Why would Yahoo refuse to accept an offer that is clearly more than they'd get from anyone else?
Imagine you're a vendor, living with your wife in the middle of the desert. There is no place within 50 miles, other than you, that is offering water or any other kind of beverage. Because of this, you haggle with everyone who enters your shop.
In rolls Bill Gates. He knows your game. He's talked to the locals, so he knows how much most people spend for bottles of water in your place. He asks for a bottle of water. His voice sounds scratchy and parched. He offers you 62% above what the locals will pay, thinking that the extra amount will make you quite happy to part with the water.
Now, knowing how much Bill Gates is worth and knowing the seemingly dire situation he's in, would you blindly accept that 62% "mark-up"? Or, would you consider that the simple fact that he gone all this way to your shop, in the middle of the desert, means he's really desperate for a drink right now and is willing to fork over a lot more?
Do you think his threats of going to your wife and only offering a 50% (or whatever lower amount it is) "mark-up", promising to let her know that you missed out on an even bigger "mark-up", would persuade you? Or would it only prove to you more that he's so threatened by your realizing how much he's low-balling you that he's trying to start infighting in hopes it'll persuade your wife to accept an offer well below what could really be gained?
Oh, and just to note, this is in no way meant to defame Bill Gates. His name has just functioned for so long as the prototypical "guy with more money than God" that he's convenient to use in a story.
Perhaps it's not spelled out well enough with the offer Microsoft is making, but Microsoft really needs (or at least, thinks it really needs) Yahoo!. Microsoft has been working since around 1996 to get into the internet game. They have spent billions of dollars (including all the IE stuff) in a bid to control the internet. And what has that lent them? A very far third place, with them only having any ranking at all because of the vast support from the actually successful divisions of Microsoft.
More to the point, that 62+ "premium" is no such thing. Microsoft isn't out to fund charity cases. It knows full well that Yahoo!'s actual potential worth is a lot more than its current assets. It's precisely this reason that Microsoft has spent so much money up until this point trying to gain a strong footing on the internet, going so far as to buy up a variety of properties along the way to try to compete with the other big players. The fact that Google was capable to grow from basically nothing to something that surpasses' Microsoft's presence should make it clear that either (a) Microsoft is very inept in spending their money or (b) companies like Google and Yahoo! are severely undervalued. I'd imagine it's a strong combination of the two.
In any case, it is in the best interest of shareholders to get the most money out of Microsoft as they can. I'd imagine that'd translate into a premium closer to 100% to 150%, at least, not necessarily because Yahoo! is worth it but because Microsoft is sincerely that desperate--what else would you call it when after ten years of competition, their brightest idea is to try to buy out the competition, not with money earned by fighting the competition, but by using their main cash cow as their own means to compete? The sad part is most investors will likely see the premium in a very narrow minded way, not realizing that Microsoft really doesn't really have any other options, at least in the English speaking world, when it comes to buying up search engines.
It isn't as though MS changes driver requirements all that often. There has been a real long time between XP and Vista. MS isn't requiring people to release new drivers every 6 months, more like every 5-6 years. That isn't unreasonable. Have a look at how often nVidia has to change their Linux drivers and tell me who requires more.
Two major points. One, I get the impression that a lot of the hardware people complain about with Vista is old hardware. By old, I mean, stuff that was sold prior to Vista being released. Sure, there's been some headaches with some hardware on some systems. And Windows/Linux video drivers have always seemed to be unstable (or, at least, constantly instability with nVidia or Ati drivers in some hardware has been a staple for over ~8 years). People are still wanting hardware with drivers developed that work under XP and 98. I'm pretty sure the hardware thing will blow over as each new computer comes preinstalled with their own proprietary drivers for each specific model line; most people, after all, don't seem to have much hardware beyond what's integrated with their current computer (digital cameras, mp3 players, etc being the major exception).
Two, your comparison with Windows and Linux is pretty apples to oranges. MS went out of their way to standardize on a driver model so hardware makers could write a driver in '98 and the hardware could still work in Windows XP or Vista or whatever. It was a pretty strong selling point, really, to have forwards compatability because it meant hardware makers weren't required to maintain drivers once they got them working successfully.
Meanwhile, Linux (or more precisely, Linus) is focused on constant improvement. As a result, drivers and subsystems under Linux have been dropped (umsdos comes to mind) because not enough people are willing to work on it. In the long term, this is probably an achilles heal of Linux, as the driver section of the source code tree is already the majority of code in Linux (IIRC). But, any sort of stable driver model imparts a rigidness that may cripple further development of Linux (and apparently, MS decided it was crippling Windows development enough to warrant a break).
Beyond that, people (not necessarily Linus, though he seems to waver at times over the broader implications) in the Free Software crowd realize that a stable driver model translates into proprietary drivers (something nVidia is trying to do, even with the indirect resistance so far put out by Linux developers), and that irks Free Softwarers on a moral level (they don't want to help promote proprietary code) and the Open Sourcers on a pragmatic level (supporting closed, proprietary code is a logistical nightmare and a main reason for the whole taint flag in the kernel). Even if a pragmatic solution could be reached (something that doesn't seem likely, given the nature of drivers), enough people in the Free Software crowd might effectively prevent progress in stabling a driver interface. At the very least, it might lead to serious discussion of a fork along with how such would partition the kernel development community.
In short, I do blame some hardware makers. But, most hardware makers made their hardware long ago and stopped maintaining them. If you want to blame them for anything, blame them for choosing to cut corners at the start, creating a proprietary driver without specificiations. At least with specficiations, there'd stand a reasonable chance of a lot more hardware seeing unofficial drivers developed instead of the trickle one sees now under reverse engineering.
Blind evangelism isn't helping Linux... it turns people off when they are given bad advice by people with an agenda.
And people with blind evangelism asking a question with an agenda is rather pointless as well. In short, there is no *one* answer for what to do about playing old/current games (Windows is hardly the only platform for gaming) and new games (it's still not clear what platform will dominate, so any suggestion on what to purchase/obtain for "the next big game" is heavy speculation). Meanwhile, if you want to ask about specific games that are already on known platform(s) or for which development has been explicitly stated for known platform(s), then odds are pretty good you already know the answer: use Windows for Windows games, Linux for Linux games, the PS3 for PS3 games, and your platform of choice when a game is available on multiple platforms.
Sure, things like WINE and DOSBox (as examples) give some leeway for games, but if a game is only unofficially supported under such solutions and you really want to be sure on what to get, then go with what is officially supported. Meanwhile, if you're willing to prod and test and experiment because you don't have the money to buy or are unwilling to invest the time in maintaining the N systems necessary to run all the games you want, you have to decide what you have to give up and what you *are* willing to invest your time in.
Me? I'd prefer having a game system as an application. I got to that point when DOS games stopped working under the latest consumer version of Windows (although I did hold out for a bit). Does that mean I've given up completely on gaming on the PC? No. But, it does mean I won't install Windows (or Linux or DOS) as a primary OS just to be able to run certain games. I will, at times, test to see what works under WINE and DOSBox and try to be content with native games for my platform of choice.
Is this is the best choice for everyone? Fuck if I know. But all of the above (minus my rantings of my own personal experience) should be pretty blatantly obvious to most people, really casting the point that either the person originally asking the question was asking it as a loaded question, more as a rhetorical device to try to "denounce" people, or the person was really ignorant of what the gaming landscape is like in a multiplatform world. If DAldredge really is the latter person, then I'd recommend trying out WINE and DOSBox and CoLinux and whatever else there is (I'll admit, my own ignorance doesn't really give a good answer for the Mac platform..and I doubt CoLinux is very hot for Linux games). But bickering over a loaded question is pointless.
The most beautiful part of a democracy is, except in some cases, you get the governance you deserve.
Bullshit. Who is this "you"? Democracy is a joke. Look around you. Most people are stupid and selfish and cruel and very easily led. The majority of any group is nearly always wrong. Maybe the human race does not 'deserve' to survive. Is that where you would like to see this "democracy", this majority rule, take us?
The "you" is the majority. If the majority of people are "stupid and selfish and cruel and easily led", they suffer as a consequence of this, as they are manipulated into harming themselves in their quest for self-fulfillment. This is beautiful, not because humanity "deserves" it (although one could probably argue that it does, if humanity does indeed act as you describe), but because the system works unto its intentions. Sure, a benevolent dictator could do "better", but would the people really "deserve" that which they receive? What about if it was a tyrant instead? Democracy is the closest system of governance I'm aware of that so closely associates action with receiving accountability for those actions, regardless of how much the people directly choose it.
A government is like a machine with one purpose: to control. Everything. And it won't stop, ever, until it has won. It can only be stopped by being destroyed utterly through armed revolt. Through war and violence and blood in the streets.
You're wrong on many fronts. Governments aren't so easy to categorize. While many governments (most?) are devoted to the control of all things, the only thing that moves governments in a democracy towards utter control is a wish by the populace for fascism or its ilk; but not all majorities of people want that. And even when there is a government of tyrany, revolts have repeatedly happened as the ruling class is eventual crushed by its own devices (those who seek power destablize the unity of power, allowing for a power vacuum that otherwise non-powered individuals to interceed; take, for example, the British Empire's history with Parliament).
But as the government grows in power this becomes increasingly difficult. In the case of the United States it would now be all but impossible. The war machine has grown powerful beyond all imagining. Even a good sized militia would have no chance against that kind of adversary.
Again, look no further than the British Empire. Of course, the British Empire took literally centuries to change. And few in a democracy who care about keeping their democracy are likely willing to wait around for centuries for the eventual downfall of the latest tyrany, but that doesn't mean it can't happen. After all, the British Empire didn't start out from a strong monarch; it took people *choosing*, through democracies, simple free will, or through the various other pre-empire organizations, to join the kingdoms and then the empire until such point that the kingdoms and the empire refused to allow subjects to leave.
But, in the end, America sprang up even against the virtually unthinkable odds of revolting against the British. If there comes a time that a war against the US government should be necessary, it is hard to believe that no other democracy (or possibly other government type), fearing for its own existance*, wouldn't support even a seemingly hopeless cause. In any case, I'm not convinced that things are hopeless*.
So we are on our way. There are no turns on this road. "Terrorism" will continue to grow as the term grows to include anything not expressly permitted. But what is happening cannot be blamed on any one person. It is a sort of tragedy of the commons, this thing we call 'government'. We create a machine that will always eventually take control and destroy us, destroy everything for its own selfish needs. A vast machine controlled by countless thousands of people who
Everyone, please turn in your local Dairy Farmer (he's undoubtedly in on the operation)!
No, the correct answer is "please turn in your local AK47 dealer". I'm pretty sure terrorists either (a) buy lots of machineguns or (b) sell lots of machine guns and that *that* is more pertinent than any software piracy link that may exist. The fact is, terrorists are going to sell pirated software regardless *because they're terrorists*; notice how similar this is to the point about gun regulation and criminals. Even if software piracy was crushed tomorrow into nothing, terrorists would switch to one of the other millions of *capitalistic* approachs to funding. The only real way to end terrorism funding is to end capitalism..and we've still not figured out a way to stop that.
So, while I say it in a certain amount of mock jest, the (possibly) best answer to those who won't listen to the truth instead of the big lies is to tell bigger lies, but make the bigger lies something they care about. Tell them, gun sales make up the majority of contributions to terrorists. Then tell them, by supporting this legislation on software piracy, you're voicing your support for much tougher gun regulation. Make the liars the enemy. And, of course, when the side who really wants to have much tougher gun regulation grabs onto your lie and tries to use it, you make up an even bigger lie for the other side to push against their personal pet peeve (like, gun regulation somehow turning into anti-abortion laws or something).
The most beautiful part of a democracy is, except in some cases, you get the governance you deserve. If those who you choose to govern would rather lie, and you'd rather believe those lies or simply nod your head and follow rather than think critical and support your supposed blood enemy, then you end up with the sort of situation you have today. So, the real question is, do you want to help make an exception? Do you want to lie to counter the lies set forth by others, for the good of the people? Or, is it better to tell the truth with the hope that eventually enough people will care enough to rise up and change the system, be it through a bloody or bloodless revolt? And why the hell does it seem like there's so little debate on this/these question(s)? Is it apathy or contentment that seems to push towards the creation of further, crazier laws?
Was there a way to read the license agreement before installing the update? If there was then surely Apple are in the 'clear', as you can run Windows on an Apple and so it's not their fault that you installed something that you shouldn't technically have done.
Much like how stores will shove $200 iPods in your shopping bag, in clear view of the customer, and then leave a little note at the bottom of your receipt that "The included iPod is only free if you bought a new $2000 plasma TV. Otherwise, taking the iPod out of the store is theft.". Oh, right, they don't. But, it has a lot less to do with the legality of the situation; it has to do with stores not wanting to lose a lot of money from people who walk out with those iPods and are never caught. So, either Apple really doesn't value Safari very much, or they screwed up their EULA. I'd vote on the latter.
In Guild Wars (another MMORPG), those using bots are discouraged from doing so by a method different from suing those that write the macros -- ArenaNet (the devs) simply sniff out (using various AI mechanics) those that use bots and ban them from the game. This action is covered by the EULA that users accept before playing.
Yea, um...I really hope you mean service agreement, not EULA. Even if the EULA stood-up in court, what's to stop a person from using Guild Wars through a separate client not covered under your EULA? Now, if the user paid money for the service and you cut them off based on language in an EULA, you've legally fucked yourself. However, if the service agreement prevented such actions, it wouldn't matter what client the person used (although, you might just deicde to require your own sanctioned client(s) and allow banning for those who don't comply).
Having said all that, this isn't about bot banning. This is about going after the people who make bots. The problem is, there's nothing legally stopping a person from making a bot that other people can buy. The bot maker almost certainly won't be violating the EULA (at least, nothing that's legally enforceable). And they're not the one using the bot and violating any service agreement. Blizzard is trying to use the same logic as the RIAA does when it comes to music piracy; if you can't successfully (or are unwilling) to go after your customers, go after the groups/companies that facilitate activity you don't like, lack of illegality be damned. Personally, I hope this burns Blizzard for the same reason I hope that eventually the courts turn on the RIAA.
While I agree with Jim's sentiments being an Open Source advocate and all, I think Red Hat has no right to attempt to coax or coerce companies into giving away code.
Um, why not (with the coaxing)? Isn't the next step beyond simple, vague advocacy actually coordinating with other companies to try to show them how OSS might work better for them?
If OSS is the future, then it will happen, with or without Jim's little tantrum.
OSS isn't *the* future. It's merely a part of the future. Not everything will be open source because it's not logically/economically/etc sound.
It is ridiculous for a CEO to attempt to paint his company as some kind of inspired model upon which other companies should remodel themselves.
That's *not* what's being done. Red Hat is in the business of selling support for OSS. What's being sought is finding companies for which software isn't their business and convincing them to invest their existing code (and probably future code) since they're possibly the company with the least to risk and the most to gain from opening their software.
Aside from being futile, attempting to turn the Old Establishment around does nothing but hurt the nascent organisations that will make up the New Establishment by casting doubt on their methods and making them look like they are non-viable without the support of the Old Establishment.
I think we're already beyond that point. Look no further than Sun, Novell, and IBM, all of the "Old Establishment" who have "[turned around]" to fund various critical components that most every business needs (a cross-platform platform and a whole OS, an office suit for documents, and the core component of another OS, respectively). Do you consider OSS non-viable because of this? Do you think those already tinted to disliking OSS consider OSS non-viable because of this?
I can see Ballamer right now, in a room full of beaureaucrats saying "See? OSS is all about getting handouts to survive." Furthermore, it is brining wolves in amongst the lambs.
The wolves are among us, already. If OSS can't withstand a few wolves, then it's doomed entirely*.
If Jim wants to make a difference, he should fund new development from emerging pools, like Google with the GSoC (not that I'm a Google fan, but that's another story), or IBM with their paid employee time contributions, or EnterpriseDB with their backports to the PostgreSQL team or Sun with their (somewhat clumsy) contributions to the OSS community. There are plenty of companies already doing what he says, he should be happy for that and encourage those already willing rather than attempting to project an agenda onto those it does not suit.
Far as I'm aware, Red Hat was funding new development all the time. The point Jim was making is that companies like Delta Airlines have a larger budget for IT than Red Hat has in total. Yet, companies like Delta Airlines are very likely reinventing the wheel all the time. Further, (though this isn't Jim's point), when Delta Airlines decides to reuse its own code, it's create its own, unique proprietary library that makes it more costly to hire IT staff. The bigger picture, though, is that translates into a signficant amount of waste that OSS seems best fit, of the available options, to solve.
Having a whine that companies in the Old Establishment should be putting free money into his playpen is a naieve, futile and potentially harmful thing for Jim to be doing. It'd be better all round if he put his money where his mouth is rather than asking others to put their money where his mouth is.
Companies are already putting money into the problem. The point is, it'd make more sense to have something like "OSDL Airlines" with a budget close to the budget of one airline than to have n times the
9/11 did result in "an entirely new way of thinking about the problem": Hit terrorists first, and hit them hard.
What part of the TAS, or its asinine policies, is about "[hitting] terrorists first"? What part of labelling all terrorists al Quaeda to stir up fear is "an entirely new way of thinking about the problem"? The only thing "new" is the rate at which overly broad and unprepared plans are enacted because they're focused on "[hitting terrorists] hard" without any consideration for either collateral damage or even if the people involved really *are* terrorists.
Now, unless all of the above is malicious attempts by the administration and/or Congress, I'd say the actions that keep being endorsed "because of 9/11" have little to do with thinking and a lot more to do with "something has to be done" where that "something" is never really thought about, since there is rarely a clear "something" to resolve problems like terrorism. Even if bin Laden was killed and al Quaeda was destroyed, what's to prevent another terrorist organization from springing up with similar goals, but in an entirely seperate part of the world? Going about, trying to use the US Army to try to crush every hotbed of "terrorist activity" is not "new" thinking. It's very old, military thinking.
Stop waiting for them to act, have a little verbal waltz with them, and hope they are appeased.
Last I checked, Bill Clinton (for better or worse) didn't go off and try to appease bin Laden. The policy of hunting down bin Laden, dead or alive, came about in '93, after the *first* WTC attack. And it involved the same sort of casual disregard for sovereignty in the name of hunting terrorists that Bush has displayed. A real revolution would be to establish a policy that is neither appeasement nor turning the US into the world police. Whether that translates into fewer terrorist attacks directly is questionable.
The US being the world police is a large part of the reason groups like bin Laden's are even interested in attacking the US. Of course, bin Laden would probably want to attack western countries anyways, as indirectly western values are eroding the foundation of the countries bin Laden has interest in. And there are times when someone needs to defend the more helpless countries from senseless aggression, and the US is often the best/most willing candidate for that position. In short, I know I don't have an answer to the problem. But, I do know that the current "solutions" aren't any sort of revolution in thinking at all.
In 2001, 42,196 people were killed in motor vehicle accidents in the US. That works out to an average of ~115 per day or ~14 9/11's. Or, in short, more people die in a month *regularly* than were killed on 9/11.
Now, perhaps them all dying on one day does make it a tragedy. But, then, so was the Boston Masacre a tragedy. But, if one is going to obsess about such things, perhaps it'd be better to look at the root cause instead of focusing on the symptoms. I mean, after the Boston Masacre, did Boston hire security agents to monitor British troops? Or did such eventually (well, it took over five years) lead to a revolution (ie, an entirely new way of thinking about the problem) in an attempt to fix the symptom? Until the day in which 9/11 invokes something other than some gut-level short-term fix, it's hard to treat it any different than when local governments decide to put up more prominent stop signs when people keep dying in dangerous intersections--and there isn't a national concern about that.
Feel free to mark this off-topic, but Pen & Teller are bullshit. For those unaware, Pen & Teller had a several year running program called "Bullshit", where they went out of their way to debunk things they perceived to be bullshit. Now, most of the time, they argued on points I agree with, but it didn't take long for them to discuss two of my sacred cows, evolution and global warming.
Okay, really, it's not that they're sacred cows. It's that both are confirmed and tested under the same system, the scientific method. So, imagine my surprise when on the one hand Pen & Teller would gladly mock those who disagree with the consensus of science, having dared to argue as if there was room for debate; yet, on the other hand, Pen & Teller painted a conspiracy cloaked in the words of science, arguing that there was always room for debate and there never really was a consensus in science (only possibly very strong majorities) nor could go off of such majorities anyways.
Now, I rather subscribe to the latter view, as I don't consider science as intrinsically infallible (if it was, there'd be little point in testing scientific theories) or hold the people of science as some sort of single-minded body (let alone would I trust such a single-minded organization without debate). But, Pen & Teller spent more time issuing ad hominem attacks than bothering to actually prove what was bullshit. Their discussion of 9/11 conspiracists was no different.
So, I really wouldn't rely upon Pen & Teller for political, scientific, etc views. But, if you really want to know magic, they'll put on a great show.
I believe his point was that if IE supported Acid2 and Acid3, Firefox and Opera would strive even harder to maintain competitive against IE with even further standards compliance. But, that'd seem to be a general truism, given how Firefox and Opera are already striving rather hard for standards compliance.
I think you're missing the author's point. Generally speaking, it is always a bad idea to store a plain text password in a file. Further, any time that it *is* done, special security precautions should take place to insure that those passwords aren't leaked to people who shouldn't have access to them. Now, if the document format absolutely needs access to the plain text passwords (something I doubt), there's at least two major options available.
Option one is to encrypt the whole document, requiring a user provided password to the file. There are various problems with option one. The biggest of which is, simply encrypting the file doesn't resolve the issue of possibly leaking passwords. After all, I might edit a file 20 times, and over the course of 20 edits, I might end up adding some database sources, deleting some, and adding others. Without clarification in the format on the proper security procedure (like, whether it's okay to, say, cache user credentials for further edits), it's quite possible that as a user I might believe I can give a document to someone with the required password and since all sensitive databases are no longer used, no sensitive user credentials are contained within.
Option two is to merely include a very long list of security procedures to take care of such eventualities. That means including requirements such as notifying the user when passwords are stored, notifying the user of *all* passwords that are stored, and allowing the user to completely remove passwords in some specification allowable fashion (it sounds like the format might require the password and not including them would be undefined behavior...but removing the whole database reference is probably undesirable, so what's the "standard" thing to do?).
Now, the only real argument that can be made is that OOXML was written with the security consideration that documents that contain such information would never be released to people who don't already have access to said information. Of course, that's a bullshit argument, since ISO document standards are precisely designed for the distribution of information between entities who shouldn't be sharing such information. So, not taking such security considerations is a security vulnerability. And unless it's fixed, it means that anyone who cares about security should avoid OOXML.
While you appear to be right, there stills seems to be a problem. From Section 230 of the CDA, a little problem might arise. Specifically:
In analyzing the availability of the immunity offered by this provision, courts generally apply a three-prong test. A defendant must satisfy each of the three prongs to gain the benefit of the immunity:
...
3. The information must be "provided by another information content provider," i.e., the defendant must not be the "information content provider" of the harmful information at issue.
The specific issue at hand is Comcast, in forging packets as if sent from the provider of potentially harmful content, may have themselves become part of the "information content provider". And while the CDA might have nothing to do with copyright, one does have to worry about the fact that P2P may be used to distribute other, illegal information (child porn, national security secrets, threats against the lives of others, etc). So, as Comcast I'd still be rather worried about any action that could be contorted as making them part of the "information content provider" of harmful information at issue.
Can you write or use general purpose software that takes advantage of that many cores?
A 3D video driver? So that all PCs will have a decent "graphics card"? I think game designers will come up ways to use those extra CPUs such that even more CPUs will be needed. Or otherwise unthinkable things (mostly, the sort of thing that throwing strong parallel CPU power can solve but which is cost prohibitive today) will start being common.
Now, will *most* software use many/all of them? No. But, then, most CPUs are idle most of the time right now. A much bigger issue (even today) is electricity usage, not CPU usage. But, let's ignore that elephant in the room.
Seriously, though, people who tend to quickly polarize over Global Warming tend to do so because of the seemingly obvious ramifications of admitting whether Global Warming exists.
Actually, I think the problem is that the ramifications are not so obvious, anywhere beyond "we must do something".
There are several obvious ramification. One, Global Warming would be a shining example that humans *can* have an effect over the global climate, meaning that any future discussions that would try to dismiss an otherwise valid theory based on "that's impossible" hubris wouldn't work. Two, it would unseat the belief that humans are as well knowing as they pretend to be, which could very well change the way many people willingly choose to act in the future. Three, it would lead to a "we must do something" where "something" almost certainly translates into at least some major econmic players (whole industries, perhaps) turning into minor players and vice versa. Conservatism/Protectionism is against that sort of change (so will Progressism/Liberalism be, but they tend to have not reached their desired place, so they're not Conservatives/Protectionists yet).
Having said that, you're right. A lot of activists aren't exactly keen on handing over such a problem to an economist when it is economists (and scientists, but they ignore that) that have lead us to our current situation. Personally, I'd love to see an econmist's suggestion on what to do along with an analysis on how it'd solve the problem. It'd be the closest thing to a scientific solution. Unfortunately, most economists seem against the whole notion that the situation they founded could be part of a long-term ecological nightmare or that taking into consideration the ecological ramification must be done instead of trying to translate everything into a way to make more money*. Beyond that, economists tend to want to be paid** to do the amount of work necessary to create a plan to solve the whole world's ecological problems. So, we sort of need people willing to fund such a thing. Seeing as how things are going, it'd probably be quicker for activists, with the aid of scientists to describe the problem, to pay economists directly and ignore the government. Even if people couldn't act much on the plan, at least having the plan would move one step forward in the discussion.
*Economists are supposed to be concerned with economic efficiency. Money is usually a good way to measure that, but externalities like the environment are usually not measured monetarily, either at all or enough beyond their short-term economical usefulness (consider the issue of people in 1910 trying to measure the economical usefulness of uranium). Even if economists could create an accurate model, it's not clear that any single economist could create a model for any single company or non-governmental organization that would matter (even if an oil company tried to stop polluting (directly and indirectly), it's not like they'd be able to stop selling oil (their assets would be seized under claims of gouging or some such) or prevent others from selling oil; ie, they'd have some effect, but even they'd only delay the inevitable). In short, there has to be a political/social will to do what is best for everyone. There's very little economists can do with the current political/social will except predict how quickly it'll fuck things up. Now, someone with charisma...
**The same holds true for scientists. The difference is that scientists tend to have more flexibility in their research. Economists tend to have more strict rules for their funding of the research they want to carry out. But, obviously, YMMV.
Sorry to break it to you, but universities existed long before there were governments to fund them.
Bzzt. Wrong, try again, unless you are refering to the University of Og, where everyone goes to learn how to make fire and the wheel. I hear they also offered mastodon slaying as an elective.
It seems you're right, but for the wrong reason. It would seem there's sevearl definitions of university. One is "an institution of higher learning". A more strict/original definitino is "a corporation of students". Since a corporation is a legal entity (ie, one recognized by a government), then by definition governments must have come first.
Having said that, I misspoke and am probably mistaken. Perhaps the first universities were government funded (either through religious orders or grants by a king). And perhaps, for quite some time, universities were under governmental control. But, eventually universities broke free much more and became much more independent (mostly as a result of the incongruity of religion and science/philosophy, I'd imagine), funding included. And when people other than government became wealthy, they had the power to fund universities themselves. And since that wealth derived primarily from trade, and I don't see trade stopping short of near complete human annihilation (many governments collapsing would only pause it for a time), I don't see universities, government sanctioned or otherwise, disappearing.
Of course, I very much doubt I'll live long enough to test that hypothesis.
I think the more interesting subject to explore, is the psychology of why people are so eager to believe the improbable, and far more likely to accept an outrageous exaggeration, a halftruth, or an outright lie, merely to spite the establishment.
It's called anti-authoritarianism. Science is seen as the establishment. People are seen as sheep to follow the dogma of science blindly; and most people do, but as an exchange between Dogbert and Dilbert went, people are too busy to conduct enough science to adequately not rely upon others to do the work for them. Beyond that, it's prohibitively expense (in fact, it pretty well always has been) for most individuals to confirm or deny most of science. In fact, it's not really any different than the way people will scoff at religions which demand enormous time and commitment to decipher, feeling that such is more of a scam to grant those in charge needless power instead of it being a path to enlightenment.
... I would like to locate the part of the brain that will believe that the herbs in "Airborne" will miraculously prevent you from getting a disease, but will refuse to accept scientific principles and facts that have held firm under scrutiny for decades.
"I would like to locate the part of the mind that will believe the Earth revolves around the sun but will refuse to accept Catholic doctrine and truth that have held firm under scrutiny for centuries. (circa, the 1600s)"
Having said all that, there are of course those who do do enough science and do realize that most (if not all) of science is well tested and have done enough of their own experiments to not simply dismiss science like it were an unchangeable cult/religion* or as something that puts itself above being challenged**. So, there are those who fight the establishment because it is the establishment because they have some belief that it is something they should do. And, of course, there are the stupid people who reject science in small or large part in favor of their faith, even when nothing in their faith really demands it. And, of course, there are the stupid people who see science as everything and reject the potential for something beyond what one can readily sense. But, thankfully most people seem more than willing to sit back and do nothing, not so pressed to push their beliefs on others. I'm not sure if that's wisdom or apathy, though.
*Obviously, Catholicism has changed over time, but over the course of a lifetime, most religions aren't open to change. If they were, that would imply they don't have all the answers and hence aren't an established source of guidance. In short, religions tend to try to be something beyond a collection of mortal humans, so they try to project something unchanging and immortal (the religion, I'm not talking about their god(s) necessarily); small differences in interpretation can lead to whole new forks of a religion. And truthfully, those who live long enough will almostly certainly see a change in the religion of their church as younger individuals replace older, dying individuals and project a slightly different interpretation of things (even if everyone wanted to believe the same thing, the ambiguity of language makes it virtually impossible considering the vastness of religion and the difficulty of quantifying and qualifying every detail in an unchanging format (the language itself changes)). The same holds true for science (the mechanisms like the scientific method, for example), which has forked and changed over time as well.
**There are certainly many scientists (I don't want to presume most, but I wouldn't say scientists are intrisincally utterly open-minded) who look down upon those would challenge basic theories (like, say, gravity), feeling their intellectually feeble; but, they wouldn't likely do anything overt or covert about them carrying out their experiment or trying to publish their results.
Certain things, although treated as science, are not really open to an experiment...
Certainly. It's very easy to think everything is covered under science. But, there are many things (mainly, philosophical questional) that some would try to group under science because they believe they can conjecture out an answer.
And while disagreements over, say, some aspect of Cosmogony can be discussed in a friendly manner, issues like Global Warming tend to polarize people along their political persuasions...
Perhaps you haven't heard of cosmology and WIMPs vs MACHOs? Seriously, though, people who tend to quickly polarize over Global Warming tend to do so because of the seemingly obvious ramifications of admitting whether Global Warming exists. In short, the issue has more to do with people unwilling, on both sides, to go over the evidence and accept the proof that's available and leave it at that. But, then it's the same issue that came up ages ago when discussing the racial relations (especially, any claimed superiority) of various ethnicities. And *that* issue is still unresolved because dogma can override common sense.
Since academics' income depends greatly on the taxpayers' money, they tend to be Statist and/or rather Illiberal.
Sorry to break it to you, but universities existed long before there were governments to fund them. And, they will continue to exist long after governments refuse to fund them. Academics, in general, are interested in their work above all else. Now, this may lead to dogma and pet theories without any evidence. But, that doesn't translate into trying to sustain a revenue stream (well, at least, it only does so in the sense of funding their research, not in padding the academic's pocketbook). And sure, there are academics who are in it for the money, just like there are charlatens in any field. But, there isn't any evidence (at least, none I'm aware of) to hint at some sort of inherent academic conspiracy, no matter how good such conjecturing looks good on paper.
Hence the dominant "scientific" opinions about Global Warming predicting gloomy scenarios and demanding drastic actions mostly from "the rich" (citizens and nations), of course.
Or, people with evidence they think will be helpful are trying to warn people of the potential risks of merrily continuing our current actions. Most, realizing they *don't* know the long-term consequences (at least for humanity) of what happens if we continue, urge those with the most power to effect change (citizens and through them, their nations) to effect change. Of course, they realize they can't do much (at least, not without advocating military force) to push "the poor" countries or dictatorships to do the right thing. So, the tend to focus on "the rich".
Anybody disagreeing (or even questioning) is "anti-science" (even if burning at a stake is no longer practiced) even though no experiment could possibly be conducted on a planetary scale.
We're already engaging in an experiment on a planetary scale (you know, burning all that oil, coal, etc). And it happens that people are constantly making predictions based on those fossil fuels burned and how that affects the global climate. And all those scientists with their measurements of ocean CO2 absorption, temperature stations, measurements of ice sheets, etc all provide the data to confirm or deny those predictions. The only real question, then, is if the people on either side are actually looking at the theories that repeatedly pass and the evidence collected (to verify that it does, in fact, not contradict the theory). And if one side, after seeing the evidence, dismisses it based upon their own beliefs without any proof, then they are being anti-science. But, that says nothing about Global Warming.
The thing is, you're discussing two different issues.
Issue 1 is a group of people who are using *energy*, in whatever form that may be; as it happens, their use of that energy source is marginal compared to the other ~6 billion people on the Earth. To that end, suing energy companies (and/or their customers), even if they buy products from that company, doesn't make them hypocrits or their point silly--there aren't exactly a lot of other choices if you want to stay competitive.
The fact that energy companies use oil, gas, etc as the primary carrier of energy is because it's cheap. And it's cheap because the energy was stored in the oil, gas, etc through natural actions while the energy needed to extract that energy is much lower. As a result, there is a distinct competitive advantage to oil, gas, etc companies over renewable energy sources. What this means, then, is that to have a significant positive effect on the environment one of three things has to happen. One, the vast majority of people (just a handful won't do, and certainly the whole Alaskan Village going green wouldn't help) and have to suddenly become more environmental concerned, economics be damned. Two, the government needs to step in and create and enforce laws that counter the natural advantage that oil, gas, etc companies have. Or three, people have to step in where the government where not and sue companies for the harm they cause; and since the actual harm of global warming is much greater than the natural advantage of using pre-stored energy, eventually (assuming justice is served) oil, gas, etc companies will either go out of business or they'll turn into green[er] companies.
Issue 2 focuses more on the point that people need to sue each other, not just the oil, gas, etc companies. To that point, you're right. But, it's not viable to allow the courts to handle ~6000000000^2 cases (that is how many are necessary for an everyone to everyone suit, right?). So, the truth is, the government really needs to step in and fix the problem. Having said that, the government is clearly not interested in doing the right thing (the tobacco suits, for example, should have had much higher penalties; and more laws regulating tobacco (not simply taxation) should have happened; such regulation, btw, would have likely made tobacco wholly uneconomical, if not outright illegal). So, until the government decides to shelter* the oil, gas, etc companies like it did the tobacco companies, lawsuits are the best option available.
*Pollution laws already shelter oil, gas, etc companies. Look no further than how states, especially California, have been fighting the EPA to deal with mercury, carbon dioxide, etc. The EPA, after all, is precisely that organization created to remove the threat of 6 billion lawsuits over every polluting act, with the obvious side-effect that it would superceed any state laws regarding pollution. In return, the EPA was supposed to have such strict regulation that the damage done by pollution would be tolerable. The fact that states, which are hardly the beacon of left-wing overreactionary environmentalism, think the EPA's regulations aren't strict enough pretty clearly show that the EPA is failing in this regard.
It sounds like both cases are ones of moral corruption because in both someone is trying to get something for nothing from the work of another, whether that something is commercial or not.
The problem is, that logic easily extends to *all* information works. Consider how far in life you'd get without science, language, mathmatics, or the arts. The realm of work that is copyrighted is, even now, comparitively small to the realm of the public domain. If one were to simply say "but this is an artificial construction of man and hence the man (or men) who created it have a moral right to indefinite repayment", then either moral society would be halted or sustainable economic growth would end. As has been claimed in the past, progress is made by standing on the shoulders of giants. Imagine the effective "taxation" that would occur to pay off all those giants. Even if there was effective cross-licensing, such a "moral" society would invariable leave vast parts of the population without the means to ever hope to adequately pay for "language rights".
But, then, perhaps that is the "moral" thing to do? Personally, I'd rather believe morality is recognizing how little right one actually have to one's own creations. After all, I didn't create the universe. I didn't create language or the arts. I had very little to do with the current environment that would ever allow me to create what I create. So, perhaps, trying to attack the morality question from the means or even the ends is not the right approach in this instance.
Although those examples raise the question of why don't you just get a warrant...
Because it'd undermine their power grab (aka the warrantless wiretapping program(s)) by showing that warrants get the job done. Isn't it great how, every time someone tries to force the Bush Administration to follow the law, which is more than sufficient to get the job done, there is screams of "you're making us vulnerable to the terrorists"? Bush can't let the man behind the curtain show his face (that the law works, and power grabs are wholly unnecessary), and Bush and company are perfectly willing to sacrifice the security of the nation--you know, one of those primary functions of the Presidency--to cover their own asses. But, then, this story is at least as old as the Iraq War* and the bullshit about WMDs.
*Note: There might be older examples, but the Iraq War one was exceptionally egregious.
The only meaningful interpretation is that the article is drawing a parallel between natural selection and market forces...
Granted.
...and treating them both as subsets of a common feedback/selection mechanism.
Somewhat further granted. The issue at hand, then, is if this "common feedback/selection mechanims" is either (a) the only possible superset that exists for natural selection and market forces and (b) whether there exists a superset of natural selection and market forces that is a subset of a common feedback/selection mechanism (ie, is there room for a feedback system that isn't part of the natural selection/market forces superset?). Further, could that sisterset be conceivably better in some circumstances than the natural selection/market forces superset? Truthfully, I don't know the answer to this. And, making such speculation in a conclusion is obviously reaching well outside the bounds of what evidence was presented. The only real room would be for fanciful speculation (ie, 'if there is something beyond natural selection, then...')--but, that doesn't belong in a scientific study.
The only thing to really go back to, then, is that natural selection/market forces seem to be the mechanism at work, so the speculation was inverted and a logical fallacy. But, the inverted speculation I don't think is meaningless. It is just inappropriate for the venue.
Slashdot Mirror
Imagine you're a vendor, living with your wife in the middle of the desert. There is no place within 50 miles, other than you, that is offering water or any other kind of beverage. Because of this, you haggle with everyone who enters your shop.
In rolls Bill Gates. He knows your game. He's talked to the locals, so he knows how much most people spend for bottles of water in your place. He asks for a bottle of water. His voice sounds scratchy and parched. He offers you 62% above what the locals will pay, thinking that the extra amount will make you quite happy to part with the water.
Now, knowing how much Bill Gates is worth and knowing the seemingly dire situation he's in, would you blindly accept that 62% "mark-up"? Or, would you consider that the simple fact that he gone all this way to your shop, in the middle of the desert, means he's really desperate for a drink right now and is willing to fork over a lot more?
Do you think his threats of going to your wife and only offering a 50% (or whatever lower amount it is) "mark-up", promising to let her know that you missed out on an even bigger "mark-up", would persuade you? Or would it only prove to you more that he's so threatened by your realizing how much he's low-balling you that he's trying to start infighting in hopes it'll persuade your wife to accept an offer well below what could really be gained?
Oh, and just to note, this is in no way meant to defame Bill Gates. His name has just functioned for so long as the prototypical "guy with more money than God" that he's convenient to use in a story.
Perhaps it's not spelled out well enough with the offer Microsoft is making, but Microsoft really needs (or at least, thinks it really needs) Yahoo!. Microsoft has been working since around 1996 to get into the internet game. They have spent billions of dollars (including all the IE stuff) in a bid to control the internet. And what has that lent them? A very far third place, with them only having any ranking at all because of the vast support from the actually successful divisions of Microsoft.
More to the point, that 62+ "premium" is no such thing. Microsoft isn't out to fund charity cases. It knows full well that Yahoo!'s actual potential worth is a lot more than its current assets. It's precisely this reason that Microsoft has spent so much money up until this point trying to gain a strong footing on the internet, going so far as to buy up a variety of properties along the way to try to compete with the other big players. The fact that Google was capable to grow from basically nothing to something that surpasses' Microsoft's presence should make it clear that either (a) Microsoft is very inept in spending their money or (b) companies like Google and Yahoo! are severely undervalued. I'd imagine it's a strong combination of the two.
In any case, it is in the best interest of shareholders to get the most money out of Microsoft as they can. I'd imagine that'd translate into a premium closer to 100% to 150%, at least, not necessarily because Yahoo! is worth it but because Microsoft is sincerely that desperate--what else would you call it when after ten years of competition, their brightest idea is to try to buy out the competition, not with money earned by fighting the competition, but by using their main cash cow as their own means to compete? The sad part is most investors will likely see the premium in a very narrow minded way, not realizing that Microsoft really doesn't really have any other options, at least in the English speaking world, when it comes to buying up search engines.
Two major points. One, I get the impression that a lot of the hardware people complain about with Vista is old hardware. By old, I mean, stuff that was sold prior to Vista being released. Sure, there's been some headaches with some hardware on some systems. And Windows/Linux video drivers have always seemed to be unstable (or, at least, constantly instability with nVidia or Ati drivers in some hardware has been a staple for over ~8 years). People are still wanting hardware with drivers developed that work under XP and 98. I'm pretty sure the hardware thing will blow over as each new computer comes preinstalled with their own proprietary drivers for each specific model line; most people, after all, don't seem to have much hardware beyond what's integrated with their current computer (digital cameras, mp3 players, etc being the major exception).
Two, your comparison with Windows and Linux is pretty apples to oranges. MS went out of their way to standardize on a driver model so hardware makers could write a driver in '98 and the hardware could still work in Windows XP or Vista or whatever. It was a pretty strong selling point, really, to have forwards compatability because it meant hardware makers weren't required to maintain drivers once they got them working successfully.
Meanwhile, Linux (or more precisely, Linus) is focused on constant improvement. As a result, drivers and subsystems under Linux have been dropped (umsdos comes to mind) because not enough people are willing to work on it. In the long term, this is probably an achilles heal of Linux, as the driver section of the source code tree is already the majority of code in Linux (IIRC). But, any sort of stable driver model imparts a rigidness that may cripple further development of Linux (and apparently, MS decided it was crippling Windows development enough to warrant a break).
Beyond that, people (not necessarily Linus, though he seems to waver at times over the broader implications) in the Free Software crowd realize that a stable driver model translates into proprietary drivers (something nVidia is trying to do, even with the indirect resistance so far put out by Linux developers), and that irks Free Softwarers on a moral level (they don't want to help promote proprietary code) and the Open Sourcers on a pragmatic level (supporting closed, proprietary code is a logistical nightmare and a main reason for the whole taint flag in the kernel). Even if a pragmatic solution could be reached (something that doesn't seem likely, given the nature of drivers), enough people in the Free Software crowd might effectively prevent progress in stabling a driver interface. At the very least, it might lead to serious discussion of a fork along with how such would partition the kernel development community.
In short, I do blame some hardware makers. But, most hardware makers made their hardware long ago and stopped maintaining them. If you want to blame them for anything, blame them for choosing to cut corners at the start, creating a proprietary driver without specificiations. At least with specficiations, there'd stand a reasonable chance of a lot more hardware seeing unofficial drivers developed instead of the trickle one sees now under reverse engineering.
And people with blind evangelism asking a question with an agenda is rather pointless as well. In short, there is no *one* answer for what to do about playing old/current games (Windows is hardly the only platform for gaming) and new games (it's still not clear what platform will dominate, so any suggestion on what to purchase/obtain for "the next big game" is heavy speculation). Meanwhile, if you want to ask about specific games that are already on known platform(s) or for which development has been explicitly stated for known platform(s), then odds are pretty good you already know the answer: use Windows for Windows games, Linux for Linux games, the PS3 for PS3 games, and your platform of choice when a game is available on multiple platforms.
Sure, things like WINE and DOSBox (as examples) give some leeway for games, but if a game is only unofficially supported under such solutions and you really want to be sure on what to get, then go with what is officially supported. Meanwhile, if you're willing to prod and test and experiment because you don't have the money to buy or are unwilling to invest the time in maintaining the N systems necessary to run all the games you want, you have to decide what you have to give up and what you *are* willing to invest your time in.
Me? I'd prefer having a game system as an application. I got to that point when DOS games stopped working under the latest consumer version of Windows (although I did hold out for a bit). Does that mean I've given up completely on gaming on the PC? No. But, it does mean I won't install Windows (or Linux or DOS) as a primary OS just to be able to run certain games. I will, at times, test to see what works under WINE and DOSBox and try to be content with native games for my platform of choice.
Is this is the best choice for everyone? Fuck if I know. But all of the above (minus my rantings of my own personal experience) should be pretty blatantly obvious to most people, really casting the point that either the person originally asking the question was asking it as a loaded question, more as a rhetorical device to try to "denounce" people, or the person was really ignorant of what the gaming landscape is like in a multiplatform world. If DAldredge really is the latter person, then I'd recommend trying out WINE and DOSBox and CoLinux and whatever else there is (I'll admit, my own ignorance doesn't really give a good answer for the Mac platform..and I doubt CoLinux is very hot for Linux games). But bickering over a loaded question is pointless.
The "you" is the majority. If the majority of people are "stupid and selfish and cruel and easily led", they suffer as a consequence of this, as they are manipulated into harming themselves in their quest for self-fulfillment. This is beautiful, not because humanity "deserves" it (although one could probably argue that it does, if humanity does indeed act as you describe), but because the system works unto its intentions. Sure, a benevolent dictator could do "better", but would the people really "deserve" that which they receive? What about if it was a tyrant instead? Democracy is the closest system of governance I'm aware of that so closely associates action with receiving accountability for those actions, regardless of how much the people directly choose it.
You're wrong on many fronts. Governments aren't so easy to categorize. While many governments (most?) are devoted to the control of all things, the only thing that moves governments in a democracy towards utter control is a wish by the populace for fascism or its ilk; but not all majorities of people want that. And even when there is a government of tyrany, revolts have repeatedly happened as the ruling class is eventual crushed by its own devices (those who seek power destablize the unity of power, allowing for a power vacuum that otherwise non-powered individuals to interceed; take, for example, the British Empire's history with Parliament).
Again, look no further than the British Empire. Of course, the British Empire took literally centuries to change. And few in a democracy who care about keeping their democracy are likely willing to wait around for centuries for the eventual downfall of the latest tyrany, but that doesn't mean it can't happen. After all, the British Empire didn't start out from a strong monarch; it took people *choosing*, through democracies, simple free will, or through the various other pre-empire organizations, to join the kingdoms and then the empire until such point that the kingdoms and the empire refused to allow subjects to leave.
But, in the end, America sprang up even against the virtually unthinkable odds of revolting against the British. If there comes a time that a war against the US government should be necessary, it is hard to believe that no other democracy (or possibly other government type), fearing for its own existance*, wouldn't support even a seemingly hopeless cause. In any case, I'm not convinced that things are hopeless*.
No, the correct answer is "please turn in your local AK47 dealer". I'm pretty sure terrorists either (a) buy lots of machineguns or (b) sell lots of machine guns and that *that* is more pertinent than any software piracy link that may exist. The fact is, terrorists are going to sell pirated software regardless *because they're terrorists*; notice how similar this is to the point about gun regulation and criminals. Even if software piracy was crushed tomorrow into nothing, terrorists would switch to one of the other millions of *capitalistic* approachs to funding. The only real way to end terrorism funding is to end capitalism..and we've still not figured out a way to stop that.
So, while I say it in a certain amount of mock jest, the (possibly) best answer to those who won't listen to the truth instead of the big lies is to tell bigger lies, but make the bigger lies something they care about. Tell them, gun sales make up the majority of contributions to terrorists. Then tell them, by supporting this legislation on software piracy, you're voicing your support for much tougher gun regulation. Make the liars the enemy. And, of course, when the side who really wants to have much tougher gun regulation grabs onto your lie and tries to use it, you make up an even bigger lie for the other side to push against their personal pet peeve (like, gun regulation somehow turning into anti-abortion laws or something).
The most beautiful part of a democracy is, except in some cases, you get the governance you deserve. If those who you choose to govern would rather lie, and you'd rather believe those lies or simply nod your head and follow rather than think critical and support your supposed blood enemy, then you end up with the sort of situation you have today. So, the real question is, do you want to help make an exception? Do you want to lie to counter the lies set forth by others, for the good of the people? Or, is it better to tell the truth with the hope that eventually enough people will care enough to rise up and change the system, be it through a bloody or bloodless revolt? And why the hell does it seem like there's so little debate on this/these question(s)? Is it apathy or contentment that seems to push towards the creation of further, crazier laws?
Much like how stores will shove $200 iPods in your shopping bag, in clear view of the customer, and then leave a little note at the bottom of your receipt that "The included iPod is only free if you bought a new $2000 plasma TV. Otherwise, taking the iPod out of the store is theft.". Oh, right, they don't. But, it has a lot less to do with the legality of the situation; it has to do with stores not wanting to lose a lot of money from people who walk out with those iPods and are never caught. So, either Apple really doesn't value Safari very much, or they screwed up their EULA. I'd vote on the latter.
Yea, um...I really hope you mean service agreement, not EULA. Even if the EULA stood-up in court, what's to stop a person from using Guild Wars through a separate client not covered under your EULA? Now, if the user paid money for the service and you cut them off based on language in an EULA, you've legally fucked yourself. However, if the service agreement prevented such actions, it wouldn't matter what client the person used (although, you might just deicde to require your own sanctioned client(s) and allow banning for those who don't comply).
Having said all that, this isn't about bot banning. This is about going after the people who make bots. The problem is, there's nothing legally stopping a person from making a bot that other people can buy. The bot maker almost certainly won't be violating the EULA (at least, nothing that's legally enforceable). And they're not the one using the bot and violating any service agreement. Blizzard is trying to use the same logic as the RIAA does when it comes to music piracy; if you can't successfully (or are unwilling) to go after your customers, go after the groups/companies that facilitate activity you don't like, lack of illegality be damned. Personally, I hope this burns Blizzard for the same reason I hope that eventually the courts turn on the RIAA.
Um, why not (with the coaxing)? Isn't the next step beyond simple, vague advocacy actually coordinating with other companies to try to show them how OSS might work better for them?
OSS isn't *the* future. It's merely a part of the future. Not everything will be open source because it's not logically/economically/etc sound.
That's *not* what's being done. Red Hat is in the business of selling support for OSS. What's being sought is finding companies for which software isn't their business and convincing them to invest their existing code (and probably future code) since they're possibly the company with the least to risk and the most to gain from opening their software.
I think we're already beyond that point. Look no further than Sun, Novell, and IBM, all of the "Old Establishment" who have "[turned around]" to fund various critical components that most every business needs (a cross-platform platform and a whole OS, an office suit for documents, and the core component of another OS, respectively). Do you consider OSS non-viable because of this? Do you think those already tinted to disliking OSS consider OSS non-viable because of this?
The wolves are among us, already. If OSS can't withstand a few wolves, then it's doomed entirely*.
Far as I'm aware, Red Hat was funding new development all the time. The point Jim was making is that companies like Delta Airlines have a larger budget for IT than Red Hat has in total. Yet, companies like Delta Airlines are very likely reinventing the wheel all the time. Further, (though this isn't Jim's point), when Delta Airlines decides to reuse its own code, it's create its own, unique proprietary library that makes it more costly to hire IT staff. The bigger picture, though, is that translates into a signficant amount of waste that OSS seems best fit, of the available options, to solve.
Companies are already putting money into the problem. The point is, it'd make more sense to have something like "OSDL Airlines" with a budget close to the budget of one airline than to have n times the
What part of the TAS, or its asinine policies, is about "[hitting] terrorists first"? What part of labelling all terrorists al Quaeda to stir up fear is "an entirely new way of thinking about the problem"? The only thing "new" is the rate at which overly broad and unprepared plans are enacted because they're focused on "[hitting terrorists] hard" without any consideration for either collateral damage or even if the people involved really *are* terrorists.
Now, unless all of the above is malicious attempts by the administration and/or Congress, I'd say the actions that keep being endorsed "because of 9/11" have little to do with thinking and a lot more to do with "something has to be done" where that "something" is never really thought about, since there is rarely a clear "something" to resolve problems like terrorism. Even if bin Laden was killed and al Quaeda was destroyed, what's to prevent another terrorist organization from springing up with similar goals, but in an entirely seperate part of the world? Going about, trying to use the US Army to try to crush every hotbed of "terrorist activity" is not "new" thinking. It's very old, military thinking.
Last I checked, Bill Clinton (for better or worse) didn't go off and try to appease bin Laden. The policy of hunting down bin Laden, dead or alive, came about in '93, after the *first* WTC attack. And it involved the same sort of casual disregard for sovereignty in the name of hunting terrorists that Bush has displayed. A real revolution would be to establish a policy that is neither appeasement nor turning the US into the world police. Whether that translates into fewer terrorist attacks directly is questionable.
The US being the world police is a large part of the reason groups like bin Laden's are even interested in attacking the US. Of course, bin Laden would probably want to attack western countries anyways, as indirectly western values are eroding the foundation of the countries bin Laden has interest in. And there are times when someone needs to defend the more helpless countries from senseless aggression, and the US is often the best/most willing candidate for that position. In short, I know I don't have an answer to the problem. But, I do know that the current "solutions" aren't any sort of revolution in thinking at all.
In 2001, 42,196 people were killed in motor vehicle accidents in the US. That works out to an average of ~115 per day or ~14 9/11's. Or, in short, more people die in a month *regularly* than were killed on 9/11.
Now, perhaps them all dying on one day does make it a tragedy. But, then, so was the Boston Masacre a tragedy. But, if one is going to obsess about such things, perhaps it'd be better to look at the root cause instead of focusing on the symptoms. I mean, after the Boston Masacre, did Boston hire security agents to monitor British troops? Or did such eventually (well, it took over five years) lead to a revolution (ie, an entirely new way of thinking about the problem) in an attempt to fix the symptom? Until the day in which 9/11 invokes something other than some gut-level short-term fix, it's hard to treat it any different than when local governments decide to put up more prominent stop signs when people keep dying in dangerous intersections--and there isn't a national concern about that.
Feel free to mark this off-topic, but Pen & Teller are bullshit. For those unaware, Pen & Teller had a several year running program called "Bullshit", where they went out of their way to debunk things they perceived to be bullshit. Now, most of the time, they argued on points I agree with, but it didn't take long for them to discuss two of my sacred cows, evolution and global warming.
Okay, really, it's not that they're sacred cows. It's that both are confirmed and tested under the same system, the scientific method. So, imagine my surprise when on the one hand Pen & Teller would gladly mock those who disagree with the consensus of science, having dared to argue as if there was room for debate; yet, on the other hand, Pen & Teller painted a conspiracy cloaked in the words of science, arguing that there was always room for debate and there never really was a consensus in science (only possibly very strong majorities) nor could go off of such majorities anyways.
Now, I rather subscribe to the latter view, as I don't consider science as intrinsically infallible (if it was, there'd be little point in testing scientific theories) or hold the people of science as some sort of single-minded body (let alone would I trust such a single-minded organization without debate). But, Pen & Teller spent more time issuing ad hominem attacks than bothering to actually prove what was bullshit. Their discussion of 9/11 conspiracists was no different.
So, I really wouldn't rely upon Pen & Teller for political, scientific, etc views. But, if you really want to know magic, they'll put on a great show.
I believe his point was that if IE supported Acid2 and Acid3, Firefox and Opera would strive even harder to maintain competitive against IE with even further standards compliance. But, that'd seem to be a general truism, given how Firefox and Opera are already striving rather hard for standards compliance.
I think you're missing the author's point. Generally speaking, it is always a bad idea to store a plain text password in a file. Further, any time that it *is* done, special security precautions should take place to insure that those passwords aren't leaked to people who shouldn't have access to them. Now, if the document format absolutely needs access to the plain text passwords (something I doubt), there's at least two major options available.
Option one is to encrypt the whole document, requiring a user provided password to the file. There are various problems with option one. The biggest of which is, simply encrypting the file doesn't resolve the issue of possibly leaking passwords. After all, I might edit a file 20 times, and over the course of 20 edits, I might end up adding some database sources, deleting some, and adding others. Without clarification in the format on the proper security procedure (like, whether it's okay to, say, cache user credentials for further edits), it's quite possible that as a user I might believe I can give a document to someone with the required password and since all sensitive databases are no longer used, no sensitive user credentials are contained within.
Option two is to merely include a very long list of security procedures to take care of such eventualities. That means including requirements such as notifying the user when passwords are stored, notifying the user of *all* passwords that are stored, and allowing the user to completely remove passwords in some specification allowable fashion (it sounds like the format might require the password and not including them would be undefined behavior...but removing the whole database reference is probably undesirable, so what's the "standard" thing to do?).
Now, the only real argument that can be made is that OOXML was written with the security consideration that documents that contain such information would never be released to people who don't already have access to said information. Of course, that's a bullshit argument, since ISO document standards are precisely designed for the distribution of information between entities who shouldn't be sharing such information. So, not taking such security considerations is a security vulnerability. And unless it's fixed, it means that anyone who cares about security should avoid OOXML.
While you appear to be right, there stills seems to be a problem. From Section 230 of the CDA, a little problem might arise. Specifically:
The specific issue at hand is Comcast, in forging packets as if sent from the provider of potentially harmful content, may have themselves become part of the "information content provider". And while the CDA might have nothing to do with copyright, one does have to worry about the fact that P2P may be used to distribute other, illegal information (child porn, national security secrets, threats against the lives of others, etc). So, as Comcast I'd still be rather worried about any action that could be contorted as making them part of the "information content provider" of harmful information at issue.
Companies wanted to buy licenses from SCO in the same way gansters want to run laundromats.
A 3D video driver? So that all PCs will have a decent "graphics card"? I think game designers will come up ways to use those extra CPUs such that even more CPUs will be needed. Or otherwise unthinkable things (mostly, the sort of thing that throwing strong parallel CPU power can solve but which is cost prohibitive today) will start being common.
Now, will *most* software use many/all of them? No. But, then, most CPUs are idle most of the time right now. A much bigger issue (even today) is electricity usage, not CPU usage. But, let's ignore that elephant in the room.
There are several obvious ramification. One, Global Warming would be a shining example that humans *can* have an effect over the global climate, meaning that any future discussions that would try to dismiss an otherwise valid theory based on "that's impossible" hubris wouldn't work. Two, it would unseat the belief that humans are as well knowing as they pretend to be, which could very well change the way many people willingly choose to act in the future. Three, it would lead to a "we must do something" where "something" almost certainly translates into at least some major econmic players (whole industries, perhaps) turning into minor players and vice versa. Conservatism/Protectionism is against that sort of change (so will Progressism/Liberalism be, but they tend to have not reached their desired place, so they're not Conservatives/Protectionists yet).
Having said that, you're right. A lot of activists aren't exactly keen on handing over such a problem to an economist when it is economists (and scientists, but they ignore that) that have lead us to our current situation. Personally, I'd love to see an econmist's suggestion on what to do along with an analysis on how it'd solve the problem. It'd be the closest thing to a scientific solution. Unfortunately, most economists seem against the whole notion that the situation they founded could be part of a long-term ecological nightmare or that taking into consideration the ecological ramification must be done instead of trying to translate everything into a way to make more money*. Beyond that, economists tend to want to be paid** to do the amount of work necessary to create a plan to solve the whole world's ecological problems. So, we sort of need people willing to fund such a thing. Seeing as how things are going, it'd probably be quicker for activists, with the aid of scientists to describe the problem, to pay economists directly and ignore the government. Even if people couldn't act much on the plan, at least having the plan would move one step forward in the discussion.
*Economists are supposed to be concerned with economic efficiency. Money is usually a good way to measure that, but externalities like the environment are usually not measured monetarily, either at all or enough beyond their short-term economical usefulness (consider the issue of people in 1910 trying to measure the economical usefulness of uranium). Even if economists could create an accurate model, it's not clear that any single economist could create a model for any single company or non-governmental organization that would matter (even if an oil company tried to stop polluting (directly and indirectly), it's not like they'd be able to stop selling oil (their assets would be seized under claims of gouging or some such) or prevent others from selling oil; ie, they'd have some effect, but even they'd only delay the inevitable). In short, there has to be a political/social will to do what is best for everyone. There's very little economists can do with the current political/social will except predict how quickly it'll fuck things up. Now, someone with charisma...
**The same holds true for scientists. The difference is that scientists tend to have more flexibility in their research. Economists tend to have more strict rules for their funding of the research they want to carry out. But, obviously, YMMV.
It seems you're right, but for the wrong reason. It would seem there's sevearl definitions of university. One is "an institution of higher learning". A more strict/original definitino is "a corporation of students". Since a corporation is a legal entity (ie, one recognized by a government), then by definition governments must have come first.
Having said that, I misspoke and am probably mistaken. Perhaps the first universities were government funded (either through religious orders or grants by a king). And perhaps, for quite some time, universities were under governmental control. But, eventually universities broke free much more and became much more independent (mostly as a result of the incongruity of religion and science/philosophy, I'd imagine), funding included. And when people other than government became wealthy, they had the power to fund universities themselves. And since that wealth derived primarily from trade, and I don't see trade stopping short of near complete human annihilation (many governments collapsing would only pause it for a time), I don't see universities, government sanctioned or otherwise, disappearing.
Of course, I very much doubt I'll live long enough to test that hypothesis.
It's called anti-authoritarianism. Science is seen as the establishment. People are seen as sheep to follow the dogma of science blindly; and most people do, but as an exchange between Dogbert and Dilbert went, people are too busy to conduct enough science to adequately not rely upon others to do the work for them. Beyond that, it's prohibitively expense (in fact, it pretty well always has been) for most individuals to confirm or deny most of science. In fact, it's not really any different than the way people will scoff at religions which demand enormous time and commitment to decipher, feeling that such is more of a scam to grant those in charge needless power instead of it being a path to enlightenment.
"I would like to locate the part of the mind that will believe the Earth revolves around the sun but will refuse to accept Catholic doctrine and truth that have held firm under scrutiny for centuries. (circa, the 1600s)"
Having said all that, there are of course those who do do enough science and do realize that most (if not all) of science is well tested and have done enough of their own experiments to not simply dismiss science like it were an unchangeable cult/religion* or as something that puts itself above being challenged**. So, there are those who fight the establishment because it is the establishment because they have some belief that it is something they should do. And, of course, there are the stupid people who reject science in small or large part in favor of their faith, even when nothing in their faith really demands it. And, of course, there are the stupid people who see science as everything and reject the potential for something beyond what one can readily sense. But, thankfully most people seem more than willing to sit back and do nothing, not so pressed to push their beliefs on others. I'm not sure if that's wisdom or apathy, though.
*Obviously, Catholicism has changed over time, but over the course of a lifetime, most religions aren't open to change. If they were, that would imply they don't have all the answers and hence aren't an established source of guidance. In short, religions tend to try to be something beyond a collection of mortal humans, so they try to project something unchanging and immortal (the religion, I'm not talking about their god(s) necessarily); small differences in interpretation can lead to whole new forks of a religion. And truthfully, those who live long enough will almostly certainly see a change in the religion of their church as younger individuals replace older, dying individuals and project a slightly different interpretation of things (even if everyone wanted to believe the same thing, the ambiguity of language makes it virtually impossible considering the vastness of religion and the difficulty of quantifying and qualifying every detail in an unchanging format (the language itself changes)). The same holds true for science (the mechanisms like the scientific method, for example), which has forked and changed over time as well.
**There are certainly many scientists (I don't want to presume most, but I wouldn't say scientists are intrisincally utterly open-minded) who look down upon those would challenge basic theories (like, say, gravity), feeling their intellectually feeble; but, they wouldn't likely do anything overt or covert about them carrying out their experiment or trying to publish their results.
Certainly. It's very easy to think everything is covered under science. But, there are many things (mainly, philosophical questional) that some would try to group under science because they believe they can conjecture out an answer.
Perhaps you haven't heard of cosmology and WIMPs vs MACHOs? Seriously, though, people who tend to quickly polarize over Global Warming tend to do so because of the seemingly obvious ramifications of admitting whether Global Warming exists. In short, the issue has more to do with people unwilling, on both sides, to go over the evidence and accept the proof that's available and leave it at that. But, then it's the same issue that came up ages ago when discussing the racial relations (especially, any claimed superiority) of various ethnicities. And *that* issue is still unresolved because dogma can override common sense.
Sorry to break it to you, but universities existed long before there were governments to fund them. And, they will continue to exist long after governments refuse to fund them. Academics, in general, are interested in their work above all else. Now, this may lead to dogma and pet theories without any evidence. But, that doesn't translate into trying to sustain a revenue stream (well, at least, it only does so in the sense of funding their research, not in padding the academic's pocketbook). And sure, there are academics who are in it for the money, just like there are charlatens in any field. But, there isn't any evidence (at least, none I'm aware of) to hint at some sort of inherent academic conspiracy, no matter how good such conjecturing looks good on paper.
Or, people with evidence they think will be helpful are trying to warn people of the potential risks of merrily continuing our current actions. Most, realizing they *don't* know the long-term consequences (at least for humanity) of what happens if we continue, urge those with the most power to effect change (citizens and through them, their nations) to effect change. Of course, they realize they can't do much (at least, not without advocating military force) to push "the poor" countries or dictatorships to do the right thing. So, the tend to focus on "the rich".
We're already engaging in an experiment on a planetary scale (you know, burning all that oil, coal, etc). And it happens that people are constantly making predictions based on those fossil fuels burned and how that affects the global climate. And all those scientists with their measurements of ocean CO2 absorption, temperature stations, measurements of ice sheets, etc all provide the data to confirm or deny those predictions. The only real question, then, is if the people on either side are actually looking at the theories that repeatedly pass and the evidence collected (to verify that it does, in fact, not contradict the theory). And if one side, after seeing the evidence, dismisses it based upon their own beliefs without any proof, then they are being anti-science. But, that says nothing about Global Warming.
I'll try to be more angry next time.
The thing is, you're discussing two different issues.
Issue 1 is a group of people who are using *energy*, in whatever form that may be; as it happens, their use of that energy source is marginal compared to the other ~6 billion people on the Earth. To that end, suing energy companies (and/or their customers), even if they buy products from that company, doesn't make them hypocrits or their point silly--there aren't exactly a lot of other choices if you want to stay competitive.
The fact that energy companies use oil, gas, etc as the primary carrier of energy is because it's cheap. And it's cheap because the energy was stored in the oil, gas, etc through natural actions while the energy needed to extract that energy is much lower. As a result, there is a distinct competitive advantage to oil, gas, etc companies over renewable energy sources. What this means, then, is that to have a significant positive effect on the environment one of three things has to happen. One, the vast majority of people (just a handful won't do, and certainly the whole Alaskan Village going green wouldn't help) and have to suddenly become more environmental concerned, economics be damned. Two, the government needs to step in and create and enforce laws that counter the natural advantage that oil, gas, etc companies have. Or three, people have to step in where the government where not and sue companies for the harm they cause; and since the actual harm of global warming is much greater than the natural advantage of using pre-stored energy, eventually (assuming justice is served) oil, gas, etc companies will either go out of business or they'll turn into green[er] companies.
Issue 2 focuses more on the point that people need to sue each other, not just the oil, gas, etc companies. To that point, you're right. But, it's not viable to allow the courts to handle ~6000000000^2 cases (that is how many are necessary for an everyone to everyone suit, right?). So, the truth is, the government really needs to step in and fix the problem. Having said that, the government is clearly not interested in doing the right thing (the tobacco suits, for example, should have had much higher penalties; and more laws regulating tobacco (not simply taxation) should have happened; such regulation, btw, would have likely made tobacco wholly uneconomical, if not outright illegal). So, until the government decides to shelter* the oil, gas, etc companies like it did the tobacco companies, lawsuits are the best option available.
*Pollution laws already shelter oil, gas, etc companies. Look no further than how states, especially California, have been fighting the EPA to deal with mercury, carbon dioxide, etc. The EPA, after all, is precisely that organization created to remove the threat of 6 billion lawsuits over every polluting act, with the obvious side-effect that it would superceed any state laws regarding pollution. In return, the EPA was supposed to have such strict regulation that the damage done by pollution would be tolerable. The fact that states, which are hardly the beacon of left-wing overreactionary environmentalism, think the EPA's regulations aren't strict enough pretty clearly show that the EPA is failing in this regard.
The problem is, that logic easily extends to *all* information works. Consider how far in life you'd get without science, language, mathmatics, or the arts. The realm of work that is copyrighted is, even now, comparitively small to the realm of the public domain. If one were to simply say "but this is an artificial construction of man and hence the man (or men) who created it have a moral right to indefinite repayment", then either moral society would be halted or sustainable economic growth would end. As has been claimed in the past, progress is made by standing on the shoulders of giants. Imagine the effective "taxation" that would occur to pay off all those giants. Even if there was effective cross-licensing, such a "moral" society would invariable leave vast parts of the population without the means to ever hope to adequately pay for "language rights".
But, then, perhaps that is the "moral" thing to do? Personally, I'd rather believe morality is recognizing how little right one actually have to one's own creations. After all, I didn't create the universe. I didn't create language or the arts. I had very little to do with the current environment that would ever allow me to create what I create. So, perhaps, trying to attack the morality question from the means or even the ends is not the right approach in this instance.
Because it'd undermine their power grab (aka the warrantless wiretapping program(s)) by showing that warrants get the job done. Isn't it great how, every time someone tries to force the Bush Administration to follow the law, which is more than sufficient to get the job done, there is screams of "you're making us vulnerable to the terrorists"? Bush can't let the man behind the curtain show his face (that the law works, and power grabs are wholly unnecessary), and Bush and company are perfectly willing to sacrifice the security of the nation--you know, one of those primary functions of the Presidency--to cover their own asses. But, then, this story is at least as old as the Iraq War* and the bullshit about WMDs.
*Note: There might be older examples, but the Iraq War one was exceptionally egregious.
Granted.
Somewhat further granted. The issue at hand, then, is if this "common feedback/selection mechanims" is either (a) the only possible superset that exists for natural selection and market forces and (b) whether there exists a superset of natural selection and market forces that is a subset of a common feedback/selection mechanism (ie, is there room for a feedback system that isn't part of the natural selection/market forces superset?). Further, could that sisterset be conceivably better in some circumstances than the natural selection/market forces superset? Truthfully, I don't know the answer to this. And, making such speculation in a conclusion is obviously reaching well outside the bounds of what evidence was presented. The only real room would be for fanciful speculation (ie, 'if there is something beyond natural selection, then ...')--but, that doesn't belong in a scientific study.
The only thing to really go back to, then, is that natural selection/market forces seem to be the mechanism at work, so the speculation was inverted and a logical fallacy. But, the inverted speculation I don't think is meaningless. It is just inappropriate for the venue.