Laid off in April. The usual. Have to say, pretty much everything on this list rings really true. Although in my case, the biggest benefit was:
Time to read up on any obscure or interesting subject that sprang to mind.
I think I advanced my self-education more in the last few months than I had in years previously. I know a whole lot more about our legal and political systems, can tell you all sorts of fun things about Wicca and Buddhism, know more about more obscure European bands than I care to name, and I'm even getting closer to really understanding why the Middle East is the way it is.
But things are looking up. Getting out of the cube farms seem to have freed my mind. I've been taking on odd freelance jobs. I've just gotten hired by a tutoring company which'll let me more or less make my own hours. Been doing some freelance writing. I'm not out of the woods yet, but if things keep going the way they are, I may be able to build up enough contacts and experience to make a good enough living without ever stepping foot in an office, and 3/4 of it from home.
I feel oddly like the Campbellian hero having passed through the Cave. (Week of May 15th: Read "Hero of a Thousand Faces")
So, just to chime in with the message of this article, if you're unemployed, take heart. Look at it as an opportunity. If you've got the money to ride on for a bit, DON'T spend all your time looking for yet another cube. Use the time to boost your knowledge or skills.
Actually, I have no doubt that Microsoft will play relatively fair with these guys. If they're a non-profit org, that means they could pretty much pick up their toys and leave anytime they want. (in realistic terms; I obviously don't know what kind of contract was signed) The idea appears to solely be to let Microsoft take over what has always been a pretty serious competitor in Asia in the handheld markets. I have little doubt that whatever comes of this will be named "Microsoft Tron" or "Powered by Microsoft TN Technologies" or something like.
It's just more assimilation. (and just think, they were probably prepping this deal at the same time they were whining about the China-Japan-Korea superOS being unfair)
I think there is a pretty clear-cut difference between infomercials and entertainment programs. I'm having a hard time imagining a TV show that involved Ron Pompeil, Superagent, fighting over the viscous ooze of H.O.R.D.E., to reclaim his stolen Sooper-Joocer, which is necessary for world peace and great-tasting liquid snacks.
I say, just let standard deceptive advertising standards apply. As long as they're showing valid uses for the Product, and depicting reasonable performance from it, I think the potential good in this case outweighs the hypothetical bad.
Potential good? The increase in product placement, if not artificially curtailed, COULD lead to better programming. IIRC, the series premiere of Alias ran for over an hour, and contained no commercials. Why? Because Nokia gave them so much in return for product placement that they didn't NEED commercials. Think about that.
Maybe it's a matter of opinion, but I have NO problem watching my favorite characters drink an Icy Cold Coke while using their Nokia Cellphone in conjunction with their Apple Laptop, if it means higher-quality, longer-running shows, without actual commercial interruptions. Honestly, it seems like a natural progression to me, not any kind of abberation.
(the only problem I see with this scheme offhand is that it would discriminate against shows not set in present-day America. But that's a minor hump.)
I really think all this represents is them finally admitting that, after over a decade of universal unmetered service, the customers were simply NOT going to accept moving to a metered or tiered plan. I was working for Road Runner tech support when they first began thinking over the idea - the next day was filled with calls from outraged customers (who, granted, were not bright enough to distinguish the numbers for "customer service" and "technical support") screaming at me about how they'd quit if we increased their bill.
He who would call others "brainless idiots" might want to consider learning proper spelling, grammar, and punctuation. It would enhance your case immensely.
How did "get people away from Microsoft" suddenly leap to "I want a Linux monopoly as powerful as Microsoft's was!"?
Thank you for taking my comments and extrapolating them to the furthest possible extreme. I appreciate it, really.
I will now propose a "half and half" conversion plan where Linux Zealots, instead of issuing blanket calls for Linux conversion, will simply go down the row going Linux, Microsoft, Linux, Microsoft.
My god... What an incredible sense of self-righteousness you have. You must have spent at least 10 minutes, passing a whole bunch of high-minded ABSOUTELY INCORRECT judgements about me. I only want a free Windows? Give me a break!
I was seriously considering trying to reply to your rant itself, but forget it. The total arrogance on display here convinces me that attempting to produce rational arguments would only be a complete waste of my time - as your knee-jerk labelling me as a troll quite evidently shows. (interesting that I'm +5 here and no one else thinks my points trollish, hmmm?)
So, enjoy your echo chamber. You may be lonely, but you'll always have yourself.
It cannot even come up with a sound business plan.
PLEASE, enlighten us. What EXACTLY is a sound business plan, on the Internet today, in the face of file-sharing?
The market is in complete upheaval. There is NO sound business plan at the moment. Cling to old CD formats and you're looking at losing millions to piracy and getting locked into producing nothing but populist crap. Move onto the Internet, and there are a million more variables to worry about. Do you try to harness file-sharing as a marketing tool or work to prevent it? Should we provide samples? What bitrate? Whole songs? How much will people pay for a downloaded album? Or a burned CD? Would they rather burn it themself or have us ship them a CD? Do people go on the Internet looking for mainstream music, or indie\unique stuff?
These are all questions that, to the best of my knowledge, NO ONE has a good answer for. Right now, those who try to buck the traditional RIAA album system ARE PIONEERS. This is, from a marketing perspective, completely uncharted territory. We won't KNOW what works and what doesn't until a whole bunch of these guys rise up, try their best to make money, and fail.
Go ahead, mod me down but one should face the reality before supporting something thats just "new". We also need to know that it is good.
If I had the points, I'd be modding you down because you are passing judgement before *any of us* have any clue whether it's good or not. I'm guessing you didn't even go listen to their music before saying all that. It's not good to embrace something simply because it's new - but it's WORSE to trash it simply for not being old.
Absolutely. This should be modded way up. (I would, but no points) I really don't understand how people can still cling to this idea that Linux is supposed to be Exlusivist and Average People don't need to be able to use it. Our e-mail boxes get crippled every couple months by the latest Microsoft worm. Being on Linux doesn't help you a whit if your e-mail is getting shut down by everyone else's virus-laden system. It seems self-evident that getting as many people on Linux as possible, and AWAY from insecure Windows stuff, would be a boon to the Internet as a whole.
(and also, as I've pointed out, the more of a "threat" to Microsoft that Linux presents, the more Microsoft will actually have to *work* to maintain their monopoly. Get enough people switching to Linux because they're sick of viruses, and that exerts huge market pressure on MS to start giving a damn about securitiy. So it advances the battle against worm viruses on two fronts at once)
Hmmm. I installed RH 8.2 earlier this year and don't recall such clear labels being in place. But I'll admit I didn't use it for long - it had some kind of weird refusal to talk to my Sound Card which, at least at the time, was completely unsolved according to the tech forums. No sound == No use.
Let us not be too harsh, though. I did a search for "win" on a Windows shareware directory site and this is the kind of mess I got: {schnip}
Oh, absolutely. The difference, however, is that when someone installs Windows, or buys an Apple, they get simple, clearly-labelled applications to run. It would take a real nit to not be able to guess what "Notepad" or "Calculator" or "Volume Control" do. At least half of Average Users, I'm sure, NEVER go out trolling the Internet for more programs. "I've got Media Player. It plays media just fine. Why do I want this WinAmp thingy?"
But right now, people don't get that with Linux. From minute one, it's filled with programs that are badly-labelled at best, and downright deceptive at worst. (honestly, who would, not being already familiar, click on a program called "NetHack" and EXPECT a dungeon crawl RPG to come up? It sounds like a cracking tool.) Even labels like 'gPaint,' while pretty good, require a small amount of faith on the users' part. ("What's the 'g' mean?")
Hell, the first time *I* installed a graphical Linux, I didn't have the slightest clue what at least half the applications did. And I've been using PCs since 1985 and Dos 2.1! The difference between Average Joe User and me is that I'm unafraid to click on things to see what they do - A.J. User is almost always afraid to experiment.
You do realize that sarcastic analogy makes utterly no sense, right?
Unless you're seriously suggesting that Linux is only for, and should only ever be aimed at, certain specialized markets. Is that, in fact, your intent?
Quite possibly. A large-scale marketing survey of businesses\individuals who have a choice in OS (which is to say, those who are aware of Linux and would have the know-how to switch over), and WHY they made the choice they did, would be incredibly interesting.
Wonder if IBM or Sun would be willing to fund such a thing.
I think you may be confusing the benefits of having more linux developers and having more linux users.
These two things are not interrelated? Linux will continue getting more and more developers even if its customer base decreases? Most conventional logic would say, the more people who are using Linux, the more quality projects being developed for Linux.
Why? What's the quantifiable benefit to me and thee of Mom and Pop Inc choosing a linux server rather than Win2003?
You must be one of those rare, lucky people who didn't see multiple e-mail accounts completely disabled by Blaster and SoBig. Every computer using Linux is one computer LESS that's apt to get hyjacked by an internet-disabling virus. (not that Linux doesn't get viruses, but making one destructive on the level of Blaster is next to impossible)
Trust me, if you had been forced to deal with your Yahoo\Hotmail\Workplace box being utterly unusable FOR A MONTH, you'd be a bit more in favor of more Linux boxen in the hands of average users.:-)
I mean, we have *government agencies* being shut down because of Windows virii, both directly and indirectly. MicroSoft has shown virtually no interest, even in the wake of that, of substantially beefing up the security of their products. One can only assume MS will continue NOT caring about security until something subtantially forces them to care. Only two possibilities there:
1)Government intervention. Nice to dream about, but we've had a decade now of the government letting MS do whatever it wants.
2)A real, SUBSTANTIAL competition to them that is built upon being strong in every area they are weak. While I'd have no opposition to the government ACTUALLY smacking MS down, at this point I think we're logically forced to say the Free Market has to provide.
So therefore, the more people who are using Linux, the more pressure on Microsoft to actually start putting out good products again. (at which point we'd have two competing systems, both with pretty good security) And that, as we've seen by recent virus outbreaks, is good for the entire Internet.
Well, Linux doesn't need to worry about *marketing* in the strict sense right now so much as making it more accessible to Average Users. Spend some time in tech support, that'll teach you a lot about how your average user thinks.
There are a LOT of geekisms that simply HAVE to be weeded out of Linux if it's going to be more widely popular. I know, every open-source programmer LOVES to give their project a cute acronym for a name. But they are often completely non-descriptive and even confusing for a user.
Imagine installing Linux for your mother or grandmother, and right there on the desktop is a big icon that says THE GIMP.... Riiiiight.
Also, while choice is a good thing for geeks, a Linux install that dumps hundreds and hundreds of programs on the computer is just going to overwhelm a newbie. I think Linux installers should have two user modes selectable upon installation, Basic and Advanced. (with Basic having a big SELECT THIS IF YOU'RE NEW TO LINUX on it) Advanced does the usual 2-gig program dump we're all used to, with all the usual options about Gnome or KDE and all that. Basic goes through and pre-selects everything for the user. Arbitrarily picks a desktop, and then installs *1* example of each type of application with a clear, understandable name.
I know Linux people are highly resistant to the idea of forcing program choices on users, but your Average Joe just isn't up to coping with that much information being dumped on them at once. He wants one big button that says "Word Processor" he can click on.
But anyway, things like that. That's where, I think, Linux needs to focus now - getting away from the geekiness and being more accessible to normal users.
It is from a *marketing perspective*, which was my entire point. If you have a Linux build that works for you, and that's all you want, then great. Have fun. But if you want MORE people to use Linux and get away from MicroSoft, you have to start looking at what those people want too. And if folks are switching FROM Linux (free!) to MS Server 2003 (horrendously expensive) then that indicates a SERIOUS failing on Linux's part in the mind of those users.
Since most people on/. appear to want more people using Linux, and less using MS, then that's the sort of thing that needs to be addressed.
Someone mod the parent up. Linux desperately NEEDS more people looking at it from a marketing perspective, and LESS zealots running around preaching like Mormons. If people are using MS Server 2003 (or worse, switching from Linux) that means Linux has *failed* in some respect, in the minds of those customers. Calling them names or saying it's irrelevant won't accomplish anything besides giving a little more help to Microsoft.
his seems to me to be pointing that "reading" might be far more complicated than most people describe it
Exactly. Scientists already know that there are at least three primary ways of learning information, and people are generally stronger in one or two of them. (seeing, hearing, doing) Like in reading, a seeing learner will generally just *look* at the word and comprehend it, where a hearing learner will look at the word and then hear the word in his head.
I'm personally VERY visual. When I speak, I actually "see" a string of words in my head, like I'm reading a script, as I say it. (this generally means I can speak very well, but occasionally causes problems - it's easy for me to mispronounce words that are said differently than they look. Even my roommate's German last name, I'll get wrong occasionally, and I've known him five years!)
For example when i read a word which i do not know at all, I realize I read 1st phonem , then 3rd and 4th then 2nd etc..
It'd be nice if they taught more AMERICANS to do that. Most people these days hit a word like, oh, "antidisestablishmentarianism" and just freak out. It's actually fairly easy to break down if you take a moment, but it seems like more and more people have never been taught that English words ARE generally built up of smaller words \ particles strung together. (or don't see the relationship. They conceive of "happy" and "unhappy" as two completely separate words, and never see that it's "Un" - "Happy".)
It also has a bit about the right to privacy and peacful enjoyment of your property.
Then, simply put, that's Different. If your legal system, as established by the People of Europe, establishes those as full Rights, then great. I really don't have that much knowledge of the particulars of EU law, to be honest - that rant was primarily aimed at Americans.:-)
My logic may be poor, that's debatable, but my understanding of the usage of precedent in court cases is not.
The citation would be *taken into consideration* by the court, for sure, but because the scope of that ruling - BECAUSE of there context - is so much narrower, it would not be considered definative. The current Supreme Court would still have to decide the basic issue. There is a huge legal gap between those two cases.
You can't take legal arguments completely out of context. It is *relevant*, to be sure, but not conclusive.
And, I'm honestly getting tired of repeating this, for the past 100 years the Surpreme Court has consistantly ruled that Corporations have (nearly) all protections and Rights under law as citizens. BECAUSE they are ultimately Groups of People. It's not my distinction, it's the Surpreme Court's - go take it up with them if you disagree.
Personally, I would LOVE to see Corporations have less power in this world. But so long as SCOTUS says they have full Rights, I'll support that as the standing, legal interpretation of the Constitution.
Nearly every account I've ever seen puts a limit on mailbox size, on amount of data transferred per billing period, and charges extra when those limits are exceeded.
You know, two years ago, I agreed completely with this argument. Mailbox restriction sizes are a practical necessity for any number of reasons - hard drives ARE limited in space, and no restriction existed, you know some jerks out there would take up gigabytes of space using their e-mail account as a spare hard drive. There's no direct correlation there between drive sizes and spam - there are too many other reasons for the restrictions.
And as for bandwidth charges. This, in principle, exists. However, for one, I've never once seen my internet bill go up within my billing period for any reason, much less specifically because of spam. The only time it's gone up is when *I* have upgraded my service. And as your example illustrates, in terms of bandwidth in this age of broadband, spam represents only a tiny fraction of received mail *in terms of size*.
But, to provide a related example. You have a small package being delivered to your mailbox. However, because of all the junk snail mail, there isn't room for it in the physical box. The postman leaves one of those little slips, and you have to drive to the office to pick the package up.
Did the junk mail cause you to drive to the office? Yes, but only indirectly. I've never heard of a case being filed over such a situation, even though the inconvenience to you is greater, and the snail mail is taking up a FAR larger percentage of your mailbox than the spam does. I don't believe a court could reasonably find that there existed enough bad faith, or intent, on the part of the mail-spammers to say they are at fault for your having to drive to the post office.
Thus, in terms of inconvenience, spam is costing you LESS than postal mail.
If the MORE intrusive is permitted, why not the lesser?
I'm also concerned with equal application of laws, incidentally.:-)
Slashdot Mirror
Time to read up on any obscure or interesting subject that sprang to mind.
I think I advanced my self-education more in the last few months than I had in years previously. I know a whole lot more about our legal and political systems, can tell you all sorts of fun things about Wicca and Buddhism, know more about more obscure European bands than I care to name, and I'm even getting closer to really understanding why the Middle East is the way it is.
But things are looking up. Getting out of the cube farms seem to have freed my mind. I've been taking on odd freelance jobs. I've just gotten hired by a tutoring company which'll let me more or less make my own hours. Been doing some freelance writing. I'm not out of the woods yet, but if things keep going the way they are, I may be able to build up enough contacts and experience to make a good enough living without ever stepping foot in an office, and 3/4 of it from home.
I feel oddly like the Campbellian hero having passed through the Cave. (Week of May 15th: Read "Hero of a Thousand Faces")
So, just to chime in with the message of this article, if you're unemployed, take heart. Look at it as an opportunity. If you've got the money to ride on for a bit, DON'T spend all your time looking for yet another cube. Use the time to boost your knowledge or skills.
As tiresome as the TRON quotes on this page have already gotten, that one is disturbingly appropos.
It's just more assimilation. (and just think, they were probably prepping this deal at the same time they were whining about the China-Japan-Korea superOS being unfair)
I say, just let standard deceptive advertising standards apply. As long as they're showing valid uses for the Product, and depicting reasonable performance from it, I think the potential good in this case outweighs the hypothetical bad.
Potential good? The increase in product placement, if not artificially curtailed, COULD lead to better programming. IIRC, the series premiere of Alias ran for over an hour, and contained no commercials. Why? Because Nokia gave them so much in return for product placement that they didn't NEED commercials. Think about that.
Maybe it's a matter of opinion, but I have NO problem watching my favorite characters drink an Icy Cold Coke while using their Nokia Cellphone in conjunction with their Apple Laptop, if it means higher-quality, longer-running shows, without actual commercial interruptions. Honestly, it seems like a natural progression to me, not any kind of abberation.
(the only problem I see with this scheme offhand is that it would discriminate against shows not set in present-day America. But that's a minor hump.)
Not fun.
(laughs)
He who would call others "brainless idiots" might want to consider learning proper spelling, grammar, and punctuation. It would enhance your case immensely.
Thank you for taking my comments and extrapolating them to the furthest possible extreme. I appreciate it, really.
I will now propose a "half and half" conversion plan where Linux Zealots, instead of issuing blanket calls for Linux conversion, will simply go down the row going Linux, Microsoft, Linux, Microsoft.
That should do it.
Right?
I was seriously considering trying to reply to your rant itself, but forget it. The total arrogance on display here convinces me that attempting to produce rational arguments would only be a complete waste of my time - as your knee-jerk labelling me as a troll quite evidently shows. (interesting that I'm +5 here and no one else thinks my points trollish, hmmm?)
So, enjoy your echo chamber. You may be lonely, but you'll always have yourself.
PLEASE, enlighten us. What EXACTLY is a sound business plan, on the Internet today, in the face of file-sharing?
The market is in complete upheaval. There is NO sound business plan at the moment. Cling to old CD formats and you're looking at losing millions to piracy and getting locked into producing nothing but populist crap. Move onto the Internet, and there are a million more variables to worry about. Do you try to harness file-sharing as a marketing tool or work to prevent it? Should we provide samples? What bitrate? Whole songs? How much will people pay for a downloaded album? Or a burned CD? Would they rather burn it themself or have us ship them a CD? Do people go on the Internet looking for mainstream music, or indie\unique stuff?
These are all questions that, to the best of my knowledge, NO ONE has a good answer for. Right now, those who try to buck the traditional RIAA album system ARE PIONEERS. This is, from a marketing perspective, completely uncharted territory. We won't KNOW what works and what doesn't until a whole bunch of these guys rise up, try their best to make money, and fail.
Go ahead, mod me down but one should face the reality before supporting something thats just "new". We also need to know that it is good.
If I had the points, I'd be modding you down because you are passing judgement before *any of us* have any clue whether it's good or not. I'm guessing you didn't even go listen to their music before saying all that. It's not good to embrace something simply because it's new - but it's WORSE to trash it simply for not being old.
(and also, as I've pointed out, the more of a "threat" to Microsoft that Linux presents, the more Microsoft will actually have to *work* to maintain their monopoly. Get enough people switching to Linux because they're sick of viruses, and that exerts huge market pressure on MS to start giving a damn about securitiy. So it advances the battle against worm viruses on two fronts at once)
Hmmm. I installed RH 8.2 earlier this year and don't recall such clear labels being in place. But I'll admit I didn't use it for long - it had some kind of weird refusal to talk to my Sound Card which, at least at the time, was completely unsolved according to the tech forums. No sound == No use.
Oh, absolutely. The difference, however, is that when someone installs Windows, or buys an Apple, they get simple, clearly-labelled applications to run. It would take a real nit to not be able to guess what "Notepad" or "Calculator" or "Volume Control" do. At least half of Average Users, I'm sure, NEVER go out trolling the Internet for more programs. "I've got Media Player. It plays media just fine. Why do I want this WinAmp thingy?"
But right now, people don't get that with Linux. From minute one, it's filled with programs that are badly-labelled at best, and downright deceptive at worst. (honestly, who would, not being already familiar, click on a program called "NetHack" and EXPECT a dungeon crawl RPG to come up? It sounds like a cracking tool.) Even labels like 'gPaint,' while pretty good, require a small amount of faith on the users' part. ("What's the 'g' mean?")
Hell, the first time *I* installed a graphical Linux, I didn't have the slightest clue what at least half the applications did. And I've been using PCs since 1985 and Dos 2.1! The difference between Average Joe User and me is that I'm unafraid to click on things to see what they do - A.J. User is almost always afraid to experiment.
My only knowledge of Lindows is their constant stream of creative marketing tricks designed to piss Microsoft off. ;-)
Unless you're seriously suggesting that Linux is only for, and should only ever be aimed at, certain specialized markets. Is that, in fact, your intent?
Wonder if IBM or Sun would be willing to fund such a thing.
These two things are not interrelated? Linux will continue getting more and more developers even if its customer base decreases? Most conventional logic would say, the more people who are using Linux, the more quality projects being developed for Linux.
Why? What's the quantifiable benefit to me and thee of Mom and Pop Inc choosing a linux server rather than Win2003?
You must be one of those rare, lucky people who didn't see multiple e-mail accounts completely disabled by Blaster and SoBig. Every computer using Linux is one computer LESS that's apt to get hyjacked by an internet-disabling virus. (not that Linux doesn't get viruses, but making one destructive on the level of Blaster is next to impossible)
Trust me, if you had been forced to deal with your Yahoo\Hotmail\Workplace box being utterly unusable FOR A MONTH, you'd be a bit more in favor of more Linux boxen in the hands of average users. :-)
I mean, we have *government agencies* being shut down because of Windows virii, both directly and indirectly. MicroSoft has shown virtually no interest, even in the wake of that, of substantially beefing up the security of their products. One can only assume MS will continue NOT caring about security until something subtantially forces them to care. Only two possibilities there:
1)Government intervention. Nice to dream about, but we've had a decade now of the government letting MS do whatever it wants.
2)A real, SUBSTANTIAL competition to them that is built upon being strong in every area they are weak. While I'd have no opposition to the government ACTUALLY smacking MS down, at this point I think we're logically forced to say the Free Market has to provide.
So therefore, the more people who are using Linux, the more pressure on Microsoft to actually start putting out good products again. (at which point we'd have two competing systems, both with pretty good security) And that, as we've seen by recent virus outbreaks, is good for the entire Internet.
So then you would agree with my *basic point* that Linux needs to spend more time becoming user friendly to thus attract more users, ne?
There are a LOT of geekisms that simply HAVE to be weeded out of Linux if it's going to be more widely popular. I know, every open-source programmer LOVES to give their project a cute acronym for a name. But they are often completely non-descriptive and even confusing for a user.
Imagine installing Linux for your mother or grandmother, and right there on the desktop is a big icon that says THE GIMP. ... Riiiiight.
Also, while choice is a good thing for geeks, a Linux install that dumps hundreds and hundreds of programs on the computer is just going to overwhelm a newbie. I think Linux installers should have two user modes selectable upon installation, Basic and Advanced. (with Basic having a big SELECT THIS IF YOU'RE NEW TO LINUX on it) Advanced does the usual 2-gig program dump we're all used to, with all the usual options about Gnome or KDE and all that. Basic goes through and pre-selects everything for the user. Arbitrarily picks a desktop, and then installs *1* example of each type of application with a clear, understandable name.
I know Linux people are highly resistant to the idea of forcing program choices on users, but your Average Joe just isn't up to coping with that much information being dumped on them at once. He wants one big button that says "Word Processor" he can click on.
But anyway, things like that. That's where, I think, Linux needs to focus now - getting away from the geekiness and being more accessible to normal users.
Since most people on /. appear to want more people using Linux, and less using MS, then that's the sort of thing that needs to be addressed.
Someone mod the parent up. Linux desperately NEEDS more people looking at it from a marketing perspective, and LESS zealots running around preaching like Mormons. If people are using MS Server 2003 (or worse, switching from Linux) that means Linux has *failed* in some respect, in the minds of those customers. Calling them names or saying it's irrelevant won't accomplish anything besides giving a little more help to Microsoft.
Exactly. Scientists already know that there are at least three primary ways of learning information, and people are generally stronger in one or two of them. (seeing, hearing, doing) Like in reading, a seeing learner will generally just *look* at the word and comprehend it, where a hearing learner will look at the word and then hear the word in his head.
I'm personally VERY visual. When I speak, I actually "see" a string of words in my head, like I'm reading a script, as I say it. (this generally means I can speak very well, but occasionally causes problems - it's easy for me to mispronounce words that are said differently than they look. Even my roommate's German last name, I'll get wrong occasionally, and I've known him five years!)
For example when i read a word which i do not know at all, I realize I read 1st phonem , then 3rd and 4th then 2nd etc..
It'd be nice if they taught more AMERICANS to do that. Most people these days hit a word like, oh, "antidisestablishmentarianism" and just freak out. It's actually fairly easy to break down if you take a moment, but it seems like more and more people have never been taught that English words ARE generally built up of smaller words \ particles strung together. (or don't see the relationship. They conceive of "happy" and "unhappy" as two completely separate words, and never see that it's "Un" - "Happy".)
It also has a bit about the right to privacy and peacful enjoyment of your property. Then, simply put, that's Different. If your legal system, as established by the People of Europe, establishes those as full Rights, then great. I really don't have that much knowledge of the particulars of EU law, to be honest - that rant was primarily aimed at Americans. :-)
The citation would be *taken into consideration* by the court, for sure, but because the scope of that ruling - BECAUSE of there context - is so much narrower, it would not be considered definative. The current Supreme Court would still have to decide the basic issue. There is a huge legal gap between those two cases.
You can't take legal arguments completely out of context. It is *relevant*, to be sure, but not conclusive.
And, I'm honestly getting tired of repeating this, for the past 100 years the Surpreme Court has consistantly ruled that Corporations have (nearly) all protections and Rights under law as citizens. BECAUSE they are ultimately Groups of People. It's not my distinction, it's the Surpreme Court's - go take it up with them if you disagree.
Personally, I would LOVE to see Corporations have less power in this world. But so long as SCOTUS says they have full Rights, I'll support that as the standing, legal interpretation of the Constitution.
You know, two years ago, I agreed completely with this argument. Mailbox restriction sizes are a practical necessity for any number of reasons - hard drives ARE limited in space, and no restriction existed, you know some jerks out there would take up gigabytes of space using their e-mail account as a spare hard drive. There's no direct correlation there between drive sizes and spam - there are too many other reasons for the restrictions.
And as for bandwidth charges. This, in principle, exists. However, for one, I've never once seen my internet bill go up within my billing period for any reason, much less specifically because of spam. The only time it's gone up is when *I* have upgraded my service. And as your example illustrates, in terms of bandwidth in this age of broadband, spam represents only a tiny fraction of received mail *in terms of size*.
But, to provide a related example. You have a small package being delivered to your mailbox. However, because of all the junk snail mail, there isn't room for it in the physical box. The postman leaves one of those little slips, and you have to drive to the office to pick the package up.
Did the junk mail cause you to drive to the office? Yes, but only indirectly. I've never heard of a case being filed over such a situation, even though the inconvenience to you is greater, and the snail mail is taking up a FAR larger percentage of your mailbox than the spam does. I don't believe a court could reasonably find that there existed enough bad faith, or intent, on the part of the mail-spammers to say they are at fault for your having to drive to the post office.
Thus, in terms of inconvenience, spam is costing you LESS than postal mail.
If the MORE intrusive is permitted, why not the lesser?
I'm also concerned with equal application of laws, incidentally. :-)