People in general love to think in general while avoiding the specifics. For example, everyone will agree that "nobody's perfect," but if you point out a specific mistake they made they get all defensive on you. Same thing with these misleading research studies. Everyone has at least a dim understanding that statistics can lie, but every time a shiny new study comes out they think, "Ooooh, shiny!"
I blame the media more than the education system. Yes, it would be nice if we could get people to get out of the school system with the ability to cut through rhetoric better than they do, but let's fully blame the media here. Just as on/. we have all come to realize how often studies are distorted by sponsorship money, journalists must know this too. They have been exposed to too many examples of this not to know to check for who sponsored the study, etc. So why don't the news articles point out the flaws in the studies? If they did that, people reading them would be fortified in their knowledge.
Of course, I can think of several reasons why journalists don't do this most of the time: Lack of time before deadline to do the research / laziness / the need to keep the sponsors of those studies happy so that they will cooperate with the journalists next time, and so on. Still, it is disheartening.
That's interesting, and I know there is a mindset on the Street that wants Google to do well to jumpstart the IPO market and lead to a rebound in the markets in the 4Q and beyond. But the article I read, in the New York Times I think, said that many were annoyed at the way Google was doing it. The big money managers, the ones who can gift their big customers.
May be a 50-50 sort of thing: Short term, they are hoping for a good pop to help the market. Long term, they don't want to give up their good thing and have lots of companies skip them from the process.
I read something a few weeks back that said Wall Street was annoyed that Google had gone to the Dutch auction approach. Reasoning being that Wall Street prefers the regular way whereby the IPO price is artificially lowered so that their best customers can be given the chance to make easy money. They felt if this took off that their easy money racket could be derailed. Wall Street hates that.
So reading that I thought, I wonder if there will be a bunch of negative press about Google now? Since then, sure enough, nothing but negative press, rumors, bad mouthing. It's enough to make me wonder if the Wall Street crowd worked hard to make Google look bad so that other companies wouldn't do something similar. But I have no idea if this is accurate, or just coincidental. Anyone heard anything?
I very much appreciate the response. I was a bit harsh, but since I disagree that the GPL is not a license, and this is something I've seen for years, I get a bit tired of it. Glad to know you weren't trying to FUD the issue. A disagreement I can handle a whole lot better, and I respect well-reasoned dialog.
How many more years of "The GPL is not a license" FUD will we have to hear before moderators realize it's just not true? I mean, this is/., where we should all know better by now.
"In light of such actions, how can one associate "liberty" with "liberal" anymore?"
Huh? What's with the idea of bringing liberals into this discussion? We're talking extremists here. Extremists on both sides of political idealogy are against liberty. Extremists are the ones who want to shut up (or lock up) their opponents. This has nothing to do with liberals or conservatives, both of whom hate actions such as this (or such as the White House neo-cons have been doing). Extremists are the problem, not conservatives or liberals.
Don't be silly, that wasn't my point. My point is that ALL programmers introduce new bugs when they fix old bugs -- it's the process. Not unique to Microsoft. It's just a reminder that this list is hardly comprehensive, and will get updated over time.
Without FOSS, the Net would be crippled, and with it businesses large and small. That's what I meant.
As for PJ, we will just disagree. OSRM? Puleeze. She has a day job, so shoot her. There's no conflict there. All her work serves to reduce the need for OSRM. Whoa, some conflict. More to the point, let's see some dishonesty from her before we slam her. I've not seen any of it. You disagree with her opinions, that's fine. But catch her in a dishonesty before you slam her.
"Complete" list of bug fixes? Probably not. More like a list of all the bugs they think they fixed, not counting the bugs they inadvertantly fixed plus the bugs they inadvertantly introduced.
Heh. An almost perfect example of the current "I used to like Groklaw until..." meme.
Groklaw is a blog. Always has been. Do you recall the first article ever on Groklaw? Evidently not, for you to say what you did. Now if you don't agree with an opinion, you can give an alternate opinion, and your last paragraph did so. Very good. But your earlier paragraphs lack credibility with their extremism. Groklaw "has zero credibility"? Zero? All those legal papers quoted and analyzed, and that leads to zero credibililty, just because your opinion on life differs from that of PJ? That doesn't pass the smell test.
As for FOSS not needing the business world, PJ is right. Oh, you make good points, but even if the entire business world turned its backs on FOSS, developers would still keep developing, albeit not as many of them. They do it because of the creative love of making code. Businesses can encourage, support, and underwrite such efforts. But they cannot fully control it or stop it. FOSS would exist without any business support. Businesses would have a very hard time if all FOSS code disappeared. That's PJ's point, and no bubble has burst. It's true.
Historically, software didn't always cost money. In the early days programmers shared technology. Then an industry came along that started charging money for closed-source software and they did very well. But this is not the automatically normal state of affairs, and in some ways is an artificial construct in the larger scheme of things.
There are several companies that have embraced FOSS and are making good money. Not by charging money for the software, but by providing services. We always think of Red Hat and the like, but now think of IBM and they way they have embraced the FOSS world yet still make mega bucks providing their services. Linux, for instance, is not the basis of IBM's offerings, but merely one solution they provide. They don't charge for that software, but they do very well capitalistically speaking. There is no conflict between capitalism and FOSS, it merely shuffles the equation around a little. Instead of charging for the software, you charge for your knowledge in other areas. Then you 3. Profit!
Closed-source software houses that screech about their lost profits and how important it is to America to maintain their stranglehold on this part of the economy sounds just like the RIAA. "Save our artificial business model!" Well, it's articifical, and as a business model its time is drawing to an end, or at least being marginalized. Time to make the choice, do you want to be like the buggy-whip manufacturers and the RIAA? Or do you want to be like IBM and make profits from embracing FOSS.
There's a BusinessWeek article today advising the Linux community and those in product development to drop GPL and release under BSDesque licenses in order to stay more business-friendly.
...and a Groklaw article demonstrating why the BusinessWeek author should have done more research first.
Ads are not inherently evil creations of hellish spawn (although it certainly seems that way at times). I can remember back when I was reading print mags for tech subjects, and being very interested in the ads. They were targeted at a subject I was interested in, and some of the products were products I was thinking of buying. Those ads helped me. I enjoyed seeing them.
Some TV ads are so funny, you look forward to watching them (until you get sick of them.....WISE.....ER......BUD).
I accept the usefulness and necessity of ads for providing "free" access to some information that would not otherwise be free of direct cost (or even possible) otherwise. This may sound surprising to anyone who has read the About page on my web site, where I diss advertising executives. But that's different. I run a hobby site, just for fun, designed to make people laugh and then go about their lives. I pay for this myself and I don't believe advertising belongs on such Web sites, sites the Web was created for (person-to-person communication, not selling wares). But I don't hate advertising as a whole. I just want to see it kept in its proper place.
And if you can make the ads relevant, interesting, useful, and even fun, it helps a LOT.
No, I wasn't trolling, I was quite serious. The problem with being thoughtful and introspective at a time when the crowd wants blood is you get picked apart as being "too soft." I said the kid did wrong and it needs to be stopped. All I meant is that the approach the feds have been taking isn't working to discourage this sort of behavior, and we as a society need to find a better deterrent, whatever that may be.
Services cost more than hardware
on
You've Got PC
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
So. We've reached the point where the software is increasingly becoming free (beer and freedom), and now the hardware is increasingly becoming so cheap that it becomes the after thought in a transaction. The services part of this deal (12 months of AOL) is "worth" just about as much as the cost of that PC.
Free software. Almost "free" hardware (throw-ins to a deal). Free wireless access. How long before we see ubiqituous computing? I guess the bigger question is how long before we see a PC included in a cereal box instead of those DVDs I've seen advertised on the boxes of Fruit Loops (or whatever it was)? "Hey! Check it out! This box contains a coupon for a free PC! (just send in 20 box tops, plus $39.95 shipping and handling)"
Slow down, I never said not to be upset at what the kid did. I said from the beginning that what he did was wrong, he should be punished, that we want to discourage this sort of thing. Because I haven't suggested shooting the kid I'm getting these twisted accusations that I want to give the kid a pass. I don't. I just think that the approach being taken is not doing much good and we need to figure out a better societal deterrant.
As for your pissing analogy, I agree, it's better than mine.
Point taken, but in this case the kid is not being charged with causing hospital mix-ups or anything else that caused damage to human beings. He is being charged simply with time lost and time=money. That's why I used the analogy I did, one that causes annoyance and waste of time, but no one dies. No one died or got hurt here, at least not that the prosecutors said.
I've appreciated the responses I've gotten, but I want to clarify one thing and say another:
Clarify: I did say what the kid did was wrong, and that society needs to do something to discourage this sort of thing from happening. I never said to give the kid a pass.
Say: What's with all these analogies? He's been likened to an arsonist, someone who stabs another person, someone who shoots another person. Folks, those all involve dangerous situations with bodily harm and permanent, material loss. Sorry, but that's not what this kid did. An analogy for what this kid did might be to stand outside a business with a megaphone and create such a racket that no one can get work done until he is shut up. It cost that business time and money, but no building got burned down, no one got stabbed, no one got shot. It's a significant difference.
This kid played around with tech, in a very simple way, and got caught up in big legal trouble as the feds try to put fear into others thinking of doing the same. It's a complicated issue. We all hate these worms (well, those of you running Windows especially, but I personally hate it from a theoretical perspective, not personal). We know what he did was wrong. But boy these kids sure get the book thrown at them for what amounts to script kiddie penny ante stuff.
He took a worm and modified it and released it. That's not much different in spirit from what many of us did at his age, playing with tech, poking at it, learning how things work. He just picked something that caused massive headaches to all concerned, so we have little sympathy for the kid. And he seems suitably contrite since his arrest, as well he might since that event probably shook him. But what do we do with such kids? We don't want worms being released, and we want to discourage this behavior. And yes, money is involved when businesses spend time to fix the problems. But asking him to repay "millions" is an order of magnitude wrong. Let's see Kenny Boy Lay repay millions, yes. But this kid?!
Those of us who poked and prodded tech at his age, but did so in a way that didn't cause headaches to everyone, understand a little of his motivation. He was a dope, but a curious dope, and now he's learned a lesson. Will all the other script kiddie types learn from this? No way. What if he is told to pay back "millions"? Nope, they still won't care. We need to rethink how we deal with this sort of headache so that we encourage kids not to mess with worms and stuff, without treating them worse than violent criminals. I don't have the answers, but I can't see how throwing the book at this kid is going to solve much.
If you read the Findings of Fact, which were upheld, you will see that Microsoft's customers had very little choice. It was the same choice a mobster gives his victim.
So all you say about Netscape may be true, but it does not excuse what Microsoft did.
Since there are legal monopolies and illegal monopolies, I'm not sure your statements are accurate. That is to say there are some monopolies that exist in such a way as to be declared to be in an illegal situation. That was Microsoft.
Do I hate Microsoft? Um, well, yeah, but not for emotional reasons. I read the Findings of Fact from the Jackson court, the same findings that were upheld in the appeals court. After reading all 150 pages, I realized I despised Microsoft's odd obsession with not being satisfied with 90%-percent of the market but wanting those last few percentages too. And they were willing to bully their partners, threaten them, lie to the public, and basically act in truly sociopathic ways. Yes, all billion-dollar companies engage in some shady deals along the way, but with Microsoft it was the culture.
And yes, I am not a criminal, and I don't engage in such behaviors. Microsoft is criminal, and I'm not.
I read it, but I was trying to save you some money rather than spend so much just so you could use your existing monitors. However, it is a valid point that if you don't want a laptop, and you don't want a bundled system with monitor, that it is expensive. You are correct. Sorry about that. I just get tired of the usual comparison of, wait for it, Apples and Oranges.
"Many people at Microsoft, especially the top officers, genuinely believe that they're idealistic, and that they're changing the world for the better, doing revolutionary things."
I'm sure you are right as people as individuals can be capable of idealistic beliefs even while being part of a thoroughly corrupt organization (think of that nice civil servant down the street who happens to work for the government that is so corrupt). But in Microsoft's case, esepcially among the top officers, there's no excuse. After a court declares them to be an illegal monopoloy, and then it gets appealed and the appeals court agrees they are an illegal monopoly, but the company refuses to accept this judgement and keeps doing the same actions that got them in trouble with the law in the first place, what can we think? Even the most idealistic individual has to realize at that point that they are working for a convicted criminal enterprise. Oh sure, it's white collar crime, so we don't shudder in horror, but it's a crime nonetheless.
There are some of us who will not invest in, work for, or buy from criminal enterprises.
"Ok, lets go to the Apple store and see what I can get. The cheapest desktop is $2,799.00 CAD. That is assinine."
I agree, even asinine. But you evidently did the usual Apple slam of only comparing against their top end desktop. OK, let's go to the Apple store and see what I can get. The cheapest desktop is $1049 CAD ($799 in America, btw). That is a lot less asinine, or even assinine.
What's that? You only count the high-end stuff worthy of your attention? OK, fine, but then do the same when comparing a Dell. If you compare low-end PC to high-end Apple, you'll end up looking assinine and asinine.
Slashdot Mirror
I blame the media more than the education system. Yes, it would be nice if we could get people to get out of the school system with the ability to cut through rhetoric better than they do, but let's fully blame the media here. Just as on /. we have all come to realize how often studies are distorted by sponsorship money, journalists must know this too. They have been exposed to too many examples of this not to know to check for who sponsored the study, etc. So why don't the news articles point out the flaws in the studies? If they did that, people reading them would be fortified in their knowledge.
Of course, I can think of several reasons why journalists don't do this most of the time: Lack of time before deadline to do the research / laziness / the need to keep the sponsors of those studies happy so that they will cooperate with the journalists next time, and so on. Still, it is disheartening.
May be a 50-50 sort of thing: Short term, they are hoping for a good pop to help the market. Long term, they don't want to give up their good thing and have lots of companies skip them from the process.
So reading that I thought, I wonder if there will be a bunch of negative press about Google now? Since then, sure enough, nothing but negative press, rumors, bad mouthing. It's enough to make me wonder if the Wall Street crowd worked hard to make Google look bad so that other companies wouldn't do something similar. But I have no idea if this is accurate, or just coincidental. Anyone heard anything?
I very much appreciate the response. I was a bit harsh, but since I disagree that the GPL is not a license, and this is something I've seen for years, I get a bit tired of it. Glad to know you weren't trying to FUD the issue. A disagreement I can handle a whole lot better, and I respect well-reasoned dialog.
How many more years of "The GPL is not a license" FUD will we have to hear before moderators realize it's just not true? I mean, this is /., where we should all know better by now.
Huh? What's with the idea of bringing liberals into this discussion? We're talking extremists here. Extremists on both sides of political idealogy are against liberty. Extremists are the ones who want to shut up (or lock up) their opponents. This has nothing to do with liberals or conservatives, both of whom hate actions such as this (or such as the White House neo-cons have been doing). Extremists are the problem, not conservatives or liberals.
Don't be silly, that wasn't my point. My point is that ALL programmers introduce new bugs when they fix old bugs -- it's the process. Not unique to Microsoft. It's just a reminder that this list is hardly comprehensive, and will get updated over time.
As for PJ, we will just disagree. OSRM? Puleeze. She has a day job, so shoot her. There's no conflict there. All her work serves to reduce the need for OSRM. Whoa, some conflict. More to the point, let's see some dishonesty from her before we slam her. I've not seen any of it. You disagree with her opinions, that's fine. But catch her in a dishonesty before you slam her.
And it is a blog.
But, but, but...then it wouldn't be slashdot any more!
"Complete" list of bug fixes? Probably not. More like a list of all the bugs they think they fixed, not counting the bugs they inadvertantly fixed plus the bugs they inadvertantly introduced.
Groklaw is a blog. Always has been. Do you recall the first article ever on Groklaw? Evidently not, for you to say what you did. Now if you don't agree with an opinion, you can give an alternate opinion, and your last paragraph did so. Very good. But your earlier paragraphs lack credibility with their extremism. Groklaw "has zero credibility"? Zero? All those legal papers quoted and analyzed, and that leads to zero credibililty, just because your opinion on life differs from that of PJ? That doesn't pass the smell test.
As for FOSS not needing the business world, PJ is right. Oh, you make good points, but even if the entire business world turned its backs on FOSS, developers would still keep developing, albeit not as many of them. They do it because of the creative love of making code. Businesses can encourage, support, and underwrite such efforts. But they cannot fully control it or stop it. FOSS would exist without any business support. Businesses would have a very hard time if all FOSS code disappeared. That's PJ's point, and no bubble has burst. It's true.
There are several companies that have embraced FOSS and are making good money. Not by charging money for the software, but by providing services. We always think of Red Hat and the like, but now think of IBM and they way they have embraced the FOSS world yet still make mega bucks providing their services. Linux, for instance, is not the basis of IBM's offerings, but merely one solution they provide. They don't charge for that software, but they do very well capitalistically speaking. There is no conflict between capitalism and FOSS, it merely shuffles the equation around a little. Instead of charging for the software, you charge for your knowledge in other areas. Then you 3. Profit!
Closed-source software houses that screech about their lost profits and how important it is to America to maintain their stranglehold on this part of the economy sounds just like the RIAA. "Save our artificial business model!" Well, it's articifical, and as a business model its time is drawing to an end, or at least being marginalized. Time to make the choice, do you want to be like the buggy-whip manufacturers and the RIAA? Or do you want to be like IBM and make profits from embracing FOSS.
Some TV ads are so funny, you look forward to watching them (until you get sick of them.....WISE.....ER......BUD).
I accept the usefulness and necessity of ads for providing "free" access to some information that would not otherwise be free of direct cost (or even possible) otherwise. This may sound surprising to anyone who has read the About page on my web site, where I diss advertising executives. But that's different. I run a hobby site, just for fun, designed to make people laugh and then go about their lives. I pay for this myself and I don't believe advertising belongs on such Web sites, sites the Web was created for (person-to-person communication, not selling wares). But I don't hate advertising as a whole. I just want to see it kept in its proper place.
And if you can make the ads relevant, interesting, useful, and even fun, it helps a LOT.
No, I wasn't trolling, I was quite serious. The problem with being thoughtful and introspective at a time when the crowd wants blood is you get picked apart as being "too soft." I said the kid did wrong and it needs to be stopped. All I meant is that the approach the feds have been taking isn't working to discourage this sort of behavior, and we as a society need to find a better deterrent, whatever that may be.
Free software. Almost "free" hardware (throw-ins to a deal). Free wireless access. How long before we see ubiqituous computing? I guess the bigger question is how long before we see a PC included in a cereal box instead of those DVDs I've seen advertised on the boxes of Fruit Loops (or whatever it was)? "Hey! Check it out! This box contains a coupon for a free PC! (just send in 20 box tops, plus $39.95 shipping and handling)"
As for your pissing analogy, I agree, it's better than mine.
Point taken, but in this case the kid is not being charged with causing hospital mix-ups or anything else that caused damage to human beings. He is being charged simply with time lost and time=money. That's why I used the analogy I did, one that causes annoyance and waste of time, but no one dies. No one died or got hurt here, at least not that the prosecutors said.
Clarify: I did say what the kid did was wrong, and that society needs to do something to discourage this sort of thing from happening. I never said to give the kid a pass.
Say: What's with all these analogies? He's been likened to an arsonist, someone who stabs another person, someone who shoots another person. Folks, those all involve dangerous situations with bodily harm and permanent, material loss. Sorry, but that's not what this kid did. An analogy for what this kid did might be to stand outside a business with a megaphone and create such a racket that no one can get work done until he is shut up. It cost that business time and money, but no building got burned down, no one got stabbed, no one got shot. It's a significant difference.
He took a worm and modified it and released it. That's not much different in spirit from what many of us did at his age, playing with tech, poking at it, learning how things work. He just picked something that caused massive headaches to all concerned, so we have little sympathy for the kid. And he seems suitably contrite since his arrest, as well he might since that event probably shook him. But what do we do with such kids? We don't want worms being released, and we want to discourage this behavior. And yes, money is involved when businesses spend time to fix the problems. But asking him to repay "millions" is an order of magnitude wrong. Let's see Kenny Boy Lay repay millions, yes. But this kid?!
Those of us who poked and prodded tech at his age, but did so in a way that didn't cause headaches to everyone, understand a little of his motivation. He was a dope, but a curious dope, and now he's learned a lesson. Will all the other script kiddie types learn from this? No way. What if he is told to pay back "millions"? Nope, they still won't care. We need to rethink how we deal with this sort of headache so that we encourage kids not to mess with worms and stuff, without treating them worse than violent criminals. I don't have the answers, but I can't see how throwing the book at this kid is going to solve much.
So all you say about Netscape may be true, but it does not excuse what Microsoft did.
Do I hate Microsoft? Um, well, yeah, but not for emotional reasons. I read the Findings of Fact from the Jackson court, the same findings that were upheld in the appeals court. After reading all 150 pages, I realized I despised Microsoft's odd obsession with not being satisfied with 90%-percent of the market but wanting those last few percentages too. And they were willing to bully their partners, threaten them, lie to the public, and basically act in truly sociopathic ways. Yes, all billion-dollar companies engage in some shady deals along the way, but with Microsoft it was the culture.
And yes, I am not a criminal, and I don't engage in such behaviors. Microsoft is criminal, and I'm not.
I read it, but I was trying to save you some money rather than spend so much just so you could use your existing monitors. However, it is a valid point that if you don't want a laptop, and you don't want a bundled system with monitor, that it is expensive. You are correct. Sorry about that. I just get tired of the usual comparison of, wait for it, Apples and Oranges.
I'm sure you are right as people as individuals can be capable of idealistic beliefs even while being part of a thoroughly corrupt organization (think of that nice civil servant down the street who happens to work for the government that is so corrupt). But in Microsoft's case, esepcially among the top officers, there's no excuse. After a court declares them to be an illegal monopoloy, and then it gets appealed and the appeals court agrees they are an illegal monopoly, but the company refuses to accept this judgement and keeps doing the same actions that got them in trouble with the law in the first place, what can we think? Even the most idealistic individual has to realize at that point that they are working for a convicted criminal enterprise. Oh sure, it's white collar crime, so we don't shudder in horror, but it's a crime nonetheless.
There are some of us who will not invest in, work for, or buy from criminal enterprises.
I agree, even asinine. But you evidently did the usual Apple slam of only comparing against their top end desktop. OK, let's go to the Apple store and see what I can get. The cheapest desktop is $1049 CAD ($799 in America, btw). That is a lot less asinine, or even assinine.
What's that? You only count the high-end stuff worthy of your attention? OK, fine, but then do the same when comparing a Dell. If you compare low-end PC to high-end Apple, you'll end up looking assinine and asinine.