You are comparing a cheap mechanical device to what I responded to? Really, you should read more carefully. The post I responded to was drastically different. Context is generally important in dialogue.
The problem with that is that not all check engine problems require immediate attention, yet if given the opportunity, many manufacturers might choose to brick their car this for every little problem, urgent or not, so that they can make more money off of unnecessary service work
This would lead people to never purchase one, and instead purchase some form of transportation they could control. If it was Government mandated, it would end up as a prohibition on driver operated cars. We know how well prohibitions work right?
I will agree that in the 70s and early 80s we made huge strides in reducing pollution. Is it cured? Hell no, but it's better than it was. How much difference does it make if we are still moving in the wrong direction? As a simple analogy, we had a gaping wound and now it's a seeping wound. One can not continue to bleed forever and expect to live.
I believe in your second statement, you are crossing issues. Politicians are not the heart of the issue, the issue is that there are some very nasty people with metric assloads of money to spare. This puts corrupt people into political office and bends things further toward their will, which as mentioned is nasty. They care nothing about anything except themselves and how big their purses are (at best).
As my answer to the above dilemma, we must look back in time. Socrates' allegory of the Artisan is the correction needed. It will take a whole mass of people waking up to what's needed for it to happen since the corruption has had time to seep in and rot the body nearly through.
Localization is not the question, and in fact most climate discussion I find frustrating because it's the wrong argument. The argument should not be "Is man changing the climate?" but rather "Are we fucking things up?"
If we look at the suggested question, the answer is absolutely "yes". First, we know for a fact that Oil is not sustainable with the current population. Even if we all recycled plastics Oil vanishes faster than the earth is producing new Oil. Second, we are polluting everything. That pollution has not gotten better recently, but rather worse since we are arguing "Climate" instead of addressing our impact. This in turn has resulted in reduced controls, higher acceptable levels of pollution, and deregulation. Our pollution rate is not sustainable. Lastly, are we rendering portions of the Earth inhabitable and useless? The obvious answer to that question is also yes. Numerous studies show how we have rendered at least 10% of the Earths farming area useless for at least 100 years and that number is increasing. The same goes for Oceans and dead zones in them.
Look at it this way. It does not take a rocket scientist to realize that coal power is bad for people's health. Both the powdering process for the coal, and the burning of the coal pollute the environment something fierce. We do so knowing it's bad because it makes some people a whole lot of money regardless of the impact. The excuse to continue has nothing to do with "is it bad" but rather "it's cheaper than wind power (which could be argued rather heavily from the angle of wind not being as profitable to the same people making money from fossil fuels)".
We need to get back to the real issue, which by the way was prominent in the 70s and 80s by the way.
And because you can "think" you can own the idea? Come now, perhaps you are just arguing for arguments sake but if not.. you are not being rational. If you can "think" of the idea, how many others can think of the same idea? Extrapolate, it's from those ideas that we actually see inventions.
To answer your second statement, see above. If you can think of a way, I'm sure someone else has also. The idea is not patentable (or at least should not be). Actually implementing the idea is already covered under copyright laws (assuming you use the copyright system properly). This is where software differs pretty heavily from hardware. Copyright has not been questioned except for the duration. It's a given that copying without permission is not legal and very few question that statement.
Apologies for the bluntness, but you are blind either intentionally or otherwise. Nest is a prime example of blocked innovation as a start. How about you do some research on how many companies have been sued out of business due to patent litigation? Very very few people are innovating currently. Hell I have some project work that I'd love to pursue for Unix LDAP, but at present I don't feel like being hunted down by Oracle's attorneys, Redhat's attorneys, Microsoft's attorneys, Novell's attorneys, or any of the thousands of patent troll companies that have a patent on user interface, scripting techniques, coding techniques, etc.. that would hunt me down as soon as I started trying to peddle a product.
The person you posted to was absolutely correct. If you don't see how the system is failed you simply have not bothered to look.
If I was on the jury, my verdict would have been recorded so would have been factual no matter how it was cast. Perhaps you would see it as playing a bit on literal terminology, but my intent was to be literally correct so no play was intended.
I'm not sure how much you have studied Socrates, but I find his definition of Law is extremely accurate. Law is simply an extension of morality, and Law would not exist without morality. That topic is covered both in the dialogues of Plato and more extensively in "The Republic".
Using the Socratic method on your questions regarding abortion, I have to ask "why" those questions exist. There also is an assumption (at least implied) with those questions that everyone has the same morality. Differences in morality is why we have debates regarding, and changes in, the laws. Who is in power (power comes in many colors, so be open minded with the term) has the biggest influence on the Law. That does not make their morals law, but it sure helps.
Actually no equation is there, and in my opinion, it is not a reasonable assumption (hence my comment regarding how my opinion of the verdict was shaped). The truth is extremely difficult to obtain, and quite impossible to obtain by someone that reads headlines and watches provided opinions on TV.
If an opinion was truth, it would be called a fact. So in the OJ case, I freely admit to having an opinion but would never state my opinion was a fact. If I sat on the jury, I would probably have a different opinion and could confidently state that my opinion is fact.
I'm confused by your last statement. Law is morality, so I'm not sure what you were getting at. Of course that statement is extremely simplified, but close enough.
Based on a sub-set of evidence, the arm chair juror is as useful as a "poopy flavored lolly pop". Quote thanks to Patches O'Hoolihan, may he rest in peace.
Look, it's nothing against you personally. Numerous people are guilty of being just as naive and/or ignorant as you are. You saw and read what people knew would sell, and did not review all of the facts in the case. The same that would be true of the OJ case would be true of McAfee, or Assange, or Lacey, etc.. Your opinion is just an opinion.
If it helps, I'm with you in my opinion of OJs verdict. With that said, I realize that I'm ignorant in regards to the full of the case. I only saw what was on court TV and remember only what the media was hyping. My opinion was shaped by media, not by facts. Therefor my opinion has no legal merit or value outside of rumoring
You should probably read people's post history before calling others "Trolls". You will see that I have no issues with dialogue, yet you on the other hand lack that capacity. You repeat the same statements over and over, as if you can prove your point by redundancy. Try reading the materials posted in response to your statements. You have no counter to anything I stated except for complaining about my intentionally misspelled word.
I agree with your point that Firefox made a better product, hence is winning the browser wars without the dirty tricks MS still resorts to in order to gain share. I still disagree with you that IE7 was usable with Tabs. Even fully patched, you will run out of memory simply by holding a browser page and a tab open. That memory leak was not fully addressed until IE 9, but in 8 it is considerably better. I work with some very exceptionally talented Microsoft people, and they would never use tabs until IE8, and even then preferred Firefox for tabs until IE 9..
As a senior architect/engineer it is important to understand the full scope of making a change to an environment. It's over easily 250.00 per user to switch to Ribbon based office from other versions just in training. Add in productivity loss and in the first year you are looking at a minimum of 1,000.00 per user to switch. That is just the cost to users, not the cost to MS for licensing, recoding macros and custom features, updating PCs and Servers, inventory tools, etc...
To you, maybe it's not a big deal. To a Mom and Pop shop with 10 people that cost is not "that" high, and the environment is generally less likely to see the productivity losses. When you are looking at 10,000-150,000 employees, that price tag is rather staggering.
Now, compare that to what benefit there is to changing? "Font preview" is nice for a technical writer maybe, but to a secretary on a slow PC it's a pain in the ass. Outside of reorganizing the interface, there is little benefit to an upgrade. Take that same secretary and put her on a Linux box with LO or a PC with Office 2000 and they can't tell the difference. "Word" and "Writer" are nearly identical. "Excel" and "Calc" are nearly identical. I have done hundreds of experiments with exactly that, going back to Proof of Concepts for Sunray technology.
Sorry, it's one thing to argue a point.. it's another thing all together to flat out tell blatant untruths.
People hate change and with Office can do what they were doing before and it looks all pretty and familiar. Everyone I have shown LibreOffice hates it within a few seconds because it doesn't look exactly like Office.
Yes it does, in fact the reason that most companies refuse to migrate to Office 2K7 or 2K10 is because the UI is so different it will cost a fortune in user training to switch. Is the ribbon nicer? Not really, it's different. Libre Office looks more like Office than the Ribbon versions of M$ products.
Another blatant lie, is that users can tell the difference. Most users can not tell a difference. The icons and layout of LO and MS office are so similar, that people can not tell the difference. The give away is trying to open files with macros or formatting differences. Formatting differences are completely M$s fault. M$ has broken every standard ever used, from TCP/IP to document processing. Often just to generate lock-in and FUD. Look up the history of the bullshit crippled networks, caused by MS breaking networking standards.
The browser analogy is perfect. I showed my ex Firefox in 2006. She didn't like it at all initially. IE 7 just came out and she was showing me she had tabs too
Sorry, but hahahahahahaha you are fucking stoopid. IE7 tabs did not work very well at all, and were never faster than Firefox or Chrome. In fact there was a known memory leak issue in IE7 "tabs" which would cause your computer to lock up when trying to use said tabs. Tabs were not stable until IE8 and still so bug ridden that even our MS Admins would not use tabs.
My point? Unless it does something new people will give into their fear of change and oppose it.
Wrong, dead wrong. New is not a requirement. Stable, cheap, well supported are required. Especially in office type applications this is true. The piss poor migration to "Ribbon" should be proof that "new" is not required. Often, it's extremely frowned upon.
The part of the story missing is how they got in to that game, and in fact many others. It was not (and traditionally this is true) that Microsoft tried to out-do people with technology, it was that they tried to sue the shit out of competition. This is "still" their primary business model. Advertise, FUD, and lawyers. This old Apple commercial nailed a fundamental problem with Microsoft.
Look, to be honest it worked for a long time. But eventually, consumers start turning on douche bag companies. It shows in their products, it shows in their services. Talk to anyone, they may "Use" the products, but they don't like the company or the business practices. Given an alternative, everyone jumps to a new brand. If MS sold Xbox for profit, how many people would own one. If they didn't pay companies to run exclusively on Windows, people would jump ship as Quickbooks started working on MacOS. They wheel and deal to lock in products and people to their OS, and people don't like it. The game is old, people have been catching on.
Perhaps you should work on your karma a bit, my karma is excellent so I get options to post before most users. Er wait, everything that happens that you can't understand must be a bot right? Or better, it had to be the submitter that did it... there is no other reason for people to post early.
I didn't mention the security of the network, it's logical. I worked in DOD for nearly a decade, I get security and separation probably better than most. My complaint was that the wording used is completely incorrect, and my statement is still correct..
Jeesh, it is a separate network, not a new "internet". People writing technical articles should collaborate with technically skilled people prior to submitting articles. More often than not, they go with option 2 and look foolish to people with technical knowledge. *sigh*
Expand the work space, and it's a non factor. Maybe it's just that you are trying to pack everything in to a 3x3 foot area, in which case I'll say move out of what ever shoebox you are trying to work in, or wait till your prison term is done before going dual monitors and 2 PCs.
Honestly, I have more gear than this sitting on a work table and a few shelves. Just space things out, use re-usable banding (Velcro) to keep things ordered.
There are reasons not to make some things public, such as cost for hacking. It's kind of like we see in criminal law, as a method of reducing hacks.>/p>
Many people hack for attention/publicity. Take that away, they lose incentive to "hack" your site. Make a stink, and more will go at it to get their names in the paper.
Many don't understand that there are financial incentives to be hacking. Not always in a negative context either, consider penetration testers and how much money they can make. It can still pay to go in to a place and say "see how insecure you are? I can help".
Many simply don't know. Okay, we can give you head count for people required on Network and System teams to monitor and try to counter, but that's not the real cost. The real cost is in what actually gets leaked more often than head count. If you have no idea what was leaked, how do you determine value?
These cars sat for more than a few minutes completely submerged prior to the batteries igniting. If you were not out before the fire, you would have drown anyway. See where the logic is off?
Look, I get that it should be investigated to see if it can be made better, but the issue being used as FUD is a non-issue. It's not a safety issue as much as an environmental issue, and even then what's worse? A car leaking gas and oil after being submerged or a car burning up lithium? I'd say it's a toss up myself without seeing true test results on what's happening.
I'd be willing to bet that Fiskar cars are tested in "normal" conditions. I have never heard of one catching fire in the rain, or while getting washed. It rains pretty heavily at times in silicon valley, and gets pretty damp every morning, and generally a very high humidity area. A dealer is less than 2 miles from my house, and has yet to have a car just catch fire from being wet. Lots of people drive them around, and none of them are filthy or suffering from a lack of wash and wax.
To imply that making sure cars behave like submarines and are immune to damage after submersion, especially with critical electronics gear is not a reasonable expectation. Would it be nice if they investigated? Yeah, but it's not a safety issue unless they made the car to function as a submarine, and sold it as a submarine.
My analogy was spot on, you are just plain old wrong. You should have paid attention to If not, don't bother to reply.. you are intentionally not looking.. Go read a dictionary and compare "Submerged" to "Wet/Damp/Moist" and learn that there is a difference. If you fail and remain ignorant, fine.. but don't try spreading your ignorance.
And you expect your Pontiac trans am to drive right out of the lake? Expect not to get wet with the T-Tops off? Come on now, at least make some real expectations. They make buildings earthquake resistant, but if a big ass hole opens up and a building falls in.. it's it the architect's fault? Wholly shit people have crappy logic. Either that or you failed read and comprehend the conditions in which this occurred.
Comparing apples to chimps again are we? You can take a shower and live, but what happens if we submerge you under water for 5-10 minutes? These cars were not made wet, they were drowned. See the difference? If not, don't bother to reply.. you are intentionally not looking.
Certainly that is not the majority of the "needy" as you call them, but it is absolutely a problem that is exacerbated by "spreading the wealth".
I disagree very much with this, in it's general form. If you understand the Allegory of the Artisan, you may find why that is. It's not necessarily spreading the wealth that's the issue, it's keeping people from being able to abuse the rest of society to begin with where we failed. The corrective measure at this point is "spreading of the wealth", however without the proper controls to keep it from happening again the proposition is futile. We will end up back in the same place in a short time again if there are no controls.
If you look back, ask yourself why the tax rate was excessively high for "rich" people up until the 70s. After it was deregulated, the have's started having more and the rest of us got fucked over and over and over. This is where we are at now, and getting worse. Look at the % of population that is "middle class" now compared to the 70s, or 80s. It's been a steady decline while the upper wealthy have gotten huge amounts of increased wealth.
Here in this post, my disagreement is honest but the real problems and solutions are much more complex. If you disagree with me and believe that wealth should be unlimited and potentially infinite, you fail to understand both Society and what a Republic is in it's fundamental form. Start with the book, "The Republic" by Plato. I can't blame people that have that belief, it's been brainwashed in to them for well over 30 years. Reagan spent 8 years lying to people telling them that if the rich get more money they will give back to society instead of just trying to get more and more money, and a huge percentage of the population believed his bullshit.
As I mentioned above, Silicon Valley is a lot more than Google and Facebook. Dumping every company here in to the same basket as those two is not logical.
With that out of the way, why do people neglect the power they have as consumers in the market? At least for now, it still works. Boycott, go look up the definition. We, consuming citizens _can_ and _do_ make companies behave differently. Whether it's through legislature (Prop 37 for example) or just by bankrupting companies that do shitty things by never purchasing their products or services (even if they are free). Word of mouth from you to your friends can start a wildfire of people dropping Google search for Bing. If Bing takes over in the "F-UR-PRIVACY" department, find another one or start your own Privacy Happy company to do searching. Harder to start your own of course, considering the IP laws currently but still possible. Thing is, if people started dumping Google for Bing and were Boycotting properly (Letting it be known publicly "why" they are not using the service) then Google would probably start to change their behavior.
I agree with your point that $$ rules things and that way too often is the top priority. Be vocal about people doing bad things and use what you have to start trying to make things differently.
Last point, there are thousands and thousands of technology companies in the Valley that are not Google or Facebook. Facebook's campus is smaller than Brocades by far, or Cisco, or Ericsson, or Oracle, or HP, etc... With all the good here, it's ludicrous to say what TFA did. 2 Companies don't make the Valley, and the valley would survive without those 2. If you don't think Mountain View was a city before Google was here.. well...
Have you ever been to Silicon Valley? I live here and can tell you that the answer is "no". SV is not like Detroit with 3 companies that make up the economy, it's pretty much everything you can think of dealing with technology. Why do you rate such a massive amount of technological knowledge on 2 companies in the valley? For instance, Rambus is here as well as every other company designing computer memory. All of the companies designing switching equipment are here also. That's right, Ericsson (formerly Redback and Entrisphere also), Brocade, Cisco, AT&T are all here designing and building the switching equipment for your phones, PCs, servers, and more. Apple is here, as is Dell, HP, Oracle, IBM, and countless others that design and build everything from PDAs to massive servers. Yes, all designed and developed in SV as well as most of the software you use to run on them.
Okay, piss and moan about Google's lack of morals. Why not also pay attention to the products and services they provide for "FREE" to cynical douche bags like the author of TFA? Don't like Google for their morals, simple answer is don't use their products and tell others the same. That's how the free market works you know, we have the power as consumers to either keep companies in business or put them under in time.
And look, I'm as cynical as the rest (maybe more) when it comes to Government. You can check my post history if you have doubts. But companies are not the same (at least currently in the US) as the Government. People still have power in the market, but you have to be smart enough to use the power you have.
So the answer again is "No", you obviously have no idea what Silicon Valley is or does to make such an ignorant argument. Come visit sometime, surprisingly most of the people you meet here are very courteous and helpful. I will warn you to keep the arrogant attitudes at home though, pricks are frowned upon here and it's a very big place.. easy to get lost if you get my meaning.
Slashdot Mirror
You are comparing a cheap mechanical device to what I responded to? Really, you should read more carefully. The post I responded to was drastically different. Context is generally important in dialogue.
The problem with that is that not all check engine problems require immediate attention, yet if given the opportunity, many manufacturers might choose to brick their car this for every little problem, urgent or not, so that they can make more money off of unnecessary service work
This would lead people to never purchase one, and instead purchase some form of transportation they could control. If it was Government mandated, it would end up as a prohibition on driver operated cars. We know how well prohibitions work right?
I will agree that in the 70s and early 80s we made huge strides in reducing pollution. Is it cured? Hell no, but it's better than it was. How much difference does it make if we are still moving in the wrong direction? As a simple analogy, we had a gaping wound and now it's a seeping wound. One can not continue to bleed forever and expect to live.
I believe in your second statement, you are crossing issues. Politicians are not the heart of the issue, the issue is that there are some very nasty people with metric assloads of money to spare. This puts corrupt people into political office and bends things further toward their will, which as mentioned is nasty. They care nothing about anything except themselves and how big their purses are (at best).
As my answer to the above dilemma, we must look back in time. Socrates' allegory of the Artisan is the correction needed. It will take a whole mass of people waking up to what's needed for it to happen since the corruption has had time to seep in and rot the body nearly through.
Localization is not the question, and in fact most climate discussion I find frustrating because it's the wrong argument. The argument should not be "Is man changing the climate?" but rather "Are we fucking things up?"
If we look at the suggested question, the answer is absolutely "yes". First, we know for a fact that Oil is not sustainable with the current population. Even if we all recycled plastics Oil vanishes faster than the earth is producing new Oil. Second, we are polluting everything. That pollution has not gotten better recently, but rather worse since we are arguing "Climate" instead of addressing our impact. This in turn has resulted in reduced controls, higher acceptable levels of pollution, and deregulation. Our pollution rate is not sustainable. Lastly, are we rendering portions of the Earth inhabitable and useless? The obvious answer to that question is also yes. Numerous studies show how we have rendered at least 10% of the Earths farming area useless for at least 100 years and that number is increasing. The same goes for Oceans and dead zones in them.
Look at it this way. It does not take a rocket scientist to realize that coal power is bad for people's health. Both the powdering process for the coal, and the burning of the coal pollute the environment something fierce. We do so knowing it's bad because it makes some people a whole lot of money regardless of the impact. The excuse to continue has nothing to do with "is it bad" but rather "it's cheaper than wind power (which could be argued rather heavily from the angle of wind not being as profitable to the same people making money from fossil fuels)".
We need to get back to the real issue, which by the way was prominent in the 70s and 80s by the way.
And because you can "think" you can own the idea? Come now, perhaps you are just arguing for arguments sake but if not.. you are not being rational. If you can "think" of the idea, how many others can think of the same idea? Extrapolate, it's from those ideas that we actually see inventions.
To answer your second statement, see above. If you can think of a way, I'm sure someone else has also. The idea is not patentable (or at least should not be). Actually implementing the idea is already covered under copyright laws (assuming you use the copyright system properly). This is where software differs pretty heavily from hardware. Copyright has not been questioned except for the duration. It's a given that copying without permission is not legal and very few question that statement.
Apologies for the bluntness, but you are blind either intentionally or otherwise. Nest is a prime example of blocked innovation as a start. How about you do some research on how many companies have been sued out of business due to patent litigation? Very very few people are innovating currently. Hell I have some project work that I'd love to pursue for Unix LDAP, but at present I don't feel like being hunted down by Oracle's attorneys, Redhat's attorneys, Microsoft's attorneys, Novell's attorneys, or any of the thousands of patent troll companies that have a patent on user interface, scripting techniques, coding techniques, etc.. that would hunt me down as soon as I started trying to peddle a product.
The person you posted to was absolutely correct. If you don't see how the system is failed you simply have not bothered to look.
:( Nothing wrong with healthy debate IMO.
If I was on the jury, my verdict would have been recorded so would have been factual no matter how it was cast. Perhaps you would see it as playing a bit on literal terminology, but my intent was to be literally correct so no play was intended.
I'm not sure how much you have studied Socrates, but I find his definition of Law is extremely accurate. Law is simply an extension of morality, and Law would not exist without morality. That topic is covered both in the dialogues of Plato and more extensively in "The Republic".
Using the Socratic method on your questions regarding abortion, I have to ask "why" those questions exist. There also is an assumption (at least implied) with those questions that everyone has the same morality. Differences in morality is why we have debates regarding, and changes in, the laws. Who is in power (power comes in many colors, so be open minded with the term) has the biggest influence on the Law. That does not make their morals law, but it sure helps.
Actually no equation is there, and in my opinion, it is not a reasonable assumption (hence my comment regarding how my opinion of the verdict was shaped). The truth is extremely difficult to obtain, and quite impossible to obtain by someone that reads headlines and watches provided opinions on TV.
If an opinion was truth, it would be called a fact. So in the OJ case, I freely admit to having an opinion but would never state my opinion was a fact. If I sat on the jury, I would probably have a different opinion and could confidently state that my opinion is fact.
I'm confused by your last statement. Law is morality, so I'm not sure what you were getting at. Of course that statement is extremely simplified, but close enough.
Based on a sub-set of evidence, the arm chair juror is as useful as a "poopy flavored lolly pop". Quote thanks to Patches O'Hoolihan, may he rest in peace.
Look, it's nothing against you personally. Numerous people are guilty of being just as naive and/or ignorant as you are. You saw and read what people knew would sell, and did not review all of the facts in the case. The same that would be true of the OJ case would be true of McAfee, or Assange, or Lacey, etc.. Your opinion is just an opinion.
If it helps, I'm with you in my opinion of OJs verdict. With that said, I realize that I'm ignorant in regards to the full of the case. I only saw what was on court TV and remember only what the media was hyping. My opinion was shaped by media, not by facts. Therefor my opinion has no legal merit or value outside of rumoring
You should probably read people's post history before calling others "Trolls". You will see that I have no issues with dialogue, yet you on the other hand lack that capacity. You repeat the same statements over and over, as if you can prove your point by redundancy. Try reading the materials posted in response to your statements. You have no counter to anything I stated except for complaining about my intentionally misspelled word.
I agree with your point that Firefox made a better product, hence is winning the browser wars without the dirty tricks MS still resorts to in order to gain share. I still disagree with you that IE7 was usable with Tabs. Even fully patched, you will run out of memory simply by holding a browser page and a tab open. That memory leak was not fully addressed until IE 9, but in 8 it is considerably better. I work with some very exceptionally talented Microsoft people, and they would never use tabs until IE8, and even then preferred Firefox for tabs until IE 9..
As a senior architect/engineer it is important to understand the full scope of making a change to an environment. It's over easily 250.00 per user to switch to Ribbon based office from other versions just in training. Add in productivity loss and in the first year you are looking at a minimum of 1,000.00 per user to switch. That is just the cost to users, not the cost to MS for licensing, recoding macros and custom features, updating PCs and Servers, inventory tools, etc...
To you, maybe it's not a big deal. To a Mom and Pop shop with 10 people that cost is not "that" high, and the environment is generally less likely to see the productivity losses. When you are looking at 10,000-150,000 employees, that price tag is rather staggering.
Now, compare that to what benefit there is to changing? "Font preview" is nice for a technical writer maybe, but to a secretary on a slow PC it's a pain in the ass. Outside of reorganizing the interface, there is little benefit to an upgrade. Take that same secretary and put her on a Linux box with LO or a PC with Office 2000 and they can't tell the difference. "Word" and "Writer" are nearly identical. "Excel" and "Calc" are nearly identical. I have done hundreds of experiments with exactly that, going back to Proof of Concepts for Sunray technology.
Sorry, it's one thing to argue a point.. it's another thing all together to flat out tell blatant untruths.
People hate change and with Office can do what they were doing before and it looks all pretty and familiar. Everyone I have shown LibreOffice hates it within a few seconds because it doesn't look exactly like Office.
Yes it does, in fact the reason that most companies refuse to migrate to Office 2K7 or 2K10 is because the UI is so different it will cost a fortune in user training to switch. Is the ribbon nicer? Not really, it's different. Libre Office looks more like Office than the Ribbon versions of M$ products.
Another blatant lie, is that users can tell the difference. Most users can not tell a difference. The icons and layout of LO and MS office are so similar, that people can not tell the difference. The give away is trying to open files with macros or formatting differences. Formatting differences are completely M$s fault. M$ has broken every standard ever used, from TCP/IP to document processing. Often just to generate lock-in and FUD. Look up the history of the bullshit crippled networks, caused by MS breaking networking standards.
The browser analogy is perfect. I showed my ex Firefox in 2006. She didn't like it at all initially. IE 7 just came out and she was showing me she had tabs too
Sorry, but hahahahahahaha you are fucking stoopid. IE7 tabs did not work very well at all, and were never faster than Firefox or Chrome. In fact there was a known memory leak issue in IE7 "tabs" which would cause your computer to lock up when trying to use said tabs. Tabs were not stable until IE8 and still so bug ridden that even our MS Admins would not use tabs.
My point? Unless it does something new people will give into their fear of change and oppose it.
Wrong, dead wrong. New is not a requirement. Stable, cheap, well supported are required. Especially in office type applications this is true. The piss poor migration to "Ribbon" should be proof that "new" is not required. Often, it's extremely frowned upon.
The part of the story missing is how they got in to that game, and in fact many others. It was not (and traditionally this is true) that Microsoft tried to out-do people with technology, it was that they tried to sue the shit out of competition. This is "still" their primary business model. Advertise, FUD, and lawyers. This old Apple commercial nailed a fundamental problem with Microsoft.
Look, to be honest it worked for a long time. But eventually, consumers start turning on douche bag companies. It shows in their products, it shows in their services. Talk to anyone, they may "Use" the products, but they don't like the company or the business practices. Given an alternative, everyone jumps to a new brand. If MS sold Xbox for profit, how many people would own one. If they didn't pay companies to run exclusively on Windows, people would jump ship as Quickbooks started working on MacOS. They wheel and deal to lock in products and people to their OS, and people don't like it. The game is old, people have been catching on.
Perhaps you should work on your karma a bit, my karma is excellent so I get options to post before most users. Er wait, everything that happens that you can't understand must be a bot right? Or better, it had to be the submitter that did it... there is no other reason for people to post early.
I didn't mention the security of the network, it's logical. I worked in DOD for nearly a decade, I get security and separation probably better than most. My complaint was that the wording used is completely incorrect, and my statement is still correct..
Jeesh, it is a separate network, not a new "internet". People writing technical articles should collaborate with technically skilled people prior to submitting articles. More often than not, they go with option 2 and look foolish to people with technical knowledge. *sigh*
Expand the work space, and it's a non factor. Maybe it's just that you are trying to pack everything in to a 3x3 foot area, in which case I'll say move out of what ever shoebox you are trying to work in, or wait till your prison term is done before going dual monitors and 2 PCs.
Honestly, I have more gear than this sitting on a work table and a few shelves. Just space things out, use re-usable banding (Velcro) to keep things ordered.
There are reasons not to make some things public, such as cost for hacking. It's kind of like we see in criminal law, as a method of reducing hacks.>/p>
Many people hack for attention/publicity. Take that away, they lose incentive to "hack" your site. Make a stink, and more will go at it to get their names in the paper.
Many don't understand that there are financial incentives to be hacking. Not always in a negative context either, consider penetration testers and how much money they can make. It can still pay to go in to a place and say "see how insecure you are? I can help".
Many simply don't know. Okay, we can give you head count for people required on Network and System teams to monitor and try to counter, but that's not the real cost. The real cost is in what actually gets leaked more often than head count. If you have no idea what was leaked, how do you determine value?
These cars sat for more than a few minutes completely submerged prior to the batteries igniting. If you were not out before the fire, you would have drown anyway. See where the logic is off?
Look, I get that it should be investigated to see if it can be made better, but the issue being used as FUD is a non-issue. It's not a safety issue as much as an environmental issue, and even then what's worse? A car leaking gas and oil after being submerged or a car burning up lithium? I'd say it's a toss up myself without seeing true test results on what's happening.
I'd be willing to bet that Fiskar cars are tested in "normal" conditions. I have never heard of one catching fire in the rain, or while getting washed. It rains pretty heavily at times in silicon valley, and gets pretty damp every morning, and generally a very high humidity area. A dealer is less than 2 miles from my house, and has yet to have a car just catch fire from being wet. Lots of people drive them around, and none of them are filthy or suffering from a lack of wash and wax.
To imply that making sure cars behave like submarines and are immune to damage after submersion, especially with critical electronics gear is not a reasonable expectation. Would it be nice if they investigated? Yeah, but it's not a safety issue unless they made the car to function as a submarine, and sold it as a submarine.
My analogy was spot on, you are just plain old wrong. You should have paid attention to If not, don't bother to reply.. you are intentionally not looking.. Go read a dictionary and compare "Submerged" to "Wet/Damp/Moist" and learn that there is a difference. If you fail and remain ignorant, fine.. but don't try spreading your ignorance.
And you expect your Pontiac trans am to drive right out of the lake? Expect not to get wet with the T-Tops off? Come on now, at least make some real expectations. They make buildings earthquake resistant, but if a big ass hole opens up and a building falls in.. it's it the architect's fault? Wholly shit people have crappy logic. Either that or you failed read and comprehend the conditions in which this occurred.
Comparing apples to chimps again are we? You can take a shower and live, but what happens if we submerge you under water for 5-10 minutes? These cars were not made wet, they were drowned. See the difference? If not, don't bother to reply.. you are intentionally not looking.
Engrish is not your furst language may be?
Coming from Detroit, I was amazed at how nice people were here. Maybe you should move out of the ghetto and see what SV is like to most of the world.
Certainly that is not the majority of the "needy" as you call them, but it is absolutely a problem that is exacerbated by "spreading the wealth".
I disagree very much with this, in it's general form. If you understand the Allegory of the Artisan, you may find why that is. It's not necessarily spreading the wealth that's the issue, it's keeping people from being able to abuse the rest of society to begin with where we failed. The corrective measure at this point is "spreading of the wealth", however without the proper controls to keep it from happening again the proposition is futile. We will end up back in the same place in a short time again if there are no controls.
If you look back, ask yourself why the tax rate was excessively high for "rich" people up until the 70s. After it was deregulated, the have's started having more and the rest of us got fucked over and over and over. This is where we are at now, and getting worse. Look at the % of population that is "middle class" now compared to the 70s, or 80s. It's been a steady decline while the upper wealthy have gotten huge amounts of increased wealth.
Here in this post, my disagreement is honest but the real problems and solutions are much more complex. If you disagree with me and believe that wealth should be unlimited and potentially infinite, you fail to understand both Society and what a Republic is in it's fundamental form. Start with the book, "The Republic" by Plato. I can't blame people that have that belief, it's been brainwashed in to them for well over 30 years. Reagan spent 8 years lying to people telling them that if the rich get more money they will give back to society instead of just trying to get more and more money, and a huge percentage of the population believed his bullshit.
As I mentioned above, Silicon Valley is a lot more than Google and Facebook. Dumping every company here in to the same basket as those two is not logical.
With that out of the way, why do people neglect the power they have as consumers in the market? At least for now, it still works. Boycott, go look up the definition. We, consuming citizens _can_ and _do_ make companies behave differently. Whether it's through legislature (Prop 37 for example) or just by bankrupting companies that do shitty things by never purchasing their products or services (even if they are free). Word of mouth from you to your friends can start a wildfire of people dropping Google search for Bing. If Bing takes over in the "F-UR-PRIVACY" department, find another one or start your own Privacy Happy company to do searching. Harder to start your own of course, considering the IP laws currently but still possible. Thing is, if people started dumping Google for Bing and were Boycotting properly (Letting it be known publicly "why" they are not using the service) then Google would probably start to change their behavior.
I agree with your point that $$ rules things and that way too often is the top priority. Be vocal about people doing bad things and use what you have to start trying to make things differently.
Last point, there are thousands and thousands of technology companies in the Valley that are not Google or Facebook. Facebook's campus is smaller than Brocades by far, or Cisco, or Ericsson, or Oracle, or HP, etc... With all the good here, it's ludicrous to say what TFA did. 2 Companies don't make the Valley, and the valley would survive without those 2. If you don't think Mountain View was a city before Google was here.. well...
Have you ever been to Silicon Valley? I live here and can tell you that the answer is "no". SV is not like Detroit with 3 companies that make up the economy, it's pretty much everything you can think of dealing with technology. Why do you rate such a massive amount of technological knowledge on 2 companies in the valley? For instance, Rambus is here as well as every other company designing computer memory. All of the companies designing switching equipment are here also. That's right, Ericsson (formerly Redback and Entrisphere also), Brocade, Cisco, AT&T are all here designing and building the switching equipment for your phones, PCs, servers, and more. Apple is here, as is Dell, HP, Oracle, IBM, and countless others that design and build everything from PDAs to massive servers. Yes, all designed and developed in SV as well as most of the software you use to run on them.
Okay, piss and moan about Google's lack of morals. Why not also pay attention to the products and services they provide for "FREE" to cynical douche bags like the author of TFA? Don't like Google for their morals, simple answer is don't use their products and tell others the same. That's how the free market works you know, we have the power as consumers to either keep companies in business or put them under in time.
And look, I'm as cynical as the rest (maybe more) when it comes to Government. You can check my post history if you have doubts. But companies are not the same (at least currently in the US) as the Government. People still have power in the market, but you have to be smart enough to use the power you have.
So the answer again is "No", you obviously have no idea what Silicon Valley is or does to make such an ignorant argument. Come visit sometime, surprisingly most of the people you meet here are very courteous and helpful. I will warn you to keep the arrogant attitudes at home though, pricks are frowned upon here and it's a very big place.. easy to get lost if you get my meaning.