Your point is taken, but the problem at Enron was that the executives were NOT looking out for the good of the company. They were stealing from the company.
If memory serves, the last major legal action in the US against MSFT was initiated by Clinton's Dept of Justice; and the DoJ under Bush decided to drop the case. Why shouldn't we blame Bush for letting MSFT off the hook? (I'm not a big fan of Clinton either, but it seems that in this case, his people had the right idea.)
Look, it's simple. Download and install Mozilla. Give each employee 15 minutes to figure out how it works. If they can't figure it out, then they have no business trying to operate a computer in the first place.
I don't see how you could manage to spend "$thousands" on this. Unless you're a defense contractor.
Just like any other for-profit web presence, they want as many page views as possible.
Let me guess... You just woke up from a coma, and you think it's still 1998? An on-line business does NOT make money from page views, they make money from customers paying for products and services. Why would you want little kids going to your porn site? Kids don't have credit cards, and MOST of them wouldn't ask their parents to order porn for them.
Actually, from a business standpoint, there are good arguments both for and against self-regulation. Hard to tell how this is gonna play out; most likely, nothing will get decided, and everything will just continue as before.
Sorry, that makes no sense. There's no such thing as "cyberspace", it's just a bunch of computers hooked together. Unless you have a server floating in international waters, that server will be under the legal jurisdiction of some government.
And copyright is most definitely NOT the same as property. If I board your ship and steal your gold, then I have gold and you have none. If I board your ship and copy your Britney Spears CDs, then both of us have Britney Spears. Do I really have to explain this?
This is all true; but also consider that running your own business gives you a lot more flexibility in dealing with "difficult" clients. As an employee, you can't just tell that client to go fuck himself, no matter how much you think he deserves it. As a freelancer/proprietor, you're free to make the calculation on your own: is the profit on this gig worth the aggravation?
Go ahead and bitch if you want - just be glad they didn't get into the Aztec gods (yet). Can you imagine a newscaster trying to pronounce Itzpzpalotl or Huitzilopochtli?
Yeah, I've met people like that too. They're definitely a small percentage of society, but they do exist. But there are a few points I'd like to raise:
1 - I have a problem with this Puritan idea that work is a moral obligation. "Work" should be something you do to solve a problem: If there's not enough food, you grow more food. If there's a hole in the roof, you fix the hole. If people are dying of disease, you make a vaccine. Our society has reached a point where there aren't enough of those problems to keep everyone employed; so what do we do? We create problems where there weren't any before. 20 years ago, were people truly suffering from the lack of GameBoys?
2 - As a former manager in a small business, I can tell you that I wouldn't want those slackers working for me. I don't want employees who are forced to work for me; I want employees who do the work because they find it interesting, or because they like their co-workers, etc. If I have to give up 0.2 % of my paycheck to keep these lazy fucks out of my hair, I consider that a worthwhile investment.
3 - If we do accept the above-mentioned Puritan work ethic, then we should apply it equally to all. What about the hereditary billionaires who never did a day's work in their lives? If they were forced to work for a living, it might keep them out of mischief. Like running for office.
Johnson? It must have been earlier than that, no? Didn't FDR borrow heavily for the New Deal, and then for the war?
Bush didn't invent deficit spending, but he's certainly very good at it. Going into this administration, we had a budget surplus. How long did it take to reverse that? A year, two?
Good point, but kind of irrelevant here. If there's a problem with SMTP, (and there are plenty,) then you fix SMTP. Changing one of the underlying low-level protocols won't help.
You have a citation for that? 80% sounds way too high. Of all my friends and relatives in the US, I would estimate that less than a quarter own their homes. And as another poster pointed out, there's a big difference between a mortgage and ownership. I personally don't know anybody who owns their home free and clear; maybe I just need to start hanging with the old-money crew.
"Comes back into the economy 100 fold"? How's that? They got a guy at NASA that xeroxes each dollar bill 100 times, then flushes it all down a big pipe marked "back into The Economy"?
This is all to distract us from the real hoax. The figure in the film is wearing a gorilla suit (this is blatantly obvious to anyone who watches it, especially someone who's spent as much time "working" with gorilla suits as I have (don't ask, you don't want to know)), but what they don't mention is that it's in fact Bigfoot wearing the gorilla suit and deliberately trying to walk like a human. Look closely: you can tell that the suit is too small for him, despite the well-known fact that gorilla suits are made "one size fits all". All humans, that is...
Slashdot Mirror
Your point is taken, but the problem at Enron was that the executives were NOT looking out for the good of the company. They were stealing from the company.
If memory serves, the last major legal action in the US against MSFT was initiated by Clinton's Dept of Justice; and the DoJ under Bush decided to drop the case. Why shouldn't we blame Bush for letting MSFT off the hook? (I'm not a big fan of Clinton either, but it seems that in this case, his people had the right idea.)
"Artists like William Shatner"? I don't think so. Shatner's music is unique.
Despite the fact that the whole open/free source movement is arguably an American invention?
Maybe it is, maybe not; it's actually irrelevant. The point is that OSS isn't owned by anybody: there's no centralized point of control.
Dinosaurs.
Depends on the bar.
Look, it's simple. Download and install Mozilla. Give each employee 15 minutes to figure out how it works. If they can't figure it out, then they have no business trying to operate a computer in the first place.
I don't see how you could manage to spend "$thousands" on this. Unless you're a defense contractor.
"... a guy named Jesus that everyone trusted" You said it man... nobody fucks with the Jesus!
Just like any other for-profit web presence, they want as many page views as possible.
Let me guess... You just woke up from a coma, and you think it's still 1998? An on-line business does NOT make money from page views, they make money from customers paying for products and services. Why would you want little kids going to your porn site? Kids don't have credit cards, and MOST of them wouldn't ask their parents to order porn for them.
Actually, from a business standpoint, there are good arguments both for and against self-regulation. Hard to tell how this is gonna play out; most likely, nothing will get decided, and everything will just continue as before.
My CD burner at home is used mostly for storing my digital pictures. Why should I pay the RIAA tax?
You shouldn't have to pay a tax to the RIAA for those. You should just pay a tax to the porn industry.
With the codes to your DVD, you can make unlimited copies
Here we go again... You do not need to decrypt a DVD to copy it. You only need to decrypt it in order to watch it.
Sorry, that makes no sense. There's no such thing as "cyberspace", it's just a bunch of computers hooked together. Unless you have a server floating in international waters, that server will be under the legal jurisdiction of some government.
And copyright is most definitely NOT the same as property. If I board your ship and steal your gold, then I have gold and you have none. If I board your ship and copy your Britney Spears CDs, then both of us have Britney Spears. Do I really have to explain this?
What's an internet?
It's got something to do with canned pork products.
Family business isn't really the problem here, though, is it? If the guy wasn't your brother, would that make the situation any better?
This is all true; but also consider that running your own business gives you a lot more flexibility in dealing with "difficult" clients. As an employee, you can't just tell that client to go fuck himself, no matter how much you think he deserves it. As a freelancer/proprietor, you're free to make the calculation on your own: is the profit on this gig worth the aggravation?
Go ahead and bitch if you want - just be glad they didn't get into the Aztec gods (yet). Can you imagine a newscaster trying to pronounce Itzpzpalotl or Huitzilopochtli?
*cough*Moon landings*cough*
Yeah, I've met people like that too. They're definitely a small percentage of society, but they do exist. But there are a few points I'd like to raise:
1 - I have a problem with this Puritan idea that work is a moral obligation. "Work" should be something you do to solve a problem: If there's not enough food, you grow more food. If there's a hole in the roof, you fix the hole. If people are dying of disease, you make a vaccine. Our society has reached a point where there aren't enough of those problems to keep everyone employed; so what do we do? We create problems where there weren't any before. 20 years ago, were people truly suffering from the lack of GameBoys?
2 - As a former manager in a small business, I can tell you that I wouldn't want those slackers working for me. I don't want employees who are forced to work for me; I want employees who do the work because they find it interesting, or because they like their co-workers, etc. If I have to give up 0.2 % of my paycheck to keep these lazy fucks out of my hair, I consider that a worthwhile investment.
3 - If we do accept the above-mentioned Puritan work ethic, then we should apply it equally to all. What about the hereditary billionaires who never did a day's work in their lives? If they were forced to work for a living, it might keep them out of mischief. Like running for office.
Johnson? It must have been earlier than that, no? Didn't FDR borrow heavily for the New Deal, and then for the war?
Bush didn't invent deficit spending, but he's certainly very good at it. Going into this administration, we had a budget surplus. How long did it take to reverse that? A year, two?
Six computers in a Cooper Mini? Hell, they'd never fit. This must be fake.
Good point, but kind of irrelevant here. If there's a problem with SMTP, (and there are plenty,) then you fix SMTP. Changing one of the underlying low-level protocols won't help.
I think the figure is 80% own homes today.
You have a citation for that? 80% sounds way too high. Of all my friends and relatives in the US, I would estimate that less than a quarter own their homes. And as another poster pointed out, there's a big difference between a mortgage and ownership. I personally don't know anybody who owns their home free and clear; maybe I just need to start hanging with the old-money crew.
"Comes back into the economy 100 fold"? How's that? They got a guy at NASA that xeroxes each dollar bill 100 times, then flushes it all down a big pipe marked "back into The Economy"?
This is all to distract us from the real hoax. The figure in the film is wearing a gorilla suit (this is blatantly obvious to anyone who watches it, especially someone who's spent as much time "working" with gorilla suits as I have (don't ask, you don't want to know)), but what they don't mention is that it's in fact Bigfoot wearing the gorilla suit and deliberately trying to walk like a human. Look closely: you can tell that the suit is too small for him, despite the well-known fact that gorilla suits are made "one size fits all". All humans, that is...
One hoax doesn't mean that something cannot / does not exist.
To put it another way: Just because the Piltdown Man was fake, doesn't disprove the theory of evolution.