>"It's a publicity stunt, SCO wants a buyout. They're targeting IBM because they IBM has lots of money, whereas no Linux-based companies are making a profit."
IMHO, if IBM was considering a buyout of SCO, it would have happened by now.
Even if IBM were to make a bid for SCO now, it might make sense for Microsoft to outbid them and leverage that for all its worth. Especially since such an offer by IBM would give credibility and more value to SCO's position.
Time to check out FreeBSD 5.x just in case this scenario plays out...if it doesn't, I'll have 2 cool "Unix-like" operating systems instead of 1.
>"One of the problems wiht capitalism, point made."
Actually, big-5 media corporations focusing on pro-gop news and marginalizing opposing views is not capitalism. Neither is special interests such as media companies using campaign contributions to modify/repeal existing laws to their advantage. IMHO, this is simply legalized bribery and has nothing to do with capitalism.
capitalism: An economic system in which the means of production and distribution are privately or corporately owned and development is proportionate to the accumulation and reinvestment of profits gained in a free market. --Source: The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition
>"Well find some evidence that's more credible than some joe blow 'uncovering' documents, and I'll believe you."
First, all the links I provided was from www.fair.org except for one. Fair.org is well-respected and was founded by Jeff Cohen--he appeared on Today, Larry King, NPR, Fox News Channel's News Watch (as regular panelist), and CNN's Crossfire (as co-host). Also, his columns have appeared in USA Today, Washington Post, Los Angeles Times, Boston Globe and Miami Herald.
Secondly, you should check out C-SPAN rather than CNN next time you visit someone with a TV (yea, it can be boring but you get to see what our elected officials REALLY do in office--and it isn't so boring when people you voted for do things that are completely opposite of what they protrayed during elections). You'd see without any 3rd-party spin that we have members of congress and senate calling for an investigation into the Iraq/WMD false accusation and the pro-war members recasting the term "weapons" to "capabilities" (similar to the sleezy Clinton tactic of playing word games with the term "sex"--that was unnacceptable back then and this is unnacceptable now).
But unlike Clinton's Whitewater or Monica "scandals", the GOP doesn't want an investigation into this. Just like they didn't want an investigation or full disclosure of meeting notes regarding the conversations between VP Cheney and Enron (with the millions of people directly affected by Enron's corruption, I'd have thought it deserved as much air-time as Whitewater).
And finally, I gave you very specific examples of blatant media spin that includes direct quotes (like Wolf Blitzer's interview)--can you do the same and actually prove (not merely accuse) my sources to be doing the same thing?
If you're interested in non-partisan academic investigation into under-reported or censored news stories, then check out:
http://www.projectcensored.org/
They take hundreds/thousands of nominated stories and actually investigate each one to verify or debunk them. Then they vote on the stories they verified to be true and publish a list.
Follow the link to story #5 about us violating geneva conventions and you'll have your "evidence" that wasn't uncovered merely by Joe Schmoe.
Again, keep in mind such actions aren't necessarily evil. We have to sometimes do certain undesireable things to protect our national interests.
CURRENT LIST: #1: FCC Moves to Privatize Airwaves #2: New Trade Treaty Seeks to Privatize Global Social Services #3: United States' Policies in Colombia Support Mass Murder #4: Bush Administration Hampered FBI Investigation into Bin Laden Family Before 9/11 #5: U.S. Intentionally Destroyed Iraq's Water System #6: U.S. Government Pushing Nuclear Revival #7: Corporations Promote HMO Model for School Districts #8: NAFTA Destroys Farming Communities in U.S. and Abroad #9: U.S. Faces National Housing Crisis #10: CIA Double Deals in Macedonia #11: Bush Appoints Former Criminals to Key Government Roles #12: NAFTA's Chapter 11 Overrides Public Protection Laws of Countries #13: Henry Kissinger and Gerald Ford Lied to the American Public about East Timor #14: New Laws Restrict Access to Abortions in U.S. #15: Bush's Energy Plan Threatens Environment and P
Before you do anything drastic, keep your company's options in mind. For example:
1. they can bid this project to an offshore consulting group like Wipro or Infosys (India) with a fixed bid & fixed schedule. Nine women can't produce a baby in 1 month but at least these companies can throw a bunch of resources on it and make it seem like they're trying harder than anyone else (even if they fail, management will assume nobody else could have done better for the price).
2. they can replace less productive team members with superstars. In software development, it isn't uncommon for a talented developer to produce more results than 10 coworkers of average skills. Getting rid of the dead weight will reduce the time needed to explain things to them. With times being tough, some superstars were laid off just so companies can meet numbers--they're easier to find than in the past and a bit cheaper too.
3. replace the people who failed to manage client expectations and have the new people help do damage control by slicing away some time-consuming features or buying more time.
Obviously, these are just wild guesses and may not be relevant to your company. Before you decide, put yourself in your employer's shoes and try to imagine all the plausible options they have available before taking action. Good luck.
The wealthly are NOT LEGALLY OBLIGATED to spend their tax cuts and corporate welfare in ways that create jobs or help the middle-class.
What do you think happens in the business world when one party gives up something and the other party is not LEGALLY BOUND to return something of similar value? You guessed it.
Look at Ford Motor Company--they recently announced profits yet they announced that more layoffs are coming. This should give you a clue that profits don't always lead to new jobs or preventing layoffs.
I'm not saying Ford's action is good, evil, right or wrong--I'm simply citing a specific example that shows the PURE BULLSHIT of politicians claiming tax cuts & loopholes for the ultra rich will help the rest of us.
The foundation of trickle down economics is based on the naive belief that new tax breaks given to the rich will be spent in ways that help the stupid working bastards subsidizing the deal.
We MUST treat tax cuts as it would be handled in the business world. Both parties must be legally bound to receive something of similar value in return for giving something. Right now, we are giving something of value (huge tax breaks) and receiving BULLSHIT promises in return (how much are promises worth? How much was "read my lips, no new taxes" worth to you?).
The ultra wealthy and companies should be allowed to spend their money as they please--but if they want the middle-class to subsidize their new tax cuts & loopholes, then the rich should be HELD ACCOUNTABLE to spend those subsidies in ways that benefit the middle-class because that was the FOUNDATION of the arguments used to persuade the public.
If we can ask high school kids to pass an exam before they receive their diplomas, we can sure as hell ask the rich to show exactly how they'll spend the new tax breaks--and require that they pay it back with full interest + penalties if they do not do so.
For more info: http://www.ctj.org/html/corp0402.htm
IF the offending code is actually from the Unix System V kernel dated in early 1980s (predating the first Linux kernel), and it is not from BSD, and if it is primarily in Linux kernel 2.4/2.5 and it wasn't put there by SCO/Caldera employees THEN what are the legal consequences for this lawsuit?
I strongly prefer that SCO lose this case but in light of what I'm hearing now, I can't help but wonder if they have a stronger case than we all imagined earlier. Just because we wish something to be true doesn't mean it has to be true.
Here are some quotes from the interview with Laura Didio of Yankee Group regarding this:
1. 'There are "bits and pieces" of copied material in Linux version 2.2, according to SCO. However, the vast majority of their claims centre around the later Linux 2.4 and 2.5 versions.'
2. 'The Yankee Group as well as the other analyst firms and members of the press, were only shown small portions of a few pieces of code. In my case, I saw Unix System V, version 4.1. Incidentally, this particular code is from the early 1980s, and hence predates Linus Torvalds' first Linux code.'
3. 'SCO hired three separate teams of code experts, including a group from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. According to SCO, these groups all found code in Linux that purportedly originated in the Unix System V kernel and not BSD.'
I wanted to keep this post relatively short so I suggest you read the entire interview to get better context to the quotes and to get the full story.
DISCLAIMER: I'm not a lawyer and my comments are for entertainment purposes only. Following any of my advice or acting on my comments can lead to loss of employment, litigation, loss of sexual prowess and proof that you cannot think for yourself. Any such proof can lead to your confinement to a couch where you'll be compelled to watch propaganda and opinions disguised as factual news.
1. Get a job offer in writing before you even consider hinting to anyone else at work that you are leaving.
2. Encouraging others to leave their jobs can potentially lead to a lawsuit from your employer and possibly even those who meet with long-term unemployment due to your advice/encouragement.
3. Perform this test: put your finger in a glass of water and then quickly pull it out. You are as indispensable to the company as the hole that filled up unless your departure directly causes a bankruptcy.
4. Your actions might punish the wrong people. If you and your buddies leave, other remaining employees who may have had nothing to do with your frustrations could suffer a LOT more than the person/people you are targetting (assuming you're not trying to hurt the feelings of a company because that would be stupid--removing or changing the behavior of specific people would be smarter).
5. If you are bringing down the morale of other employees by whining constantly instead of actively trying to fix the problems you dislike, then you should be fired. Go ahead and quit, the company will be better off without you.
Some alternatives to quitting:
Adhoc overtime: "No, I have prior commitments so I cannot stay tonight. If you want, I can come in very early tomorrow/Monday morning to meet with you and get a jump start. Is 6am OK? No? OK 9am it is then." Come up with every plausible reason to chat with or involve the person responsible for making up the stupid deadline during off hours and portray them of not being good team players if they start to complain. Show sincere interest in how they come up with deliverables and deadlines--expose them if they are pulling things out of their ass.
Feeling appreciated: isn't in your employment agreement and probably not even mentioned when they offered you your job. Grow up and stop craving it at work. How YOU feel inside is up to you and not others. But you should leverage your accomplishments to go after things others can give you like well-deserved salary raises, bonuses, written recognitions/praise you can file away for later use, etc. These are worth a lot more than a cheesy pat on the back that compells an emotion you can produce on your own.
Unreasonable deadlines: "I'm sorry but I can't finish that on time without changing the deliverables or schedule and I don't know anyone else who can. Since I'm well-above average in productivity, lets find out how exactly the person who came up with the plan determined that this timeline is feasible. Either he knows something we don't or we need to improve the way deadlines are being determined or hire more resources."
Constant overtime: is a sign of mismanagement. Find out if laws in your state require your employer to compensate you. You'd be surprised. Document every minute you work overtime as well as what you produce. This can come in handy later.
Above all: SHOW MANAGEMENT THAT CHANGES WILL INCREASE REVENUES OR REDUCE COSTS WITHOUT INCURRING RISKS. They'll listen if you use language they understand to offer specific solutions to the root causes of the frustrations you are experiencing.
In addition to the basics, what about teaching time management? Goal-setting? Critical thinking? Concentration skills? Budgeting & investing?
These are important life skills that good parents would teach their kids--however, good parents are in very short supply and schools need to help kids develop important life skills before they get programmed into teenage morons living life on auto-pilot.
Great point: by "no taxes", I meant "no income taxes"--my sincerest apologies for not being more specific about that.
The link you've provided doesn't work but I know how you may have gotten the impression MS "only" made $7.785 billion that year.
The $7.8 billion "after-tax net income" DOESN'T include the roughly $5 billion MS made that year by getting tax deductions for issuing employee stock options and income by selling warrants on its own stock.
You appear skeptical of a "political" source that mentioned $12.3 billion so here is a quote from a financial news source (not political) to back up my statement:
"Basically, Microsoft receives cash by issuing employee stock options, after which the company then receives billions of dollars in tax deductions from the IRS for doing so. Add in the warrants it sells on its own stock, and the company made over $5 billion off the stock market last year (fiscal year ended July 1999), tax-free. For comparison, its after-tax net income was only $7.8 billion."
Source: The Motley Fool (Investment Site) http://www.fool.com/portfolios/rulemaker/20 00/rule maker000217.htm
Prior Source: Citizens for Tax Justice http://www.ctj.org/html/corp0402.htm
Personally, I don't think there is a "political" conspiracy between Citizens for Tax Justice (www.ctj.org) and The Motley Fool (www.fool.com) to make up false figures regarding Microsoft. But if you believe in bizarre conspiracies, then please feel free to follow up with either source and ask them how they came up with those numbers--and don't forget to inquire about a great opportunity to buy the Brooklyn Bridge (only 2 left in stock)!
I will quote my source of info and provide a link so you won't have to take my word about Microsoft paying no taxes in 1999.
"Microsoft enjoyed more than $12 billion in total tax breaks over the past five years. In fact, Microsoft actually paid no tax at all in 1999, despite $12.3 billion in reported U.S. profits. Microsoftâ(TM)s tax rate for the past two years was only 1.8 percent on $21.9 billion in pretax U.S. profits."
Source: http://www.ctj.org/html/corp0402.htm About CTJ: http://www.ctj.org/html/ctjdesc.htm
So there, I wouldn't be a liar even if MS did pay $1 in taxes because Websters Unabridged Dictionary defines "liar" as "A person who knowingly utters falsehood".
My definition of "dumb conservative" is a conservative who earns less than $500,000/year or has a net worth of less than several million dollars.
These poor souls would rather focus on why they (the middle class) have to pay a bit more taxes than the poor instead of focusing on why they have to pay a LOT more taxes than the ultra-wealthy or profitable corporations like Microsoft. You knew Microsoft paid $0 taxes in 1999, right?
These morons also like complaining about things like a minimum wage bill because it raises the minimum wage rather than complaining about the luxury yacht fuel subsidies buried inside that same bill. "To hell with the undernourished child of a single working parent, my taxes shouldn't pay for that! Instead, my hard-earned taxes are gonna help filthy rich bastards play on their yacht because my misguided middle-class ass is too lazy to get informed."
Just by renaming it to sound anti-terrorist, are we supposed to shut up and stop questioning it?
Instead of making our government BIGGER & MORE INTRUSIVE & STRIPPING AWAY OUR RIGHTS, why don't we investigate how 9/11 was allowed to happen when we had ALL THE INFO REQUIRED to prevent it?!?!?
Oh, I forgot--the investigation into that was quietly squashed without much media attention but we got color-coded alerts to make us feel that something "real" appropriate is being done.
"Hey, lets rename this unpopular law/project/war/etc. so people think it has to do with anti-terrorism, they'll shut up for sure especially if the media makes anyone speaking against it appear stupid, weak, liberal, unpatriotic, etc. This is a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to get a bunch of unpopular shit done what would've caused riots/impeachments just a few year ago! Best of all, when people start to ask questions about the Pres or VP dealings with Enron or Halliburton again, we can just change the terror alert color so the media can refocus on that without resorting another murder case in California."
"And just in case we don't have any more terrorism in the USA, lets go piss off the Palestinians and make the Middle-eastern countries think we're gonna invade them--that'll stir up enough shit to make at least another group of crazies blow something up here--and we can milk that bombing to our advantage just like 9/11! We'll be silencing our critics and getting unpopular initiatives done for the next 50 years using this strategy!"
I'm obviously exaggerating to make a point but really, don't you think there's a grain of truth to associating unpopular initiatives with anti-terrorism just to get people to stop questioning it?
Nice try but your "logic" (lol) fails the obvious test.
IIS has smaller marketshare than Apache Web Server, yet MANY more IIS vulnerabilities have been discovered and MS took a LOT longer to fix/patch IIS than Apache.
First, many blue collar jobs went...now IT jobs...what can be next?
There are millions of other jobs remaining that we can outsource overseas to help our companies cut costs and increase shareholder value.
Why not outsource other jobs such as legal research (searching for precedence, etc.), industry/market research and countless other jobs that don't have to be physically executed in the USA?
Executives and marketing/sales folks might be safe for a bit but after the bulk of the employees ship overseas and with other countries (i.e. China & India) having MANY more consumers--and eventually businesses--than us, won't it be best for their companies if these jobs ship out?
Obviously, it isn't feasable to ship all the jobs overseas but I wonder what percentage of existing jobs here in the USA can "safely" be outsourced to Canada, Mexico, UK, India, China, etc. 10%? 25%? 33%? more? And how much shareholder value can be extracted from this before they need to shift investments overseas?
What jobs are the best candidates to ship overseas next? Accountants? Analysts? Laywers (only small percentage go to trial--most draft/review contracts, etc.)? Middle management (if the people you manage are all overseas...)?...
And how will this impact our economy (higher unemployment, etc.)? Our government (social security, etc.)? Our national security (brain drain, etc.)?
This is probably going to be tough for the JBoss group but ultimately, I think competition will force them to improve and become better--if they pull through this hurdle.
Competition helps keep companies (and people too) from slacking or falling short of doing their best.
WASHINGTON, Oct. 17, 2002 -- United States government officials will consult with friends and allies on what to do about North Korea's admission that it has been developing nuclear weapons, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said today.
North Korean officials reportedly admitted to an American diplomat that they have an active nuclear weapons program in defiance of the so- called Agreed Framework. In this agreement, North Korea promised in 1994 that it would freeze its nuclear program.
"It is a reality that they stand in direct breach of four separate agreements, by their own admission," Rumsfeld said in a Pentagon press briefing. The other three agreements North Korea has violated are the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, the International Atomic Energy Agency Safeguards Agreement, and the North-South Denuclearization Agreement.
Rumsfeld said U.S. officials will be speaking to Japan and South Korean counterparts, as well as representatives of the People's Republic of China, Russia and possibly the European Union.
He indicated U.N. weapons inspectors in North Korea are not a likely option at this point, since the country has already admitted its violations.
So rather than defending your original post, you call me an anti-capitalist for no apparent reason and make references to my anus?
1. You gave an example of cable vendor choice and prices for you. This is a great & logical response but unfortunately, the only rational part of your response. It still doesn't change the fact I (and many others) don't have a choice and my now nearly doubled cable bill doesn't include internet access.
2. me> Companies like Clear Channel now own 1,200+ radio stations rather than the previous limit of 40.
you> I'm still wondering how this equates to utter media domination.
Huh? Me too but what made you begin wondering about this? Were you responding to my post or someone elses? I simply stated a simple and verifiable fact--one which directly refutes your original post. I guess making up a very weak statement, attributing it to the other person, then attacking that statement is one way to handle seeing the logic behind your original post crumble. But does it ever work?
3. >That is complete and utter unsubstantiated bullshit. A number of clearchannel stations which specialize in country music may have boycotted them after that stupid bitch Natalie Mains ran her mouth
Wrong again. It isn't unsubstantiated and it isn't bullshit. Here are 2 quotes from the Independent Media Center regarding this matter (first one shows threat of banning, and second one states that they were banned--and this isn't coming from Slashdot):
a. "When Ani DiFranco played at ClearChannel's New Jersey Performing Arts Center on March 19, the manager of the arts center threatened to ban her if she allowed antiwar representatives to speak"
b. "After Dixie Chicks lead singer Natalie Maines told fans during a London concert, "We're ashamed the president of the United States is from Texas," Clear Channel stations boycotted their music. Cumulus Media, which owns 262 stations, ordered all 42 of its country stations to ban the Dixie Chicks. One station promoted a rally in Shreveport, Louisiana, where a bulldozer crushed Dixie Chicks CDs. Another station in Kansas City "chicken toss" party where the group's tapes, CDs and concert tickets were dumped in trash cans."
4. >please remove your cephalis from your anus
Yuck. If you have repressed desires that make you bring up the word "anus" whenever you feel frustrated, go tell someone who can help you with that. I don't want to hear about it but I'm sure there are professional counselors who'd be willing to listen.
5. Stop being anti-capitalist [...]
Wrong again. Someone who exposes your message as being flawed doesn't automatically mean he's anti-capitalist. Since you don't appear to know what the word means, I'll attempt to educate you.
capitalism: "An economic system in which the means of production and distribution are privately or corporately owned and development is proportionate to the accumulation and reinvestment of profits gained in a free market."
capitalist: " 1. A supporter of capitalism.
2. An investor of capital in business, especially one having a major financial interest in an important enterprise.
3. A person of great wealth."
Source: www.dictionary.com
I'm a capitalist based on definition #1 & #2. I'm not yet a person of great wealth (I define great wealth has having >$50 million in cash or stock in publicly traded companies).
BTW, did you ever read Adam Smith's "Wealth of Nations"? And did you create several companies and hundreds of jobs that still exist today? Or did you ever risk your personal wealth to help people build companies? No? You think spouting bullshit on Slashdot makes you more of a capitalist than me?
Please don't cheapen the word "capitalist" by using in your obviously flawed arguments. Not to say that all your points are wrong, the first one where you give a specific example of cable vendor choice is pretty good.
Woops, formatting was lost in my last reply. Sorry.
North Korean government is responsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people--especially through starvation. They have also been responsible for numerous terrorist activities outside their own borders. This is a fact. They are FAR MORE ahead of Iraq in terms of WMD development including nuclear warheads and longer range missles.
>>"Saddam had WMD, another unquestioned fact, North Korea says they do or atleast are trying to build some."
Holy Cow! They found WMD in Iraq??? Where exactly is the WMD and when was it found? What is the source of your info? If you're referring to the HUGE multi-day ABC news story on April 26-27, then you've been misled my friend. They knew 2 days beforehand it was unconfirmed and they didn't air a retraction when they later found out the story was false.
Don't take my word for it, see the facts about the proven-to-be bogus ABC story here:
http://www.fair.org/activism/abc-iraq-weapons.ht ml
"We got crap from everywhere except basically Israel and our own people."
Of course this happened and here's exactly why:
1. Israel and Iraq are bitter enemies with Iraq posing a real danger to Israel. Remember that Iraq launched missiles at Israel in the past.
2. Americans like you and me received 99.999% of our news from the same 5 USA corporations that made us believe that the war was totally justified and that people believing otherwise are unpatriotic left-wing conspiracy theorists (aka misguided losers).
If I owned a "big-5" media company, I wouldn't air anti-war or anti-GOP stuff either given that the FCC was going to vote to relax media ownership rules on June 2, 2003--which would help me make billions more for my shareholders.
Want examples? Here's how Wolf Blitzer tried damage control during a story and came out exposing himself not to be a true journalist: http://www.fair.org/extra/0301/blitze r.html
Examples of how we handled some of our journalists: http://www.fair.org/press-releases/i raq-censorship.html
Examples of we handled some foreign journalists: http://www.fair.org/press-releases/i raq-journalist s.html
Example story you'll never hear on TV despite it being a huge scoop (poisoning/destroying a country's water supply and preventing required repair parts to be imported so that children/civilians die of disease caused by contaminated water--if this isn't terrorism, then what is? it certainly violates the Geneva Convention) http://www.progressive.org/0801issue/ nagy0901.html
>>"Do you honestly believe that people in washington are so evil that they would do that?"
If you re-read my post, you'll see that I explicately state that our government (USA) isn't evil. Our leaders are simply doing their job to make our country stronger for the future both economically and militarily. Unfortunately this end-goal sometimes requires very distasteful actions. And our public won't swallow these distasteful actions without vigorous protest if they had all the facts so we have to sanitize it and spin it so things don't get out of hand like it did during the Vietnam war.
Controlling the flow of oil isn't just about money--it is about security as well since so much of our infrastructure and econony relies on it.
I hope you visit the links I've provided to at http://www.fair.org--whether you are a conservative or liberal, it helps to identify media bias so you can form your opinions based on fact rather than spin.
North Korean government is responsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people--especially through starvation. They have also been responsible for numerous terrorist activities outside their own borders. This is a fact. They are FAR MORE ahead of Iraq in terms of WMD development including nuclear warheads and longer range missles.
>>"Saddam had WMD, another unquestioned fact, North Korea says they do or atleast are trying to build some."
Holy Cow! They found WMD in Iraq??? Where exactly is the WMD and when was it found? What is the source of your info? If you're referring to the HUGE multi-day ABC news story on April 26-27, then you've been misled my friend. They knew 2 days beforehand it was unconfirmed and they didn't air a retraction when they later found out the story was false.
Don't take my word for it, see the facts about the proven-to-be bogus ABC story here:
http://www.fair.org/activism/abc-iraq-weapons.html
"We got crap from everywhere except basically Israel and our own people."
Of course this happened and here's exactly why:
1. Israel and Iraq are bitter enemies with Iraq posing a real danger to Israel. Remember that Iraq launched missiles at Israel in the past.
2. Americans like you and me received 99.999% of our news from the same 5 USA corporations that made us believe that the war was totally justified and that people believing otherwise are unpatriotic left-wing conspiracy theorists (aka misguided losers).
If I owned a "big-5" media company, I wouldn't air anti-war or anti-GOP stuff either given that the FCC was going to vote to relax media ownership rules on June 2, 2003--which would help me make billions more for my shareholders.
Want examples? Here's how Wolf Blitzer tried damage control during a story and came out exposing himself not to be a true journalist:
http://www.fair.org/extra/0301/blitzer.html
Examples of how we handled some of our journalists:
http://www.fair.org/press-releases/iraq-censorship.html
Examples of we handled some foreign journalists:
http://www.fair.org/press-releases/iraq-journalist s.html
Example story you'll never hear on TV despite it being a huge scoop (poisoning/destroying a country's water supply and preventing required repair parts to be imported so that children/civilians die of disease caused by contaminated water--if this isn't terrorism, then what is? it certainly violates the Geneva Convention)
http://www.progressive.org/0801issue/nagy0901.html
>>"Do you honestly believe that people in washington are so evil that they would do that?"
If you re-read my post, you'll see that I explicately state that our government (USA) isn't evil. Our leaders are simply doing their job to make our country stronger for the future both economically and militarily. Unfortunately this end-goal sometimes requires very distasteful actions. And our public won't swallow these distasteful actions without vigorous protest if they had all the facts so we have to sanitize it and spin it so things don't get out of hand like it did during the Vietnam war.
Controlling the flow of oil isn't just about money--it is about security as well since so much of our infrastructure and econony relies on it.
I hope you visit the links I've provided to at http://www.fair.org--whether you are a conservative or liberal, it helps to identify media bias so you can form your opinions based on fact rather than spin.
We all know the North Koreans (well, the leader anyway) is much worse than Saddam & Iraq--for goodness sakes, the North Koreans ADMITTED to violations--we don't even have to make up the weapons of mass destruction story with these guys.
However, North Korea doesn't have any oil or other valuable resources so attacking them won't bring us the ROI necessary to justify a war.
Why the heck should we, the USA, throw away billions of dollars and risk a disaster with our trading partners (if the North Koreans get lucky and launch a missile in time at South Korea or Japan)? In the case of Iraq, it was obviously worth all the temporarily bad foreign relations including getting busted for spying on UN officials because of all that oil & strategically located huge mass of land.
It isn't like we're actually in the business of overthrowing goverments in order to bring down evil dictators who abuse their people--we actually don't give a rats ass about human rights violations overseas--heck, look at Amnesty International's report on the number of children killed by both Israel & Palestine (hint: if you've been getting all your news from the same 5 mega corporations as me, you'll also be SHOCKED about which country actually killed more children last year).
Folks, war is all about ROI and how we'll benefit economically and militarily. This is why we go to wars. Ever play Sid Meir's Civilization games and break treaties or start wars? This isn't "evil", and this isn't "righteous"--it is simply rational if the goal is to win and sometimes very distasteful when you see the real-life consequences from ALL perspectives.
Just be grateful that we weren't born overseas and try to think of ways to get that ROI for the USA without wars--because compassion alone isn't enough to stop this train.
Again, think about the specific benefits we receive from wars and figure out a way for us to get them without actually doing nasty deeds like repeatedly killing/threatening foreign journalists or dropping cluster bombs that cause civilians to die. If you can help us gain those benefits, we might stop invading other countries and making up plausible stories to justify our actions.
Am I a conservative or liberal? Neither. I just believe in the Constitution of the USA and will defend your right to speak your mind even if I totally disagree with your views. God Bless America--we have our share of faults and need to improve but I'm proud to be an American.
How much good? Impossible to quantify but obviously more good than not doing anything at all.
There are over 700 posts about this new in Slashdot today (not including previous stories) and it would take about the same amount of time to post here as it would in submitting the online petition.
Second, simply filling out and submitting an online petition is just the first level of participation.
If 700+ additional people actually contacted the offices of the 3 republicans in favor of this FCC move and told them they would vote against them based solely on this single issue, then I believe the impact would have been much greater. Enough to turn the tide? Nobody knows because it didn't happen.
Most importantly, what do you propose as an alternative to even doing the bare minimum? No action? Just lay down and watch the USA turn into something similar to communist China where people are afraid to voice their political views in fear of the consequences?
What obvious things happened after the telecom deregulation in 1996?
1. Cable prices went up and I (along with many others) don't have any choice in selecting a cable provider.
This shows that deregulation doesn't always increase competition and benefit consumers. In fact, it had the opposite effect!!!
2. Companies like Clear Channel now own 1,200+ radio stations rather than the previous limit of 40.
And you say larger media companies will get smaller as a result of deregulation? Your conclusion directly contradicts recent and verifiable history. How exactly did you form your conclusion? Did you pull it out of your ass and hope people would buy it simply to avoid being labeled a "paranoid"? The "if you disagree with me then you must be a conspiracy theorist" argument was overused for years and lost its impact on people who can see through bullshit.
3. Clear Channel stopped playing Dixie Chicks for making a political statement that management did not agree with.
This is a verifiable example of how censorship can occur when media companies get very large. Other artists with similar opinions obviously got the message they'd better clam up or risk losing airtime.
And whether we agree or not with the Dixie Chicks is totally irrelevant--actually UNDERSTANDING and DEFENDING the Constitution of the USA is what is important for true American citizens. You did read the entire Constitution at least once, right?
While I disagree strongly with your opinions and obviously incorrect statements, I will fight to defend your right to express them.
Again, the best reasonable guess as to what will happen as a result of this deregulation is to look at recent history regarding similar events like the Telecommunication Act of 1996.
Stop being a liberal or a conservative: be rational and exercise common sense.
There were several available online petitions to simply fillout and click to submit--how many of us actually bothered?
Not happy with biased news? Tired of being handed opinions rather than facts? Well, if you stood by and did nothing, stop whining and eat the pile of poo you actually helped create.
Liberty isn't free. We need to be vigilant and consistently take sensible action before tyrants take over out of pure self-interest.
So stop your whining on Slashdot until you actually do something constructive like contacting your representatives to tell them this issue will decide how you vote in elections.
Given that the MAJORITY of Microsoft's revenues come from overseas, this type of news along with the recent one about Munich Germany switching to Linux is significant.
There are patches for Linux kernel that help improve interactive performance--especially for games.
Try the "low latency" patch and you'll notice a huge difference.
Slashdot Mirror
If you're wondering how Plan 9 differs from Unix, check out:
http://plan9.bell-labs.com/sys/doc/9.html
>"It's a publicity stunt, SCO wants a buyout. They're targeting IBM because they IBM has lots of money, whereas no Linux-based companies are making a profit."
IMHO, if IBM was considering a buyout of SCO, it would have happened by now.
Even if IBM were to make a bid for SCO now, it might make sense for Microsoft to outbid them and leverage that for all its worth. Especially since such an offer by IBM would give credibility and more value to SCO's position.
Time to check out FreeBSD 5.x just in case this scenario plays out...if it doesn't, I'll have 2 cool "Unix-like" operating systems instead of 1.
>"One of the problems wiht capitalism, point made."
Actually, big-5 media corporations focusing on pro-gop news and marginalizing opposing views is not capitalism. Neither is special interests such as media companies using campaign contributions to modify/repeal existing laws to their advantage. IMHO, this is simply legalized bribery and has nothing to do with capitalism.
capitalism: An economic system in which the means of production and distribution are privately or corporately owned and development is proportionate to the accumulation and reinvestment of profits gained in a free market.
--Source: The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition
>"Well find some evidence that's more credible than some joe blow 'uncovering' documents, and I'll believe you."
First, all the links I provided was from www.fair.org except for one. Fair.org is well-respected and was founded by Jeff Cohen--he appeared on Today, Larry King, NPR, Fox News Channel's News Watch (as regular panelist), and CNN's Crossfire (as co-host). Also, his columns have appeared in USA Today, Washington Post, Los Angeles Times, Boston Globe and Miami Herald.
Secondly, you should check out C-SPAN rather than CNN next time you visit someone with a TV (yea, it can be boring but you get to see what our elected officials REALLY do in office--and it isn't so boring when people you voted for do things that are completely opposite of what they protrayed during elections). You'd see without any 3rd-party spin that we have members of congress and senate calling for an investigation into the Iraq/WMD false accusation and the pro-war members recasting the term "weapons" to "capabilities" (similar to the sleezy Clinton tactic of playing word games with the term "sex"--that was unnacceptable back then and this is unnacceptable now).
But unlike Clinton's Whitewater or Monica "scandals", the GOP doesn't want an investigation into this. Just like they didn't want an investigation or full disclosure of meeting notes regarding the conversations between VP Cheney and Enron (with the millions of people directly affected by Enron's corruption, I'd have thought it deserved as much air-time as Whitewater).
And finally, I gave you very specific examples of blatant media spin that includes direct quotes (like Wolf Blitzer's interview)--can you do the same and actually prove (not merely accuse) my sources to be doing the same thing?
If you're interested in non-partisan academic investigation into under-reported or censored news stories, then check out:
http://www.projectcensored.org/
They take hundreds/thousands of nominated stories and actually investigate each one to verify or debunk them. Then they vote on the stories they verified to be true and publish a list.
Follow the link to story #5 about us violating geneva conventions and you'll have your "evidence" that wasn't uncovered merely by Joe Schmoe.
Again, keep in mind such actions aren't necessarily evil. We have to sometimes do certain undesireable things to protect our national interests.
CURRENT LIST:
#1: FCC Moves to Privatize Airwaves
#2: New Trade Treaty Seeks to Privatize Global Social Services
#3: United States' Policies in Colombia Support Mass Murder
#4: Bush Administration Hampered FBI Investigation into Bin Laden Family Before 9/11
#5: U.S. Intentionally Destroyed Iraq's Water System
#6: U.S. Government Pushing Nuclear Revival
#7: Corporations Promote HMO Model for School Districts
#8: NAFTA Destroys Farming Communities in U.S. and Abroad
#9: U.S. Faces National Housing Crisis
#10: CIA Double Deals in Macedonia
#11: Bush Appoints Former Criminals to Key Government Roles
#12: NAFTA's Chapter 11 Overrides Public Protection Laws of Countries
#13: Henry Kissinger and Gerald Ford Lied to the American Public about East Timor
#14: New Laws Restrict Access to Abortions in U.S.
#15: Bush's Energy Plan Threatens Environment and P
Before you do anything drastic, keep your company's options in mind. For example:
1. they can bid this project to an offshore consulting group like Wipro or Infosys (India) with a fixed bid & fixed schedule. Nine women can't produce a baby in 1 month but at least these companies can throw a bunch of resources on it and make it seem like they're trying harder than anyone else (even if they fail, management will assume nobody else could have done better for the price).
2. they can replace less productive team members with superstars. In software development, it isn't uncommon for a talented developer to produce more results than 10 coworkers of average skills. Getting rid of the dead weight will reduce the time needed to explain things to them. With times being tough, some superstars were laid off just so companies can meet numbers--they're easier to find than in the past and a bit cheaper too.
3. replace the people who failed to manage client expectations and have the new people help do damage control by slicing away some time-consuming features or buying more time.
Obviously, these are just wild guesses and may not be relevant to your company. Before you decide, put yourself in your employer's shoes and try to imagine all the plausible options they have available before taking action. Good luck.
The wealthly are NOT LEGALLY OBLIGATED to spend their tax cuts and corporate welfare in ways that create jobs or help the middle-class.
What do you think happens in the business world when one party gives up something and the other party is not LEGALLY BOUND to return something of similar value? You guessed it.
Look at Ford Motor Company--they recently announced profits yet they announced that more layoffs are coming. This should give you a clue that profits don't always lead to new jobs or preventing layoffs.
I'm not saying Ford's action is good, evil, right or wrong--I'm simply citing a specific example that shows the PURE BULLSHIT of politicians claiming tax cuts & loopholes for the ultra rich will help the rest of us.
The foundation of trickle down economics is based on the naive belief that new tax breaks given to the rich will be spent in ways that help the stupid working bastards subsidizing the deal.
We MUST treat tax cuts as it would be handled in the business world. Both parties must be legally bound to receive something of similar value in return for giving something. Right now, we are giving something of value (huge tax breaks) and receiving BULLSHIT promises in return (how much are promises worth? How much was "read my lips, no new taxes" worth to you?).
The ultra wealthy and companies should be allowed to spend their money as they please--but if they want the middle-class to subsidize their new tax cuts & loopholes, then the rich should be HELD ACCOUNTABLE to spend those subsidies in ways that benefit the middle-class because that was the FOUNDATION of the arguments used to persuade the public.
If we can ask high school kids to pass an exam before they receive their diplomas, we can sure as hell ask the rich to show exactly how they'll spend the new tax breaks--and require that they pay it back with full interest + penalties if they do not do so.
For more info:
http://www.ctj.org/html/corp0402.htm
IF the offending code is actually from the Unix System V kernel dated in early 1980s (predating the first Linux kernel), and it is not from BSD, and if it is primarily in Linux kernel 2.4/2.5 and it wasn't put there by SCO/Caldera employees THEN what are the legal consequences for this lawsuit?
/ 13/10552207 51243.html
I strongly prefer that SCO lose this case but in light of what I'm hearing now, I can't help but wonder if they have a stronger case than we all imagined earlier. Just because we wish something to be true doesn't mean it has to be true.
Here are some quotes from the interview with Laura Didio of Yankee Group regarding this:
1. 'There are "bits and pieces" of copied material in Linux version 2.2, according to SCO. However, the vast majority of their claims centre around the later Linux 2.4 and 2.5 versions.'
2. 'The Yankee Group as well as the other analyst firms and members of the press, were only shown small portions of a few pieces of code. In my case, I saw Unix System V, version 4.1. Incidentally, this particular code is from the early 1980s, and hence predates Linus Torvalds' first Linux code.'
3. 'SCO hired three separate teams of code experts, including a group from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. According to SCO, these groups all found code in Linux that purportedly originated in the Unix System V kernel and not BSD.'
I wanted to keep this post relatively short so I suggest you read the entire interview to get better context to the quotes and to get the full story.
Source:
http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/06
DISCLAIMER: I'm not a lawyer and my comments are for entertainment purposes only. Following any of my advice or acting on my comments can lead to loss of employment, litigation, loss of sexual prowess and proof that you cannot think for yourself. Any such proof can lead to your confinement to a couch where you'll be compelled to watch propaganda and opinions disguised as factual news.
1. Get a job offer in writing before you even consider hinting to anyone else at work that you are leaving.
2. Encouraging others to leave their jobs can potentially lead to a lawsuit from your employer and possibly even those who meet with long-term unemployment due to your advice/encouragement.
3. Perform this test: put your finger in a glass of water and then quickly pull it out. You are as indispensable to the company as the hole that filled up unless your departure directly causes a bankruptcy.
4. Your actions might punish the wrong people. If you and your buddies leave, other remaining employees who may have had nothing to do with your frustrations could suffer a LOT more than the person/people you are targetting (assuming you're not trying to hurt the feelings of a company because that would be stupid--removing or changing the behavior of specific people would be smarter).
5. If you are bringing down the morale of other employees by whining constantly instead of actively trying to fix the problems you dislike, then you should be fired. Go ahead and quit, the company will be better off without you.
Some alternatives to quitting:
Adhoc overtime: "No, I have prior commitments so I cannot stay tonight. If you want, I can come in very early tomorrow/Monday morning to meet with you and get a jump start. Is 6am OK? No? OK 9am it is then." Come up with every plausible reason to chat with or involve the person responsible for making up the stupid deadline during off hours and portray them of not being good team players if they start to complain. Show sincere interest in how they come up with deliverables and deadlines--expose them if they are pulling things out of their ass.
Feeling appreciated: isn't in your employment agreement and probably not even mentioned when they offered you your job. Grow up and stop craving it at work. How YOU feel inside is up to you and not others. But you should leverage your accomplishments to go after things others can give you like well-deserved salary raises, bonuses, written recognitions/praise you can file away for later use, etc. These are worth a lot more than a cheesy pat on the back that compells an emotion you can produce on your own.
Unreasonable deadlines: "I'm sorry but I can't finish that on time without changing the deliverables or schedule and I don't know anyone else who can. Since I'm well-above average in productivity, lets find out how exactly the person who came up with the plan determined that this timeline is feasible. Either he knows something we don't or we need to improve the way deadlines are being determined or hire more resources."
Constant overtime: is a sign of mismanagement. Find out if laws in your state require your employer to compensate you. You'd be surprised. Document every minute you work overtime as well as what you produce. This can come in handy later.
Above all: SHOW MANAGEMENT THAT CHANGES WILL INCREASE REVENUES OR REDUCE COSTS WITHOUT INCURRING RISKS. They'll listen if you use language they understand to offer specific solutions to the root causes of the frustrations you are experiencing.
Cursive? LMAO! That isn't the worst of it.
In addition to the basics, what about teaching time management? Goal-setting? Critical thinking? Concentration skills? Budgeting & investing?
These are important life skills that good parents would teach their kids--however, good parents are in very short supply and schools need to help kids develop important life skills before they get programmed into teenage morons living life on auto-pilot.
Great point: by "no taxes", I meant "no income taxes"--my sincerest apologies for not being more specific about that.
0 00/rule maker000217.htm
The link you've provided doesn't work but I know how you may have gotten the impression MS "only" made $7.785 billion that year.
The $7.8 billion "after-tax net income" DOESN'T include the roughly $5 billion MS made that year by getting tax deductions for issuing employee stock options and income by selling warrants on its own stock.
You appear skeptical of a "political" source that mentioned $12.3 billion so here is a quote from a financial news source (not political) to back up my statement:
"Basically, Microsoft receives cash by issuing employee stock options, after which the company then receives billions of dollars in tax deductions from the IRS for doing so. Add in the warrants it sells on its own stock, and the company made over $5 billion off the stock market last year (fiscal year ended July 1999), tax-free. For comparison, its after-tax net income was only $7.8 billion."
Source: The Motley Fool (Investment Site)
http://www.fool.com/portfolios/rulemaker/2
Prior Source: Citizens for Tax Justice
http://www.ctj.org/html/corp0402.htm
Personally, I don't think there is a "political" conspiracy between Citizens for Tax Justice (www.ctj.org) and The Motley Fool (www.fool.com) to make up false figures regarding Microsoft. But if you believe in bizarre conspiracies, then please feel free to follow up with either source and ask them how they came up with those numbers--and don't forget to inquire about a great opportunity to buy the Brooklyn Bridge (only 2 left in stock)!
I will quote my source of info and provide a link so you won't have to take my word about Microsoft paying no taxes in 1999.
"Microsoft enjoyed more than $12 billion in total tax breaks over the past five years. In fact, Microsoft actually paid no tax at all in 1999, despite $12.3 billion in reported U.S. profits. Microsoftâ(TM)s tax rate for the past two years was only 1.8 percent on $21.9 billion in pretax U.S. profits."
Source: http://www.ctj.org/html/corp0402.htm
About CTJ: http://www.ctj.org/html/ctjdesc.htm
So there, I wouldn't be a liar even if MS did pay $1 in taxes because Websters Unabridged Dictionary defines "liar" as "A person who knowingly utters falsehood".
My definition of "dumb conservative" is a conservative who earns less than $500,000/year or has a net worth of less than several million dollars.
These poor souls would rather focus on why they (the middle class) have to pay a bit more taxes than the poor instead of focusing on why they have to pay a LOT more taxes than the ultra-wealthy or profitable corporations like Microsoft. You knew Microsoft paid $0 taxes in 1999, right?
These morons also like complaining about things like a minimum wage bill because it raises the minimum wage rather than complaining about the luxury yacht fuel subsidies buried inside that same bill. "To hell with the undernourished child of a single working parent, my taxes shouldn't pay for that! Instead, my hard-earned taxes are gonna help filthy rich bastards play on their yacht because my misguided middle-class ass is too lazy to get informed."
smartest: rich conservatives
average: everyone else
dumbest: middle-class conservatives
I hope to become a rich conservative sometime this decade but until then, it isn't in my best self-interest to be a conservative or liberal right now.
What's your definition of "dumb conservative"?
It shows that they THINK we're gullable morons.
Just by renaming it to sound anti-terrorist, are we supposed to shut up and stop questioning it?
Instead of making our government BIGGER & MORE INTRUSIVE & STRIPPING AWAY OUR RIGHTS, why don't we investigate how 9/11 was allowed to happen when we had ALL THE INFO REQUIRED to prevent it?!?!?
Oh, I forgot--the investigation into that was quietly squashed without much media attention but we got color-coded alerts to make us feel that something "real" appropriate is being done.
"Hey, lets rename this unpopular law/project/war/etc. so people think it has to do with anti-terrorism, they'll shut up for sure especially if the media makes anyone speaking against it appear stupid, weak, liberal, unpatriotic, etc. This is a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to get a bunch of unpopular shit done what would've caused riots/impeachments just a few year ago! Best of all, when people start to ask questions about the Pres or VP dealings with Enron or Halliburton again, we can just change the terror alert color so the media can refocus on that without resorting another murder case in California."
"And just in case we don't have any more terrorism in the USA, lets go piss off the Palestinians and make the Middle-eastern countries think we're gonna invade them--that'll stir up enough shit to make at least another group of crazies blow something up here--and we can milk that bombing to our advantage just like 9/11! We'll be silencing our critics and getting unpopular initiatives done for the next 50 years using this strategy!"
I'm obviously exaggerating to make a point but really, don't you think there's a grain of truth to associating unpopular initiatives with anti-terrorism just to get people to stop questioning it?
Nice try but your "logic" (lol) fails the obvious test.
IIS has smaller marketshare than Apache Web Server, yet MANY more IIS vulnerabilities have been discovered and MS took a LOT longer to fix/patch IIS than Apache.
First, many blue collar jobs went...now IT jobs...what can be next?
...
There are millions of other jobs remaining that we can outsource overseas to help our companies cut costs and increase shareholder value.
Why not outsource other jobs such as legal research (searching for precedence, etc.), industry/market research and countless other jobs that don't have to be physically executed in the USA?
Executives and marketing/sales folks might be safe for a bit but after the bulk of the employees ship overseas and with other countries (i.e. China & India) having MANY more consumers--and eventually businesses--than us, won't it be best for their companies if these jobs ship out?
Obviously, it isn't feasable to ship all the jobs overseas but I wonder what percentage of existing jobs here in the USA can "safely" be outsourced to Canada, Mexico, UK, India, China, etc. 10%? 25%? 33%? more? And how much shareholder value can be extracted from this before they need to shift investments overseas?
What jobs are the best candidates to ship overseas next? Accountants? Analysts? Laywers (only small percentage go to trial--most draft/review contracts, etc.)? Middle management (if the people you manage are all overseas...)?
And how will this impact our economy (higher unemployment, etc.)? Our government (social security, etc.)? Our national security (brain drain, etc.)?
This is probably going to be tough for the JBoss group but ultimately, I think competition will force them to improve and become better--if they pull through this hurdle.
Competition helps keep companies (and people too) from slacking or falling short of doing their best.
>What treaty/deal is this ?
_ 200210175.html
Actually, "treaties/deals" would be more accurate since they broke 4 and ADMITTED to it:
1. "Agreed Framework" of 1994,
2. Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty,
3. the International Atomic Energy Agency Safeguards Agreement,
4. North-South Denuclearization Agreement.
---
Source: http://www.defenselink.mil/news/Oct2002/n10172002
WASHINGTON, Oct. 17, 2002 -- United States government officials will consult with friends and allies on what to do about North Korea's admission that it has been developing nuclear weapons, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said today.
North Korean officials reportedly admitted to an American diplomat that they have an active nuclear weapons program in defiance of the so- called Agreed Framework. In this agreement, North Korea promised in 1994 that it would freeze its nuclear program.
"It is a reality that they stand in direct breach of four separate agreements, by their own admission," Rumsfeld said in a Pentagon press briefing. The other three agreements North Korea has violated are the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, the International Atomic Energy Agency Safeguards Agreement, and the North-South Denuclearization Agreement.
Rumsfeld said U.S. officials will be speaking to Japan and South Korean counterparts, as well as representatives of the People's Republic of China, Russia and possibly the European Union.
He indicated U.N. weapons inspectors in North Korea are not a likely option at this point, since the country has already admitted its violations.
[...]
So rather than defending your original post, you call me an anti-capitalist for no apparent reason and make references to my anus?
1. You gave an example of cable vendor choice and prices for you. This is a great & logical response but unfortunately, the only rational part of your response. It still doesn't change the fact I (and many others) don't have a choice and my now nearly doubled cable bill doesn't include internet access.
2. me> Companies like Clear Channel now own 1,200+ radio stations rather than the previous limit of 40.
you> I'm still wondering how this equates to utter media domination.
Huh? Me too but what made you begin wondering about this? Were you responding to my post or someone elses? I simply stated a simple and verifiable fact--one which directly refutes your original post. I guess making up a very weak statement, attributing it to the other person, then attacking that statement is one way to handle seeing the logic behind your original post crumble. But does it ever work?
3. >That is complete and utter unsubstantiated bullshit. A number of clearchannel stations which specialize in country music may have boycotted them after that stupid bitch Natalie Mains ran her mouth
Wrong again. It isn't unsubstantiated and it isn't bullshit. Here are 2 quotes from the Independent Media Center regarding this matter (first one shows threat of banning, and second one states that they were banned--and this isn't coming from Slashdot):
a. "When Ani DiFranco played at ClearChannel's New Jersey Performing Arts Center on March 19, the manager of the arts center threatened to ban her if she allowed antiwar representatives to speak"
b. "After Dixie Chicks lead singer Natalie Maines told fans during a London concert, "We're ashamed the president of the United States is from Texas," Clear Channel stations boycotted their music. Cumulus Media, which owns 262 stations, ordered all 42 of its country stations to ban the Dixie Chicks. One station promoted a rally in Shreveport, Louisiana, where a bulldozer crushed Dixie Chicks CDs. Another station in Kansas City "chicken toss" party where the group's tapes, CDs and concert tickets were dumped in trash cans."
4. >please remove your cephalis from your anus
Yuck. If you have repressed desires that make you bring up the word "anus" whenever you feel frustrated, go tell someone who can help you with that. I don't want to hear about it but I'm sure there are professional counselors who'd be willing to listen.
5. Stop being anti-capitalist [...]
Wrong again. Someone who exposes your message as being flawed doesn't automatically mean he's anti-capitalist. Since you don't appear to know what the word means, I'll attempt to educate you.
capitalism: "An economic system in which the means of production and distribution are privately or corporately owned and development is proportionate to the accumulation and reinvestment of profits gained in a free market."
capitalist:
" 1. A supporter of capitalism.
2. An investor of capital in business, especially one having a major financial interest in an important enterprise.
3. A person of great wealth."
Source: www.dictionary.com
I'm a capitalist based on definition #1 & #2. I'm not yet a person of great wealth (I define great wealth has having >$50 million in cash or stock in publicly traded companies).
BTW, did you ever read Adam Smith's "Wealth of Nations"? And did you create several companies and hundreds of jobs that still exist today? Or did you ever risk your personal wealth to help people build companies? No? You think spouting bullshit on Slashdot makes you more of a capitalist than me?
Please don't cheapen the word "capitalist" by using in your obviously flawed arguments. Not to say that all your points are wrong, the first one where you give a specific example of cable vendor choice is pretty good.
Woops, formatting was lost in my last reply. Sorry.
t ml
e r.html
i raq-censorship .html
i raq-journalist s.html
/ nagy0901.html
North Korean government is responsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people--especially through starvation. They have also been responsible for numerous terrorist activities outside their own borders. This is a fact. They are FAR MORE ahead of Iraq in terms of WMD development including nuclear warheads and longer range missles.
>>"Saddam had WMD, another unquestioned fact, North Korea says they do or atleast are trying to build some."
Holy Cow! They found WMD in Iraq??? Where exactly is the WMD and when was it found? What is the source of your info? If you're referring to the HUGE multi-day ABC news story on April 26-27, then you've been misled my friend. They knew 2 days beforehand it was unconfirmed and they didn't air a retraction when they later found out the story was false.
Don't take my word for it, see the facts about the proven-to-be bogus ABC story here:
http://www.fair.org/activism/abc-iraq-weapons.h
"We got crap from everywhere except basically Israel and our own people."
Of course this happened and here's exactly why:
1. Israel and Iraq are bitter enemies with Iraq posing a real danger to Israel. Remember that Iraq launched missiles at Israel in the past.
2. Americans like you and me received 99.999% of our news from the same 5 USA corporations that made us believe that the war was totally justified and that people believing otherwise are unpatriotic left-wing conspiracy theorists (aka misguided losers).
If I owned a "big-5" media company, I wouldn't air anti-war or anti-GOP stuff either given that the FCC was going to vote to relax media ownership rules on June 2, 2003--which would help me make billions more for my shareholders.
Want examples? Here's how Wolf Blitzer tried damage control during a story and came out exposing himself not to be a true journalist:
http://www.fair.org/extra/0301/blitz
Examples of how we handled some of our journalists:
http://www.fair.org/press-releases/
Examples of we handled some foreign journalists:
http://www.fair.org/press-releases/
Example story you'll never hear on TV despite it being a huge scoop (poisoning/destroying a country's water supply and preventing required repair parts to be imported so that children/civilians die of disease caused by contaminated water--if this isn't terrorism, then what is? it certainly violates the Geneva Convention)
http://www.progressive.org/0801issue
>>"Do you honestly believe that people in washington are so evil that they would do that?"
If you re-read my post, you'll see that I explicately state that our government (USA) isn't evil. Our leaders are simply doing their job to make our country stronger for the future both economically and militarily. Unfortunately this end-goal sometimes requires very distasteful actions. And our public won't swallow these distasteful actions without vigorous protest if they had all the facts so we have to sanitize it and spin it so things don't get out of hand like it did during the Vietnam war.
Controlling the flow of oil isn't just about money--it is about security as well since so much of our infrastructure and econony relies on it.
I hope you visit the links I've provided to at http://www.fair.org--whether you are a conservative or liberal, it helps to identify media bias so you can form your opinions based on fact rather than spin.
North Korean government is responsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people--especially through starvation. They have also been responsible for numerous terrorist activities outside their own borders. This is a fact. They are FAR MORE ahead of Iraq in terms of WMD development including nuclear warheads and longer range missles. >>"Saddam had WMD, another unquestioned fact, North Korea says they do or atleast are trying to build some." Holy Cow! They found WMD in Iraq??? Where exactly is the WMD and when was it found? What is the source of your info? If you're referring to the HUGE multi-day ABC news story on April 26-27, then you've been misled my friend. They knew 2 days beforehand it was unconfirmed and they didn't air a retraction when they later found out the story was false. Don't take my word for it, see the facts about the proven-to-be bogus ABC story here: http://www.fair.org/activism/abc-iraq-weapons.html
"We got crap from everywhere except basically Israel and our own people."
Of course this happened and here's exactly why:
1. Israel and Iraq are bitter enemies with Iraq posing a real danger to Israel. Remember that Iraq launched missiles at Israel in the past.
2. Americans like you and me received 99.999% of our news from the same 5 USA corporations that made us believe that the war was totally justified and that people believing otherwise are unpatriotic left-wing conspiracy theorists (aka misguided losers).
If I owned a "big-5" media company, I wouldn't air anti-war or anti-GOP stuff either given that the FCC was going to vote to relax media ownership rules on June 2, 2003--which would help me make billions more for my shareholders.
Want examples? Here's how Wolf Blitzer tried damage control during a story and came out exposing himself not to be a true journalist:
http://www.fair.org/extra/0301/blitzer.html
Examples of how we handled some of our journalists:
http://www.fair.org/press-releases/iraq-censorship .html
Examples of we handled some foreign journalists:
http://www.fair.org/press-releases/iraq-journalist s.html
Example story you'll never hear on TV despite it being a huge scoop (poisoning/destroying a country's water supply and preventing required repair parts to be imported so that children/civilians die of disease caused by contaminated water--if this isn't terrorism, then what is? it certainly violates the Geneva Convention)
http://www.progressive.org/0801issue/nagy0901.html
>>"Do you honestly believe that people in washington are so evil that they would do that?"
If you re-read my post, you'll see that I explicately state that our government (USA) isn't evil. Our leaders are simply doing their job to make our country stronger for the future both economically and militarily. Unfortunately this end-goal sometimes requires very distasteful actions. And our public won't swallow these distasteful actions without vigorous protest if they had all the facts so we have to sanitize it and spin it so things don't get out of hand like it did during the Vietnam war.
Controlling the flow of oil isn't just about money--it is about security as well since so much of our infrastructure and econony relies on it.
I hope you visit the links I've provided to at http://www.fair.org--whether you are a conservative or liberal, it helps to identify media bias so you can form your opinions based on fact rather than spin.
We all know the North Koreans (well, the leader anyway) is much worse than Saddam & Iraq--for goodness sakes, the North Koreans ADMITTED to violations--we don't even have to make up the weapons of mass destruction story with these guys.
However, North Korea doesn't have any oil or other valuable resources so attacking them won't bring us the ROI necessary to justify a war.
Why the heck should we, the USA, throw away billions of dollars and risk a disaster with our trading partners (if the North Koreans get lucky and launch a missile in time at South Korea or Japan)? In the case of Iraq, it was obviously worth all the temporarily bad foreign relations including getting busted for spying on UN officials because of all that oil & strategically located huge mass of land.
It isn't like we're actually in the business of overthrowing goverments in order to bring down evil dictators who abuse their people--we actually don't give a rats ass about human rights violations overseas--heck, look at Amnesty International's report on the number of children killed by both Israel & Palestine (hint: if you've been getting all your news from the same 5 mega corporations as me, you'll also be SHOCKED about which country actually killed more children last year).
Folks, war is all about ROI and how we'll benefit economically and militarily. This is why we go to wars. Ever play Sid Meir's Civilization games and break treaties or start wars? This isn't "evil", and this isn't "righteous"--it is simply rational if the goal is to win and sometimes very distasteful when you see the real-life consequences from ALL perspectives.
Just be grateful that we weren't born overseas and try to think of ways to get that ROI for the USA without wars--because compassion alone isn't enough to stop this train.
Again, think about the specific benefits we receive from wars and figure out a way for us to get them without actually doing nasty deeds like repeatedly killing/threatening foreign journalists or dropping cluster bombs that cause civilians to die. If you can help us gain those benefits, we might stop invading other countries and making up plausible stories to justify our actions.
Am I a conservative or liberal? Neither. I just believe in the Constitution of the USA and will defend your right to speak your mind even if I totally disagree with your views. God Bless America--we have our share of faults and need to improve but I'm proud to be an American.
http://www.commoncause.org
http://www.fair.org
How much good? Impossible to quantify but obviously more good than not doing anything at all. There are over 700 posts about this new in Slashdot today (not including previous stories) and it would take about the same amount of time to post here as it would in submitting the online petition. Second, simply filling out and submitting an online petition is just the first level of participation. If 700+ additional people actually contacted the offices of the 3 republicans in favor of this FCC move and told them they would vote against them based solely on this single issue, then I believe the impact would have been much greater. Enough to turn the tide? Nobody knows because it didn't happen. Most importantly, what do you propose as an alternative to even doing the bare minimum? No action? Just lay down and watch the USA turn into something similar to communist China where people are afraid to voice their political views in fear of the consequences?
What obvious things happened after the telecom deregulation in 1996?
1. Cable prices went up and I (along with many others) don't have any choice in selecting a cable provider.
This shows that deregulation doesn't always increase competition and benefit consumers. In fact, it had the opposite effect!!!
2. Companies like Clear Channel now own 1,200+ radio stations rather than the previous limit of 40.
And you say larger media companies will get smaller as a result of deregulation? Your conclusion directly contradicts recent and verifiable history. How exactly did you form your conclusion? Did you pull it out of your ass and hope people would buy it simply to avoid being labeled a "paranoid"? The "if you disagree with me then you must be a conspiracy theorist" argument was overused for years and lost its impact on people who can see through bullshit.
3. Clear Channel stopped playing Dixie Chicks for making a political statement that management did not agree with.
This is a verifiable example of how censorship can occur when media companies get very large. Other artists with similar opinions obviously got the message they'd better clam up or risk losing airtime.
And whether we agree or not with the Dixie Chicks is totally irrelevant--actually UNDERSTANDING and DEFENDING the Constitution of the USA is what is important for true American citizens. You did read the entire Constitution at least once, right?
While I disagree strongly with your opinions and obviously incorrect statements, I will fight to defend your right to express them.
Again, the best reasonable guess as to what will happen as a result of this deregulation is to look at recent history regarding similar events like the Telecommunication Act of 1996.
Stop being a liberal or a conservative: be rational and exercise common sense.
There were several available online petitions to simply fillout and click to submit--how many of us actually bothered?
Not happy with biased news? Tired of being handed opinions rather than facts? Well, if you stood by and did nothing, stop whining and eat the pile of poo you actually helped create.
Liberty isn't free. We need to be vigilant and consistently take sensible action before tyrants take over out of pure self-interest.
So stop your whining on Slashdot until you actually do something constructive like contacting your representatives to tell them this issue will decide how you vote in elections.
Given that the MAJORITY of Microsoft's revenues come from overseas, this type of news along with the recent one about Munich Germany switching to Linux is significant.
There are patches for Linux kernel that help improve interactive performance--especially for games. Try the "low latency" patch and you'll notice a huge difference.