I seem to recall Bill G. a few years ago saying "I believe OS/2 is destined to be the most important operating system, and possibly program, of all time.". Now that he's no longer in charge, I'm sure they're even more loyal to their developer base...
Perhaps the word "global" in the phrase "global average temperature" escaped you. Perhaps New England is the whole world to you, but believe it or not, there is a world outside New England.
Also AFAIK, there is no "certain connection" between "climate change" (formerly called "global warming") and the tornadoes but there is a "possible connection".
1) Tell them if they don't give you a raise you won't give them the passwords to their servers.
2) Make the news when they bring you up on criminal charges,
3) Write a book about your story.
4) PROFIT!!!
Actually they would be considered an "enemy combatant". A terrorist is one who perpetrates "violent acts which are intended to create fear (terror), are perpetrated for a religious, political or ideological goal, deliberately target or disregard the safety of non-combatants (civilians), and are committed by non-government agencies."
While I absolutely don't agree with how GWB handled Iraq and can see why that idiotic campaign has brought criticism on the US, out going after Bin Laden, ousting the Taliban, intervening in Bosnia, liberating Kuwait, etc... were just causes.
I don't necessarily agree that we Americans should be spilling our blood to protect and/or defend other countries or their populations. Personally, I think the US should butt out and let rest of the world should live or die by their own strength and weaknesses. Luckily for millions of people, some in the US don't feel the same way and so we continue to spend billions (or trillions) and thousands of lives saving their asses from their own tyrants while we get spit in the face, called "imperialists" or "terrorists" or any number of other slurs.
Unfortunately, it's not working for about 99% of the rest of the population of this country and it has damn little to do with how hard or smart you work.
It's not surprising that those that "have" think the system is great. What pisses me off is the "you too can be rich like me!" bullshit. It's a load of crap.
I've known a lot of hard working, smart people that never managed to accumulate much wealth. I also know a few that have wealth and got it through either being in the right place at the right time, through inheritance or in most cases, by screwing someone else out of their money. The most common trait that seems to run through the personalities of most "rich" people I've ever met is, they are greedy bastards. Most would sell their grandmother to get the gold out of her teeth and not lose a wink of sleep over it.
The old adage "you've got to have money to make money" has never been more true than it is today.
I can tell from your post that you are a VC cheerleader. You are welcome to your opinion. Personally, I think VC firms are vultures that suck the life out of companies that have the potential to do great things and many times screw over the investors at the same time - quite a trick. I'd rather stand on a street corner with a "will work for food" sign than take VC funding because their greed knows no bounds. You are absolutely right when you say they are not charities. In fact, they are completely without souls and could care less whether their investment money is being used to feed the hungry or fund their own destruction. ROI is all that matters, period.
That's exactly what's wrong with the system and why it's doomed. A small business should be able to succeed in this country if it has a good business plan, good products and is well managed. If a company grows to the point where it needs to go national, then it should have enough capital in it's coffers to pay for the expansion itself. If it doesn't, then it doesn't need to go national. If it doesn't go national, so what. That just leaves room for another small business in another location to grow. Why is it necessary for a company to take over the world to be considered successful? My definition of a successful small business is one that makes a reasonable profit and can manage to stay afloat for an extended period of time. If it provides jobs that's even better.
You can continue to "pat yourself on the back" because you claim to be one of those that have succeeded. Just keep in mind that life it long, and anything you've managed to acquire can be taken away in the blink of an eye by a bigger fish. I wonder if you would be so enamored of the system if you were standing in an unemployment line or watching your children do without.
By the way, Microsoft is one of those "mythological" small businesses what was 100% self funded. They never took a dime of VC funding until 1981, after they were already quite successful with revenues of almost 8 million. So much for myths.
Silicon Valley? You're kidding right. My guess would be that most Silicon Valley startups that don't immediately fall flat on their face are largely owned by venture capitalists, not exactly the type of bootstrap small business I was referring to.
Consider the following a bit.
Up until about 30 years ago, capitalism as it was practiced in the United States did do very well and materially aided a good standard of living for most Americans.
Since then, real wages have stagnated and income has become seriously concentrated in the upper income households. The top 1/10 of 1%, get 6% of all income. For long stretches of time in recent years, the growth in the nation's GDP has gone almost entirely to the top 1% or less of the population. The top 40% get about 78% of all income.
Consider this as well: Productivity Growth Quarter in 4Q 2009 was 6.2%. For the year, it came to 5.1%. The flip side of the jobless recovery is a high productivity-growth recovery--and, with stagnant wages, a rise in the profit share (i.e. the capitalist’s take). This is becoming more prevalent.
The distribution of income and wealth has consistently gone to the top over the last several decades as real wages have stagnated or declined. Our cyclical booms and busts have become more severe over the last decade. The economy is anything but stable, especially now as we are loaded up with debt and deficits.
The share of income or profits being generated by small business is falling and the share of total profits being generated by large businesses is increasing.
Government has enacted much special interest legislation contrary to the public interest, to aid the concentration of wealth and income in the hands of the wealthiest and feather representatives own beds.
Now, what we see with increased productivity and the maldistribution of income and wealth is a growing surplus of labor or the unemployed.
Yea, and so is the dream that I'll pick the winning lottery number this week.
Sure, you can cite many examples of companies that were in the right place at the right time (Yahoo, Google), or are examples from the time I was referring to (MS, Apple). There is even the chance that, even today, you can beat the odds and turn a small company into a success, but it's certainly not as likely as it once was.
The problem is that it's incredibly hard in today's environment to survive as a small business, much less flourish. If you achieve any success at all, you'll attract the attention of larger companies who will either buy you out (a good outcome from your perspective, maybe not so good for the industry) or use their much deeper pockets to try and put you out of business through lost-leader pricing or outright anti-competitive practices. Behemoths generally have groups of analysts whose sole raison d'être is to seek out new lines of business. If anything new appears on the horizon and looks like it will generate revenues, these organizations are quick to jump in, buy out or push out any competitors, or even quash new technologies if they feel it may compromise the profitability of existing revenue streams. It all adds up to an environment that heavily favors large corporations at the expense of small businesses. This is not news and I find it hard to fathom that anyone can honestly feel that is not the case. As I commented earlier (and what was the main thrust of my argument), what bothers me is that most people seem OK with this situation. I've always considered myself a capitalist, but what I'm seeing today is corporatism, not capitalism.
Did you read my comment or do you have comprehension issues? Did I not say it works for the big guys, but not for entrepreneurs? I have talked to small business owners, in fact I've been one myself for almost 20 years. The system is rigged to favor large businesses and against small businesses. Capitalism is unbridled for large businesses who have "tools on the hill". I agree that it's more than "bridled" for small businesses. My "unbridled capitalism" comment was directed toward large businesses and the entire tone of my comment was intended to make that point.
Actually, no, I don't recall ever reading that. I believe what he did say was that capitalism would fail, be succeeded by socialism, which would simply be a transitional step toward communism. Capitalism has been doing really well over the last few decades, so much so that most economist had written off Marx's predictions. However, the last decade or so is causing some to rethink their position as his predictions are becoming disturbingly accurate.
If you are interpreting my comments above as "pro-socialism" or "pro-communism", then you mistake my intent. I believe capitalism can work, but only if it is kept in check so that there are enough slices of the "pie" to go around.
Simply burying one's head in the sand is a good way to eat dirt while getting f^cked from behind. If you think the game is over and capitalism has won, you haven't been paying attention.
Capitalism (at least in the US) works great for big guys... not so much for entrepreneurs.
There was a time when one could dream of starting a small niche business and if done right, grow it into a large and successful company.
Those days are long gone. The dream today is more along the lines of "start a small business and hope to
A. eek out enough profit to keep the doors open, or
B. (if you're lucky), get bought out by a bigger company".
While starting any kind of business is a bit of a crap-shoot, the odds used to be good enough to at least encourage people to try.
I've been around long enough that none of this comes as a surprise, but what still irritates me is that people, for the most part, are OK with this. It's just business.
Well, that's all fine and good, and one day we can all thank our Wal-Mart overlords for allowing us to buy their products at whatever price they want to charge while paying us the minimum amount they can get away with.
I just wonder, how long do you folks that think unbridled capitalism will last? Marx predicted that Capitalism can't last because it will basically keep eating it's young, with the wealth and power continually becoming concentrated among so few that eventually the populace would revolt.
Personally, I would rather see some checks put on capitalism rather than see it fail and be overtaken by some form of communism, but I guess the pure capitalists won't believe this will happen until it's too late. What a shame.
If it is not on Apple hardware, you are in licence violation.
So says Apple. I purchased my copy of snow leopard and will damn well run it on anything I choose. Maybe it's on Apple hardware, maybe it's not. IMO, it's not any of Apple's business what I do with it as long as I legally obtained it and am not trying to sell or give away copies of it. I'm not asking them for support or in any way negatively impacting their bottom line. I make my hardware decisions based on the hardware specs. If I feel that Apple hardware is a good value for the $, I'll purchase it. If not, I'll purchase my hardware elsewhere. I will not be dictated to by Apple or any other vendor.
they made a huge mistake in picking it for their mobile platform).
I should make such a mistake. Android is blowing the doors off the mobile platform world at a time that no one thought anything could catch Apple. If you saying Google should have used a different base language for Android, you're ignoring the fact that Google bought Android, they didn't develop it. They chose it for it's potential and for the mass of java programmers that would be available to develop for it. Yea, really big mistake.
Just as it's easy to fire up a couple VMs and run OS/X and Linux on a windows host, or OS/X and Windows on a linux host. There is nothing special about Apple in this regard.
Slashdot Mirror
I seem to recall Bill G. a few years ago saying "I believe OS/2 is destined to be the most important operating system, and possibly program, of all time.". Now that he's no longer in charge, I'm sure they're even more loyal to their developer base...
Also AFAIK, there is no "certain connection" between "climate change" (formerly called "global warming") and the tornadoes but there is a "possible connection".
It would need someone to give a direction and to guide or control the process towards this goal.
I believe that "someone" you are referring to would be a process called "natural selection".
That's obvious - Steve Jobs.
Wrong.
So, by your estimation, every new thing we learn about how the brain works gets us "further" from understanding it?
I think not.
This just proves that you can make a dish smarter. Let me know when they can actually make my smartphone smarter.
Just upgrade it to ice-cream sandwich.
It's sort of like Marie Curie experimenting with radioactivity before she understood it fully - and it wound up eventually killing her.
They'll be able to claim "My ISP is hung like a horse!"
1) Tell them if they don't give you a raise you won't give them the passwords to their servers.
2) Make the news when they bring you up on criminal charges,
3) Write a book about your story.
4) PROFIT!!!
While I absolutely don't agree with how GWB handled Iraq and can see why that idiotic campaign has brought criticism on the US, out going after Bin Laden, ousting the Taliban, intervening in Bosnia, liberating Kuwait, etc... were just causes.
I don't necessarily agree that we Americans should be spilling our blood to protect and/or defend other countries or their populations. Personally, I think the US should butt out and let rest of the world should live or die by their own strength and weaknesses. Luckily for millions of people, some in the US don't feel the same way and so we continue to spend billions (or trillions) and thousands of lives saving their asses from their own tyrants while we get spit in the face, called "imperialists" or "terrorists" or any number of other slurs.
Um.. wait...
Unfortunately, it's not working for about 99% of the rest of the population of this country and it has damn little to do with how hard or smart you work.
It's not surprising that those that "have" think the system is great. What pisses me off is the "you too can be rich like me!" bullshit. It's a load of crap.
I've known a lot of hard working, smart people that never managed to accumulate much wealth. I also know a few that have wealth and got it through either being in the right place at the right time, through inheritance or in most cases, by screwing someone else out of their money. The most common trait that seems to run through the personalities of most "rich" people I've ever met is, they are greedy bastards. Most would sell their grandmother to get the gold out of her teeth and not lose a wink of sleep over it.
The old adage "you've got to have money to make money" has never been more true than it is today.
I can tell from your post that you are a VC cheerleader. You are welcome to your opinion. Personally, I think VC firms are vultures that suck the life out of companies that have the potential to do great things and many times screw over the investors at the same time - quite a trick. I'd rather stand on a street corner with a "will work for food" sign than take VC funding because their greed knows no bounds. You are absolutely right when you say they are not charities. In fact, they are completely without souls and could care less whether their investment money is being used to feed the hungry or fund their own destruction. ROI is all that matters, period.
That's exactly what's wrong with the system and why it's doomed. A small business should be able to succeed in this country if it has a good business plan, good products and is well managed. If a company grows to the point where it needs to go national, then it should have enough capital in it's coffers to pay for the expansion itself. If it doesn't, then it doesn't need to go national. If it doesn't go national, so what. That just leaves room for another small business in another location to grow. Why is it necessary for a company to take over the world to be considered successful? My definition of a successful small business is one that makes a reasonable profit and can manage to stay afloat for an extended period of time. If it provides jobs that's even better.
You can continue to "pat yourself on the back" because you claim to be one of those that have succeeded. Just keep in mind that life it long, and anything you've managed to acquire can be taken away in the blink of an eye by a bigger fish. I wonder if you would be so enamored of the system if you were standing in an unemployment line or watching your children do without.
By the way, Microsoft is one of those "mythological" small businesses what was 100% self funded. They never took a dime of VC funding until 1981, after they were already quite successful with revenues of almost 8 million. So much for myths.
Consider the following a bit.
Up until about 30 years ago, capitalism as it was practiced in the United States did do very well and materially aided a good standard of living for most Americans.
Since then, real wages have stagnated and income has become seriously concentrated in the upper income households. The top 1/10 of 1%, get 6% of all income. For long stretches of time in recent years, the growth in the nation's GDP has gone almost entirely to the top 1% or less of the population. The top 40% get about 78% of all income.
Consider this as well: Productivity Growth Quarter in 4Q 2009 was 6.2%. For the year, it came to 5.1%. The flip side of the jobless recovery is a high productivity-growth recovery--and, with stagnant wages, a rise in the profit share (i.e. the capitalist’s take). This is becoming more prevalent.
The distribution of income and wealth has consistently gone to the top over the last several decades as real wages have stagnated or declined. Our cyclical booms and busts have become more severe over the last decade. The economy is anything but stable, especially now as we are loaded up with debt and deficits.
The share of income or profits being generated by small business is falling and the share of total profits being generated by large businesses is increasing.
Government has enacted much special interest legislation contrary to the public interest, to aid the concentration of wealth and income in the hands of the wealthiest and feather representatives own beds.
Now, what we see with increased productivity and the maldistribution of income and wealth is a growing surplus of labor or the unemployed.
So, Silicon Valley, good luck with that.
the Dream is very much alive.
Yea, and so is the dream that I'll pick the winning lottery number this week.
Sure, you can cite many examples of companies that were in the right place at the right time (Yahoo, Google), or are examples from the time I was referring to (MS, Apple). There is even the chance that, even today, you can beat the odds and turn a small company into a success, but it's certainly not as likely as it once was.
The problem is that it's incredibly hard in today's environment to survive as a small business, much less flourish. If you achieve any success at all, you'll attract the attention of larger companies who will either buy you out (a good outcome from your perspective, maybe not so good for the industry) or use their much deeper pockets to try and put you out of business through lost-leader pricing or outright anti-competitive practices. Behemoths generally have groups of analysts whose sole raison d'être is to seek out new lines of business. If anything new appears on the horizon and looks like it will generate revenues, these organizations are quick to jump in, buy out or push out any competitors, or even quash new technologies if they feel it may compromise the profitability of existing revenue streams. It all adds up to an environment that heavily favors large corporations at the expense of small businesses. This is not news and I find it hard to fathom that anyone can honestly feel that is not the case. As I commented earlier (and what was the main thrust of my argument), what bothers me is that most people seem OK with this situation. I've always considered myself a capitalist, but what I'm seeing today is corporatism, not capitalism.
Did you read my comment or do you have comprehension issues? Did I not say it works for the big guys, but not for entrepreneurs? I have talked to small business owners, in fact I've been one myself for almost 20 years. The system is rigged to favor large businesses and against small businesses. Capitalism is unbridled for large businesses who have "tools on the hill". I agree that it's more than "bridled" for small businesses. My "unbridled capitalism" comment was directed toward large businesses and the entire tone of my comment was intended to make that point.
Marx thought communism would work. LOL.
Actually, no, I don't recall ever reading that. I believe what he did say was that capitalism would fail, be succeeded by socialism, which would simply be a transitional step toward communism. Capitalism has been doing really well over the last few decades, so much so that most economist had written off Marx's predictions. However, the last decade or so is causing some to rethink their position as his predictions are becoming disturbingly accurate.
If you are interpreting my comments above as "pro-socialism" or "pro-communism", then you mistake my intent. I believe capitalism can work, but only if it is kept in check so that there are enough slices of the "pie" to go around.
Simply burying one's head in the sand is a good way to eat dirt while getting f^cked from behind. If you think the game is over and capitalism has won, you haven't been paying attention.
There was a time when one could dream of starting a small niche business and if done right, grow it into a large and successful company.
Those days are long gone. The dream today is more along the lines of "start a small business and hope to
A. eek out enough profit to keep the doors open, or
B. (if you're lucky), get bought out by a bigger company".
While starting any kind of business is a bit of a crap-shoot, the odds used to be good enough to at least encourage people to try.
I've been around long enough that none of this comes as a surprise, but what still irritates me is that people, for the most part, are OK with this. It's just business.
Well, that's all fine and good, and one day we can all thank our Wal-Mart overlords for allowing us to buy their products at whatever price they want to charge while paying us the minimum amount they can get away with.
I just wonder, how long do you folks that think unbridled capitalism will last? Marx predicted that Capitalism can't last because it will basically keep eating it's young, with the wealth and power continually becoming concentrated among so few that eventually the populace would revolt.
Personally, I would rather see some checks put on capitalism rather than see it fail and be overtaken by some form of communism, but I guess the pure capitalists won't believe this will happen until it's too late. What a shame.
Reminds me of LEGO NXT-G
If it is not on Apple hardware, you are in licence violation.
So says Apple. I purchased my copy of snow leopard and will damn well run it on anything I choose. Maybe it's on Apple hardware, maybe it's not. IMO, it's not any of Apple's business what I do with it as long as I legally obtained it and am not trying to sell or give away copies of it. I'm not asking them for support or in any way negatively impacting their bottom line. I make my hardware decisions based on the hardware specs. If I feel that Apple hardware is a good value for the $, I'll purchase it. If not, I'll purchase my hardware elsewhere. I will not be dictated to by Apple or any other vendor.
they made a huge mistake in picking it for their mobile platform).
I should make such a mistake. Android is blowing the doors off the mobile platform world at a time that no one thought anything could catch Apple. If you saying Google should have used a different base language for Android, you're ignoring the fact that Google bought Android, they didn't develop it. They chose it for it's potential and for the mass of java programmers that would be available to develop for it. Yea, really big mistake.
http://www.microsoft.com/interop/osp/default.mspx
No, I didn't see any Java bashing...yet..
if you want to run all three OSs simultaneously you are forced to use a Mac and OS X as the host
Forced is a bit strong. I'm running OS/X and Linux (even Android-x86) using VirtualBox on a Win7 host as I'm typing this.
since creating a hackintosh is not really supported.
Support? We don't need no stinkin' support!
Just as it's easy to fire up a couple VMs and run OS/X and Linux on a windows host, or OS/X and Windows on a linux host. There is nothing special about Apple in this regard.