Additionally, the world-wide perception that they were reduced to bribery to try and make it a standard would have harmed its adoption even if accepted. The fact that they bribed and failed is going to do them a world of harm in promoting ODF.
Have you seen the actual break down of which way countries voted? Scroll down a little way in the FTA comments and it's laid out in a table. It's amazing in that with the exception of the US, the voting is almost consistently "No" from rich, developed countries, and "Yes" from poorer Eastern European and African countries that are stereotypically more corrupt. The jokes people are making about Microsoft buying the votes of Banana Republics are not without a basis. Worth looking through the list.
About the same. Ubuntu uses Gnome as the default desktop. Kubuntu uses KDE as the standard desktop. There's also Xubunutu which uses the much simpler Xfce desktop for less resource consumption. They're all similar under the lid and all roughly take the same time to set up and configure, it's just a choice of what you're used to or prefer. You can, if you wish, later install a different desktop system on your *buntu system without a problem, just by selecting it from a list.
Insert Kubuntu CD. Boot computer. Accept all defaults. Use Kubuntu. Did it this morning and did one for a friend a couple of months ago. Took approximately ten minutes or less. It's no more complicated than installing Windows and very definitely faster.
It's nothing to do with post-modernism or, as I think you're getting at, a principle that every deserves to pass and there they'll be given their pass. There are solid material reasons why this is happening in English and Welsh schools (don't know about Scotland). Firstly, the Labour government we've been living under, has been deeply obsessed by performance targets, both in education and in the NHS. In education, they have introduced a structured target system based around getting a certain percentage of children to pass their exams. This system is tied to teacher's pay. It is also a shifting target that increases each year. That's a heavy material threat / inducement for a teacher to behave in a certain way. It tends to mean that kids that are doing well are pretty much abandoned, whilst those who show a risk of falling below the grade are desperately targeted before they lose the teacher their annual pay review. Is that a bad thing? Well it does mean that children who are doing poorly get a lot of attention. But sadly it also means that teaching drags down toward the lowest common denominator. And it puts a huge emphasis on passing the exams and it's probably inevitable that this will conflict with actual teaching. And of course, it's a reason to lower standards, whether by actually making the exams simpler or by bumping up test results of the weaker pupils.
The net result of all this at any rate, is that there ends up being little differentiation between good and bad pupils in the exam results and the whole thing becomes a little more worthless. The only thing that the British education system is teaching us right now, is don't vote Labour.:(
Perhaps there should be easier access to sexual content that has an emotional context, then. Sex is a basic human drive, but there is a great deal of repression that prevents easy access to video of it. Consequently, the vast majority of the porn out there is gruesome and brutal. Given that people have this basic need to acquire sexual gratification (which is by necessity self-gratification some times), those who condemn porn should in fact attempt to provide some more uplifting versions. If, for example, mainstream romantic films and soap operas were able to include explicit sexual content, then there would be an alternative to the five minute start-fuck-cum videos all over the Web and many people would view something more emotionally gratifying.
People could view what they wanted, of course. But a little less repression and categorisaton of porn as a shameful thing, would lead to a wider variety of styles, some of which would be less souless.
Sorry, but in many respects they are. In both cases, the sender (aka "spammer") imagines that the recipient wants what he is offering. In both cases, only a small percentage do, and most of the rest are just annoyed or even angered by the unsolicited offers of how to improve their intellectual/sex lives.
Do you really believe that the viagra spammer "imagines that the recipient wants what he is offering" as you say? I find it hard to believe that you think the spammer that naive. But in the case of the censorship bypassing spam, this seems to be the case on the part of the proponent. We are in agreement that the anti-censorship spam will not be effective, but I'm really not getting your argument that they are ethically equivalent. And as said, in the case of viagra, this is something anyone can get, but the anti-censorship spam actually [i]is[/i] offering something that is thought to be hard or dangerous to obtain. And again, I can't accept your statement that "most of the rest are just annoyed or even angered." It may be the case, but we have no way of knowing. That's one of the things about censorship. When it's as pervasive as it is in China, how do we know what degree of tolerance the populace has of it? There's a fundamental difference in nature between tolerating an action and tolerating a control of information. In the latter case, the decision as to whether to tolerate it is affected by the thing itself. Only with free access to information can we say that the actions or tolerance of actions of a people are a conscious decision. Tolerance of control of information can never be a conscious decision once that control is established.
I'm not arguing against freedonm of inquiry, expression, etc. I'm saying this proposal would be actually counterproductive in achieving this.
And this is what I said. If you re-read my first post, you'll see that I said this would be counterproductive. Where we disagree is where you state that this is "almost exactly like viagra spam." Offering (your words) "freedom to have sex all night long" is not the same as providing assistance in obtaining uncensored news and information, and I find it hard to believe that you are equating them. If you want viagra, it is readily and easily available and, importantly, you're not putting yourself at risk by seeking it out. Each of these qualities does not exist with trying to get around China's censorship. Qualitative difference. If this could be made to work, I would consider it ethical behaviour.
Not good enough. You're one anecdotal person on the Internet who may or may not live in one small (and very atypical) part of a colossal nation. To say that the vast majority of Chinese don't care about something, and that the 1% who do care can easily find ways around it is a huge and unsubstantiated statement. Nor do we know what bias you might have, what demographic you typically associate with, whether or not you are Chinese yourself and if not, how trusted and integrated you are with the communities there. Nor do we know what the reaction of the Chinese people would be if uncensored media were available without threat in comparison to the nation as is, that has never known it in the living generation.
It is sound logic to say that a choice made between multiple options represents greater volition than a choice made "between" one option. A decision's validity depends on the information available to make that decision upon. A free, uncensored media offers greater choice and you're surely not arguing against that. You can only argue that the state of things in China is a result of active choice on the part of the Chinese people if the people have freedom of information. Without that, it can't be said that it's a real choice. That's the qualitative difference between viagra spam and help in bypassing censorship. The latter is offering greater freedom. The former does not.
No, it IS almost exactly like Viagra spam. The spammer in both cases claims that it's something the recipient needs, and doesn't know where to find. And in both cases they're wrong. 99% of Chinese on the net don't care about censorship (except perhaps of porn) and the 1% who do are perfectly capable of finding proxies without the help of some American crusader, who is just going to stir up the authorities like an evangelical Christian in Afghanistan.
I think I can justifiably argue that in the case of the viagra spammer claiming it's something that the recipient needs, the spammer knows that he is lying.
As regards your 99% of Chinese do not want to get round the censorship - 1. How would you know they don't want it? 2. How would you know that those that do can easily find it? 3. If you've been subject to censorship all your life, might not you be unaware of the benefits of bypassing it?
And there, in a single post, is the best argument that it isn't ethical to do this. Not because the intention or the aims are wrong, but because the effect is likely to be detrimental.
There's a qualitative difference between the spam you receive and the "spam" that he's talking about sending to China. With our spam, it is trying to direct us to something that we are free to find ourselves if we so want to. With the China "spam" idea, it is trying to provide something that the recipient is not free to find for themselves. In other words, it's increasing the recipients freedom of choice. There's also a difference that what is contained in the "spam" is something that is useful, as opposed to the amount of viagra adverts I receive.
But if what was sent would just make things worse for the recipient, as the parent says, then it would be wrong to send it.
Little of which is the problem of the ISP. Internet access is now low in cost compared to most of our bills, but it's come to be regarded as a necessity by most of us. Therefore the market is ripe for a profit-hiking on the part of the telcos. But there are two things that prevent them all just simply bumping the prices up by a whopping margin. The first is that there may be issues in terms of price-fixing and anti-competitiveness if everyone just gets together and agrees to up prices. Secondly, there is the backlash from the customer at the sort of outrageous price increases that these ISPs would like.
Confusing the issue by breaking things up and charging extra for service X, is a confusing and obfuscating way of adding artificial value to the service. Especially when with increasingly efficient and expanded infrastructure, bandwidth is getting easier to provide. We pay now for bandwidth and this system works. Establishing the idea that we have to pay extra according to certain types of traffic has no good basis in effort on the part of the ISPs. In fact, it takes additional effort to introduce this monitoring.
It's about squeezing more money out of people and its based on collusion between ISPs. Customers should tell Comcast where to stick it.
Watermarking is quite frankly fantastic. If these companies are moving to watermarking instead of DRM then more power to their balance books! I'm not interested in downloading music or movies. I want to buy them. DRM stops me doing that and from getting the product that I want. Watermarking doesn't stop me from doing anything I'm legitimately allowed to do so if it satisfies their requirements to go and catch people who do make illegitimate copies, then I would very much like them to use Watermarking. Hopefully it will lead to more products that I can buy online.
But that is what we have already. You may have a deal that offers unlimited bandwidth, or you may have one that is capped, but the point of it is that you can use that bandwidth for whatever you like and no distinction is made. Which is as it should be as it's none of the ISP's business what you do with it. Using universal encryption preserves this state as the ISP can't make charging distinctions on what the data is. So the same market forces apply as now.
It's a logical argument. If we care about ourselves and (in cases other than yours, apparently) our friends, family, world... then that is an attribution of value. If we are part of the Universe, then that attribution of value is from the Universe toward itself. It may be one component of the Universe, but that's a meaningless distinction unless you're comparing components to other components and we are not, we are only considering the whole because that is what the question demands. The only get out is to say that we are not part of the Universe in which case you have some impressive arguing to do.
If the "genetically disadvantaged" are better able to survive, reproduce and succeed, in what way are they disadvantaged anymore? Oh, there's the physical discomfort and social prejudice, but in a world where contributions depend on things other than being physically able to hunt down mammoths, someone who is disabled can add as much value to society as anyone else (including you).
As to your abhorrent idea that these people are somehow "dirtying" the genepool, you can lay your fears to rest. Firstly, as medical science progresses, things that crippled people previously, such as multiple sclerosis, become curable or preventable so there's no reason to think that it's going to lead to a world filled with these conditions.
Your argument is based on an emotional reaction, not reason.
Cracking the windshield of a spacecraft with fire extinguisher? They have to be kidding.
The windshield is already cracking due to damage their ship has taken from the Drej (don't ask). They make it out into space go *phew* and then look up to see the cracks in the windscreen. It's going to go at any second and is quite scary. The guy grabs the fire extinguisher in order to direct them in space as they leap toward the parent ship and kicks the screen out with his boots. They had seconds left, anyway. There's a nice adult layer to the film, for all that it's a kids movie.
Titan AE - a vastly underated kid-sci fi movie, got it right. There's a scene near the beginning where the windscreen of their little ship is cracking rapidly and the parent ship is just above them by a few hundred metres. The guy flying it grabs a fire extinguisher from the compartment, turns to his buddy and says "Exhale, now!" and kicks the windscreen out. His friend has just enough time to stare at him and say "You've got to be kidding me" before desparetely exhaling and grabbing on. They use the fire extinguisher to direct themselves at the parent ship's docking bay and survive for about five or six seconds. Barring some sci-fi stalwarts like artificial gravity, the film gets a lot of things right.
You either work in a very small company where you're actually valued, or you're a gullible fool who actually believes all the crap that corporate HR spews.
Currently, I'm doing some work with a large and very prestigious university. Prior to that, I worked in Primary Care in the NHS, doing what I could to keep the UK's health services running. Before that, there was a small company I did a contract for where they didn't listen to my advice and the company is now gone, and before that I worked for a large international company based in Europe that did listen to me and did allow me to make improvements that I suggested. In each of the cases, barring the small company that I left, I was valued and my opinions were listened to. Again, barring the small company, none of these organisations are small and the work that I have done has had value to society. In two cases, that's the reason I chose those jobs.
It sounds as though the company that you work for is a very poor one. If it's not doing something that you consider worthwhile, then I would get out if I were you. Cynicism and a lack of attachment to the work may be a viable defense mechanism to survive until you can find a way to something better, but it's not something you want to accept as a way to spend forty hours of every week for the rest of your life. Find something that you value and do that. I was responding to your question as to why anyone would care about the company that they work for. I've given you reasons that are valid for me. If you want to adopt them yourself or not is up to you, but it sounds like there is scope to be happier in your work.
I doubt that it's lack of talent or resource at Microsoft, so much as it is there being nowhere left to go. Windows XP worked. There is room to improve things under the bonnet quite a lot, but not in terms of features to add. And it is features that Microsoft are trying to sell Vista on. More than that, but features that appeal to the average business and home user, not developers who care about memory protection techniques. And XP was pretty stable, M$ hating aside, so what can they do?
Actually we've seen what they've done. They've made Vista [i]worse[/i] than its predecessor.
I can only speak personally, but caring about the company and the work is a pre-requisite for getting satisfaction in your job. We as humans, inherently feel good about achieving something that we consider to have value, and inherently become bored or resentful in doing something that we perceive to have no value. Therefore if you can see value in what you're doing and care about it, you will be happier in life than someone who does the same amount of work and doesn't. Not only that, but you will likely do a better job, too. And doing a better job will get you farther.
And companies don't have to be run by idiots who wont listen to you. I work in a place where my advice is taken seriously. Most companies produce something of value to society. Working for such a company, you are doing something that benefits everyone. Caring about society is a positive trait. As social animals, we are happiest when we play a positive role in our group. Just taking what you can is an unhappy way to be.
Ship a bunch of hydrogen bombs way out from the sun so they stand nicely, then detonate them in a very simple mathematical sequence
When? Now, a thousand years ago, a thousand years in the future? Even if an alien civilisation chose to try and communicate in this manner, we've only been equipped to notice this sort of thing for a century so what's the interval between bombs? I'm not really convinced that this is a good way however. A nuclear bomb is devastating on Earth, but compared to what's going on in Space, it's a tiny hiccup that would be very easy to miss.
And as to whether they're trying to announce their presence or not, firstly, what percentage of them are doing so, because it affects the likelihood of our local distribution of inhabited systems being in range, and secondly, who are they trying to communicate with? Civilised beings or the idiots still using radio? We've had a hundred years of using radio. It's nothing!
Slashdot Mirror
Additionally, the world-wide perception that they were reduced to bribery to try and make it a standard would have harmed its adoption even if accepted. The fact that they bribed and failed is going to do them a world of harm in promoting ODF.
Good!
Have you seen the actual break down of which way countries voted? Scroll down a little way in the FTA comments and it's laid out in a table. It's amazing in that with the exception of the US, the voting is almost consistently "No" from rich, developed countries, and "Yes" from poorer Eastern European and African countries that are stereotypically more corrupt. The jokes people are making about Microsoft buying the votes of Banana Republics are not without a basis. Worth looking through the list.
About the same. Ubuntu uses Gnome as the default desktop. Kubuntu uses KDE as the standard desktop. There's also Xubunutu which uses the much simpler Xfce desktop for less resource consumption. They're all similar under the lid and all roughly take the same time to set up and configure, it's just a choice of what you're used to or prefer. You can, if you wish, later install a different desktop system on your *buntu system without a problem, just by selecting it from a list.
HTH, -H.
Insert Kubuntu CD. Boot computer. Accept all defaults. Use Kubuntu. Did it this morning and did one for a friend a couple of months ago. Took approximately ten minutes or less. It's no more complicated than installing Windows and very definitely faster.
It's nothing to do with post-modernism or, as I think you're getting at, a principle that every deserves to pass and there they'll be given their pass. There are solid material reasons why this is happening in English and Welsh schools (don't know about Scotland). Firstly, the Labour government we've been living under, has been deeply obsessed by performance targets, both in education and in the NHS. In education, they have introduced a structured target system based around getting a certain percentage of children to pass their exams. This system is tied to teacher's pay. It is also a shifting target that increases each year. That's a heavy material threat / inducement for a teacher to behave in a certain way. It tends to mean that kids that are doing well are pretty much abandoned, whilst those who show a risk of falling below the grade are desperately targeted before they lose the teacher their annual pay review. Is that a bad thing? Well it does mean that children who are doing poorly get a lot of attention. But sadly it also means that teaching drags down toward the lowest common denominator. And it puts a huge emphasis on passing the exams and it's probably inevitable that this will conflict with actual teaching. And of course, it's a reason to lower standards, whether by actually making the exams simpler or by bumping up test results of the weaker pupils.
The net result of all this at any rate, is that there ends up being little differentiation between good and bad pupils in the exam results and the whole thing becomes a little more worthless. The only thing that the British education system is teaching us right now, is don't vote Labour.
Perhaps there should be easier access to sexual content that has an emotional context, then. Sex is a basic human drive, but there is a great deal of repression that prevents easy access to video of it. Consequently, the vast majority of the porn out there is gruesome and brutal. Given that people have this basic need to acquire sexual gratification (which is by necessity self-gratification some times), those who condemn porn should in fact attempt to provide some more uplifting versions. If, for example, mainstream romantic films and soap operas were able to include explicit sexual content, then there would be an alternative to the five minute start-fuck-cum videos all over the Web and many people would view something more emotionally gratifying.
People could view what they wanted, of course. But a little less repression and categorisaton of porn as a shameful thing, would lead to a wider variety of styles, some of which would be less souless.
Do you really believe that the viagra spammer "imagines that the recipient wants what he is offering" as you say? I find it hard to believe that you think the spammer that naive. But in the case of the censorship bypassing spam, this seems to be the case on the part of the proponent. We are in agreement that the anti-censorship spam will not be effective, but I'm really not getting your argument that they are ethically equivalent. And as said, in the case of viagra, this is something anyone can get, but the anti-censorship spam actually [i]is[/i] offering something that is thought to be hard or dangerous to obtain. And again, I can't accept your statement that "most of the rest are just annoyed or even angered." It may be the case, but we have no way of knowing. That's one of the things about censorship. When it's as pervasive as it is in China, how do we know what degree of tolerance the populace has of it? There's a fundamental difference in nature between tolerating an action and tolerating a control of information. In the latter case, the decision as to whether to tolerate it is affected by the thing itself. Only with free access to information can we say that the actions or tolerance of actions of a people are a conscious decision. Tolerance of control of information can never be a conscious decision once that control is established.
And this is what I said. If you re-read my first post, you'll see that I said this would be counterproductive. Where we disagree is where you state that this is "almost exactly like viagra spam." Offering (your words) "freedom to have sex all night long" is not the same as providing assistance in obtaining uncensored news and information, and I find it hard to believe that you are equating them. If you want viagra, it is readily and easily available and, importantly, you're not putting yourself at risk by seeking it out. Each of these qualities does not exist with trying to get around China's censorship. Qualitative difference. If this could be made to work, I would consider it ethical behaviour.
Not good enough. You're one anecdotal person on the Internet who may or may not live in one small (and very atypical) part of a colossal nation. To say that the vast majority of Chinese don't care about something, and that the 1% who do care can easily find ways around it is a huge and unsubstantiated statement. Nor do we know what bias you might have, what demographic you typically associate with, whether or not you are Chinese yourself and if not, how trusted and integrated you are with the communities there. Nor do we know what the reaction of the Chinese people would be if uncensored media were available without threat in comparison to the nation as is, that has never known it in the living generation.
It is sound logic to say that a choice made between multiple options represents greater volition than a choice made "between" one option. A decision's validity depends on the information available to make that decision upon. A free, uncensored media offers greater choice and you're surely not arguing against that. You can only argue that the state of things in China is a result of active choice on the part of the Chinese people if the people have freedom of information. Without that, it can't be said that it's a real choice. That's the qualitative difference between viagra spam and help in bypassing censorship. The latter is offering greater freedom. The former does not.
I think I can justifiably argue that in the case of the viagra spammer claiming it's something that the recipient needs, the spammer knows that he is lying.
As regards your 99% of Chinese do not want to get round the censorship - 1. How would you know they don't want it? 2. How would you know that those that do can easily find it? 3. If you've been subject to censorship all your life, might not you be unaware of the benefits of bypassing it?
It is not "almost exactly like viagra spam."
And there, in a single post, is the best argument that it isn't ethical to do this. Not because the intention or the aims are wrong, but because the effect is likely to be detrimental.
There's a qualitative difference between the spam you receive and the "spam" that he's talking about sending to China. With our spam, it is trying to direct us to something that we are free to find ourselves if we so want to. With the China "spam" idea, it is trying to provide something that the recipient is not free to find for themselves. In other words, it's increasing the recipients freedom of choice. There's also a difference that what is contained in the "spam" is something that is useful, as opposed to the amount of viagra adverts I receive.
But if what was sent would just make things worse for the recipient, as the parent says, then it would be wrong to send it.
Little of which is the problem of the ISP. Internet access is now low in cost compared to most of our bills, but it's come to be regarded as a necessity by most of us. Therefore the market is ripe for a profit-hiking on the part of the telcos. But there are two things that prevent them all just simply bumping the prices up by a whopping margin. The first is that there may be issues in terms of price-fixing and anti-competitiveness if everyone just gets together and agrees to up prices. Secondly, there is the backlash from the customer at the sort of outrageous price increases that these ISPs would like.
Confusing the issue by breaking things up and charging extra for service X, is a confusing and obfuscating way of adding artificial value to the service. Especially when with increasingly efficient and expanded infrastructure, bandwidth is getting easier to provide. We pay now for bandwidth and this system works. Establishing the idea that we have to pay extra according to certain types of traffic has no good basis in effort on the part of the ISPs. In fact, it takes additional effort to introduce this monitoring.
It's about squeezing more money out of people and its based on collusion between ISPs. Customers should tell Comcast where to stick it.
Watermarking is quite frankly fantastic. If these companies are moving to watermarking instead of DRM then more power to their balance books! I'm not interested in downloading music or movies. I want to buy them. DRM stops me doing that and from getting the product that I want. Watermarking doesn't stop me from doing anything I'm legitimately allowed to do so if it satisfies their requirements to go and catch people who do make illegitimate copies, then I would very much like them to use Watermarking. Hopefully it will lead to more products that I can buy online.
But that is what we have already. You may have a deal that offers unlimited bandwidth, or you may have one that is capped, but the point of it is that you can use that bandwidth for whatever you like and no distinction is made. Which is as it should be as it's none of the ISP's business what you do with it. Using universal encryption preserves this state as the ISP can't make charging distinctions on what the data is. So the same market forces apply as now.
It's a logical argument. If we care about ourselves and (in cases other than yours, apparently) our friends, family, world... then that is an attribution of value. If we are part of the Universe, then that attribution of value is from the Universe toward itself. It may be one component of the Universe, but that's a meaningless distinction unless you're comparing components to other components and we are not, we are only considering the whole because that is what the question demands. The only get out is to say that we are not part of the Universe in which case you have some impressive arguing to do.
But we are part of the Universe and we care. Therefore the Universe does attribute value to us.
Nicely used reference.
If the "genetically disadvantaged" are better able to survive, reproduce and succeed, in what way are they disadvantaged anymore? Oh, there's the physical discomfort and social prejudice, but in a world where contributions depend on things other than being physically able to hunt down mammoths, someone who is disabled can add as much value to society as anyone else (including you).
As to your abhorrent idea that these people are somehow "dirtying" the genepool, you can lay your fears to rest. Firstly, as medical science progresses, things that crippled people previously, such as multiple sclerosis, become curable or preventable so there's no reason to think that it's going to lead to a world filled with these conditions.
Your argument is based on an emotional reaction, not reason.
The windshield is already cracking due to damage their ship has taken from the Drej (don't ask). They make it out into space go *phew* and then look up to see the cracks in the windscreen. It's going to go at any second and is quite scary. The guy grabs the fire extinguisher in order to direct them in space as they leap toward the parent ship and kicks the screen out with his boots. They had seconds left, anyway. There's a nice adult layer to the film, for all that it's a kids movie.
Titan AE - a vastly underated kid-sci fi movie, got it right. There's a scene near the beginning where the windscreen of their little ship is cracking rapidly and the parent ship is just above them by a few hundred metres. The guy flying it grabs a fire extinguisher from the compartment, turns to his buddy and says "Exhale, now!" and kicks the windscreen out. His friend has just enough time to stare at him and say "You've got to be kidding me" before desparetely exhaling and grabbing on. They use the fire extinguisher to direct themselves at the parent ship's docking bay and survive for about five or six seconds. Barring some sci-fi stalwarts like artificial gravity, the film gets a lot of things right.
Currently, I'm doing some work with a large and very prestigious university. Prior to that, I worked in Primary Care in the NHS, doing what I could to keep the UK's health services running. Before that, there was a small company I did a contract for where they didn't listen to my advice and the company is now gone, and before that I worked for a large international company based in Europe that did listen to me and did allow me to make improvements that I suggested. In each of the cases, barring the small company that I left, I was valued and my opinions were listened to. Again, barring the small company, none of these organisations are small and the work that I have done has had value to society. In two cases, that's the reason I chose those jobs.
It sounds as though the company that you work for is a very poor one. If it's not doing something that you consider worthwhile, then I would get out if I were you. Cynicism and a lack of attachment to the work may be a viable defense mechanism to survive until you can find a way to something better, but it's not something you want to accept as a way to spend forty hours of every week for the rest of your life. Find something that you value and do that. I was responding to your question as to why anyone would care about the company that they work for. I've given you reasons that are valid for me. If you want to adopt them yourself or not is up to you, but it sounds like there is scope to be happier in your work.
I doubt that it's lack of talent or resource at Microsoft, so much as it is there being nowhere left to go. Windows XP worked. There is room to improve things under the bonnet quite a lot, but not in terms of features to add. And it is features that Microsoft are trying to sell Vista on. More than that, but features that appeal to the average business and home user, not developers who care about memory protection techniques. And XP was pretty stable, M$ hating aside, so what can they do?
Actually we've seen what they've done. They've made Vista [i]worse[/i] than its predecessor.
I can only speak personally, but caring about the company and the work is a pre-requisite for getting satisfaction in your job. We as humans, inherently feel good about achieving something that we consider to have value, and inherently become bored or resentful in doing something that we perceive to have no value. Therefore if you can see value in what you're doing and care about it, you will be happier in life than someone who does the same amount of work and doesn't. Not only that, but you will likely do a better job, too. And doing a better job will get you farther.
And companies don't have to be run by idiots who wont listen to you. I work in a place where my advice is taken seriously. Most companies produce something of value to society. Working for such a company, you are doing something that benefits everyone. Caring about society is a positive trait. As social animals, we are happiest when we play a positive role in our group. Just taking what you can is an unhappy way to be.
When? Now, a thousand years ago, a thousand years in the future? Even if an alien civilisation chose to try and communicate in this manner, we've only been equipped to notice this sort of thing for a century so what's the interval between bombs? I'm not really convinced that this is a good way however. A nuclear bomb is devastating on Earth, but compared to what's going on in Space, it's a tiny hiccup that would be very easy to miss.
And as to whether they're trying to announce their presence or not, firstly, what percentage of them are doing so, because it affects the likelihood of our local distribution of inhabited systems being in range, and secondly, who are they trying to communicate with? Civilised beings or the idiots still using radio? We've had a hundred years of using radio. It's nothing!