You can take off your tin foil hat. Did the makers of slide rules prevent the introduction of the electronic calculator? Did the makers of buggy whips stop "horseless carriages" in their tracks?
I see little evidence that "entrenched interests" have been able to stop progress. I work in an industry where technical advancement is continuous. Never once have I heard someone suggest we try to prevent the introduction of some else's advancement. People know that, practically speaking, it's impossible. The only intelligent thing to do is go with the flow.
And if our company owned the rights to the advancement, we don't hesitate for a second in getting it to market. There's for more money in introducing a new product than maintaining the status quo. And we know that if we don't do it, someone else will. And we get to watch as they eat our lunch.
So far as the "100% efficient bearing", well you can put that along side the carburator that doubles your gas mileage. Just another urban legend. Your teacher should be ashamed spreading such manure.
They made their call when they decided to publish each of her articles in the first place. If they misjudged the quality of the articles then, well that's their problem. Right or wrong, they should stand by those decisions.
We are talking about archives here. They should be accurate, not politically correct. Air-brushing the past does not impress me, nor do I consider it "natural".
David Suzuki has not just stopped doing science, which is fine, he has stopped thinking like a scientist, which is not.
Some TNOT episodes are fine, but many are not. They often sound more like Green Party propaganda than any kind of objective analysis based on, you know, facts.
It's also something of a myth that physicists and mathematicians do all of their best work before 30.
God save us from David Suzuki. He is no longer a scientist, but a politician. Suzuki is now so far to the left, he's in danger of circumnavigating the globe.
I remember one epsiode of "The Nature Of Things" where he discussed pseudo-science. Instead of taking this opportunity to explain the difference betwen true and junk science, he trotted out hoary old arguments about how "the establishment" was keeping these people and their ideas down. It was an appalling episode, and I cannot respect the man.
Once upon a time "The Nature Of Things" was a great program - back in the good ol' days.
They were well aware of the contents when they first published O'Gara's articles. The quality and nature of MO'G's reporting can not just now be a revelation to them - indeed, some of the editors have said as much.
And so far as libel, I don't think there's much concern. And if there is, the damage has already been done.
But I presume (hard to tell cause the LinuxWorld site is in a state of flux) that they are removing O'Gara from their archives.
That's different than some ever-changing home page.
There's an expectation that an archive be an accurate reflection of the past, and not subject to editing in order to mask over embarrassing parts. Imagine if The New York Times (also an online newspaper) constantly revised its archives to suit the political climate?
LinuxWorld calls itself the world's leading Linux magazine. Well, they don't behave like it.
If I read the LinuxWorld article correctly, they are purging every Maureen O'Gara article from their web site.
What is this, 1984?
To pull that last article is fine. It was a wretched piece of journalism that should never have seen the light of day.
But now these enlightened folk are removing all of MO'G. Her articles were good enough for them for years - only now does she suddenly become unacceptable. Will they also return the advertising dollars her articles brought in?
What a cowardly act on the part of LinuxWorld. It reminds me of communist leaders being air-brushed from official photographs after they've been purged. In *real* journalism, once something is published, it's published.
I doubt SCO ever wanted to go to court. They probably expected a big payout from IBM and other deep pockets to make them go away.
I am not amazed that IBM fought them. It's to IBM's advantage that they deal with extortionists ruthlessly, as a warning to others.
But even so, SCO's ploy worked. The went from a penny stock (below 50 cents) to about $20 at one point. Any shareholder who sold at the right time made out like a bandit.
So far as Microsoft backing SCO, I don't see any evidence of it until BayStar got into it, which was well after things got rolling. Even then, Microsoft would be taking a huge risk. They have the Justice Dept. watching them like a hawk for uncompetitive behaviour.
Your comment only makes sense if you believe proprietary software and private businesses to be "evil".
I think that attitude marks a great rift between open source (OS) advocates. There are those who support both OS and proprietary software (PS), and those who think all PS is wrong. Judging from their public statements, Linus is in the first camp, and Richard Stallman is in the second.
Myself, I think free people should be able to to choose whatever approach they want, and good luck to them. And I'm bloody tired of all the fanatics in the world who take a good cause and elevate it to a mindless religion.
There is no "appeasment" here because there is no enemy.
It will be interesting to see how it all plays out.
All companies use the work of others to make profit. They have access to all of the science and technology (except for the small percentage under IP protection) that has come before. They have access to lessons learned by past companies. Even social infrastucture plays a vital role. Profits are not something companies alone generate, but something societies generate.
When a scientist makes a discovery and doesn't patent it (you know, the good ol' days), that discovery may be used by all of society in any manner what so ever. Is it immoral for a company to use that discovery? Not only is not immoral, by refusing to use the technology they would be depriving their customers of the benefits.
To declare that it's immoral to make use of the work of others to make a profit is to declare that all profits are immoral. That's not a political system I buy into it.
And your use of the word "quick" is silly and pejorative. While companies won't pass up quick profits, in real life they are far more focused on sustainable profits. Or they are if they want to be around for any length of time.
And how, pray tell, does a company abuse or rip-off open-source software? What exactly do you mean by this? I've heard of child abuse, spousal abuse, self abuse, but software abuse is a new one.
Whether a company uses the software or not, they cannot prevent others from using the software. It remains open source. How is the company treading on the rights of others when they use the software?
If I write software as open source, and a company uses it to make a profit, great. It just shows the software has real economic value. And most of the companies' revenue will likely go to paying salaries and taxes anyway. I actually don't mind companies making a profit.
You're vague wording hides just another tiresome political agenda.
Without a doubt there is some truth in her comments. The open source community has a definite anti-capitalist element to it. See, for example, Moglen's
Dot-Communist Manifesto. And RMS is not of this planet.
Still, Linus Trovalds has his head on his shoulders. He seems to think open and proprietary software can get along just fine. So does IBM, who are strong supporters of the movement (more, I'm sure out of self-interest than feelings of public service).
I think it will be elements from the corporate world which will drive this "radical movement" forward, based on a mixture of self-interest and
altruism. To define the open source community from the most socialist of the personalities is a mistake.
It's not that surprizing. U.S.A. has about 4% of the world's population, and computer science is studied everywhere.
A first-class physics department needs serious money, but not a computer science department. A $1,500 computer can serve a couple of CS students for many years.
The U.S. is used to being the best at everything, but their domination is slowly eroding as large-population countries like China, India, and the Philippines modernize. This loss of dominance should proceed most rapidly in those areas that are not capital intensive.
Americans have received many such shocks in the past few decades, and there will be many more in the future. Some day the U.S. may be "just another country".
The problem with the MST was that it discriminated against goods made in Canada. It was cheaper for people, inside Canada or out, to buy goods made outside of Canada.
The GST applies to all goods bought in Canada, putting Canadian-made goods on equal footing with imports.
The two major economic legacies of Mulroney, the GST and NAFTA, gave Canadian industry a real boost. In the ten years following Mulroney, Canada was the only developed nation to have its manufacturing production increase as a percentage of its entire economny (from 14% to 15%).
And so far as Mulroney raising taxes, I recall Trudeau bringing in wave after wave of tax increases while his highness was in power.
I agree. One of the GST's strengths - its transparency - is also a weakness. Mod the Lud up.
I've always felt that a consumption tax is inherently fair. The more you consume, the more tax you pay.
And I think that Chretien's election promise to scrap the GST was one of the crassest political ploys I've ever witnessed.
Your rant is so grossly ill-informed it's difficult to know where to begin. A few points.
Inflation reached it's height in 1981 at about 12.4%, well before the Mulroney era. It was never 18%.
The unemployment rate reached its height of about 11.5% in 1982, again well before Mulroney.
The Mulroney government spent about as much as it took in as revenue. The high deficits were cause by the high cost of servicing the debt built up by, wait for it, the Liberals.
Economists say that the GST is actually far less destructive than the Manufacturers Sales Tax that it replaced.
I don't know why they pick on BlockBuster when the auto industry gets away with murder.
New car dealerships generally advertise Manufacturer's Recommended Sale Price (MRSP). This price has nothing to do with the price they will ask you to pay.
Dealers are free to add any damn thing they want to the MRSP. Taxes, of course, but they might also to tack on:
Freight charges.
Advertising fees.
Security programs.
And god knows what else. The extra costs can add up to thousands of dollars. In other words, the "advertised price" has nothing to do with the real price. It's a complete fiction.
Granted there are a few dealerships (eg, Saturn) which are far more honest about the total price. And of course, one is free to barter - in most dealerships you would be stupid not to.
Still, the new car industry is sleazy. I can only assume they have politicians in their back pockets to get away with such deceptive selling practises.
I would agree with you if I thought that moderators showed as much care as you do meta-moderating.
I think the benefit of the doubt should go to the poster over the moderator. People are too quick to assume that an opinion they disagree with must have a nefarious underlying motive. The proper way to answer an honest but misguided posting is by replying, not moderating.
In other words, any vaguelly reasonable posting should not be modded negatively.
I have increasingly noticed the use of mod points to voice disagreement with a post rather than critiquing the quality of the post. One would think that meta-modding would help, but apparently this is not enough.
Perhaps the administrators of/. could emphasize the purpose of modding more than they do now.
Maybe the super-rich are deliberately talking on financial advice shows and in magazines about a "bubble" just to scare away the riff-raff from buying during their last chance to afford it, leaving all the real estate for themselves.
In the words of Douglas Adams, "Don't Panic". Anytime you start thinking there's some sort of conspiracy going on, you're losing touch with reality.
Housing price bubbles have happened before, they will happen again. The main thing holding up the housing market now is low interest rates. When they rise, the housing market should fall.
I'm convinced that real estate is, in general, a poor investment. The main reason for buying a house should be that it's the most financially sound way of putting a roof over your head. If renting is cheaper, do it.
I've invested in the stock market for many years now. Occassionally I've felt twinges of urgency much like what you've described. In retrospect these panics are always unwarranted. That feeling of panic is one of things that create bubbles in the first place.
Relax. Have a beer. Invest in something boring but predictably profitable, something the advice shows and magazines can't be bothered to even talk about.
And in the 1930's a Canadian invented a carburetor that made automobile engines 90% efficient, but it was suppressed by Big Oil so that it wouldn't reduce their profits.
And if you put wet puppies in a microwave they explode.
Slashdot Mirror
And delicious (burp).
I see little evidence that "entrenched interests" have been able to stop progress. I work in an industry where technical advancement is continuous. Never once have I heard someone suggest we try to prevent the introduction of some else's advancement. People know that, practically speaking, it's impossible. The only intelligent thing to do is go with the flow.
And if our company owned the rights to the advancement, we don't hesitate for a second in getting it to market. There's for more money in introducing a new product than maintaining the status quo. And we know that if we don't do it, someone else will. And we get to watch as they eat our lunch.
So far as the "100% efficient bearing", well you can put that along side the carburator that doubles your gas mileage. Just another urban legend. Your teacher should be ashamed spreading such manure.
We are talking about archives here. They should be accurate, not politically correct. Air-brushing the past does not impress me, nor do I consider it "natural".
Some TNOT episodes are fine, but many are not. They often sound more like Green Party propaganda than any kind of objective analysis based on, you know, facts.
It's also something of a myth that physicists and mathematicians do all of their best work before 30.
I remember one epsiode of "The Nature Of Things" where he discussed pseudo-science. Instead of taking this opportunity to explain the difference betwen true and junk science, he trotted out hoary old arguments about how "the establishment" was keeping these people and their ideas down. It was an appalling episode, and I cannot respect the man.
Once upon a time "The Nature Of Things" was a great program - back in the good ol' days.
They were well aware of the contents when they first published O'Gara's articles. The quality and nature of MO'G's reporting can not just now be a revelation to them - indeed, some of the editors have said as much.
And so far as libel, I don't think there's much concern. And if there is, the damage has already been done.
That's different than some ever-changing home page.
There's an expectation that an archive be an accurate reflection of the past, and not subject to editing in order to mask over embarrassing parts. Imagine if The New York Times (also an online newspaper) constantly revised its archives to suit the political climate?
LinuxWorld calls itself the world's leading Linux magazine. Well, they don't behave like it.
What is this, 1984?
To pull that last article is fine. It was a wretched piece of journalism that should never have seen the light of day.
But now these enlightened folk are removing all of MO'G. Her articles were good enough for them for years - only now does she suddenly become unacceptable. Will they also return the advertising dollars her articles brought in?
What a cowardly act on the part of LinuxWorld. It reminds me of communist leaders being air-brushed from official photographs after they've been purged. In *real* journalism, once something is published, it's published.
I am not amazed that IBM fought them. It's to IBM's advantage that they deal with extortionists ruthlessly, as a warning to others.
But even so, SCO's ploy worked. The went from a penny stock (below 50 cents) to about $20 at one point. Any shareholder who sold at the right time made out like a bandit.
So far as Microsoft backing SCO, I don't see any evidence of it until BayStar got into it, which was well after things got rolling. Even then, Microsoft would be taking a huge risk. They have the Justice Dept. watching them like a hawk for uncompetitive behaviour.
I think that attitude marks a great rift between open source (OS) advocates. There are those who support both OS and proprietary software (PS), and those who think all PS is wrong. Judging from their public statements, Linus is in the first camp, and Richard Stallman is in the second.
Myself, I think free people should be able to to choose whatever approach they want, and good luck to them. And I'm bloody tired of all the fanatics in the world who take a good cause and elevate it to a mindless religion.
There is no "appeasment" here because there is no enemy.
It will be interesting to see how it all plays out.
When a scientist makes a discovery and doesn't patent it (you know, the good ol' days), that discovery may be used by all of society in any manner what so ever. Is it immoral for a company to use that discovery? Not only is not immoral, by refusing to use the technology they would be depriving their customers of the benefits.
To declare that it's immoral to make use of the work of others to make a profit is to declare that all profits are immoral. That's not a political system I buy into it.
And your use of the word "quick" is silly and pejorative. While companies won't pass up quick profits, in real life they are far more focused on sustainable profits. Or they are if they want to be around for any length of time.
Whether a company uses the software or not, they cannot prevent others from using the software. It remains open source. How is the company treading on the rights of others when they use the software?
If I write software as open source, and a company uses it to make a profit, great. It just shows the software has real economic value. And most of the companies' revenue will likely go to paying salaries and taxes anyway. I actually don't mind companies making a profit.
You're vague wording hides just another tiresome political agenda.
Still, Linus Trovalds has his head on his shoulders. He seems to think open and proprietary software can get along just fine. So does IBM, who are strong supporters of the movement (more, I'm sure out of self-interest than feelings of public service).
I think it will be elements from the corporate world which will drive this "radical movement" forward, based on a mixture of self-interest and altruism. To define the open source community from the most socialist of the personalities is a mistake.
A first-class physics department needs serious money, but not a computer science department. A $1,500 computer can serve a couple of CS students for many years.
The U.S. is used to being the best at everything, but their domination is slowly eroding as large-population countries like China, India, and the Philippines modernize. This loss of dominance should proceed most rapidly in those areas that are not capital intensive.
Americans have received many such shocks in the past few decades, and there will be many more in the future. Some day the U.S. may be "just another country".
Regression to the mean, I think it's called.
But it really doesn't matter. The Liberals didn't deliver on either.
The GST applies to all goods bought in Canada, putting Canadian-made goods on equal footing with imports.
The two major economic legacies of Mulroney, the GST and NAFTA, gave Canadian industry a real boost. In the ten years following Mulroney, Canada was the only developed nation to have its manufacturing production increase as a percentage of its entire economny (from 14% to 15%).
And so far as Mulroney raising taxes, I recall Trudeau bringing in wave after wave of tax increases while his highness was in power.
I've always felt that a consumption tax is inherently fair. The more you consume, the more tax you pay. And I think that Chretien's election promise to scrap the GST was one of the crassest political ploys I've ever witnessed.
-
Inflation reached it's height in 1981 at about 12.4%, well before the Mulroney era. It was never 18%.
-
The unemployment rate reached its height of about 11.5% in 1982, again well before Mulroney.
-
The Mulroney government spent about as much as it took in as revenue. The high deficits were cause by the high cost of servicing the debt built up by, wait for it, the Liberals.
-
Economists say that the GST is actually far less destructive than the Manufacturers Sales Tax that it replaced.
And so on. Nice try though.Agreed. I've never been on the damn thing myself, and it hasn't hurt me any.
New car dealerships generally advertise Manufacturer's Recommended Sale Price (MRSP). This price has nothing to do with the price they will ask you to pay.
Dealers are free to add any damn thing they want to the MRSP. Taxes, of course, but they might also to tack on:
- Freight charges.
- Advertising fees.
- Security programs.
And god knows what else. The extra costs can add up to thousands of dollars. In other words, the "advertised price" has nothing to do with the real price. It's a complete fiction.Granted there are a few dealerships (eg, Saturn) which are far more honest about the total price. And of course, one is free to barter - in most dealerships you would be stupid not to.
Still, the new car industry is sleazy. I can only assume they have politicians in their back pockets to get away with such deceptive selling practises.
I think the benefit of the doubt should go to the poster over the moderator. People are too quick to assume that an opinion they disagree with must have a nefarious underlying motive. The proper way to answer an honest but misguided posting is by replying, not moderating.
In other words, any vaguelly reasonable posting should not be modded negatively.
Better ignore my sig when reading this.
Perhaps the administrators of /. could emphasize the purpose of modding more than they do now.
In the words of Douglas Adams, "Don't Panic". Anytime you start thinking there's some sort of conspiracy going on, you're losing touch with reality.
Housing price bubbles have happened before, they will happen again. The main thing holding up the housing market now is low interest rates. When they rise, the housing market should fall.
I'm convinced that real estate is, in general, a poor investment. The main reason for buying a house should be that it's the most financially sound way of putting a roof over your head. If renting is cheaper, do it.
I've invested in the stock market for many years now. Occassionally I've felt twinges of urgency much like what you've described. In retrospect these panics are always unwarranted. That feeling of panic is one of things that create bubbles in the first place.
Relax. Have a beer. Invest in something boring but predictably profitable, something the advice shows and magazines can't be bothered to even talk about.
Although it might come close to the size restriction (smaller than a bread box).
And if you put wet puppies in a microwave they explode.
Know any more?