What I am trying to say is that imposing your morals upon another person or entity to the point that you strip away their rights and property (both of which are supposedly defended by the Constitution) is not right. I'm not sure of the current legality of such a thing, but I should be allowed to offer my services only to, say, white people, if I choose to. Or I could choose to withdraw my services totally. I am not advocating racism or slavery, just freedom.
You'll find, if you reread The Fountainhead, that Gates and Co. are nothing but real-life analogs to Howard Roark's competitors in the steel industry.
Howard Roark was an architect. I believe you are mixing The Fountainhead with Atlas Shrugged, in which Hank Rearden was put forth as the ideal steel manufacturer.
However, your point is still valid, if you replace "steel industry" with "architectural industry." However, at no point in the book is it proposed that those firms that did not meet the author's ideals should be stripped of their rights and property. Giving or stripping away an entity's rights should not depend upon how much you like that entity. What if the government someday doesn't like you?
Yeah, it's *my* business, so I shouldn't have to pay fair wages, or give lunches and coffee breaks, give my employees a day off on stat holidays, etc., right?
Nope. You don't have to. Most employees would rather work someplace that does offer some or all of the perks you mentioned, but some employees would be happy to work with none of the above.
Yeah, it's *my* rental property, so I shouldn't have to rent it to any of those ornery minority types, right?
That's right. Just because I choose to service one person does not mean I am required to service everybody.
When you're in business, you have a responsibility to play fair and abide by legislation. Microsoft obviously hasn't and doesn't, and they deserve whatever they have coming to them.
What is "playing fair" and what isn't is certainly a subjective opinion. I have no qualms with abiding legislation, provided the legislation is reasonable (and anti-trust laws -- and many many others -- certainly are not).
I'm rather disappointed that so many posters here think that this is a good idea. I, for one, am frightened that the world thinks it's a good thing to be able to force a company to cut its head off, after droning on and on that they are doing this so that others can "compete." I don't know what definition of "competition" that you guys are using, but my definition implies that there will be winners and losers. Despite their methods (which are actually protected by the government that claims to protect us, and are facilitated by the actions of all those OEMs that let Microsoft trample all over them), they have built up a product that is an incredible source of revenue for them. That so many people seem to support the theft of this revenue, rather than legitimately producing something better, disheartens me.
Just because someone says the class is "easy," that doesn't mean it's easy for you. And according to the students, no one ever even said that. They just have some unofficial quote that it was "point and click," which simply implies that there are GUIs involved. Hell, one could call gvim point and click, but that doesn't make it easy!
These 12 students apparently went into this course with no knowledge of what would be required of them. They most likely expected an easy `A' that would supposedly guarantee them some high paying job. It probably never actually crossed their minds what exactly such a job would entail, they just saw the money and went for it. If you're throwing that much of your money and life at a single class, perhaps you should check out what the class entails before plunging into it. It's common sense. They'd better hope their lawyers are smarter than they are.
So... his argument is that if you give someone root access, they can obtain root access? I guess it's pointless to try to understand or explain something so nonsensical. Or maybe I'm arrogant.:P
Well, maybe you can help explain it to me, because I still don't get it. From what I could discern, he seems to be saying that an employee that doesn't have superuser status could effective obtain superuser status supposedly by just editing the kernel's source code, recompiling it, reinstalling it on the machine, and rebooting. How can one do this when one doesn't have superuser access in the first place?
I have to say I am getting tired of this sort of response. Is Windows really that easy to use?
I've never really encountered a Windows setup that didn't totally deteriorate at some point in time to the point that the user has to come ask someone like me for help -- and this is _without_ the user doing anything but typical installation or uninstallation of software using the typical packaging systems you find on Windows. Even if Windows is setup professionally and fine-tuned for the hardware it is installed upon by the same professionals, unless you never touch the machine you're going to be deluged with GPFs, ambiguous error messages ("At least one device failed", etc.), and odd quirks that are often just completly insurmountable (short of restoring the hard drive image to what it was when you first received it). The most common "troubleshooting" task involved in Windows support is the oh so troublesome "reinstall." Does the application crash every time you run it? If you can't find a hack to fix it, all you can do is reinstall. If the OS itself manages to fail in this manner (and it does and will), you've got an entire OS to reinstall. That's what you consider useable?
True, this is not Microsoft's fault alone -- there are dozens, if not thousands of software developers who are spewing out applications that are as bad or worse than the OS itself, and there's nothing you or I can do about it. This is not what I consider ease of use. This is not what I would want to subject my mother to when I give her a computer. True, Linux apps generally lack the glitz and occasionally the interoperability that Windows apps have, but which OS is more _useable_?
Another clueless slashdotter
on
Linux on CNN
·
· Score: 1
In case you didn't notice, his analogies of the concept of source code were sarcastic parodies of the typical mainstream Linux article. Read in this context, the article doesn't say a bad thing about Linux.
I find myself asking the question you just asked all the time.
If unbacked, anonymous messages in a public forum are enough to damage your image, perhaps there's something wrong with your image in the first place. I could say I'm Rob's illegitimate bastard son, or I could say that I'm Bill Clinton's illegitimate bastard son... which are you more likely to believe, and why?
logan
Does nobody get the point?
on
Unix in Perl
·
· Score: 2
Isn't the whole point of writing these utilities in perl so that a perl coder can expect to have working, standard utilities on every platform? Or did I somehow misread the article. Seems like everyone is coming down on the idea as a stupid let's-redo-everything-in-perl idea, rather than what it really is.
logan
Atlas Shrugged, not 1984
on
1984, today.
·
· Score: 1
Atlas Shrugged would be a much more appropriate reference. Here you have some lousy business that is unable to come up with its own good idea trying some silly tactics (with the government's backing, apparently) to enslave an individual's mind. How interesting. What's 1984 got to do with it?:P
Once again the majority of the Slashdot community lashes out in shock as they discover (once again) that banks like to make money. I guess you all knew that already, but you've never understood it. Everyone seems to think that a bank is there to serve him, that its legal obligation is to serve him, and that to ever show any sort of greed whatsoever is a capital offense (no pun intended).
Banks make investments. Every loan or mortgage is an investment. What is an investment? It is when you risk something valuable to yourself in order to support someone else, with a chance of profiting in the end. Now you expect a bank to make either a blind investment, or a bad investment fully aware of the high risk of failure. You want it to be illegal to want to profit.
Why are you so worried about information being collected about you? Unless banks are hiring private investigators, they can only obtain information available to any perceptive person. And any perceptive person can be deceived, if you are so afraid of others knowing whatever truth about you embarrasses you. And what's the worst that can happen? Junkmail directed towards some stereotypical misjudgment of your personality? Gee, I get that already.
I don't want to get into an ugly editor flamewar. However, vi has always been about usefulness over elegance (hence the steep learning curve and the archaic interface). I could use any other editor for years and know it by heart and still never get around a file faster than I can with vi. It's not a matter of elitism and thrusting an archaic editor into newbies' faces in an attempt at broadening a non-existent class gap in the unix world. Some people are die-hard advocates of certain methods for reasons other than maintaining their social image. (;
And in regards to the command-line, it's all those small yet extremely powerful utilities that are at the heart of any unix system (the sort of things you miss if you ever go back to a DOS prompt) and the clever flexibility of the standard shells that really make unix what it is. The command-line is advocated so strongly because it puts the least between the power user and those utilities, and in fact facilitates their usage. For me a GUI is simply a way to have graphics instead of just text, display more text, move around from text to text, a way to easily accomplish repetitive actions, and make it all look good. Well, maybe that's not so simple.:P
Two compelling reasons. One, the US has no advantage as far as superiority in encryption goes. If the US does happen to have some incredible encrypting software that no one else has, it will most certainly leak out to the rest of the world sooner or later. Two, import and export controls only stifle the economy. Perhaps some sort of control may seem advantageous in the short-term, but in the long-term it's just sheer irrationality that costs everyone. India's actions are an extremely good example of export control gone bad (And what will happen if India bans external security software and India is unable to keep up with the rest of the world? Pointlessly forced insularity isn't too smart).
First, the US throws a leash on its people by not allowing them to sell good software to non-US citizens. Now India is thinking about throwing a leash on its people by not allowing them to buy any potentially good software from non-Indian citizens. How far will this go? Are we all doomed to be stuck in a perpetual cycle of bureaucratic ignorance?
First off, let me respond by asking, why would I "hax0r" my own machine?
You read, huh? Show me where. Call me "heartless." I don't care. Why? Several reasons.
I'm not stealing food from anyone
I could never eat enough food to cause anyone to starve due to a shortage of food
I've never gone out of my way to try to hold back any society from developing to the point where it can supply itself
I've never had any children I was incapable of feeding
I doubt you could give me a single compelling reason why I should care. Why do people insist on piling guilt upon those that dream of or achieve success? Because of their own failures? I guess that's just one of those mysteries it's not worth wasting your time thinking about.
This is pure drivel. "Are you loyal to the company you work for?" Loyalty is foolish. To work for an employer for no reason other than just because you've worked for this employer before is to deserve the unpleasantness of your job. "Is it loyal to you?" An employer that keeps an employee for no reason other than just because the employee has worked for him or her before is asking for the same. "When the time comes, do you count on your employer to take care of and protect you?" Well, if you do, I almost feel sorry for you.
Managers take over companies in order to obtain greater profitability? Gee, that's a surprise. I would hope that my employer is in the business for the money, else where do I expect my paycheck to come from? Why are you so upset that corporations are becoming faster, more efficient, and better at survival?
If anything the "fault" lies with younger workers that are more willing to work harder. If they think they are unappreciated by their employers, perhaps they shouldn't continue to work for them. Certainly one can find better pay and more security with a company that finds his or her skills necessary rather than working where one's skills aren't necessary. If you're miserable at work, quit. You can find a job you'll excel at and enjoy while others that excel at and enjoy your former job can take your place. If everyone is complaining about younger workers being too malleable and thus overworkable, why not take your own advice, stop whining about how your job sucks and quit. Or demand higher wages, or whatever it is that would make your job suck at a level acceptable for the amount of money you receive and time and effort you spend.
Then there are those of us that realize it's not our fault if "the little people" choose to step out in front of our fast moving automobiles to try and keep us from getting the hell away from them.
As far as I know, there is no global shortage of food. If I manage to get more food than the average person, it's at no one's expense.
Slashdot Mirror
What I am trying to say is that imposing your morals upon another person or entity to the point that you strip away their rights and property (both of which are supposedly defended by the Constitution) is not right. I'm not sure of the current legality of such a thing, but I should be allowed to offer my services only to, say, white people, if I choose to. Or I could choose to withdraw my services totally. I am not advocating racism or slavery, just freedom.
logan
Howard Roark was an architect. I believe you are mixing The Fountainhead with Atlas Shrugged, in which Hank Rearden was put forth as the ideal steel manufacturer.
However, your point is still valid, if you replace "steel industry" with "architectural industry." However, at no point in the book is it proposed that those firms that did not meet the author's ideals should be stripped of their rights and property. Giving or stripping away an entity's rights should not depend upon how much you like that entity. What if the government someday doesn't like you?
logan
Nope. You don't have to. Most employees would rather work someplace that does offer some or all of the perks you mentioned, but some employees would be happy to work with none of the above.
Yeah, it's *my* rental property, so I shouldn't have to rent it to any of those ornery minority types, right?
That's right. Just because I choose to service one person does not mean I am required to service everybody.
When you're in business, you have a responsibility to play fair and abide by legislation. Microsoft obviously hasn't and doesn't, and they deserve whatever they have coming to them.
What is "playing fair" and what isn't is certainly a subjective opinion. I have no qualms with abiding legislation, provided the legislation is reasonable (and anti-trust laws -- and many many others -- certainly are not).
logan
logan
These 12 students apparently went into this course with no knowledge of what would be required of them. They most likely expected an easy `A' that would supposedly guarantee them some high paying job. It probably never actually crossed their minds what exactly such a job would entail, they just saw the money and went for it. If you're throwing that much of your money and life at a single class, perhaps you should check out what the class entails before plunging into it. It's common sense. They'd better hope their lawyers are smarter than they are.
logan
logan
logan
I've never really encountered a Windows setup that didn't totally deteriorate at some point in time to the point that the user has to come ask someone like me for help -- and this is _without_ the user doing anything but typical installation or uninstallation of software using the typical packaging systems you find on Windows. Even if Windows is setup professionally and fine-tuned for the hardware it is installed upon by the same professionals, unless you never touch the machine you're going to be deluged with GPFs, ambiguous error messages ("At least one device failed", etc.), and odd quirks that are often just completly insurmountable (short of restoring the hard drive image to what it was when you first received it). The most common "troubleshooting" task involved in Windows support is the oh so troublesome "reinstall." Does the application crash every time you run it? If you can't find a hack to fix it, all you can do is reinstall. If the OS itself manages to fail in this manner (and it does and will), you've got an entire OS to reinstall. That's what you consider useable?
True, this is not Microsoft's fault alone -- there are dozens, if not thousands of software developers who are spewing out applications that are as bad or worse than the OS itself, and there's nothing you or I can do about it. This is not what I consider ease of use. This is not what I would want to subject my mother to when I give her a computer. True, Linux apps generally lack the glitz and occasionally the interoperability that Windows apps have, but which OS is more _useable_?
logan
Whoa! That was a tough one!
logan
I find myself asking the question you just asked all the time.
logan
logan
logan
logan
Banks make investments. Every loan or mortgage is an investment. What is an investment? It is when you risk something valuable to yourself in order to support someone else, with a chance of profiting in the end. Now you expect a bank to make either a blind investment, or a bad investment fully aware of the high risk of failure. You want it to be illegal to want to profit.
Why are you so worried about information being collected about you? Unless banks are hiring private investigators, they can only obtain information available to any perceptive person. And any perceptive person can be deceived, if you are so afraid of others knowing whatever truth about you embarrasses you. And what's the worst that can happen? Junkmail directed towards some stereotypical misjudgment of your personality? Gee, I get that already.
logan
And in regards to the command-line, it's all those small yet extremely powerful utilities that are at the heart of any unix system (the sort of things you miss if you ever go back to a DOS prompt) and the clever flexibility of the standard shells that really make unix what it is. The command-line is advocated so strongly because it puts the least between the power user and those utilities, and in fact facilitates their usage. For me a GUI is simply a way to have graphics instead of just text, display more text, move around from text to text, a way to easily accomplish repetitive actions, and make it all look good. Well, maybe that's not so simple. :P
logan
Learn how to spell `grammar.'
logan
logan
logan
You read, huh? Show me where. Call me "heartless." I don't care. Why? Several reasons.
- I'm not stealing food from anyone
- I could never eat enough food to cause anyone to starve due to a shortage of food
- I've never gone out of my way to try to hold back any society from developing to the point where it can supply itself
- I've never had any children I was incapable of feeding
I doubt you could give me a single compelling reason why I should care. Why do people insist on piling guilt upon those that dream of or achieve success? Because of their own failures? I guess that's just one of those mysteries it's not worth wasting your time thinking about.logan
Managers take over companies in order to obtain greater profitability? Gee, that's a surprise. I would hope that my employer is in the business for the money, else where do I expect my paycheck to come from? Why are you so upset that corporations are becoming faster, more efficient, and better at survival?
If anything the "fault" lies with younger workers that are more willing to work harder. If they think they are unappreciated by their employers, perhaps they shouldn't continue to work for them. Certainly one can find better pay and more security with a company that finds his or her skills necessary rather than working where one's skills aren't necessary. If you're miserable at work, quit. You can find a job you'll excel at and enjoy while others that excel at and enjoy your former job can take your place. If everyone is complaining about younger workers being too malleable and thus overworkable, why not take your own advice, stop whining about how your job sucks and quit. Or demand higher wages, or whatever it is that would make your job suck at a level acceptable for the amount of money you receive and time and effort you spend.
logan
As far as I know, there is no global shortage of food. If I manage to get more food than the average person, it's at no one's expense.
logan