusations. The "content" is far more accurate and much more truthful. It's the delivery.
...but don't rationalize your petty criminal behavior.
This may be off-topic, but how do you rationalize speeding in traffic. Everyone does it right?
That's how I look at this whole copyright infringement issue. Yeah it's petty. Yeah it's a crime, but just like speeding, everyone does it! Hell, even cops will sit by and watch speeders drive by. However, they generally only pull over the ones who speed excessively. The RIAA isn't just going after the "excessive" offenders. They're trying to milk everyone. We all know that speeding is bad and so is copying music. The difference is the punishment. The RIAA is way out of line.
So herein lies my rationale: I moderately copied music before and downloaded a few tunes. But I also bought all the CD's of the artists that I really liked. I have a huge CD collection. Some duds, but many I still listen to. Ever since the Napster case and the many that followed, my feelings towards the music industry greatly changed. Greed changes everything. I know that some of the music I copied was wrong, but I also gave them several hundereds of dollars. No, I don't feel bad for my actions. I felt pretty moderate. But now there's a backlash. It sickens me to see the greed in the music industry. Wanting to get their cut for resale on music...charging bars to play music. What's next? Charging weddings if they want to play the chicken dance?
I generally don't download music anymore. Not because of the legal issues. Mostly because of the poor quality in many of the rips. I'll only do it if I'm looking for one particular song and it's usually for fun. However, I do sign CDs out of my local library. I burn them all so I don't have to sign them out again. My burn collection is getting huge and although I concider myself pretty moral, I do not feel bad for the RIAA. My actions are nothing compaired to them. Ever since the Napster case, I've not bought any CDs. In a way I refuse. It's more effort to find it in the library and burn it, but it's my own private protest against the greed machine. I refuse to fuel that economy I was helping before. Yes, and I'll continue to drive 60 in a 55 zone too.
Another major force in my "immoral" actions is the RIAA vision of the future. I think we all see it coming. Music and videos will all be pay per use. I can see stereos and TVs all being operated much like the satellite radios today. You'll navigate to your selection and choose the content. At that point, you either pay a monthly fee for the service or the meter will just start ticking. All local copies like tapes and CDs will be an obsolete concept. For the environment, I see it as a good thing. For society, it's a control nightmare. In general, I have mixed feelings for the future.
Look at the bright side -- you are alive. You could have been installing trading systems in the WTC on 9/11.
If you work at Kodak I'm going to assume that you are living in Rochester. Again, look at the bright side. While it's not NYC, it's a pretty nice area with cheap living. Maybe you should focus on bettering yourself outside of work and then make a decision on your next career move.
Ahh, I had to respond to this. Yes, every day I feel greatful that I choose to come back to Rochester. Working in the WTC was the life. Probably the high point in my life. I had a 103rd floor window seat. At the time, Cantor was the place to be. They took REALLY good care of you. When eSpeed was launched and they went IPO, things became different (in a bad way), but that's another story. NYC life was great, but my wife and I wanted a family. We couldn't see doing that in the big city, so we shipped back to lovely Rochester, NY. Maybe it's just me, but I love this city. That was about a year before 9/11, but it was close enough. Too close. All my friends are fresh in memory.
Although Rochester is a great city, it's pretty depressed. I pretty much had the choice of two evils. Work for Xerox (via EDS) or work for Kodak. Xerox by far is a nicer place to work. Kodak is a dump, plain and simple. I've done a tour of duty at both and I compair my life at Xerox close to Cantor in regards to work environment. Yes, Kodak has been going down hill for a long time. It's a big time mismanagement nightmare. Xerox is worst in those regards.
My mistake was passing on a job offer from Paetec. A smaller company, but growing. It was the lowest paying offer, but it was the company I liked the most. My wife was totally against that company because she feared the oncall rotation. It was something like every third week. I also had a really nice offer from EDS, but again, at the time of the offer, EDS stock took a major dive from 40 down to like 20 or so. It's recovered since then and the lesson learned there is never judge job stability based on stock price. Maybe it's me, but I see no corelation. In the end, I choose Kodak because at the time it was a stable choice. Why I'm still here? Plain and simple. I made a promise to myself I'd stick with a job for 3 years before moving on. Didn't want to be a job hopper. Commendible as that may sound, it was the wrong choice. Paetec again showed interest in hiring me and IBM even contacted me. Although I didn't like Kodak from day 1, I stayed by my principals to stick it out for what I'd dumb my "tour of duty". It was a timing issue and the whole economy went South....no....more accurate to say the whole economy went off-shore right? Every place was hit and there are no jobs out there. Rocester in particular ranked something like 180 out of 200 of the cities with job growth. Heck, Buffalo, Syracuse and Utica ranked higher than Rochester! Anyone from NY state would know that's pretty sad.
In a week or so, we find out if we still have jobs at all. Kodak is heading for major layoffs. In all, I'm not worried. I have what I wanted. A beutiful baby girl. My wife and I live very cheap now, but we're happy. Unlike most Americans, we've saved most of our money during the booming 90's. If I loose my job, we plan to travel. Possibly car camp all the major parks across the US and Canada. Turn off the TV and play cards around the kitchen table. Get back to when times were fun. This economy thing is just a phase. The job that matters is sitting back at home.
Yes, sad but true. I'm sure everyone has their own dead end career stories, but here's mine: A few years ago I was hired as a UNIX systems administrator. I came into the company as a senior UNIX systems administrator. With the typical corporate downsizing, most of the middle management was cut and we're more a flat manangement style with only a few higher ups and alot of peers. Anyway, during my raise review this year I was informed that I was being overpaid and hence wouldn't get a raise. I would have been satisfied with the "no raise" comment. In this sad economy, I'm just glad to have a job, but the rationale or excuse for not getting a raise bothered me. My manager then felt it was necessary to describe how based on their company point scale I was like a 2 out of 5 (my interpretation of being one better than a janitor). Based on that information, the company felt that a level 2 admin only should make so much. I realized at this point it was an apples to oranges comparison going on here. My skill set puts me way beyond the "junior level" admin status. And by the way, junior level was the term he used.
I don't know if anyone else can relate to such a situation. Having a stagnant career is one thing, but being downgraded in career status? In my former job, I was a senior UNIX administrator for Cantor Fitzgerald installing trading systems around the world. I come to work for Eastman Kodak and after a few years I'm a junior admin?
Based on my rants, it sounds like my crappy company falls under Method #1 and the obvious thing to do is quit and get a new job. But therein the company has me by the nutz (and they know it). The unemployment in my city is one of the worst in the US. Leaving the city isn't much of an option either.
When I first came to Eastman Kodak, I was told that most of the good people have left. This I feel is true. I suppose the very fact that I stayed directly implies I must be some kind of idiot. In that light, I can only agree with my management.
Being a good parent is simple. First, be a good person yourself. Treat others kindly. Hopefully, some of that will rub off on your kids. Of course, you'll need to spend time with them in order for that too happen. Maybe listening to your kids and treating them like individuals and not slaves would be a good thing too.
One last thing you can do about being a good parent is recognize that some things are out of your control. Society will influence your kids too. It may just be that you did everything right, but your kids fell into the wrong crowd. They are individuals and they do have their own ideas. Even though they are yours, it could very well be they turn out to be bad childern. So as a good parent, in this situation, you should except the fact that your kids are bad and let them be punished. Or plainly, cut them loose. For example, if I found out that my son raped some girl, I'd make sure he paid for his crime.
I know some of that sounds harsh, but a real life example of what I concider "bad parents" would be my mother and father in-laws. As people, they're ok. A little self centered, but decent folks. It's their son (my brother in-law) that's odd. Or rather the morale dicipline that I find odd. Their son will continuously date multiple women and cheat on all of them. Why he informs his parents of that I don't know, but that's his lifestyle. It drives my wife crazy. When my wife confronts my mother in-law and asks her to say something to him. Something to the effect that it's morally wrong. My mother in-law just says, well he's not married so it's ok. The father in-law just ignores it. And both pretty much say, "what can we do...not our problem".
The big picture is that you have these, what appearently seem like decent parents take the "not my fault" attitude for their son. My wifes theory is that neither say anything because if they do, their son will stop communicating with them. Just a sad situation. Guess I was razed differently because I know for a fact my brother in-law would last two seconds in my family. My mother would have slapped him around some (not physically, but she'd sure set him straight). Father, brothers, sisters alike...he wouldn't have much a family to come home to until he changed his ways. I know it's not murder, but the morale concept that some families doge. Just because they're family, if they're cheating on their taxes, breaking the law, being dishonest...whatever....maybe it's just me, but regarless who they are, they're not welcome at my Thanksgiving table. No excuses! That's being a good parent. NO EXCUSES!...whatever the situation.
It would be, and probably only should be, a short cameo appearance, maybe as a young jedi in training.
I honestly hope he does get a part. Not because I feel sorry for him, but because he's become an overnight celebrity. I saw the videos and most of the remixes and I was rolling on the floor. Yeah sure. Maybe the kid is the high school dork, but that's not why I laugh. I laugh because his not so friendly friends were playing a joke. That joke has given the poor kid instant fame. Then on top of all that, you have all these other folks making these truely harlarious remixes. I don't see the kid as a dork. I see him as a regular kid. It's the situation of his fame that so humorous. If I'm laughing at anyone, I'm laughing at the kids who posted the initial video and all that time spent on the remix (some very professional) versions. Just the phenominon of transporting an ordinary kid into instant fame.
Hell yeah, I think he should have a part in the next SW movie. The first two movies were pretty much jokes in their own right (spaceships that sound like prop planes FLYING THROUGH SPACE!) I'd love to see this kid with a significant role in the next movie. Maybe not a lead, but an Oracle of some sort. He's an unknown hero. That's how I'd like to see him in the movie.
As far as the court cases go, the parents should stop trying to milk the situation. The kid's famous thanks to his unfriends. Being sue happy would only ruin his fame. Let the kid enjoy his 15minutes while he can.
, like in your example a cop not reading an offender their rights, the system breaks down.
I know I only gave an example of a criminal case, but my perspective applies to any case. It's the general mentality that lawyers do what they're paid to do regardless of their moral obligation (whatever that is). It's works for some people, generally the people that become lawyers, it just doesn't work for me. I'd make a horrible lawyer.
Going even further off topic......Is it me or is the whole Miranda rights thing just a loop hole? Think of it. I get arrested for committing a crime. The first thing I do is tell a cop I did it. Say I wasn't read my rights. Why should I be totally amazed that the cop would testify against me in court. And even if a cop did testify against me for something I said, it'd be my word against his word. I think they'd still need some sort of evidence to convict right? I'm not a legal expert and I'm probably just being totally stupid here, but doesn't the whole Miranda rights do nothing more than state common sense? That being said, is it even more obtuse that a court case could be thrown out based on common sense not being stated early on? This wasn't flame bait or anything. Just some random, probably misguilded, thought for the afternoon.
It's not "morally wrong" to defend someone no matter what the charge.
That statement pretty much sums up your perspective vs mine. No right or wrong here...it's just a matter of perspective:)
I think the term "bought" may also have been improperly used or understood. Lawyers do their job. Yes, plain and simple. If a criminal tells their lawyer in confidence, "yeah, I did it". Or the lawyer, through investigation can determine without a doubt that their own client is guilty. It all doesn't matter. Their job is to defend their client no matter what their personal or moral feelings are. That's what I mean by bought. Even if the lawyer wanted to do what they felt was morally right and inform the judge or prosecutor, then they would be guilty of being a bad lawyer and probably disbarred for breaking client confideniality. My views are towards the profession in general. It has a warped sense of moral duty. Now, from your statement above being applied to my views, I'm to interpret that you're saying it's "morally" ok to defend someone even if you think "morally" they're wrong?
You're right, the legal system does work this way. Your comment on sloppy cops are to blame and thank god they can't get away with not following procedure 100% has merrit, but then again you did mention the world isn't so black and white. Which way is it?
I'll say it again. It's nothing against lawyers as people. I'm sure there are many who try to do the right thing. But their profession has a way of putting their morals in a very compromising position. And their escape it just to do the job they're paid to do. You're saying it's ok, it's how the legal system works. I'm saying fine, I don't sympathize with any lawyer recieving a bad rap for their profession.
I modded this funny, but it's true. On one hand I sorta agree with patents, but on the other hand, where does the stupidness end?
An algorythm is like a virtual tool. With it's assistance, it can greatly reduce the work at hand. Research cost goes into developing a nice algorythm so one can argue that a patent is fully just. Problem is, some patents are granted for truely trivial things. By what measures can you say one thing deserves a patent and another does not? I think the answer lies in the lifespan of a patent. I think that when one applies for a patent, they must submit, in some quantified way, the cost of research. The patent lifespan is then set proportionate to that research cost. Of course, all this would have to be rigorously determined by an independant inquerry. That way when you get these trivial (yet useful) ideas developed, they don't get locked up by some greedy individual or corporation trying to milk it for all it's worth. The point is when you get a patent and you have a limited, but reasonible, set time to regain your investment. Not some endless milking mechanism we have today. Not all patents are the same and therefore the time to regain investments should be proportionate and reasonible.
I hate that phrase. First, lawyers don't create laws; Legislators/Congress(wo)men do (and judges interpret them). Secondly, lawyers' clients are the ones that hold the patents, not the lawyers. Thirdly, the USPTO (or the european equivalent in this case) is the one granting the patents. Lawyers are the middle-(wo)men in all this. Removing the lawyers won't solve the problem.
OT: I know this if off topic, but I'll give my own feelings towards lawyers. As a profession, I think it's a little warped. You're paid to defend someones elses belief. By belief I mean someone elses innocence or guilt or basically someone elses concept of what they think is right or wrong. On occasion, a lawer may actually agree with the belief that they're defending, but really that has no bearing. They're paid to influence the court on what someone else (the client) believes is right or wrong.
I'm sure one can argue that some lawers are decent people. Maybe they are. The profession I think is alittle warped. So what can you say about people who choose that type of profession? It's like saying you can be bought to defend principles that you don't even believe in. Think of the innocent lawer that defends a known killer. The lawer is so good that he gets the known killer off in court because they weren't read their rights. The lawer has a clean concience because they were only doing their job. The cops can be blaimed for being sloppy.
I'm sure one can give several examples on how people in other professions can perform acts that would go directly against a morally right decision. But they make the morally wrong decision because it's their job. In the case of the lawer profession, it's a direct corelation of how one's moral decisions can be directly bought. By definition, it's what they do. So I agree with all those lawer jokes out there. Not because I dislike them as people. It's the design of their profession. What they're paid to do. And before I get flamed for my remarks, it's just my perspective. From a high level view of the lawer profession, I see no wonder why there's so many jokes and distaste for them.
You missed my point. The original poster intent may be losely hinted at the media overating of certain events. It's his wording that put me off. His wording was pretty disrespectful in my view.
In regards to my "childish" comment. The intent was things would sure be different if it was close to him. I don't expect everyone to drop their heads for the fallin dead they never knew. I do expect some common decenty.
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah, no kidding. I could never figure out why IBM didn't push OS/2 on the PowerPC. I remember they did have that "blue lightening" chip that was intel compatible, but even that chip was marketed at running Windows and not OS/2. That and it was short lived.
I'll agree with the comment that it's a little late in the game, but I have mixed feelings about the whole "porting" venture.
In the hindsight arguement, what if they based OS/X on NetBSD instead of FreeBSD? I don't know the rationale for their desicion, but if at the time they were thinking of jumping to a new hardware platform down the road, why did they choose FreeBSD?
Just imagine how this whole "to port or not to port" discussion would play out if they used NetBSD as the base for Darwin instead. They could have had an underlieing archetecture capible of running on multiple completely different hardware platforms. They could have choosen the PowerPC as the Apple hardware platform of choice, but marketed OS/X for Intel, Arm, SPARC,... Then the argument for switching platforms would be far less a dramatic change.
I differ on this perspective. Whether it was a good move or a bad move for Sun to structure their company to a thin client system, I respect the initative for them to "pratice what they preach". They have a vision that thin clients are the way to go. To a certain degree, I completely agree with them. What I find great is that they actually use the technology that they're trying to sell. Not many companies do this and I find it a lack of faith in their own products. For example, I've done a tour of duty at Xerox and I was completely amazed at how many HP printers ran the office environments. I was in the systems testing lab, and although HP was beating up Xerox in the market, I can tell you that under the hood the Xerox printers had a much better engine. Yet, when it came to running their company, they supported their competition. Yeah, look at them now...hmmm.
Anyway, good or bad on Sun's decision. I completely respect their decision to use their OWN technology to run their company. That alone makes me want to buy their product. It's companies like IBM that (at the time) were pushing OS/2 and running Windows instead that just make me sick. Again, at the time, OS/2 was completely superior to Windows, yet they didn't even use it themselves. No wonder it (OS/2) died.
You say they need to run the competition product in order to know what their competition is...that's what testing labs are for! A better test is to actually USE your product/technology to PROVE it's usefulness. If you can't do that, then face it...the product is crap and by not using it is telling your customers just what you think of it. Remember the controversy a while back about Microsoft using FreeBSD to power their web sites? As much as I hate Microsoft, it was a damn good thing they made the rapid switch to start using their own product. In all, I dislike Scott for his over-focused smear campain against Microsoft, but I think he definitely made the right decision to structure the company to USE their vision of the future.
A 5yr cash reserve is just good planning. Congrats! I don't think anyone can tell you what you should or should not do. Everyone's situation is different. I would suggest that you just concider what's important. Think of what memories you'll have later in life. You also have to play "what if". You may be a top dog now in your profession, but will it always be that way? You know the saying, "Get while the getting is good." That money pot may not be there tomorrow. Think of your health (this is a big one for me). If you're in your prime of life now, no money in the future will buy that health back. Above anything else, take your health very serious. If you have childern, no money will buy back time spent with them when they're young. And if you don't have childern, do you really want to wait until your 40 to have them? You sound like you have a good plan now and I wish you the best of luck. Just remember, money isn't everything.
My own personal story. My prime of life was a few years back. I made a decent salary and I worked for a Wall Street firm. I was recently married and my wife and I were just turning 30. We wanted kids, but with both of us working long hours, we just couldn't see it happening. The money was so nice, that it was hard to leave. We finally made the decision that having a family sooner was better than waiting. We left the big city and moved to a smaller place near our folks (to be grandparents). We decided family was better than money. Looking back, it was the right decision to make. My former job was on the 103rd floor of the World Trade Center. I worked for Cantor and I left in 2000. I know that's not a good example and tragety can happen at any time anywhere. Still, my wife and I can't help but call it fate.
Today we have a beutiful baby girl and I stand a very good chance of loosing my job. Honestly, it doesn't bother us to the least. Where there's a will there's a way. I may never be rich, but I'm alive and happy. You just need to prioritize what's important in your life. Use your head and follow your heart...or said differently...think things over and do what You feel is right for you. Best of luck!
The thing is regardless about "global warming", we should be changing our lifestyles based on other issues. Acid rain and smog are reason enough to have a strict emmision standards in place.
First, I have made it clear that I was talking about the "floating" ice cap. I understand the issue is with the ice on the land mass that's of concern, but from all the expedition videos I've seen of the antartic, it appears to have lots of "exposed" land. I'm sure there's some areas that have ice several 100's of feet thick, but most of the land seemed barrien. I don't question the size of the antartic land mass, but I think the calculations of sea levels rising by 30 feet may be a little on the high side. Again, no science...just a guess and maybe some improper assumptions.
On your second issue with the expansion of water, again, regardless of the studies, I question the results. All molecules expand with heat, but liquids and solids expand very little. I'll agree that a warmer climate may raise the sea level by a fraction, but that fraction I think would be so small that compared to the "ice cap" delemma would be unnoticable. And although I didn't check your science reference, if the general jist is about molecule expansion as a result of a small temperature different, could one make the arguement that the mass of Earth itself would increase in size due to a 1 degree K shift. The spherical size of earth would increase and so would it's land mass. Another wild guess, but some of that land mass expansion may just cancel out some of the water molecule expansion in regards to the actual sea level change.
Note, I'm being very unscientific with my arguments and I may appear ignorant for doing so. I don't doubt the science or the results. I do question some of the theories and speculation based on the results. In the case of warmer climate = rise in water level and hense bad. I think many of those studies assume no other changes to the system. What's to say a one degree rise in temperature doesn't increase the size of our atmosphere by 10 feet due to water evaporation. There's alot of variables to concider with global warming and what it's REAL effects are. For me, the issue is more with pollution in general. I argue for the environmentalist in that man kind should be placing a cap on our effects to the environment. As for issues like global warming, that may very well be out of our control. Having a clean place to live is in our control.
Have you ever dropped a salt-water fish into a fresh-water tank?
No, and I'm not sure about the effects. But I do know that a healthy fresh water tank needs a certain amount of salt added. This I never understood and I think it only applies to "tropical" fresh water fish (ie: Oscars, Dempsies, Tetras, etc.) I don't know if salt is added to northen fresh water tanks like pike and bass.
I'm sure the extra percentage of fresh water added to the ocean wouldn't be too detremental. I'm thinking it'd be like adding 2 gallons of fresh water to a 50 gallon salt tank. I have no science to back that statement up. Just taking a wild guess.
I have a different perspective on the whole "green house" gas issue. It's like an alien conspiracy theory with the whole, "rise in global temperature" and how bad CO2 is. I remember watching one show where the whole simulation of a rise in CO2 caused a rise in temperature with the side benefit that vegetation growth boomed. The model predicted that polution had the benificial effect of increasing tropical vegetation. A very plausible explaination.
The other scare that many have is that if the global temperature was to rise, the ice caps would melt and the world would be flooded. If we're mainly talking about the ice caps as in the "floating" ice caps, then 90% of the ice is below water anyway. And of the 10% above water that would contribute to the rise in global water line, concider that water is more dense than ice. That 90% ice that's below water is really displacing a certain amount of water too, thus that 10% above may really just balance out that 90% below and thus no increase in water level. To illustrate my point, take a glass of water and drop an ice cube in it. Make a mark of the water line. Then wait for the ice to melt. Make another mark. Not much of a difference if any at all. By the way, no scientific data here. I'm just using common sense and my logic may be seriously flawed, so excuse my lack of insight if this is a much more technical discussion. Also, I'm only taking about the "floating" ice cap and not what's on land. I'm sure someone would have to run numbers, but my own feelings are that the ice cap melting wouldn't really have a huge impact on the land mass of the earth.
That being said, I also think of the CO2 issue like the Atkins diet. Let's just say for the sake of argument that CO2 gases are actually benificial to the environment. The more CO2, the more vegetation. The warmer it gets, the less ice we have. The less cold climates we have, the more area of the earth is habbitible for man. In theory, it's argued that CO2 is a win win situation. The same is said about the Atkins diet. Hey look, you can eat all that good tasting fat and red meat (or whatever is in the diet plan) and you benifit by loosing weight and looking good. Again, a deceptual win win situation. Common sense tells me that the Atkins diet will kill you in the long run (clogged arteries or something). I'd much rather eat what I concider is healthy and spend the effort to excersize to loose weight instead. I have the same perspective on the CO2 arguments. Regardless of the "science" involved, common sense tells me that polluting the environment, regardless of the short term effects, in the long run, it'll just kill the planet.. I don't really care about all the studies, and theories involved. Common sense just tells me we should be taking our pollution issue far more serious. For that reason, I'd definitely concider myself an environmentalist. I don't buy into the arguments for or against the CO2 and global warming issues. To me, treating the environment with respect is just the right thing to do.
Yeah, no kidding. SWK has become a cyber pop star. I'd love to see some of his fancy moves make it into the III episode.
Some slashdotter's feel they have some kind of dork bond with him. Other slashdotters may just be jealous of his fame. I just think the circumstances of his fame is a riot. Yeah he may have looked funny and might have been embarrassed from his exposer. That's not what I find funny though. What I find harlarious about SWK's rise to fame is how he was catapulted to instant fame overnight by net nobodies like ourselves. The kids looking to embarass him really turned him into a cyber superstar.
The banking industry is one where cutting corners simply isn't allowed.
You'ld be surprized at just how cheap banks and money institutions can be. Although it wasn't a bank, I once worked for the largest government bonds firm as a sysadmin. Their clients were banks themselves. Bonds were traded in lots of 10 million and in one day you'ld get serveral thousands of transactions. I was amazed at just how much money use to flow through the systems I was running. As a brokerage firm, they made their commision with a few pennies on every transaction. They were making tons of cash daily. Money was everywhere, but what amazed me most was the equiptment. Many of the hub servers were old SPARC 5's and if it was a bigger client, they got a spanky Ultra 5. Not even servers! For such a critical app, I suggested they buy into Netra's or something teco grade that could withstand a beating. The response I got was it was too much money. I couldn't believe it. Here's they'd pull in 20 million in one day from a single client, and they couldn't spend $1000 to upgrade the server. Then it was explained to me by another admin who's worked that arena a while. He said the cheapest companies you'll ever work for (from a sysadmin perspective) will be banking institutions and financal firms. They're filthy rich, but you can't squeeze a penny from them.
That's been my only experience with being a sysadmin at a money institution, but from that experience, it wouldn't surprize me at all to hear how banks would opt for the lowest bidder for any project. Hell, these guys were so cheap, they'd try to avoid buying directly from Sun and go with some third party refurbish vendor. Just unbelievible how cheap they'd be....but they all wore very nice suites. And just so you know....yes....they're still in buisness and they're still the largest bonds brokerage firm in the world. Pretty scary from a tech perspective.
I wouldn't call it a marvel of engineering achievement, but I do like the concept of bluring the laptop/desktop footprint. It's not for everyone, but I think it's a great concept.
If I was to refine the design, I would lean it more towards a desktop. Give it a compact keyboard (ie: no numeric pad), but beef up the keys and don't worry so much about the laptop size of it. Think of it more as a portable, because if someone really wanted this thing for laptop features, they'd be buying a laptop. I think most people who do own laptops don't really use them on the road. They generally just like being able to lug their computer home everyday or take it on a trip. I think the market for this thing should be geared towards thin clients and not the coder on the road. The fact that you could pack the thing up easy and take it with you is a nice advantage for thin clients, road shows, or just plain remote mobile offices. I'm probably a minority, but I like the concept.
Why do I have visions of a Vietnam style POW camp?
Far from the truth, but I can see from my writing style how that could have been interpreted...and the:
How my jealousy of my womanizing brother-in-law...
comment probably isn't too far from the truth. The rape example I gave was just ficticous. It just plays into the typical example of parents with corrupt kids and how they'll do anything to protect them. I believe in sticking up for one's kids, but not when you know they did wrong. That's all I was talking about. So your reference to humor was pretty far off base.
In regards to jealously....yeah, I suppose I would be guilty of that. What guy wouldn't get jealous when you see some smuck make it with so many chicks. No, not some honest good looking guy with a great personality that swoons all the women. That I can deal with. No, I'm talking about the dishonest ill intentioned types that can pull that sort of thing off. Hard to explain as many probably wouldn't get it.
Suffice it to say, yes, I suppose there's a little envy in his abilities. The main jealously is that he gets away with it. It bothers my wife more than me. I only have to hear about it. Her brother is the golden boy. Whereas she'll do all the work, he'll get all the credit. I'm not religious, but remember that bible story about the Prodical Son? In summary: a father has two sons. One works hard for the father, while the other demands his inherritance up front. The wayward son blows all his money on the fast life and returns home poor. When he arrives, the father is joyous and treats him like a King. The hard working son gets no praise and becomes jealous. The father scolds his hard working son for being jealous while praising the wayward son for coming home. I probably messed that story up a bit, but maybe you get the picture. Jealously is bad, that I agree. My wife and I would be totally guilty of playing the part of the jealous son.
The comments about how my mother would treat my borther-in-law were grossly misinterrpreted. My folks were strict, but not how you're thinking. They just didn't take crap from anyone. They never bowed down to us kids even when we were overdemmanding. If we did something bad, they let us know how they felt. They didn't act like scared parents such as what my parent-in-laws are like. Too afraid to tell their son how they feel for fear he'll stop coming home...please! The real sad thing is me acting like a jackass talking about it. It's a pet pieve and it's painful to see after a while. You are right about one thing, and that's your distain for my moral issues. I'll give you that. I too dislike being preached to, and yes that would make me a hypocrit (to some extent). All your attempts at humor were off base, but your purpose was correct.
That's a good point, and we can take that argument to the level of obsurdity....if we haven't ready.
The parents want to blame a video game for giving inspiration. I've also heard the argument for blaming the film studios for cranking out trashy violent films. All of which supposedly "influence" kids one way or another. So what about the 6 o'clock news or the news paper? Say some dumbass kid got all wrapped up in the 9/11 tragety. They all the sudden have it in their minds that flying a plane into a building is a cool thing and hell, they're bored anyway right?
Didn't this sort of thing actually happen already? So what's stopping the parents of that dumbass kid from sueing the news media and hell, go ahead and sue al-Qaida. It's the same mentallity right? Dumbass kids sees or hears about something bad, they go out and do it, then put all blaim on the initial inspiration that led to their dumbass decision.
These people just make me sick. Yeah, it's sad that these kids are dumbasses. I feel bad for the parents and the victums involved. But hears a novel idea: instead of trying to point fingers at why the kids turned out to be so stupid, how about we just blame the kids? I know, the parents are partly to blame. Like they had to know about the violent games their kids were playing, and where did the gun come from anyways?
In the end, the kids were just stupid. If you go by the numbers of how many people play this game and how many turned out to be killers....I think that's pretty much the same stats you have for regular society. I call it my dumbass percentage rule. No matter where you go, no matter what the age, you'll always have a percentage of dumbasses. You do something bad, you alone should be held accountible and that's my feelings. Even if someone trained me how to kill and put a gun in my hands and made me play Doom for 2 straight weeks. If I'm the one that actually goes out and pulls the trigger on someone, then I'm the one to blame. Not the video game, not the gun manufacture, and not the person providing influence. We need to hold people accountible for their own dumb decisions. Just my feelings.
Obvious troll eh? It was an unbiased response and frankly I'm surprised it was met with such ridicule. Spell checking? Sorry, just too lazy. Didn't think that quallified for troll status.
None the less, such useless responses as your own don't contribute anything. If you disagree with my post, show your wit and express your disagreement. As for serious poster, that would be no. Just expressing my own feelings. On this particular subject, I respect the figure heads of the open source community for their contributions, but I disagree with their image. If these guys want to be taken serious, then they should put alittle more thought into their responses. To the rest of the world, or the common non-geek, they appear as trolls.
It's ironic that many in the geek community like using that "troll" word to label the rest of the world (and even themselves). It's nothing but a low level of name calling. Something indicative of 12 year olds. The true meaning of the word "troll" is reserved for the ones that use it. At least that's my interpretation....yeah yeah...how dare me not think like the rest of you....have a nice day anyway.
Your comment was rather abrasive....but truethful none the less. Although, I've never concidered liking SCO.
I enjoy open source as much as the next guy, but whenever I read comments from figure heads in the open source community. Mostly ERS and RMS. Just makes me want to keep my distance. I respect these guys with their great intellect, but to hear them speak freely is like listening to a bunch of 12 year olds.
Darell is a fool. He sounds like an idiot with his bogus claims. And even if SCO's claim have the slightest of merrit, his delivery of the evidence (or lack there of) does him a disservice. So why does the open source community stoop to his childish banter? Yes, I believe the community should respond to SCO's false claims....but do it in a professional manner. Have a lawer draft a letter or someone who can word a clear representation of the open source stance on the issue. Refrain from the childish banter for a responce. Stuff like that gives the whole community a bad name. If corporations start pulling away from open source solutions, I'd say advocates like RMS and ESR are to blaim. Not bogus lawsuits from SCO.
For the leaders in the open source community, I suggest that you start acting like ones. Use speech writers to conveigh your ideas. Maybe use a few proof readers? SCO accuses the whole open source community and the guys up top respond as individuals. ERS and Perens issue a responce. How many people do you think they consulted with before sending the letter? If the open source community wants to be taken serious by the world, then act a little more professional.
My own take is that the open source responces read worst then McBrides accusations. The "content" is far more accurate and much more truthful. It's the delivery.
This may be off-topic, but how do you rationalize speeding in traffic. Everyone does it right?
That's how I look at this whole copyright infringement issue. Yeah it's petty. Yeah it's a crime, but just like speeding, everyone does it! Hell, even cops will sit by and watch speeders drive by. However, they generally only pull over the ones who speed excessively. The RIAA isn't just going after the "excessive" offenders. They're trying to milk everyone. We all know that speeding is bad and so is copying music. The difference is the punishment. The RIAA is way out of line.
So herein lies my rationale: I moderately copied music before and downloaded a few tunes. But I also bought all the CD's of the artists that I really liked. I have a huge CD collection. Some duds, but many I still listen to. Ever since the Napster case and the many that followed, my feelings towards the music industry greatly changed. Greed changes everything. I know that some of the music I copied was wrong, but I also gave them several hundereds of dollars. No, I don't feel bad for my actions. I felt pretty moderate. But now there's a backlash. It sickens me to see the greed in the music industry. Wanting to get their cut for resale on music...charging bars to play music. What's next? Charging weddings if they want to play the chicken dance?
I generally don't download music anymore. Not because of the legal issues. Mostly because of the poor quality in many of the rips. I'll only do it if I'm looking for one particular song and it's usually for fun. However, I do sign CDs out of my local library. I burn them all so I don't have to sign them out again. My burn collection is getting huge and although I concider myself pretty moral, I do not feel bad for the RIAA. My actions are nothing compaired to them. Ever since the Napster case, I've not bought any CDs. In a way I refuse. It's more effort to find it in the library and burn it, but it's my own private protest against the greed machine. I refuse to fuel that economy I was helping before. Yes, and I'll continue to drive 60 in a 55 zone too.
Another major force in my "immoral" actions is the RIAA vision of the future. I think we all see it coming. Music and videos will all be pay per use. I can see stereos and TVs all being operated much like the satellite radios today. You'll navigate to your selection and choose the content. At that point, you either pay a monthly fee for the service or the meter will just start ticking. All local copies like tapes and CDs will be an obsolete concept. For the environment, I see it as a good thing. For society, it's a control nightmare. In general, I have mixed feelings for the future.
Look at the bright side -- you are alive. You could have been installing trading systems in the WTC on 9/11.
If you work at Kodak I'm going to assume that you are living in Rochester. Again, look at the bright side. While it's not NYC, it's a pretty nice area with cheap living. Maybe you should focus on bettering yourself outside of work and then make a decision on your next career move.
Ahh, I had to respond to this. Yes, every day I feel greatful that I choose to come back to Rochester. Working in the WTC was the life. Probably the high point in my life. I had a 103rd floor window seat. At the time, Cantor was the place to be. They took REALLY good care of you. When eSpeed was launched and they went IPO, things became different (in a bad way), but that's another story. NYC life was great, but my wife and I wanted a family. We couldn't see doing that in the big city, so we shipped back to lovely Rochester, NY. Maybe it's just me, but I love this city. That was about a year before 9/11, but it was close enough. Too close. All my friends are fresh in memory.
Although Rochester is a great city, it's pretty depressed. I pretty much had the choice of two evils. Work for Xerox (via EDS) or work for Kodak. Xerox by far is a nicer place to work. Kodak is a dump, plain and simple. I've done a tour of duty at both and I compair my life at Xerox close to Cantor in regards to work environment. Yes, Kodak has been going down hill for a long time. It's a big time mismanagement nightmare. Xerox is worst in those regards.
My mistake was passing on a job offer from Paetec. A smaller company, but growing. It was the lowest paying offer, but it was the company I liked the most. My wife was totally against that company because she feared the oncall rotation. It was something like every third week. I also had a really nice offer from EDS, but again, at the time of the offer, EDS stock took a major dive from 40 down to like 20 or so. It's recovered since then and the lesson learned there is never judge job stability based on stock price. Maybe it's me, but I see no corelation. In the end, I choose Kodak because at the time it was a stable choice. Why I'm still here? Plain and simple. I made a promise to myself I'd stick with a job for 3 years before moving on. Didn't want to be a job hopper. Commendible as that may sound, it was the wrong choice. Paetec again showed interest in hiring me and IBM even contacted me. Although I didn't like Kodak from day 1, I stayed by my principals to stick it out for what I'd dumb my "tour of duty". It was a timing issue and the whole economy went South....no....more accurate to say the whole economy went off-shore right? Every place was hit and there are no jobs out there. Rocester in particular ranked something like 180 out of 200 of the cities with job growth. Heck, Buffalo, Syracuse and Utica ranked higher than Rochester! Anyone from NY state would know that's pretty sad.
In a week or so, we find out if we still have jobs at all. Kodak is heading for major layoffs. In all, I'm not worried. I have what I wanted. A beutiful baby girl. My wife and I live very cheap now, but we're happy. Unlike most Americans, we've saved most of our money during the booming 90's. If I loose my job, we plan to travel. Possibly car camp all the major parks across the US and Canada. Turn off the TV and play cards around the kitchen table. Get back to when times were fun. This economy thing is just a phase. The job that matters is sitting back at home.
Same with nearly all companies...
Yes, sad but true. I'm sure everyone has their own dead end career stories, but here's mine: A few years ago I was hired as a UNIX systems administrator. I came into the company as a senior UNIX systems administrator. With the typical corporate downsizing, most of the middle management was cut and we're more a flat manangement style with only a few higher ups and alot of peers. Anyway, during my raise review this year I was informed that I was being overpaid and hence wouldn't get a raise. I would have been satisfied with the "no raise" comment. In this sad economy, I'm just glad to have a job, but the rationale or excuse for not getting a raise bothered me. My manager then felt it was necessary to describe how based on their company point scale I was like a 2 out of 5 (my interpretation of being one better than a janitor). Based on that information, the company felt that a level 2 admin only should make so much. I realized at this point it was an apples to oranges comparison going on here. My skill set puts me way beyond the "junior level" admin status. And by the way, junior level was the term he used.
I don't know if anyone else can relate to such a situation. Having a stagnant career is one thing, but being downgraded in career status? In my former job, I was a senior UNIX administrator for Cantor Fitzgerald installing trading systems around the world. I come to work for Eastman Kodak and after a few years I'm a junior admin?
Based on my rants, it sounds like my crappy company falls under Method #1 and the obvious thing to do is quit and get a new job. But therein the company has me by the nutz (and they know it). The unemployment in my city is one of the worst in the US. Leaving the city isn't much of an option either.
When I first came to Eastman Kodak, I was told that most of the good people have left. This I feel is true. I suppose the very fact that I stayed directly implies I must be some kind of idiot. In that light, I can only agree with my management.
Being a good parent is simple. First, be a good person yourself. Treat others kindly. Hopefully, some of that will rub off on your kids. Of course, you'll need to spend time with them in order for that too happen. Maybe listening to your kids and treating them like individuals and not slaves would be a good thing too.
One last thing you can do about being a good parent is recognize that some things are out of your control. Society will influence your kids too. It may just be that you did everything right, but your kids fell into the wrong crowd. They are individuals and they do have their own ideas. Even though they are yours, it could very well be they turn out to be bad childern. So as a good parent, in this situation, you should except the fact that your kids are bad and let them be punished. Or plainly, cut them loose. For example, if I found out that my son raped some girl, I'd make sure he paid for his crime.
I know some of that sounds harsh, but a real life example of what I concider "bad parents" would be my mother and father in-laws. As people, they're ok. A little self centered, but decent folks. It's their son (my brother in-law) that's odd. Or rather the morale dicipline that I find odd. Their son will continuously date multiple women and cheat on all of them. Why he informs his parents of that I don't know, but that's his lifestyle. It drives my wife crazy. When my wife confronts my mother in-law and asks her to say something to him. Something to the effect that it's morally wrong. My mother in-law just says, well he's not married so it's ok. The father in-law just ignores it. And both pretty much say, "what can we do...not our problem".
The big picture is that you have these, what appearently seem like decent parents take the "not my fault" attitude for their son. My wifes theory is that neither say anything because if they do, their son will stop communicating with them. Just a sad situation. Guess I was razed differently because I know for a fact my brother in-law would last two seconds in my family. My mother would have slapped him around some (not physically, but she'd sure set him straight). Father, brothers, sisters alike...he wouldn't have much a family to come home to until he changed his ways. I know it's not murder, but the morale concept that some families doge. Just because they're family, if they're cheating on their taxes, breaking the law, being dishonest...whatever....maybe it's just me, but regarless who they are, they're not welcome at my Thanksgiving table. No excuses! That's being a good parent. NO EXCUSES!...whatever the situation.
It would be, and probably only should be, a short cameo appearance, maybe as a young jedi in training.
I honestly hope he does get a part. Not because I feel sorry for him, but because he's become an overnight celebrity. I saw the videos and most of the remixes and I was rolling on the floor. Yeah sure. Maybe the kid is the high school dork, but that's not why I laugh. I laugh because his not so friendly friends were playing a joke. That joke has given the poor kid instant fame. Then on top of all that, you have all these other folks making these truely harlarious remixes. I don't see the kid as a dork. I see him as a regular kid. It's the situation of his fame that so humorous. If I'm laughing at anyone, I'm laughing at the kids who posted the initial video and all that time spent on the remix (some very professional) versions. Just the phenominon of transporting an ordinary kid into instant fame.
Hell yeah, I think he should have a part in the next SW movie. The first two movies were pretty much jokes in their own right (spaceships that sound like prop planes FLYING THROUGH SPACE!) I'd love to see this kid with a significant role in the next movie. Maybe not a lead, but an Oracle of some sort. He's an unknown hero. That's how I'd like to see him in the movie.
As far as the court cases go, the parents should stop trying to milk the situation. The kid's famous thanks to his unfriends. Being sue happy would only ruin his fame. Let the kid enjoy his 15minutes while he can.
, like in your example a cop not reading an offender their rights, the system breaks down.
I know I only gave an example of a criminal case, but my perspective applies to any case. It's the general mentality that lawyers do what they're paid to do regardless of their moral obligation (whatever that is). It's works for some people, generally the people that become lawyers, it just doesn't work for me. I'd make a horrible lawyer.
Going even further off topic......Is it me or is the whole Miranda rights thing just a loop hole? Think of it. I get arrested for committing a crime. The first thing I do is tell a cop I did it. Say I wasn't read my rights. Why should I be totally amazed that the cop would testify against me in court. And even if a cop did testify against me for something I said, it'd be my word against his word. I think they'd still need some sort of evidence to convict right? I'm not a legal expert and I'm probably just being totally stupid here, but doesn't the whole Miranda rights do nothing more than state common sense? That being said, is it even more obtuse that a court case could be thrown out based on common sense not being stated early on? This wasn't flame bait or anything. Just some random, probably misguilded, thought for the afternoon.
It's not "morally wrong" to defend someone no matter what the charge.
That statement pretty much sums up your perspective vs mine. No right or wrong here...it's just a matter of perspective :)
I think the term "bought" may also have been improperly used or understood. Lawyers do their job. Yes, plain and simple. If a criminal tells their lawyer in confidence, "yeah, I did it". Or the lawyer, through investigation can determine without a doubt that their own client is guilty. It all doesn't matter. Their job is to defend their client no matter what their personal or moral feelings are. That's what I mean by bought. Even if the lawyer wanted to do what they felt was morally right and inform the judge or prosecutor, then they would be guilty of being a bad lawyer and probably disbarred for breaking client confideniality. My views are towards the profession in general. It has a warped sense of moral duty. Now, from your statement above being applied to my views, I'm to interpret that you're saying it's "morally" ok to defend someone even if you think "morally" they're wrong?
You're right, the legal system does work this way. Your comment on sloppy cops are to blame and thank god they can't get away with not following procedure 100% has merrit, but then again you did mention the world isn't so black and white. Which way is it?
I'll say it again. It's nothing against lawyers as people. I'm sure there are many who try to do the right thing. But their profession has a way of putting their morals in a very compromising position. And their escape it just to do the job they're paid to do. You're saying it's ok, it's how the legal system works. I'm saying fine, I don't sympathize with any lawyer recieving a bad rap for their profession.
I modded this funny, but it's true. On one hand I sorta agree with patents, but on the other hand, where does the stupidness end?
An algorythm is like a virtual tool. With it's assistance, it can greatly reduce the work at hand. Research cost goes into developing a nice algorythm so one can argue that a patent is fully just. Problem is, some patents are granted for truely trivial things. By what measures can you say one thing deserves a patent and another does not? I think the answer lies in the lifespan of a patent. I think that when one applies for a patent, they must submit, in some quantified way, the cost of research. The patent lifespan is then set proportionate to that research cost. Of course, all this would have to be rigorously determined by an independant inquerry. That way when you get these trivial (yet useful) ideas developed, they don't get locked up by some greedy individual or corporation trying to milk it for all it's worth. The point is when you get a patent and you have a limited, but reasonible, set time to regain your investment. Not some endless milking mechanism we have today. Not all patents are the same and therefore the time to regain investments should be proportionate and reasonible.
I hate that phrase. First, lawyers don't create laws; Legislators/Congress(wo)men do (and judges interpret them). Secondly, lawyers' clients are the ones that hold the patents, not the lawyers. Thirdly, the USPTO (or the european equivalent in this case) is the one granting the patents. Lawyers are the middle-(wo)men in all this. Removing the lawyers won't solve the problem.
OT: I know this if off topic, but I'll give my own feelings towards lawyers. As a profession, I think it's a little warped. You're paid to defend someones elses belief. By belief I mean someone elses innocence or guilt or basically someone elses concept of what they think is right or wrong. On occasion, a lawer may actually agree with the belief that they're defending, but really that has no bearing. They're paid to influence the court on what someone else (the client) believes is right or wrong.
I'm sure one can argue that some lawers are decent people. Maybe they are. The profession I think is alittle warped. So what can you say about people who choose that type of profession? It's like saying you can be bought to defend principles that you don't even believe in. Think of the innocent lawer that defends a known killer. The lawer is so good that he gets the known killer off in court because they weren't read their rights. The lawer has a clean concience because they were only doing their job. The cops can be blaimed for being sloppy.
I'm sure one can give several examples on how people in other professions can perform acts that would go directly against a morally right decision. But they make the morally wrong decision because it's their job. In the case of the lawer profession, it's a direct corelation of how one's moral decisions can be directly bought. By definition, it's what they do. So I agree with all those lawer jokes out there. Not because I dislike them as people. It's the design of their profession. What they're paid to do. And before I get flamed for my remarks, it's just my perspective. From a high level view of the lawer profession, I see no wonder why there's so many jokes and distaste for them.
You missed my point. The original poster intent may be losely hinted at the media overating of certain events. It's his wording that put me off. His wording was pretty disrespectful in my view.
In regards to my "childish" comment. The intent was things would sure be different if it was close to him. I don't expect everyone to drop their heads for the fallin dead they never knew. I do expect some common decenty.