Microsoft has a huge amount of financial resources (money). Their prices are tuned to "the market". If people start switching they'll lower their prices. I remember reading they could survive for ten years without any revenue at all . (Correct me, please)
In fact I would submit the switching rate can be measured by observing Microsoft's prices.
It's obvious the author is not honest. It's obviously easy to write such fluffy stuff. It's obviously not written for any one looking for information or insight. It's gossip, cheap.
But is there a name for that kind of article? Also, it's summer. Have to find something to cover.
It was not the union who was "placing itself on a web server which was shared with innocent bystanders." The site was run by a union member, which is a completely different story.
No no no, the IP address was blocked. That's why over 700 other sites were unavailable to Telus customers as well -- making Telus look really foolish and incompetent.
But maybe there is another angle here: the staff on strike may have been able to point out the (purely technical) foolishness of blocking an IP address, while the current replacement staff knows only little.
"...the Canada Industrial Relations Board (CIRB) have ruled once again that Telus has interfered with the TWU's representation rights and failed to bargain in good faith. Both actions are contraventions of the terms of the Canada Labour Code."
Using Telus (although indirectly through aebc.com who I can otherwise recommend), I indeed couldn't access that website. So I called the RCMP to report a crime. They said there is no crime here. I should switch to another provider.
I find the difference to a mailman opening my letters is marginal.
Take a look at
http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?Sectio nID=41&ItemID=8336
"It is the people who tolerate the government, which in turn tolerates opposition within the framework determined by the constituted authorities," Marcuse wrote. "Tolerance toward that which is radically evil now appears as good because it serves the cohesion of the whole on the road to affluence or more affluence. The toleration of the systematic moronization of children and adults alike by publicity and propaganda, the release of destructiveness in aggressive driving, the recruitment for and training of special forces, the important and benevolent tolerance toward outright deception in merchandising, waste, and planned obsolescence are not distortions and aberrations, they are the essence of a system which fosters tolerance as a means for perpetuating the struggle for existence and suppressing the alternatives...."
Private property is of course a nice concept in day to day life and in personal situations.
The interview however takes a general, widesweeping outlook covering a timeframe of 30 years. On this scale private property becomes problematic. Take a look at statistics on how control has shifted, and how property has accumulated, nationally and internationally.
So there is a clash between the long-term outlook of the interview and completely obvious empirical problems, which Mr. Metcalfe sidesteps with idiotic language.
You're asking for solutions? Taxes should work fine. A cap on allowed private property may be good too. Nothing spectacular. In fact I would submit once someone has accumulated a sizable amount of property their allowed interaction to society should be slowed down towards zero. That's what I would call motivation: once you earn too much you're cut off. Cast out. Now let's see how people work with that. Getting carried away....
You write 'I call "economic justice" people owning what they earned.' Sympathies from this end, but sorry, this sounds naive. Why should Mr. Gates, for example, honestly have earned x billion $ for example. Why not x+5 billion. (Going to the extremes helps me see problems)
When you say "That's the very definition of modern society: property ownership." -- I can't follow. I don't know what you mean by "modern society" (people are saying we are living in post-modernity now), or how you derive a definition from "property ownership".
Quoting Bob Metcalfe: [...] Private property is a great technology [...]
This is backwards thinking, sloppy thinking, boring thinking. The big problem with the "private property" myth is that over time property accumulates in the control of few. This is a huge problem in the face of the goal of economic justice. What is Bob Metcalfe's answer to that??
His remarks about big corporations knowing "motivation of customers" and "motivation of employees" are completely misguided. On the side of the customers, we're looking at mega-advertising campaigns. On the side of employees we're looking at union-busting and the like. This is not brilliant, this is crude stuff. Stuff that we can do without.
The rest of the interview is just boring.
I agree. I was pretty surprised to see the author, Kyle Rankin, wrote a book about Knoppix. You'd think he would have more interesting things to say. Maybe he had something else on his mind.
I avoid the word "realist" or phrases like "in reality". In my experience their use indicates corruption. Especially in connection with "I'm a... advocate myself" or similar.
Stephan
Slashdot Mirror
No thanks for that post.
http://www.sparkplugfoundation.org/katrinarelief.h tml
or
http://www.foodnotbombs.net/dollar_for_peace.html
Grassroots organizations make more sense in this case to me.
Stephan
Same for my Linux server. Who are these people? Also, how do they get their volume data?
TrustedSource ? Concerns raised: What is their definition of concern, raising, and how does an IP get to be labelled "Raised Concern"?
Three words: not good enough.
Microsoft has a huge amount of financial resources (money). Their prices are tuned to "the market". If people start switching they'll lower their prices. I remember reading they could survive for ten years without any revenue at all . (Correct me, please)
In fact I would submit the switching rate can be measured by observing Microsoft's prices.
Stephan
He lists paypal.com as "broken"; how about https://www.moneybookers.com/app/login.pl
Stephan
Try Beatrix Linux (www.watsky.net).
> I see plenty of democrats who do the same thing. That doesn't disqualify his/her findings. Stephan
It's obvious the author is not honest. It's obviously easy to write such fluffy stuff. It's obviously not written for any one looking for information or insight. It's gossip, cheap.
But is there a name for that kind of article? Also, it's summer. Have to find something to cover.
It was not the union who was "placing itself on a web server which was shared with innocent bystanders." The site was run by a union member, which is a completely different story.
See you,
Stephan
No no no, the IP address was blocked. That's why over 700 other sites were unavailable to Telus customers as well -- making Telus look really foolish and incompetent.
But maybe there is another angle here: the staff on strike may have been able to point out the (purely technical) foolishness of blocking an IP address, while the current replacement staff knows only little.
Stephan
AA -- if it was illegal why did Telus not use the law? (Maybe because they like to stay outside the law themselves??)
Also, it was not the union who "was posting pictures of employees...". The site was run by a union member, which is a completely different story.
See you,
Stephan
From
3 360ECF861CB0C12570460028058B?OpenDocument
http://www.union-network.org/unitelecom.nsf/0/E7F
"...the Canada Industrial Relations Board (CIRB) have ruled once again that Telus has interfered with the TWU's representation rights and failed to bargain in good faith. Both actions are contraventions of the terms of the Canada Labour Code."
I'm told all lines in British Columbia are owned by Telus, and only rented by other providers.
Yes, the article is very weak: obvious questions are not covered.
Using Telus (although indirectly through aebc.com who I can otherwise recommend), I indeed couldn't access that website. So I called the RCMP to report a crime. They said there is no crime here. I should switch to another provider.
I find the difference to a mailman opening my letters is marginal.
I visited the CRTC website at
http://www.crtc.gc.ca/eng/info_sht/t1003.htm
who also offer no help.
There's something wrong here.
Stephan
I thought it was rather nicely laid out. Of course, your version reads well too. But it lacks flow.
Take a look at http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?Sectio nID=41&ItemID=8336
"It is the people who tolerate the government, which in turn tolerates opposition within the framework determined by the constituted authorities," Marcuse wrote. "Tolerance toward that which is radically evil now appears as good because it serves the cohesion of the whole on the road to affluence or more affluence. The toleration of the systematic moronization of children and adults alike by publicity and propaganda, the release of destructiveness in aggressive driving, the recruitment for and training of special forces, the important and benevolent tolerance toward outright deception in merchandising, waste, and planned obsolescence are not distortions and aberrations, they are the essence of a system which fosters tolerance as a means for perpetuating the struggle for existence and suppressing the alternatives...."
Private property is of course a nice concept in day to day life and in personal situations.
The interview however takes a general, widesweeping outlook covering a timeframe of 30 years. On this scale private property becomes problematic. Take a look at statistics on how control has shifted, and how property has accumulated, nationally and internationally.
So there is a clash between the long-term outlook of the interview and completely obvious empirical problems, which Mr. Metcalfe sidesteps with idiotic language.
You're asking for solutions? Taxes should work fine. A cap on allowed private property may be good too. Nothing spectacular. In fact I would submit once someone has accumulated a sizable amount of property their allowed interaction to society should be slowed down towards zero. That's what I would call motivation: once you earn too much you're cut off. Cast out. Now let's see how people work with that. Getting carried away....
You write 'I call "economic justice" people owning what they earned.' Sympathies from this end, but sorry, this sounds naive. Why should Mr. Gates, for example, honestly have earned x billion $ for example. Why not x+5 billion. (Going to the extremes helps me see problems)
When you say "That's the very definition of modern society: property ownership." -- I can't follow. I don't know what you mean by "modern society" (people are saying we are living in post-modernity now), or how you derive a definition from "property ownership".
Stephan
Quoting Bob Metcalfe: [...] Private property is a great technology [...] This is backwards thinking, sloppy thinking, boring thinking. The big problem with the "private property" myth is that over time property accumulates in the control of few. This is a huge problem in the face of the goal of economic justice. What is Bob Metcalfe's answer to that?? His remarks about big corporations knowing "motivation of customers" and "motivation of employees" are completely misguided. On the side of the customers, we're looking at mega-advertising campaigns. On the side of employees we're looking at union-busting and the like. This is not brilliant, this is crude stuff. Stuff that we can do without. The rest of the interview is just boring.
I had the opposite experience: when I saw it I thought -- hey this is what occured to me last month.
See you
Stephan
I agree. I was pretty surprised to see the author, Kyle Rankin, wrote a book about Knoppix. You'd think he would have more interesting things to say. Maybe he had something else on his mind.
Stephan
I avoid the word "realist" or phrases like "in reality". In my experience their use indicates corruption. Especially in connection with "I'm a ... advocate myself" or similar.
Stephan
- "OSS has allot of problems" : Lots of software used nowadays has a lot of problems.
- "It's in the extra's that their is a problem" : Now the writer switched to singular
...
- "Lots of documents use macro's" : How do you know what the Norwegian government does or doesn't.
- "but until theirs no perfect alternative" : always ignore whatever follows such a strong hypothesis.
Stephan