I'm 48. I have little "growing up" left to do. Your comment about "already being awarded with money" is adolescent on the other hand. The point isn't how much money they made, but how GOOD films attract viewers, and bad ones don't. Hollywood continually thumbs its nose at "the great unwashed" even though they would be nothing without the people who buy tickets.
I recall when wonderful music like "Do-Re-Mi" were awarded, and when films people WANTED to see were naturally what won the accolades.
Now you have an inverse relationship between popular acceptance and elitist awards, and "songs" like that "pimp" thing being accorded equal status with some of the great film music of the last century.
I might have said it differently, but yours is short if not so sweet.
Take a look at the Academy Awards this year, what do you find?
The most-feted films, besides being among the "most fetid," were also far, far down the list in terms of box-office--supposed to be what Hollywood is about, right?
Not only were the highest-grossing films frozen out of the top awards, but the "buzz" was all about films like "Brokeback Mountain" and "Crash" that almost no one saw. Hollywood's elitism and arrogance are on display constantly, yet THEY don't seem to be able to figure out how they got there, or how to find their way out again.
In fact, I have noticed--and "experts" have noted--that "delayed adulthood" (a.k.a. "arrested development," "extended adolescence") has become common. My 28-years-old-going-on-16 son is a good example.
I can see the sophistication of such "Skript kiddie" operations as indicating some "kid" in his late-20s or early-30s, still living at home, and with the moral compass of your common housecat.
...working very hard to keep competitors out of their playing field.
As does every company in free enterprise. I took "sales engineer" training long ago, back in the 1980s for a company that made, among other things, large municipal water storage tanks. Part of the training was how to "keep competitors out of your playing field." Complaints like this are panty-waste. Sheesh.
Your friend is not 'locked' into one concrete repair company because presumably there are others.And no one is "locked into" Microsoft, because they have other alternatives. It's just that an upside-downside analysis seems to favor MS for various reasons. That's not "predation," that's called "dominating your market." The notion that if one "dominates one's market," one has ipso facto done something wrong. The FASCIST system works that way, not a true free enterprise system.
And your response to any assertion--which I never made, BTW--that MS might be preferred for honest reasons is "bullocks". Not much of an argument, if you ask me.
There are MANY reasons a provider of goods or services can "dominate" its market--and in a free enterprise system most of them are legal.
In our day, a good many--not most, but a vocal minority--don't like success because it makes them feel inferior. The rest of the folks--those who actually DO something for a living--are too busy trying to beat the competition with good old-fashioned hard work and ingenuity. Using the ***-damned imperial COURTS to "level the playing field" weakens the entire game.
I'm just tired of the whining. Go out and defeat MS, or shut the **** up.
Last I checked, learning wasn't a brute forceable.
So much for the Communists' beloved "reeducation camp" model, then.
FWIW, no one looks to be forcing anyone to use their laptop computer in this situation.
Hell, I bought lots of textbooks in school, REQUIRED PURCHASES by the professors. Some of 'em I never even opened.
Bottom line: I think it is insane in this day and age to suggest that "computers aren't essential to learning." I remember as an engineering student, the same argument going on about electronic calculators. "All you need is a book of trig tables and a slide-rule," they said.
Funny thing: We mostly liked the calculators because they--what?--"helped us be more EFFICIENT."
Just like when people buy those little "spinner" type bicycle locks, that come pre-set with something lame like "777" that you have to change--only a lot of people don't...
...your "knock lock" will come pre-set with "shave and a haircut," and of course...
Requiring a laptop will not help a student get better grades. Far too often people don't realize that a computer is just a tool which enables you to do something else more efficient[ly].
So here's your syllogism:
1. Computers are tools that help you be more efficient. 2. Computers do not help you get better grades. 3. Working more efficiently in school does not help you get better grades.
I guess the question I would have is: How many computer users must state that they can "only" use MS products to do what they need to do, or want to do, before we can say "MS is the monopoly Satan!"
I have a friend who repairs concrete for a living. He is "locked in" to one manufacturer of concrete repair products (chemicals, etc.) because "they give the best service."
There are other manufacturers of such products, but the one my friend uses is by far the most popular, and I think they got that way because they give a lot of "end-user support" compared to their competitors.
So does the "why" of someone's being "more popular" not have any bearing on whether they are a "predatory monopoly" or not? In the end, if all the stuff your father uses were available from another source, if he prefers Microsoft do we have to "take steps" to "remedy" a "problem"?
This is what I don't get about this whole MS vs. the Gubmint flap.
Personally, I'd as soon use Linux as anything else, mostly because I don't like to have to worry about what "licensing" I am using, etc., every time I want to use some piece of software. But I don't feel "threatened" because the vast majority of people would rather take MS AND their stupid licensing schemes.
Well, I don't know it "proves" anything, since (1) I do use Linux for my SOHO server, and (2) my apps are far from commonplace; they are highly specialized in fact.
The fact is, the vast majority of people can do everything they want using Linux, and I think Linspire's initiative for preloading is the way to go. Walmart.com sends 'em out the door by the bushel, and I know our local Fry's stores sell quite a few of their $200 computers with Linspire installed.
Microsoft isn't a predatory monopoly, that's the bottom line.
All three of these people are dead, not just two of them as you indicated earlier (sorry, just a bug-a-boo of mine).
That said, I was using the term "armed insurrection" to indicate that there are no boundaries, except those self-imposed, to your assertion that one can do whatever one morally feels entitled to do, to combat "evil."
My REAL point--which you didn't seem to get--is that we live in a nation of LAWS, under which we have agreed to live, and to which we have agreed to submit ourselves. This fellow that so many here champion as a "hero" is just one more self-righteous dude who (it appears to me) was more interested in gaining the adulations of the "in crowd" than actually doing what was right.
Because you agree with his agenda, then to you, also, what he did was right. But if you go very far down that road, you run smack into anarchy, which is only fun for those who are left in charge when the killing stops.
Of the three you mention: Rosa Parks and MLK Jr. weren't interested in "subverting the system," they were convinced that the system itself was illegal--and it didn't take long for the majority of Americans to agree with them.
As for "Deep Throat," he was just an "early adopter" of the "Me Generation" ethic. The notion that "no one knew who he was" is laughable. Nearly everyone DID know, but the "club" that is the Old Media agreed among themselves not to divulge it.
He liked being in the club. That's why he did what he did. Woodward and Bernstein might be "heroes" to stick-in-the-mud leftists, but the fact is they started us all down that slippery slope, according near-infallibility to journalists who have NEVER lived up to it, and creating a "gotcha" journalism that has been erroneous, FAR more than it has served the truth.
But as others have pointed out here, following due process may very well have gotten him nowehere.
That's wholly beside the point. We live in a land of laws, not of men. This notion that you can just make up the rules as you go along is adolescent, to say the least.
There are LOTS of things we can do, that might not yield any fruit--ironically, voting is one of them. That doesn't mean we're entitled to change the rules to suit ourselves.
By your logic, if I vote for a candidate who doesn't win, I can then resort to armed insurrection. After all, I tried "due process" and it got me nowhere.
Well, I really like the Cato Institute's explications:
1) This "70,000" number is grossly inflated, to begin with, and includes vaporware and multiple versions of the same product, etc. The real number is only a fraction of that, say 10,000.
2) The vast majority of computer users don't use even the tiniest number of software titles. AT MOST the typical user will have maybe a dozen.
3) The cost of bringing a software title to market, and more, implementing that software on multiple platforms, is almost insignificant compared to "real" durable goods items, e.g. The Cato report uses the steel industry as an example.
My own take: The incredible success of Linux, even given all the flavors and the fact that it has never really been marketed to "joe computer-user" outside of miniscule efforts like Linspire, gives lie to the "Microsoft is a monopoly" screed.
Had the courts really been serious about this baloney, they'd have forced MS to split up. But they knew that would never pass muster with the legislative branch, never mind the high court, so they implemented half-measures.
I don't like MS, because I think their products are just sad--but I use them when appropriate. Love Linux, would use it exclusively if just TWO applications--which are NOT mainstream apps, but specialty engineering programs, would "cross over."
Who knows? Maybe they will. Had Linux appeared in full force in the early Nineties, say five years earlier than it did, we'd probably all be using it.
(Probably "Microsoft Linux," but that's a different kettle of fish...)
A "whistle-blower" is always thought of as an heroic figure for some reason. But many don't stop to consider that DUE PROCESS is required in this and other such cases.
The appropriate thing for this guy to do was NOT to run to the newsmedia, but rather to the appropriate authorities, with this information. A true "whistle-blower" doesn't seek for public recognition, but to work within our system of checks and balances.
Personally, going to the newsmedia these days is contemptible. They exist for the sole purpose of selling their "stuff," and long ago abandoned in pretense of "journalistic integrity," in favor of sensationalism and controversy.
I'm glad this guy got a rap on the knuckles. Further, I hope that anyone who has been dangling "the peoples' business" in front of the hungry newshounds for fun, profit and political posturing gets it, too--no matter what side of the "political fence" they're on.
Well, I guess if coders wrote code for other coders exclusively, I guess it wouldn't.
When I read an article like this one regarding "better" graphics capability on the Linux platform, I can't help but wonder "how does this improve the use of the system for the vast majority of people who use it?"
A. In theory, it doesn't. If you use Gtk2 or Qt or cairo or whatever, you still program to the same API and your applications shouldn't be affected. The only people really affected should be people who are writing compositing managers and window managers.
Okay, so why do I care? One of the problems I have with Linux is the "gee-whiz" technology shrouded in layers of techno-babble. As a computer hobbyist who hasn't written a line of code since GWBASIC back in college, what are you going to show me that gets me excited enough to want this technology on my desktop?
Slashdot Mirror
I recall when wonderful music like "Do-Re-Mi" were awarded, and when films people WANTED to see were naturally what won the accolades.
Now you have an inverse relationship between popular acceptance and elitist awards, and "songs" like that "pimp" thing being accorded equal status with some of the great film music of the last century.
Tell me again who needs to "grow up."
Take a look at the Academy Awards this year, what do you find?
The most-feted films, besides being among the "most fetid," were also far, far down the list in terms of box-office--supposed to be what Hollywood is about, right?
Not only were the highest-grossing films frozen out of the top awards, but the "buzz" was all about films like "Brokeback Mountain" and "Crash" that almost no one saw. Hollywood's elitism and arrogance are on display constantly, yet THEY don't seem to be able to figure out how they got there, or how to find their way out again.
Why, thank you, you're too kind. I hope that I might be of equal service someday.
Is this generally available? Anywhere I could get it?
In fact, I have noticed--and "experts" have noted--that "delayed adulthood" (a.k.a. "arrested development," "extended adolescence") has become common. My 28-years-old-going-on-16 son is a good example.
I can see the sophistication of such "Skript kiddie" operations as indicating some "kid" in his late-20s or early-30s, still living at home, and with the moral compass of your common housecat.
So he was right, except it was Enceladus, after all...
Yeah, I know a *true geek* such as typically is found on /. will know this without looking it up, but for those afraid to ask...
As does every company in free enterprise. I took "sales engineer" training long ago, back in the 1980s for a company that made, among other things, large municipal water storage tanks. Part of the training was how to "keep competitors out of your playing field." Complaints like this are panty-waste. Sheesh.
Your friend is not 'locked' into one concrete repair company because presumably there are others.And no one is "locked into" Microsoft, because they have other alternatives. It's just that an upside-downside analysis seems to favor MS for various reasons. That's not "predation," that's called "dominating your market." The notion that if one "dominates one's market," one has ipso facto done something wrong. The FASCIST system works that way, not a true free enterprise system.
And your response to any assertion--which I never made, BTW--that MS might be preferred for honest reasons is "bullocks". Not much of an argument, if you ask me.
There are MANY reasons a provider of goods or services can "dominate" its market--and in a free enterprise system most of them are legal.
In our day, a good many--not most, but a vocal minority--don't like success because it makes them feel inferior. The rest of the folks--those who actually DO something for a living--are too busy trying to beat the competition with good old-fashioned hard work and ingenuity. Using the ***-damned imperial COURTS to "level the playing field" weakens the entire game.
I'm just tired of the whining. Go out and defeat MS, or shut the **** up.
So much for the Communists' beloved "reeducation camp" model, then.
FWIW, no one looks to be forcing anyone to use their laptop computer in this situation.
Hell, I bought lots of textbooks in school, REQUIRED PURCHASES by the professors. Some of 'em I never even opened.
Bottom line: I think it is insane in this day and age to suggest that "computers aren't essential to learning." I remember as an engineering student, the same argument going on about electronic calculators. "All you need is a book of trig tables and a slide-rule," they said.
Funny thing: We mostly liked the calculators because they--what?--"helped us be more EFFICIENT."
So here's your syllogism:
1. Computers are tools that help you be more efficient.
2. Computers do not help you get better grades.
3. Working more efficiently in school does not help you get better grades.
I have a friend who repairs concrete for a living. He is "locked in" to one manufacturer of concrete repair products (chemicals, etc.) because "they give the best service."
There are other manufacturers of such products, but the one my friend uses is by far the most popular, and I think they got that way because they give a lot of "end-user support" compared to their competitors.
So does the "why" of someone's being "more popular" not have any bearing on whether they are a "predatory monopoly" or not? In the end, if all the stuff your father uses were available from another source, if he prefers Microsoft do we have to "take steps" to "remedy" a "problem"?
This is what I don't get about this whole MS vs. the Gubmint flap.
Personally, I'd as soon use Linux as anything else, mostly because I don't like to have to worry about what "licensing" I am using, etc., every time I want to use some piece of software. But I don't feel "threatened" because the vast majority of people would rather take MS AND their stupid licensing schemes.
Um...
The one with the "Kernel Panic"?
The fact is, the vast majority of people can do everything they want using Linux, and I think Linspire's initiative for preloading is the way to go. Walmart.com sends 'em out the door by the bushel, and I know our local Fry's stores sell quite a few of their $200 computers with Linspire installed.
Microsoft isn't a predatory monopoly, that's the bottom line.
All three of these people are dead, not just two of them as you indicated earlier (sorry, just a bug-a-boo of mine).
That said, I was using the term "armed insurrection" to indicate that there are no boundaries, except those self-imposed, to your assertion that one can do whatever one morally feels entitled to do, to combat "evil."
My REAL point--which you didn't seem to get--is that we live in a nation of LAWS, under which we have agreed to live, and to which we have agreed to submit ourselves. This fellow that so many here champion as a "hero" is just one more self-righteous dude who (it appears to me) was more interested in gaining the adulations of the "in crowd" than actually doing what was right.
Because you agree with his agenda, then to you, also, what he did was right. But if you go very far down that road, you run smack into anarchy, which is only fun for those who are left in charge when the killing stops.
Of the three you mention: Rosa Parks and MLK Jr. weren't interested in "subverting the system," they were convinced that the system itself was illegal--and it didn't take long for the majority of Americans to agree with them.
As for "Deep Throat," he was just an "early adopter" of the "Me Generation" ethic. The notion that "no one knew who he was" is laughable. Nearly everyone DID know, but the "club" that is the Old Media agreed among themselves not to divulge it.
He liked being in the club. That's why he did what he did. Woodward and Bernstein might be "heroes" to stick-in-the-mud leftists, but the fact is they started us all down that slippery slope, according near-infallibility to journalists who have NEVER lived up to it, and creating a "gotcha" journalism that has been erroneous, FAR more than it has served the truth.
That's wholly beside the point. We live in a land of laws, not of men. This notion that you can just make up the rules as you go along is adolescent, to say the least.
There are LOTS of things we can do, that might not yield any fruit--ironically, voting is one of them. That doesn't mean we're entitled to change the rules to suit ourselves.
By your logic, if I vote for a candidate who doesn't win, I can then resort to armed insurrection. After all, I tried "due process" and it got me nowhere.
1) This "70,000" number is grossly inflated, to begin with, and includes vaporware and multiple versions of the same product, etc. The real number is only a fraction of that, say 10,000.
2) The vast majority of computer users don't use even the tiniest number of software titles. AT MOST the typical user will have maybe a dozen.
3) The cost of bringing a software title to market, and more, implementing that software on multiple platforms, is almost insignificant compared to "real" durable goods items, e.g. The Cato report uses the steel industry as an example.
My own take: The incredible success of Linux, even given all the flavors and the fact that it has never really been marketed to "joe computer-user" outside of miniscule efforts like Linspire, gives lie to the "Microsoft is a monopoly" screed.
Had the courts really been serious about this baloney, they'd have forced MS to split up. But they knew that would never pass muster with the legislative branch, never mind the high court, so they implemented half-measures.
I don't like MS, because I think their products are just sad--but I use them when appropriate. Love Linux, would use it exclusively if just TWO applications--which are NOT mainstream apps, but specialty engineering programs, would "cross over."
Who knows? Maybe they will. Had Linux appeared in full force in the early Nineties, say five years earlier than it did, we'd probably all be using it.
(Probably "Microsoft Linux," but that's a different kettle of fish...)
Read "The Long ARM of Gil Hamilton" (a compendium of stories with that them published just a few years ago).
The appropriate thing for this guy to do was NOT to run to the newsmedia, but rather to the appropriate authorities, with this information. A true "whistle-blower" doesn't seek for public recognition, but to work within our system of checks and balances.
Personally, going to the newsmedia these days is contemptible. They exist for the sole purpose of selling their "stuff," and long ago abandoned in pretense of "journalistic integrity," in favor of sensationalism and controversy.
I'm glad this guy got a rap on the knuckles. Further, I hope that anyone who has been dangling "the peoples' business" in front of the hungry newshounds for fun, profit and political posturing gets it, too--no matter what side of the "political fence" they're on.
So he's stuck in 1998, and you're helping him update to 2000.
Nice job.
*whew*!
When I read an article like this one regarding "better" graphics capability on the Linux platform, I can't help but wonder "how does this improve the use of the system for the vast majority of people who use it?"
A. In theory, it doesn't. If you use Gtk2 or Qt or cairo or whatever, you still program to the same API and your applications shouldn't be affected. The only people really affected should be people who are writing compositing managers and window managers.
Okay, so why do I care? One of the problems I have with Linux is the "gee-whiz" technology shrouded in layers of techno-babble. As a computer hobbyist who hasn't written a line of code since GWBASIC back in college, what are you going to show me that gets me excited enough to want this technology on my desktop?
I wonder if, after "Major League Gaming" bites it, people will reminisce fondly about that zany dark-horse favorite, "He Frag Me"?
I simply find it humorous that one would use words like "good judgement" and "professional" when talking about lawyers.