Nah. MS has, can and will use Windows Update to force-install an uninstallable (via normal methods) firefox extension. There is no escape as long as you use their software.
But - supposedly the market 'chose' this so just bend over and relax.
ROFL. So - they spy on their users' search results and then represent those results as their own, advertise 'bing' as an innovative and new search engine, and that's admirable to you, and anybody who mocks this behaviour (typically 'innovative' for MS) is "sipping on the ol' Microsoft Hatorade".
No, Microsoft is claiming to be innovative, but instead is copying results. They aren't even reverse engineering. Can you say "fraudulent advertising"? Sure. I knew you could.
Not really worth listening to 'free market proponents'. It's code for: "The people shouldn't have a say". Remember, when the people DO have a say, free market abuses get remedies through *drum roll* REGULATION - regulation voted for (at least indirectly, in the case of the USA) by the people that make up the market.
It's really too bad that 'free market proponents' think that it's acceptable to cut the 'market' out of 'free market', isn't it? It's because 'free market proponents' aren't really about 'freedom' generally. They just want to skew all power to commercial organizations, at the _expense_ of freedom.
How do you figure that wanting a discount keeps you from getting what you pay for?
Oh. That's right. War is peace, black is white, there are no monopolies, competition is what capitalism is about, and we can trust commercial entities to trade fairly rather than maximize profits at the cost to consumers - without regulation.
Nobody 'backpedalled'. I repeated myself. I don't usually do that. Feel honored.
Learn what it means to 'produce something' rather than manage it. *hint* one does not 'produce' time, one might 'conserve' it. One does not 'produce' leadership, either. 'Use' != 'Produce'.
And as far as morons go, I've noted that morons are usually right wing. Not always, just usually.
Given your ignorant management-speak, I assumed you were republican. Sorry. Didn't mean to insult you.
I agree. We gave up something precious, because most of us have become cowards who love comfort more than liberty - the only liberty we would actually fight for any more seems to be the liberty to be venal.
Only if you think that politicians use the same definition of sanity that you do.
Only if you think that a politician losing face is FAR worse than their constituents losing freedom.
Only if you think that politicians are not cynical, hypocritical, power-hungry animals willing to do anything to aquire money and power.
Only if you think that demagoguery and jingoism are the highest form of political discourse.
Only if you think that sound bites are the new truth.
Only if you think that a party is something separate from it's constituents ("For all the noise and whining that's been made about it by their constituents , the Dems sure have been quiet about it.)
The answer to your question really depends on whether I enjoy managing or technical issues.
I never said that management was not a skill, neither did I say they shouldn't be paid well. What I said was that they aren't superior in any way _because_ they manage. I say it's foolish to 'reward' producers with management positions because (most of the time) the skills needed to produce have NOTHING TO DO with the skills needed to manage. So you turn an excellent producer into a half-assed manager when you reward someone with a management position... An employee might be an awesome tech with the social and negotiating skills of a 12 year old, but the awesome engineering skills that the company depends on. Should said employee reach the top of their pay grade then be rewarded with the *ALWAYS* higher pay managers get? Should they be 'promoted' into management? If not, do you honestly think they won't have morale problems when they see people _without_ their skills (skills the company depends on) get rewarded with the higher pay that management STARTS with?
This whole problem is what cripples larger organizations as they grow. It's the reason why startups are considered better places to work. It's why large organizations produce LESS per person than small - frankly the hierarchal management structure that the previous poster is so enamored of is overhead - and it kills productivity. It does allow one to have 'serfs' who are 'beneath' you though, so it holds great appeal to many. When management is the goal, management-heavy is what you get, after all. And that means less produced, higher overhead, slower reactions to the market, and less adaptability.
and - Produce leadership? Roadblock-clearing? Produce TIME?
And you claim that _I'M_ trying to weasel?
An investment in producing a product is not production in itself, kiddo. Tell me, is warehousing production? Is shipping? Does the backoffice produce? Office services? Is buying frigging stock 'production'? Are you going to claim that anything that maximizes profits 'produces' capital? ROFLMAO!
You have no idea what it is to actually PRODUCE anything, do you? This is part of the problem in the US today, at least. (BTW, in most businesses, IT is an expense - it has nothing to do with the production of goods that the business capitalizes on. Not everyone is an ISV, consulting house, or contract business) You have no idea what an expense IS, do you?
I said that management is necessary, it just doesn't PRODUCE anything. And - management IS more likely to be a drag on productivity than not.
You may not be aware, but the phrase 'necessary evil' does not actually imply 'evil' any more than 'military intelligence' implies 'intelligence'. Again, with "management is an expense, a necessary evil" and "management, while a skill, and a valuable one" I DIDN'T say that ""management" is unnecessary or useless".
What I DID say was that the management hierarchy was a problem within business, and that it wasn't SUPERIOR to production. I was curious if anyone would comment on that, but I guess not. I'm glad you agree with me on every point but those two, though. *chuckle*
ps. just to be clear, architects produce blueprints. They ARE producers...
I truly think that one of the worst parts about business is the hierarchal structure and the assumption that management is somehow 'superior' (think of the descriptive name of people 'above' you - superiors? PLEASE.) to the people that actually produce. And no, management, while a skill, and a valuable one, does not PRODUCE anything. At it's best, management facilitates production. If a manager gets paid to manage 10 employees, and gets paid twice the amount of any of them, then each employee's gotta produce at least 20% more at least just to justify the overhead of having a manager. How many times have you honestly had a manager that made you that much more productive?
No, management is an expense, a necessary evil. To make matters worse, poor management abounds, since one is typically promoted into management as a performance reward - even though the actual work of management has little to do with the work of production.
Managers should start at the minimum wage - and only get raises if they display management skill, rather than start off at a higher wage than their producers. Reviews should be strict, too - IME a bad manager is more likely to bring production to a stop than a good one is to completely justify their salary (IE, the producers produce so much more that the wages of the manager are offset)
Hell, they've already DONE that, with no fake bombs at all. Commuter travel IS disrupted. It takes longer for everybody to get to their destination, and there are much fewer that will travel at all. Expect that trend to continue, BTW. The TSA will never ease restrictions on passengers, as they officially 'believe' that they are keeping us safe. Eventually, traveling will be SO safe that nobody will be able to do it.
The terrorists have proved one thing though. Americans are, by and large, puling cowards, willing to throw away even the semblance of what supposedly makes America great - and for what? The merest illusion of safety. But it's all right, America. Sleep tight. The Department of Fatherland Security will watch over you day and night, night and day....
And your answer to this is what, exactly? To join the Tea Party and vote Republicans back in? I am so sick of people trying to act as if they their understanding and cynicism gives them a superioror POV when they actually have no answers at all, and no will to pursue them if they did.
"People"? So you think that people.jobs-apologists = people.kde4-haters? Got news - they are two different sets.
Further, I DID pan 4.0 - it deserved it. (and that was BESIDES the fact that kubuntu made it impossible to have both on the machine if you wanted to use the repository - I'm STILL irritated at that)
The reason it took me so long to 'forgive' though, were the blatant LIES stated regarding what the 4.0 release was. The kde enthusiasts kept repeating them, and would attempt to shout down and denigrate anyone that didn't like 4.0 when it came out. (The 4.0 release page did NOT include any kind of note saying it was a testing or developer's release that wasn't ready for prime time. The actual release page said it was. The only reference re: development or testing referred quite clearly to packages that might not be ready in distro repositories yet). That left a bad taste in my mouth for a long time.
It was not ready, even though it is now. The only voice of reason at the time (that I can remember) was Aaron Seigo - and he was the ONLY reason I kept coming back to KDE to try it out with each release. Good guy.
ROFL. And just how do you 'ditch an ISP'? When all 3 of the alternatives (if you are very lucky) are pulling the same crap; when the backbone providers are also allowed to do it?
And - OT - all roads being privately held toll roads with access controlled by business is the right-wing-fiscally-conservative-libertarian holy grail.
Yeah because the framers needed to clarify 'the right to serve in the army' or the 'right to be a policeman' or 'the right to serve the state'. Yeah that makes sense.
What you are calling for is 'fair and balanced' meaning that you must give equal weight to opponents even if their position is untenable - IOW, if you don't agree with the validity of the obvious troll's point, that means by disagreeing you (the "smelly, overbearing, slogan-yelling hippies" - your words) are 'trashing' the poor victim, the troll. Right?
And as a real treat, your ending statements are a 'strawman' ("Your natural reaction to this will be to dismiss regular users as not worthy of Linux"), of course hoping to demolish your strawman later and cry victory. (what, you don't know what a strawman is either? Here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strawman_argument )
So why should anyone listen to your gems of wisdom, again?
"So that ISPs have more room to differentiate their products." Yeah for all that competition between ISPs. Why, I'm just flabbergasted at all the choice I have!
There IS no competition, the market is not large enough to make 'differentiating their products" even a ghost of a necessity. All the anti neutrality arguments boil down to is supporting the ability to siphon profits off of successful businesses by charging them multiple times for using 'pipes' (EVERY ISP can do this, every 'hop' on the 'Net, that is your GOAL), controlling content available to consumers (who have NO choice), limiting how consumers may use bandwidth they pay for and killing competition with products the ISPs control. Period. You are, therefore, about as pro-monopoly as you can get; but I am used to that from anti-neutrality proponents - you dismiss reality with a wave of your hand, a puff of smoke, and a couple of mirrors.
Get back to me when both the 'last mile' AND backbone providers have rigorous competition.
So we should just trust 'the invisible hand'? Trust that capitalistic forces work best without any regulation because competition fixes everything, and there are no such things as monopolies? That choice is the natural result of deregulation, that consumers always benefit when corporations make deals to control consumers? Screw your divide-by-zero economic theory. Last time it came close to being tried, we got 'robber barons' and workers rioting with shotguns. But that was then, this is now, right? And you called the parent poster a 'useful idiot'?
Wake up. Markets are good, but without rules, business WILL run roughshod over consumers. And competition is the first thing that business wants to eliminate. If they can, they will. Without an infinite market, that is what unregulated business DOES.
And guess what, bubby, there is no such thing as an infinite market.
Our climate IS self-regulating, as well - at least within boundary limits. That we don't know what those boundaries are should terrify you. The implications of climate change can de-stabilize the socio-economic patterns we depend on - perhaps not as a species, but certainly as a civilisation.
I see the disbelief climate-change deniers as being similar to 19th century disbelief that it was impossible for species to go extinct. They all had scientific rationales as to why it simply couldn't happen - until the fate of the Dodo was documented. One difference is that there are fewer GW/AGW deniers in the scientific community than there were extinction deniers, of course.
Now tell me - how many scientists are saying that the fact that we don't understand our deep-ocean currents as completely as we thought we did means that there is no GW? How many are saying that this invalidates AGW? None? No - there are the fraction of scientists that lobby for fossil-fuel industry, or the specialists in other fields and even non-scientists whose faith in their own opinions _are_ their qualifications to speak up. How many of those who 'doubt' GW/AGW do so out of ideological reasons? At least those who give credit to the idea of GW/AGW have the opinion of most scientists on their 'side'. What do deniers have?
It IS fact. That part's easy. It's what effect it will have that's hard. Considering the implications of climate shift on food and energy supplies, panicked responses are understandable, if not helpful.
OK now both the so-called 'sides' (the conservative "we can always do what we've always done, no big change to God's earth is possible" partisans and the lefty "zomg humans are unnatural and everything we do that affects the rest of nature is morally wrong" zealots) can come flame away.
Slashdot Mirror
Nah. MS has, can and will use Windows Update to force-install an uninstallable (via normal methods) firefox extension. There is no escape as long as you use their software.
But - supposedly the market 'chose' this so just bend over and relax.
ROFL. So - they spy on their users' search results and then represent those results as their own, advertise 'bing' as an innovative and new search engine, and that's admirable to you, and anybody who mocks this behaviour (typically 'innovative' for MS) is "sipping on the ol' Microsoft Hatorade".
Bwahahaha!
Benchmarking? As RESULTS?
No, Microsoft is claiming to be innovative, but instead is copying results. They aren't even reverse engineering. Can you say "fraudulent advertising"? Sure. I knew you could.
Not really worth listening to 'free market proponents'. It's code for: "The people shouldn't have a say". Remember, when the people DO have a say, free market abuses get remedies through *drum roll* REGULATION - regulation voted for (at least indirectly, in the case of the USA) by the people that make up the market.
It's really too bad that 'free market proponents' think that it's acceptable to cut the 'market' out of 'free market', isn't it? It's because 'free market proponents' aren't really about 'freedom' generally. They just want to skew all power to commercial organizations, at the _expense_ of freedom.
How do you figure that wanting a discount keeps you from getting what you pay for?
Oh. That's right. War is peace, black is white, there are no monopolies, competition is what capitalism is about, and we can trust commercial entities to trade fairly rather than maximize profits at the cost to consumers - without regulation.
Nobody 'backpedalled'. I repeated myself. I don't usually do that. Feel honored.
Learn what it means to 'produce something' rather than manage it. *hint* one does not 'produce' time, one might 'conserve' it. One does not 'produce' leadership, either. 'Use' != 'Produce'.
And as far as morons go, I've noted that morons are usually right wing. Not always, just usually.
Given your ignorant management-speak, I assumed you were republican. Sorry. Didn't mean to insult you.
"Internet censorship is also growing"
And this will be facilitated by IPv6.
You make me sad.
I agree. We gave up something precious, because most of us have become cowards who love comfort more than liberty - the only liberty we would actually fight for any more seems to be the liberty to be venal.
Only if you think that politicians use the same definition of sanity that you do.
Only if you think that a politician losing face is FAR worse than their constituents losing freedom.
Only if you think that politicians are not cynical, hypocritical, power-hungry animals willing to do anything to aquire money and power.
Only if you think that demagoguery and jingoism are the highest form of political discourse.
Only if you think that sound bites are the new truth.
Only if you think that a party is something separate from it's constituents ("For all the noise and whining that's been made about it by their constituents , the Dems sure have been quiet about it.)
I don't think so.
At last! A real comment!
The answer to your question really depends on whether I enjoy managing or technical issues.
I never said that management was not a skill, neither did I say they shouldn't be paid well. What I said was that they aren't superior in any way _because_ they manage. I say it's foolish to 'reward' producers with management positions because (most of the time) the skills needed to produce have NOTHING TO DO with the skills needed to manage. So you turn an excellent producer into a half-assed manager when you reward someone with a management position... An employee might be an awesome tech with the social and negotiating skills of a 12 year old, but the awesome engineering skills that the company depends on. Should said employee reach the top of their pay grade then be rewarded with the *ALWAYS* higher pay managers get? Should they be 'promoted' into management? If not, do you honestly think they won't have morale problems when they see people _without_ their skills (skills the company depends on) get rewarded with the higher pay that management STARTS with?
This whole problem is what cripples larger organizations as they grow. It's the reason why startups are considered better places to work. It's why large organizations produce LESS per person than small - frankly the hierarchal management structure that the previous poster is so enamored of is overhead - and it kills productivity. It does allow one to have 'serfs' who are 'beneath' you though, so it holds great appeal to many. When management is the goal, management-heavy is what you get, after all. And that means less produced, higher overhead, slower reactions to the market, and less adaptability.
Struck a nerve, did I?
and - Produce leadership? Roadblock-clearing? Produce TIME?
And you claim that _I'M_ trying to weasel?
An investment in producing a product is not production in itself, kiddo. Tell me, is warehousing production? Is shipping? Does the backoffice produce? Office services? Is buying frigging stock 'production'? Are you going to claim that anything that maximizes profits 'produces' capital? ROFLMAO!
You have no idea what it is to actually PRODUCE anything, do you? This is part of the problem in the US today, at least. (BTW, in most businesses, IT is an expense - it has nothing to do with the production of goods that the business capitalizes on. Not everyone is an ISV, consulting house, or contract business) You have no idea what an expense IS, do you?
Let me guess - you're republican, amiright?
RIF.
I said that management is necessary, it just doesn't PRODUCE anything. And - management IS more likely to be a drag on productivity than not.
You may not be aware, but the phrase 'necessary evil' does not actually imply 'evil' any more than 'military intelligence' implies 'intelligence'. Again, with "management is an expense, a necessary evil" and "management, while a skill, and a valuable one" I DIDN'T say that ""management" is unnecessary or useless".
What I DID say was that the management hierarchy was a problem within business, and that it wasn't SUPERIOR to production. I was curious if anyone would comment on that, but I guess not. I'm glad you agree with me on every point but those two, though. *chuckle*
ps. just to be clear, architects produce blueprints. They ARE producers...
I truly think that one of the worst parts about business is the hierarchal structure and the assumption that management is somehow 'superior' (think of the descriptive name of people 'above' you - superiors? PLEASE.) to the people that actually produce. And no, management, while a skill, and a valuable one, does not PRODUCE anything. At it's best, management facilitates production. If a manager gets paid to manage 10 employees, and gets paid twice the amount of any of them, then each employee's gotta produce at least 20% more at least just to justify the overhead of having a manager. How many times have you honestly had a manager that made you that much more productive?
No, management is an expense, a necessary evil. To make matters worse, poor management abounds, since one is typically promoted into management as a performance reward - even though the actual work of management has little to do with the work of production.
Managers should start at the minimum wage - and only get raises if they display management skill, rather than start off at a higher wage than their producers. Reviews should be strict, too - IME a bad manager is more likely to bring production to a stop than a good one is to completely justify their salary (IE, the producers produce so much more that the wages of the manager are offset)
Oh don't worry. Even if she won the Presidency, she'd just get frustrated and quit after two years.
Hell, they've already DONE that, with no fake bombs at all. Commuter travel IS disrupted. It takes longer for everybody to get to their destination, and there are much fewer that will travel at all. Expect that trend to continue, BTW. The TSA will never ease restrictions on passengers, as they officially 'believe' that they are keeping us safe. Eventually, traveling will be SO safe that nobody will be able to do it.
The terrorists have proved one thing though. Americans are, by and large, puling cowards, willing to throw away even the semblance of what supposedly makes America great - and for what? The merest illusion of safety. But it's all right, America. Sleep tight. The Department of Fatherland Security will watch over you day and night, night and day....
And your answer to this is what, exactly? To join the Tea Party and vote Republicans back in? I am so sick of people trying to act as if they their understanding and cynicism gives them a superioror POV when they actually have no answers at all, and no will to pursue them if they did.
Have a nice day.
"People"? So you think that people.jobs-apologists = people.kde4-haters? Got news - they are two different sets.
Further, I DID pan 4.0 - it deserved it. (and that was BESIDES the fact that kubuntu made it impossible to have both on the machine if you wanted to use the repository - I'm STILL irritated at that)
The reason it took me so long to 'forgive' though, were the blatant LIES stated regarding what the 4.0 release was. The kde enthusiasts kept repeating them, and would attempt to shout down and denigrate anyone that didn't like 4.0 when it came out. (The 4.0 release page did NOT include any kind of note saying it was a testing or developer's release that wasn't ready for prime time. The actual release page said it was. The only reference re: development or testing referred quite clearly to packages that might not be ready in distro repositories yet). That left a bad taste in my mouth for a long time.
It was not ready, even though it is now. The only voice of reason at the time (that I can remember) was Aaron Seigo - and he was the ONLY reason I kept coming back to KDE to try it out with each release. Good guy.
ROFL. And just how do you 'ditch an ISP'? When all 3 of the alternatives (if you are very lucky) are pulling the same crap; when the backbone providers are also allowed to do it?
And - OT - all roads being privately held toll roads with access controlled by business is the right-wing-fiscally-conservative-libertarian holy grail.
Yeah because the framers needed to clarify 'the right to serve in the army' or the 'right to be a policeman' or 'the right to serve the state'. Yeah that makes sense.
Yup because being reasonable means agreeing with obvious trolls (and here is what a troll is: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troll_(Internet) It doesn't mean 'to disagree', btw).
What you are calling for is 'fair and balanced' meaning that you must give equal weight to opponents even if their position is untenable - IOW, if you don't agree with the validity of the obvious troll's point, that means by disagreeing you (the "smelly, overbearing, slogan-yelling hippies" - your words) are 'trashing' the poor victim, the troll. Right?
And as a real treat, your ending statements are a 'strawman' ("Your natural reaction to this will be to dismiss regular users as not worthy of Linux"), of course hoping to demolish your strawman later and cry victory. (what, you don't know what a strawman is either? Here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strawman_argument )
So why should anyone listen to your gems of wisdom, again?
"So that ISPs have more room to differentiate their products." Yeah for all that competition between ISPs. Why, I'm just flabbergasted at all the choice I have!
There IS no competition, the market is not large enough to make 'differentiating their products" even a ghost of a necessity. All the anti neutrality arguments boil down to is supporting the ability to siphon profits off of successful businesses by charging them multiple times for using 'pipes' (EVERY ISP can do this, every 'hop' on the 'Net, that is your GOAL), controlling content available to consumers (who have NO choice), limiting how consumers may use bandwidth they pay for and killing competition with products the ISPs control. Period. You are, therefore, about as pro-monopoly as you can get; but I am used to that from anti-neutrality proponents - you dismiss reality with a wave of your hand, a puff of smoke, and a couple of mirrors.
Get back to me when both the 'last mile' AND backbone providers have rigorous competition.
So we should just trust 'the invisible hand'? Trust that capitalistic forces work best without any regulation because competition fixes everything, and there are no such things as monopolies? That choice is the natural result of deregulation, that consumers always benefit when corporations make deals to control consumers? Screw your divide-by-zero economic theory. Last time it came close to being tried, we got 'robber barons' and workers rioting with shotguns. But that was then, this is now, right? And you called the parent poster a 'useful idiot'?
Wake up. Markets are good, but without rules, business WILL run roughshod over consumers. And competition is the first thing that business wants to eliminate. If they can, they will. Without an infinite market, that is what unregulated business DOES.
And guess what, bubby, there is no such thing as an infinite market.
Yup, MS is just IBM's dark apprentice who made a bid for dominance... This story is still playing out...
*sigh*
The atmosphere IS collecting energy.
Our climate IS self-regulating, as well - at least within boundary limits. That we don't know what those boundaries are should terrify you. The implications of climate change can de-stabilize the socio-economic patterns we depend on - perhaps not as a species, but certainly as a civilisation.
I see the disbelief climate-change deniers as being similar to 19th century disbelief that it was impossible for species to go extinct. They all had scientific rationales as to why it simply couldn't happen - until the fate of the Dodo was documented. One difference is that there are fewer GW/AGW deniers in the scientific community than there were extinction deniers, of course.
Now tell me - how many scientists are saying that the fact that we don't understand our deep-ocean currents as completely as we thought we did means that there is no GW? How many are saying that this invalidates AGW? None? No - there are the fraction of scientists that lobby for fossil-fuel industry, or the specialists in other fields and even non-scientists whose faith in their own opinions _are_ their qualifications to speak up. How many of those who 'doubt' GW/AGW do so out of ideological reasons? At least those who give credit to the idea of GW/AGW have the opinion of most scientists on their 'side'. What do deniers have?
It IS fact. That part's easy. It's what effect it will have that's hard. Considering the implications of climate shift on food and energy supplies, panicked responses are understandable, if not helpful.
OK now both the so-called 'sides' (the conservative "we can always do what we've always done, no big change to God's earth is possible" partisans and the lefty "zomg humans are unnatural and everything we do that affects the rest of nature is morally wrong" zealots) can come flame away.
Of course, THAT will not help GW.