So you'd rather pay 47,270 per year per cop for them to stand guard in public areas, than add around sixty really nice cameras, or a few hundred middlin cameras.
Yep. I sure would.
One cop doesn't need to stand around. He needs to walk a beat, like they used to do. Cops are more visible than cameras. Seeing one cop is more likely to stop a crime than a hundred, or two hundred, cameras. Look at the number of people who put on their brakes every time they see a cop car sitting along the road.
The cop is a visible reminder that there are people watching. They are a reassurance to those who are not criminal by nature, and a deterrent to those who are. They make people feel much safer than any number of cameras, without intruding on our personal lives.
Cameras everywhere make everyone feel guilty, because we are all guilty in one way or another. Most of us jaywalk, speed, put weasels down our trousers for the purposes of gambling, litter, don't use our turn signals, curse in public (illegal in many places in the US), and are generally ill-behaved.
Fuck the cameras. They don't help a damned thing. If people want to feel safe, put cops on the street, walking the beat like they used to do.
Does that mean installing/uninstalling software under linux is now standardized, logical and quick, even for people who never used it before? Have you ever watched a new linux user try to install all their software onto a linux box without any help? Linux will not get any mainstream adoption until THAT need is addressed, and that's a promise.
Promise all you want. Linux is already mainstream.
We're talking server here. The article is talking server. The thing it overlooks is that Linux is *already* a major enterprise player.
And when it comes to installing / uninstalling enterprise server software, MS-Windows doesn't have a standard way of installing/uninstalling. The "putting the software where it goes" piece is covered: every major GNU/Linux distro has a standard way of installing and uninstalling. MS-Windows has a semi-standard way.
But the hard part isn't putting the software where it needs to go. The hard part is setting up Cisco Call Manager, or Oracle Financials, or Apache / IIS / whatever.
As far as the desktop is concerned, you lock it down (easy to do in Linux), and set up automatic updates from a central, controlled server. Roll out your updates when the users aren't logged on, and make a forced logout procedure so users can't be logged on unless they are scheduled to work at that time.
Users should never install their own software at work. That is the second-worst cause of computer failure in the workplace. (The number one cause is incompetent admins.)
With Linux, you don't even have to worry about viruses, so you don't have the hell that AV software brings.
But, to answer your post: Linux isn't like MS-Windows.
There's many IT support staff who can't administer Unix systems and therefore they can't administer Linux.
The problem is, they can't really administer MS-Windows boxes, either.
A basic understanding of computers would give any decent admin the ability to administer a Unix system (whether it's Linux, *BSD, OpenSolaris, or any of 'em). They might have to spend a week or two installing and learning their way around the system, and to grok the Unix Way, but they could do it.
Too many MS-Windows admins learn by rote, and not by concept. Many can set up DHCP, for instance, but not have a clue what DHCP really does, other than hand out IP addresses.
Oh, well. The same is true of some Linux people I know-- they couldn't handle an MS-Windows system, because they lack fundamentals.
"There are lies, damned lies, and Microsoft promises."
We've heard it all before. Seriously. And it happens just like that: "Yeah, we know XP isn't that much of an upgrade to MS-Windows 2k, but you should see Longhorn! Oh, it's gonna be great! It'll milk your cows, skim the cream, and make fresh ice cream! It'll put your kids through college! Oh, and it'll, uh, make your complexion clear up, and get rid of your herpes!"
Every time Microsoft releases a less-than-stellar product (which is invariably), they start bragging about how great things will be in the *next* release, on which they haven't even started working. That's the Microsoft modus operandi: promise more than the competition currently has, and deliver less. Wash, rinse, repeat.
In 1985, Steve Jobs left Apple to found a new computer company. His company attracted many very talented individuals. They created the NeXT computer, a very advanced, very beautiful computer running a Unix-like operating system eventually called NeXTStep, which eventually became OSX.
I use NeXTStep as proof that Microsoft has set the computer industry back 12 years. NeXTStep used display postscript on both the video display, and for printing. It was fully-preemptive, with a clean, POSIX-compliant system interface. The application framework was extremely advanced, and extremely easy to code for. Using Objective-C as the programming language of choice, NeXTStep had some very advanced programs for the time, such as Lotus Improv, the spreadsheet MS-Excel wishes to become when it grows up.
As it is, MS-Windows still lags behind NeXTStep by a good amount, especially in terms of ease-of-development, ease-of-use, and aesthetics.
Tim Berners-Lee created the World Wide Web on a NeXT.
Anyway, when it became apparent that NeXT was not going to survive, they released a bunch of specifications that together made up the technical documentation for OpenStep, based on NeXTStep. The idea was that OS vendors could implement OpenStep APIs, and application vendors could target a single API for multiple OSs.
GnuStep is an implementation of the OpenStep API, and other programs to recreate the NeXT environment on any Unix-like operating system. Applications written for GnuStep can be recompiled to target OS X with little-to-no work.
Basically, when people say Linux needs an easy-to-use, easy-to-develop-for application environment and desktop, they are talking about GnuStep, whether they know it or not. It's not as flashy as GNOME or KDE, but it's much cleaner, easier to develop for, easier to use, and much more consistent. Where both GNOME and KDE try to be similar to MS-Windows, GnuStep tries to be like NeXTStep, the best application development and user desktop ever created.
Her grandfather ran the place. If I were a rich grandfather, and my granddaughter loved computers, I would get her the same computers I used at my super-duper dino ranch. Duh. So she would've known Unix, and she would've known the interface they used at the installation.
All this griping because the kid knew Unix was stupid. It makes sense in the context of the movie, which is all that matters. I mean, filling in dino DNA with frog DNA was ridiculous, but it worked within the confines of the movie.
At twelve, I was programming assembly language on the Apple ][ for high-speed 3D wireframe graphics (like Bill Budge's cool toolkit, only sucky). It's not surprising a bright kid wouldn't know how to fly through a 3D interface on which she already had experience thanks to her understanding and very rich grandfather.
If you say "I only play on Windows because Linux has no hardware drivers and no games, it means there is no market for these.
Microsoft has destroyed the market for Linux by disallowing Microsoft OEMs from shipping other operating systems (SEE BeOS, for instance). Microsoft fucks over other people, including their customers, just to maintain dominance.
That's why I hate Microsoft. If they played fairly, I wouldn't mind their incompetence and terrible products so much. But, since that's they only way they can survive, I guess I shouldn't hold it against them.
The USGS communications office must now be 'alerted about information products containing high-visibility topics or topics of a policy-sensitive nature.'
If that were true, then the USGS communications office wouldn't have anything to do with it. Neither the subject matter nor the conclusions would be under review, only the process by which the conclusions were reached.
I think the concept is that people don't use the computer to run local applications these days. Most folks use apps to access services, like email, web browsing, shopping on-line, etc. Since we need one thing to use our computer effectively (a modern web browser), the OS isn't nearly as important as it used to be.
I believe that's one of the reasons it's important for Microsoft to lock up various digital formats. If you can only download your music and movies in a Microsoft-approved format, you will only be able to use Microsoft-approved products to access those files. I believe the reason Microsoft is in bed with the MPAA and the RIAA is simple: they need to be the gateway to accessing pop culture. Otherwise, the only thing you need an operating system for is to display purty pictures, and to run your web browser. Linux and *BSD and the others do that very well, thank you very much.
So I think the idea is that competition has moved out into a space Microsoft does not control. Whether this is true or not is debatable. But that seems to be the gist of TFA.
They were pushed aside by a model led by Microsoft: I own my computer and can use it how I see fit.
Uhm. Yeah. See, the Apple ][ was out a long time before the IBM PC. Did you get the memo?
Microsoft didn't lead anything. Nothing at all. Back then, their best product was Flight Sim on the Apple ][. (I used to play that game for hours, flying up until the world was a postage stamp. Great game.) They had more popular products, of course, like various versions of BASIC and whatnot. I just liked Flight Sim.
But Apple was way ahead of them. Commodore was way ahead of them. Atari was way ahead of them. Compucolor was way ahead of them. Radio Shack was. . . Well. You get the picture.
Microsoft did not pioneer ease-of-use, nor the PC, nor anything like that.
Why is it Microsoft's job to simplify a process so it can be better implemented by their competitors?
From a business standpoint? It isn't Microsoft's job. From a technical standpoint? That should be obvious. (Quality control, ease of implementation, etc.)
The fact they prefer to use their dominant market position to make it harder for competitors, rather than making it better for everyone, is one of the reasons Microsoft is not good for computing, nor for business.
Let me throw in my voice as a left-leaning liberal:
The second amendment is just as important as the first amendment.
I am not a member of the NRA. I am opposed to gun control. I am a liberal.
Contradictory? Sure. But I grew up in Alaska, where 10% of the population voted for Nader in 2000, and most own guns. The whole idea that left-leaning liberals are the only ones for gun control is idiotic. It's not about the left vs. right. It's about those who support individual liberties, and those who don't. Strangely, it's not left v. right, nor libertarian v. green, nor anything else that you can easily categorize.
If you think American politics is strictly Republican v. Democrat, or R. v. D. v. Libertarian (if you are "enlightened"), you are drinking the cool-aid. Really, it's those who are for progress, and those who wish to cling to the status-quo. There are many who wish to cling to the status-quo who are for gun control, and many who are for progress that are also for gun control.
As an idealistic left-leaning libertarian, I believe gun control is evil. Not just because it is against the second amendment, but because it strips personal rights. I believe the phrase, "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State" is a preamble (as any English major would say). It's not a prerequisite.
Yet I am a liberal.
Being a leftist does not mean you do not believe in personal liberty. It means you believe we are all in this together: that we rise together, or we fall together. This doesn't apply to a country: it applies to the world. We rise together, or we fall together.
I believe in personal liberty, including the right to bear arms. (I have a pistol and a rifle, and the willingness and training to use them under the right circumstances.) I believe we have the right to say what we want, and to use our weapons to defend our right to say what we want.
Being a leftist means defending our rights, and being willing to stand up for our all our rights. That's why it's here on Slashdot. And if you think you have to be a Republican to respect the Constitution, you have another think coming. I know a lot of republicans *cough*Bush*cough* who don't respect the Constitution.
I am a leftist. And I love my Constitution. And I am willing to die defending it.
Judge Kimball did a de novo review, meaning the review was excessively thorough. This pretty much indicates that any appeal attempt will merely result in the review of Judge Kimball's work, noting that SCO has no new issues on appeal, and expediting the whole process against SCO.
Note, I'm not a lawyer. This is all the reading I get from Groklaw, which has been following the case since the beginning. If you don't frequent Groklaw, you might want to, if you are interested in the SCO case at all.
Microsoft did bring GUIs to PC users which opened up computers to a much larger audience.
As you point out, Apple had them beat by years on that, so you can't really call that innovation. You can only say that they had the market, and they used it. But the thing that made it all explode was timing. Microsoft was in the right place at the right time, and knew how to exploit their position as the supplier for the PC "OS" (DOS was more a program launcher than a real OS).
Back in the day, people bought PCs rather than Macs because, "You can't get fired for buying IBM." Apple kick-started the PC revolution. IBM was a latecomer, but managed to use their name to take over. Compaq rode on IBM's coattails by cloning the PC, creating competition and causing the prices to plummet. Microsoft rode the PC wave to become what they are. They did not create the wave. They merely exploited it, and did a damned fine job in that exploitation.
Microsoft has done some good things for the computer market, I agree. But they damage they have caused in their arrogance, greed, and lust for control far surpasses any good they have done.
Microsoft might not personally be providing the libraries to facilitate this - but there are other 3rd party vendors who are - and Microsofts new license now legitimises these.
Do you realize how bizarre this sounds? Why do we need Microsoft to "legitimize" anything like this? It's a UI element, nothing more, and they aren't even providing it, nor did they invent it.
Remember back in the '80s, when Apple sued Microsoft over the "look-and-feel" of MS-Windows? Remember how Microsoft won that battle? Now they are trying to have someone else's cake and eat it, too. They want to threaten other people concerning the use of "look-and-feel."
Bah. Fuck 'em. This is just another indication of their arrogance.
I use DotNetBar in a custom vertical app. The ribbon is going to be used for a lot of stuff because it's the new cool bright shiny thing, and the menu bar is old and broken. But, that won't stop it from sucking.
The US military did not execute dozens of kids at Kent State. It was the Ohio national guard, and they only killed four.
And those four probably deserved it, because they were questioning the authority of the US President (may God bless him and guide his every move). That makes 'em pinko commie hippie Ruskii-lovers in my book. They probably killed and ate babies. If they were in Iran, they wouldn't've even had the right to protest-- they would've gotten a lot worse than killed, let me assure you.
So let's not exaggerate.
(This shouldn't be necessary, but DISCLAIMER: post drips with irony. Handle with proper protective gear.)
The leader of the coup was General Sonthi Boonyaratglin. This is Professor Sitthichai Pokai-udom, who was appointed to be IT minister.
As far as Thaksin Shinawatra, the old PM, goes: there is evidence he was not exactly transparent. He kept delaying the elections he had promised. He kept stalling investigations into abuse of his power.
The new PM has promised elections. Let's hope we see them soon.
And, in general, companies like closed source for the simple fact that they have known support and someone they can blame in the case of a disaster.
I can understand that people don't realize there is ample support for free software. But to think that you can blame a software company for failure of said software is wrong-headed. It just doesn't work. There has never been a case in which Microsoft, Oracle, or SAP has taken responsibility for their failed software. "Oh, that massive Active Directory rollout didn't work? Sorry about that. Here's your tens of thousands of dollars back." Riiiiggght.
There has *never* been a software company that has taken the blame for a "disaster." Near as I can tell, even the Therac-25 disasters, which resulted in several deaths of medical patients over the course of two years, didn't result in any serious troubles for the manufacturer.
Using "vendor responsibility" or "someone to blame" when discussing software is ridiculous, and I think everyone knows it. If they don't, they shouldn't be in the position to make buying decisions.
In one example of Standard's aggressive practices, a rival oil association decided to build an oil pipeline, hoping to overcome the virtual boycott imposed on Standard's competitors. In response, the railroad company (at Rockefeller's direction) denied the consortium permission to run the pipeline across railway land, forcing consortium staff to laboriously decant the oil into barrels, carry them over the railway crossing in carts, and then pump the oil manually back into the pipeline on the other side. When he learned of this tactic, Rockefeller then instructed the railway company to park empty rail cars across the line, thereby preventing the carts from crossing his property.
This is an excellent example of what I'm talking about. To use RMS's description of the free market, it is often portrayed as a race, which goes to the fastest and fittest. But what happens when racers start punching each other, or having other people drive them over? Suddenly it isn't a race, it's a fistfight, which always go to the meanest and most willing to cause harm.
This is just one example of how Standard Oil used their size and clout to impede their competitors. Of course Standard Oil could sell their oil cheaper: they made sure their competitors were not allowed the efficiencies Standard Oil could get. This is a case of artificial regulation not from the state, but from the larger company making sure they don't have any competition.
Oh, one thing I had intended to say in my last post:
It seems we both definitely agree getting rid of patents, and probably copyright, would be a step in the right direction. I'll support you 110% on that.
Without a tyranny in the State, a company producing a product or service would have competition -- no matter how big that company is.
Okay, we're both wandering off into complete speculation at this point, so any argument we have is going to be based on rhetoric and gut feelings, but I'm really enjoying this discussion, as you are one of the first rational free-market proponents I've met.
So, with that in mind:
The problems with all corporations results from their one desire: to maximize profit. They will do all they can until they can regulate the market themselves. Yes, I believe all market giants are doomed to fail. But they can do a lot of economic and social damage before they *do* fail.
I do not like large government. I do not trust the government, of whatever size. But in a power void, I firmly believe (and I believe history supports me in this) that large corporations will step into the void and assume the role of regulators. And I trust corporations even less than I trust the government. The government is stupid, and capricious, and contradictory. Corporations are directed toward one thing: exploiting resources to make the largest amount of money possible.
Until we live in a time when people learn to respect each other above their desire to get rich, corporations will be worse than government. Competition won't help, because competitors will team up to exploit "consumers" (through price fixing, for instance) to maximize short-term profits. Then they will turn on each other, shift alliances, and still the ones to suffer most will be the people.
The one big assumption the free market requires is that all competitors are equally powerful. This just isn't so. Without that assumption, the more powerful will cause harm to the less-powerful, and end up regulating the market to their own end.
I'm not saying that's not the way things *should* be. I'm just saying that people always game the system to their best advantage. What you propose is a fantasy. Nobody would create software that way if they could use the system to their own advantage. I agree with your idealism. That'd be great. But it's also not the way it would be.
I'm never quite sure where I fall on copyright law. I write, and I know how hard it would be for writers to make a living without copyright protection. But, like you, I feel the prohibition against the free exchange of information is also wrong.
I used to be dead set against software patents, because I felt that software was too much like mathematics. Then I realized I'm dead set against any and all patents.
I don't know enough about trademark law to have any opinion, but I do know that trademark laws are abused.
And that the problem: any system that allows any behavior will result in exploitative behavior. The arguments in favor of a free, unregulated market (that is, "let the market decide") always remind me of vigilantism: if someone murders, let the family of the person murdered punish the murderer. An unregulated market would result in the larger corporations using their market force to regulate the market, and the citizens will never get much of a say.
Laws against violating someone's body, physical property or tools I can understand (even if I don't support them)> Laws preventing how I use my tools, on my land, with my hands, are ridiculous. Laws preventing how I think are also wrong. Copyright and patent laws are both laws against you using your land, your tools and your mind.
I agree completely.
There was an interesting case recently in which a company created a meta-jig. This meta-jig was used for constructing other, perfect jigs. You could even use it to construct another meta-jig.
To purchase this meta-jig, a person had to agree to what amounted to a contract, swearing they would not use this meta-jig to create other meta-jigs.
That's the loophole that would be exploited by software companies and others in place of copyright and patent laws: trade secrets (currently not covered by copyright or patents, and the focus of the EU's orders against Microsoft) and contracts.
They *would* do this. They already do this to gain more control than copyright or patent law gives them currently. Yes, we should certainly strike down patent laws, and perhaps even copyright. But that won't change essentially destructive corporate self-interest. When the corporations control the market (such as IBM did years ago, and Microsoft does now), they warp the market to their own favor. They will do this no matter what laws exist or do not exist.
Slashdot Mirror
So you'd rather pay 47,270 per year per cop for them to stand guard in public areas, than add around sixty really nice cameras, or a few hundred middlin cameras.
Yep. I sure would.
One cop doesn't need to stand around. He needs to walk a beat, like they used to do. Cops are more visible than cameras. Seeing one cop is more likely to stop a crime than a hundred, or two hundred, cameras. Look at the number of people who put on their brakes every time they see a cop car sitting along the road.
The cop is a visible reminder that there are people watching. They are a reassurance to those who are not criminal by nature, and a deterrent to those who are. They make people feel much safer than any number of cameras, without intruding on our personal lives.
Cameras everywhere make everyone feel guilty, because we are all guilty in one way or another. Most of us jaywalk, speed, put weasels down our trousers for the purposes of gambling, litter, don't use our turn signals, curse in public (illegal in many places in the US), and are generally ill-behaved.
Fuck the cameras. They don't help a damned thing. If people want to feel safe, put cops on the street, walking the beat like they used to do.
Does that mean installing/uninstalling software under linux is now standardized, logical and quick, even for people who never used it before? Have you ever watched a new linux user try to install all their software onto a linux box without any help? Linux will not get any mainstream adoption until THAT need is addressed, and that's a promise.
Promise all you want. Linux is already mainstream.
We're talking server here. The article is talking server. The thing it overlooks is that Linux is *already* a major enterprise player.
And when it comes to installing / uninstalling enterprise server software, MS-Windows doesn't have a standard way of installing/uninstalling. The "putting the software where it goes" piece is covered: every major GNU/Linux distro has a standard way of installing and uninstalling. MS-Windows has a semi-standard way.
But the hard part isn't putting the software where it needs to go. The hard part is setting up Cisco Call Manager, or Oracle Financials, or Apache / IIS / whatever.
As far as the desktop is concerned, you lock it down (easy to do in Linux), and set up automatic updates from a central, controlled server. Roll out your updates when the users aren't logged on, and make a forced logout procedure so users can't be logged on unless they are scheduled to work at that time.
Users should never install their own software at work. That is the second-worst cause of computer failure in the workplace. (The number one cause is incompetent admins.)
With Linux, you don't even have to worry about viruses, so you don't have the hell that AV software brings.
But, to answer your post: Linux isn't like MS-Windows.
Thank God.
There's many IT support staff who can't administer Unix systems and therefore they can't administer Linux.
The problem is, they can't really administer MS-Windows boxes, either.
A basic understanding of computers would give any decent admin the ability to administer a Unix system (whether it's Linux, *BSD, OpenSolaris, or any of 'em). They might have to spend a week or two installing and learning their way around the system, and to grok the Unix Way, but they could do it.
Too many MS-Windows admins learn by rote, and not by concept. Many can set up DHCP, for instance, but not have a clue what DHCP really does, other than hand out IP addresses.
Oh, well. The same is true of some Linux people I know-- they couldn't handle an MS-Windows system, because they lack fundamentals.
Vista has been officially released on MSDN for over a month now.
So what? It's been officially released on Gnutella for almost three months.
"There are lies, damned lies, and Microsoft promises."
We've heard it all before. Seriously. And it happens just like that: "Yeah, we know XP isn't that much of an upgrade to MS-Windows 2k, but you should see Longhorn! Oh, it's gonna be great! It'll milk your cows, skim the cream, and make fresh ice cream! It'll put your kids through college! Oh, and it'll, uh, make your complexion clear up, and get rid of your herpes!"
Every time Microsoft releases a less-than-stellar product (which is invariably), they start bragging about how great things will be in the *next* release, on which they haven't even started working. That's the Microsoft modus operandi: promise more than the competition currently has, and deliver less. Wash, rinse, repeat.
In 1985, Steve Jobs left Apple to found a new computer company. His company attracted many very talented individuals. They created the NeXT computer, a very advanced, very beautiful computer running a Unix-like operating system eventually called NeXTStep, which eventually became OSX.
I use NeXTStep as proof that Microsoft has set the computer industry back 12 years. NeXTStep used display postscript on both the video display, and for printing. It was fully-preemptive, with a clean, POSIX-compliant system interface. The application framework was extremely advanced, and extremely easy to code for. Using Objective-C as the programming language of choice, NeXTStep had some very advanced programs for the time, such as Lotus Improv, the spreadsheet MS-Excel wishes to become when it grows up.
As it is, MS-Windows still lags behind NeXTStep by a good amount, especially in terms of ease-of-development, ease-of-use, and aesthetics.
Tim Berners-Lee created the World Wide Web on a NeXT.
Anyway, when it became apparent that NeXT was not going to survive, they released a bunch of specifications that together made up the technical documentation for OpenStep, based on NeXTStep. The idea was that OS vendors could implement OpenStep APIs, and application vendors could target a single API for multiple OSs.
GnuStep is an implementation of the OpenStep API, and other programs to recreate the NeXT environment on any Unix-like operating system. Applications written for GnuStep can be recompiled to target OS X with little-to-no work.
Basically, when people say Linux needs an easy-to-use, easy-to-develop-for application environment and desktop, they are talking about GnuStep, whether they know it or not. It's not as flashy as GNOME or KDE, but it's much cleaner, easier to develop for, easier to use, and much more consistent. Where both GNOME and KDE try to be similar to MS-Windows, GnuStep tries to be like NeXTStep, the best application development and user desktop ever created.
Her grandfather ran the place. If I were a rich grandfather, and my granddaughter loved computers, I would get her the same computers I used at my super-duper dino ranch. Duh. So she would've known Unix, and she would've known the interface they used at the installation.
All this griping because the kid knew Unix was stupid. It makes sense in the context of the movie, which is all that matters. I mean, filling in dino DNA with frog DNA was ridiculous, but it worked within the confines of the movie.
At twelve, I was programming assembly language on the Apple ][ for high-speed 3D wireframe graphics (like Bill Budge's cool toolkit, only sucky). It's not surprising a bright kid wouldn't know how to fly through a 3D interface on which she already had experience thanks to her understanding and very rich grandfather.
If you say "I only play on Windows because Linux has no hardware drivers and no games, it means there is no market for these.
Microsoft has destroyed the market for Linux by disallowing Microsoft OEMs from shipping other operating systems (SEE BeOS, for instance). Microsoft fucks over other people, including their customers, just to maintain dominance.
That's why I hate Microsoft. If they played fairly, I wouldn't mind their incompetence and terrible products so much. But, since that's they only way they can survive, I guess I shouldn't hold it against them.
From TFS:
The USGS communications office must now be 'alerted about information products containing high-visibility topics or topics of a policy-sensitive nature.'
If that were true, then the USGS communications office wouldn't have anything to do with it. Neither the subject matter nor the conclusions would be under review, only the process by which the conclusions were reached.
This sounds like political spin control to me.
You might check out the writings of Bishop John Shelby Spong. He writes in great detail with great wit and intelligence on these very thoughts.
You are not alone. More believe like you than you think.
Me, I believe all of it, except in God, and embracing religion.
I think the concept is that people don't use the computer to run local applications these days. Most folks use apps to access services, like email, web browsing, shopping on-line, etc. Since we need one thing to use our computer effectively (a modern web browser), the OS isn't nearly as important as it used to be.
I believe that's one of the reasons it's important for Microsoft to lock up various digital formats. If you can only download your music and movies in a Microsoft-approved format, you will only be able to use Microsoft-approved products to access those files. I believe the reason Microsoft is in bed with the MPAA and the RIAA is simple: they need to be the gateway to accessing pop culture. Otherwise, the only thing you need an operating system for is to display purty pictures, and to run your web browser. Linux and *BSD and the others do that very well, thank you very much.
So I think the idea is that competition has moved out into a space Microsoft does not control. Whether this is true or not is debatable. But that seems to be the gist of TFA.
They were pushed aside by a model led by Microsoft: I own my computer and can use it how I see fit.
Uhm. Yeah. See, the Apple ][ was out a long time before the IBM PC. Did you get the memo?
Microsoft didn't lead anything. Nothing at all. Back then, their best product was Flight Sim on the Apple ][. (I used to play that game for hours, flying up until the world was a postage stamp. Great game.) They had more popular products, of course, like various versions of BASIC and whatnot. I just liked Flight Sim.
But Apple was way ahead of them. Commodore was way ahead of them. Atari was way ahead of them. Compucolor was way ahead of them. Radio Shack was. . . Well. You get the picture.
Microsoft did not pioneer ease-of-use, nor the PC, nor anything like that.
Yeah. I'll send you a copy of that memo.
Why is it Microsoft's job to simplify a process so it can be better implemented by their competitors?
From a business standpoint? It isn't Microsoft's job. From a technical standpoint? That should be obvious. (Quality control, ease of implementation, etc.)
The fact they prefer to use their dominant market position to make it harder for competitors, rather than making it better for everyone, is one of the reasons Microsoft is not good for computing, nor for business.
Let me throw in my voice as a left-leaning liberal:
The second amendment is just as important as the first amendment.
I am not a member of the NRA. I am opposed to gun control. I am a liberal.
Contradictory? Sure. But I grew up in Alaska, where 10% of the population voted for Nader in 2000, and most own guns. The whole idea that left-leaning liberals are the only ones for gun control is idiotic. It's not about the left vs. right. It's about those who support individual liberties, and those who don't. Strangely, it's not left v. right, nor libertarian v. green, nor anything else that you can easily categorize.
If you think American politics is strictly Republican v. Democrat, or R. v. D. v. Libertarian (if you are "enlightened"), you are drinking the cool-aid. Really, it's those who are for progress, and those who wish to cling to the status-quo. There are many who wish to cling to the status-quo who are for gun control, and many who are for progress that are also for gun control.
As an idealistic left-leaning libertarian, I believe gun control is evil. Not just because it is against the second amendment, but because it strips personal rights. I believe the phrase, "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State" is a preamble (as any English major would say). It's not a prerequisite.
Yet I am a liberal.
Being a leftist does not mean you do not believe in personal liberty. It means you believe we are all in this together: that we rise together, or we fall together. This doesn't apply to a country: it applies to the world. We rise together, or we fall together.
I believe in personal liberty, including the right to bear arms. (I have a pistol and a rifle, and the willingness and training to use them under the right circumstances.) I believe we have the right to say what we want, and to use our weapons to defend our right to say what we want.
Being a leftist means defending our rights, and being willing to stand up for our all our rights. That's why it's here on Slashdot. And if you think you have to be a Republican to respect the Constitution, you have another think coming. I know a lot of republicans *cough*Bush*cough* who don't respect the Constitution.
I am a leftist. And I love my Constitution. And I am willing to die defending it.
Are you?
(jerk is a derivative of acceleration, in turn a derivative of velocity, thence a
derivative of position)
It's been a few years since my physics days, but I'm pretty sure velocity is a derivative of acceleration, and position is a derivative of velocity.
Judge Kimball did a de novo review, meaning the review was excessively thorough. This pretty much indicates that any appeal attempt will merely result in the review of Judge Kimball's work, noting that SCO has no new issues on appeal, and expediting the whole process against SCO.
Note, I'm not a lawyer. This is all the reading I get from Groklaw, which has been following the case since the beginning. If you don't frequent Groklaw, you might want to, if you are interested in the SCO case at all.
Microsoft did bring GUIs to PC users which opened up computers to a much larger audience.
As you point out, Apple had them beat by years on that, so you can't really call that innovation. You can only say that they had the market, and they used it. But the thing that made it all explode was timing. Microsoft was in the right place at the right time, and knew how to exploit their position as the supplier for the PC "OS" (DOS was more a program launcher than a real OS).
Back in the day, people bought PCs rather than Macs because, "You can't get fired for buying IBM." Apple kick-started the PC revolution. IBM was a latecomer, but managed to use their name to take over. Compaq rode on IBM's coattails by cloning the PC, creating competition and causing the prices to plummet. Microsoft rode the PC wave to become what they are. They did not create the wave. They merely exploited it, and did a damned fine job in that exploitation.
Microsoft has done some good things for the computer market, I agree. But they damage they have caused in their arrogance, greed, and lust for control far surpasses any good they have done.
Microsoft might not personally be providing the libraries to facilitate this - but there are other 3rd party vendors who are - and Microsofts new license now legitimises these.
Do you realize how bizarre this sounds? Why do we need Microsoft to "legitimize" anything like this? It's a UI element, nothing more, and they aren't even providing it, nor did they invent it.
Remember back in the '80s, when Apple sued Microsoft over the "look-and-feel" of MS-Windows? Remember how Microsoft won that battle? Now they are trying to have someone else's cake and eat it, too. They want to threaten other people concerning the use of "look-and-feel."
Bah. Fuck 'em. This is just another indication of their arrogance.
I use DotNetBar in a custom vertical app. The ribbon is going to be used for a lot of stuff because it's the new cool bright shiny thing, and the menu bar is old and broken. But, that won't stop it from sucking.
The US military did not execute dozens of kids at Kent State. It was the Ohio national guard, and they only killed four.
And those four probably deserved it, because they were questioning the authority of the US President (may God bless him and guide his every move). That makes 'em pinko commie hippie Ruskii-lovers in my book. They probably killed and ate babies. If they were in Iran, they wouldn't've even had the right to protest-- they would've gotten a lot worse than killed, let me assure you.
So let's not exaggerate.
(This shouldn't be necessary, but DISCLAIMER: post drips with irony. Handle with proper protective gear.)
The leader of the coup was General Sonthi Boonyaratglin. This is Professor Sitthichai Pokai-udom, who was appointed to be IT minister.
As far as Thaksin Shinawatra, the old PM, goes: there is evidence he was not exactly transparent. He kept delaying the elections he had promised. He kept stalling investigations into abuse of his power.
The new PM has promised elections. Let's hope we see them soon.
And, in general, companies like closed source for the simple fact that they have known support and someone they can blame in the case of a disaster.
I can understand that people don't realize there is ample support for free software. But to think that you can blame a software company for failure of said software is wrong-headed. It just doesn't work. There has never been a case in which Microsoft, Oracle, or SAP has taken responsibility for their failed software. "Oh, that massive Active Directory rollout didn't work? Sorry about that. Here's your tens of thousands of dollars back." Riiiiggght.
There has *never* been a software company that has taken the blame for a "disaster." Near as I can tell, even the Therac-25 disasters, which resulted in several deaths of medical patients over the course of two years, didn't result in any serious troubles for the manufacturer.
Using "vendor responsibility" or "someone to blame" when discussing software is ridiculous, and I think everyone knows it. If they don't, they shouldn't be in the position to make buying decisions.
In one example of Standard's aggressive practices, a rival oil association decided to build an oil pipeline, hoping to overcome the virtual boycott imposed on Standard's competitors. In response, the railroad company (at Rockefeller's direction) denied the consortium permission to run the pipeline across railway land, forcing consortium staff to laboriously decant the oil into barrels, carry them over the railway crossing in carts, and then pump the oil manually back into the pipeline on the other side. When he learned of this tactic, Rockefeller then instructed the railway company to park empty rail cars across the line, thereby preventing the carts from crossing his property.
This is an excellent example of what I'm talking about. To use RMS's description of the free market, it is often portrayed as a race, which goes to the fastest and fittest. But what happens when racers start punching each other, or having other people drive them over? Suddenly it isn't a race, it's a fistfight, which always go to the meanest and most willing to cause harm.
This is just one example of how Standard Oil used their size and clout to impede their competitors. Of course Standard Oil could sell their oil cheaper: they made sure their competitors were not allowed the efficiencies Standard Oil could get. This is a case of artificial regulation not from the state, but from the larger company making sure they don't have any competition.
Oh, one thing I had intended to say in my last post:
It seems we both definitely agree getting rid of patents, and probably copyright, would be a step in the right direction. I'll support you 110% on that.
Without a tyranny in the State, a company producing a product or service would have competition -- no matter how big that company is.
Okay, we're both wandering off into complete speculation at this point, so any argument we have is going to be based on rhetoric and gut feelings, but I'm really enjoying this discussion, as you are one of the first rational free-market proponents I've met.
So, with that in mind:
The problems with all corporations results from their one desire: to maximize profit. They will do all they can until they can regulate the market themselves. Yes, I believe all market giants are doomed to fail. But they can do a lot of economic and social damage before they *do* fail.
I do not like large government. I do not trust the government, of whatever size. But in a power void, I firmly believe (and I believe history supports me in this) that large corporations will step into the void and assume the role of regulators. And I trust corporations even less than I trust the government. The government is stupid, and capricious, and contradictory. Corporations are directed toward one thing: exploiting resources to make the largest amount of money possible.
Until we live in a time when people learn to respect each other above their desire to get rich, corporations will be worse than government. Competition won't help, because competitors will team up to exploit "consumers" (through price fixing, for instance) to maximize short-term profits. Then they will turn on each other, shift alliances, and still the ones to suffer most will be the people.
The one big assumption the free market requires is that all competitors are equally powerful. This just isn't so. Without that assumption, the more powerful will cause harm to the less-powerful, and end up regulating the market to their own end.
At least, that's my very cynical observation.
I'm not saying that's not the way things *should* be. I'm just saying that people always game the system to their best advantage. What you propose is a fantasy. Nobody would create software that way if they could use the system to their own advantage. I agree with your idealism. That'd be great. But it's also not the way it would be.
I'm never quite sure where I fall on copyright law. I write, and I know how hard it would be for writers to make a living without copyright protection. But, like you, I feel the prohibition against the free exchange of information is also wrong.
I used to be dead set against software patents, because I felt that software was too much like mathematics. Then I realized I'm dead set against any and all patents.
I don't know enough about trademark law to have any opinion, but I do know that trademark laws are abused.
And that the problem: any system that allows any behavior will result in exploitative behavior. The arguments in favor of a free, unregulated market (that is, "let the market decide") always remind me of vigilantism: if someone murders, let the family of the person murdered punish the murderer. An unregulated market would result in the larger corporations using their market force to regulate the market, and the citizens will never get much of a say.
Laws against violating someone's body, physical property or tools I can understand (even if I don't support them)> Laws preventing how I use my tools, on my land, with my hands, are ridiculous. Laws preventing how I think are also wrong. Copyright and patent laws are both laws against you using your land, your tools and your mind.
I agree completely.
There was an interesting case recently in which a company created a meta-jig. This meta-jig was used for constructing other, perfect jigs. You could even use it to construct another meta-jig.
To purchase this meta-jig, a person had to agree to what amounted to a contract, swearing they would not use this meta-jig to create other meta-jigs.
That's the loophole that would be exploited by software companies and others in place of copyright and patent laws: trade secrets (currently not covered by copyright or patents, and the focus of the EU's orders against Microsoft) and contracts.
They *would* do this. They already do this to gain more control than copyright or patent law gives them currently. Yes, we should certainly strike down patent laws, and perhaps even copyright. But that won't change essentially destructive corporate self-interest. When the corporations control the market (such as IBM did years ago, and Microsoft does now), they warp the market to their own favor. They will do this no matter what laws exist or do not exist.