But, really, this is simple speculation, and complete bullshit anyway. There's no reason to assume he wouldn't've, and every reason to assume he would. Americans wanted someone to blame for the attack. Americans (and the world in general) were behind the invasion of Afghanistan. I doubt Gore would've just sat on his ass after 9/11.
And, better, he wouldn't've invaded Iraq, especially on trumped-up non-9/11 pretexts, taking our eyes off Afghanistan. If you read the news, things aren't going well in either Iraq *or* Afghanistan. Bush hasn't successfully ousted the Taliban from Afghanistan yet. And he hasn't caught bin Laden, either. So, he's 0 for 2. 0 for 3 if you count the faisco in Iraq.
The fact is, Bush has put America in more danger. Instead of taking care of the problem, he's fucked up two foreign contries, squandered the good-will America had after 9/11, lied to and spied on his own citizens, ignored domestic issues, spent our future so the Chinese government owns even more of the US, increased the size of government tremendously, increased the power of the executive branch over the other two branches of government so we no longer have effective checks-and-balances, and has labeled everyone who criticises him as "anti-Patriotic." The two countries he's fucked up are breeding grounds for people who have reason to hate America now. Those "insurgents" aren't all old terrorists. Many of them are citizens of Iraq who have been let down by America's inability to rebuild the infrastructure we destroyed. They don't care that it's not all our fault, that we've been hindered by lack of cooperation from Iraq itself.
All they know is, life is much, much worse in Iraq now that America is in charge.
Basically put, none of the candidates were all that hot; it's getting towards picking the least foul one rather than one you like the most as all of them stink to varying degrees.
Amen to that.
Bush was the worst of all possible candidates. Nader would've been a helluva lot better, even. The scary thing is, we elected him the second time through as well, after seeing what a lying, scheming bastard he really is. Bush turned out to be far, far worse than I imagined. The fact we re-elected him just shows that Americans don't really care about candidates, they just care about "red vs blue," like we were voting for our favorite sports team or something, and we're going to stand by our team, no matter how suck-ass they are, and we're going to shout about how terrible the other team is, no matter how good they really are.
It's not just a matter of counting the votes at all. That's the easy part.
One would think.
So why does Diebold keep fucking it up? They can't even handle the counting part properly. How can we trust them to get the rest of it right?
But, the post to which you reply simply presents a user scenario, and did not discuss the complexity of rolling out a system that will handle the tedious management of presenting a voter with the proper information. A fully-integrated, secure, auditable system would be far superior to the current method of rolling out a paper ballot, recalling the ballot because of last-minute changes (for instance, the case where one candidate died before the election, but it was too late to remove his name from the ballot, and he won), and generally fighting to the last minute with ballot distribution.
A secure, auditable electronic voting system would be much better. A soundproof booth could be set up for blind voters, for instance, and the ballot could be read to them, and they vote by stating out-loud, "I vote no on measure 2." Or simply, "No," in response to, "How do you vote on measure 2?"
But I'm a pollyanna when it comes to stuff like this.
. . . "Snakes on the Plane" is the kind of movie you see on dvd.
No way! I went to see the first showing on Thursday night. My wife and I and our niece have been waiting for this movie for months, since Samuel L. Jackson was on The Daily Show talking about this movie.
Half the fun was sitting with other folks who enjoyed the campiness, the general "this is a bad movie and we know it" feel. The surprise was, SoaP turned out to be a good movie. Just candy, yes, but every once in a while, I like a big heaping bowl of ice cream, with hot fudge and butterscotch. That's what this movie was: pure candy, with no apologies. And still it was a decent movie.
Anyway, the audience was great, and made it well worth going to the theater for this movie.
Microsoft wouldn't port MS-Office to Linux just because it's profitable. Microsoft attempts to destroy anything that might be a threat to their MS-Windows / MS-Office hegemony, their only real source of income. MS-Exchange sells mostly because MS-Outlook is bundled with their other products, and because it fits into the MS-Windows world.
Microsoft doesn't cooperate with anything or anybody that might harm their desktop dominance, because that's the only thing keeping them alive right now. There's nothing profitable about Microsoft that isn't tied directly to MS-Windows. With Vista so long delayed, they haven't had a recent upgrade cycle to pump a lot of money out of other corporations. They certainly won't release a version of MS-Office for Linux until Vista is as widely deployed as XP is now.
Make no mistake. Microsoft is not interested in anything that doesn't push MS-Windows on the desktop. Even MS-Office for the Mac is a very low priority, there mostly because of past deals with Apple, and because they don't see Apple as a threat on the desktop yet.
Linux is a different matter. Linux isn't a threat yet, either, but Microsoft sees how it might be. All it takes is a few high-profile deployments of Linux / Open Office / Firefox on the desktop, and Linux might suddenly displace MS-Windows during Microsoft's next forced-march upgrade cycle, when OEMs no longer bundle XP, and suddenly everyone has to upgrade because the new version of MS-Office doesn't work properly on XP.
It's likely this won't happen. But it might. And so Microsoft is probably more frightened of Linux than they are of Mac OS X.
At least, that's how I understand the situation, based on years of watching Microsoft deal with potential threats to their OS stanglehold.
Giving up your freedoms is not winning, whether it's some ill-defined "war on terror," or getting Linux to a larger audience.
Why should *we* become what *they* want? If Linux is good for them, they will use it. If not, they won't. Big humongous liver-flavored deal. I don't care if businesses adopt Linux or not. I just care that I have the freedom to use Linux on hardware I purchase, and have the freedom to work on the software I want without danger of a slap-happy patent lawsuit.
If we go down the path of sacrificing principles, we are likely to lose those freedoms.
. . . how is Apple and Google any different than Yahoo, Microsoft, or any other big corporation? They're publicly traded companies, and profit is their main concern.
Let's see. Apple makes excellent products and charges a bit more for them. They don't try to lock-in users, nor do they threaten, bully, or try to destroy their own customers (in Microsoft's case, the OEMs).
Google sells ad impressions to other companies. The end-user isn't their customer, it's other companies, who come to Google to purchase ad impressions.
The difference is, both Apple and Google treat their customers as people with money who want goods or services, and they try to attract customers by creating good products, or provided excellent service. Microsoft treats their customers like open wallets. They sell things by being the only game in town, and making sure there is no other game in town.
Making a profit does not require fucking over everyone in the process.
Frankly, the problem is that lawyers and to some extent business people don't understand how programming works.
But they understand biochemistry, metallurgy, and electrical engineering, right?
If that's the problem, then the same problem applies to the other areas mentioned. Lawyers understand law, and society, and logic. The good ones also understand people. In general, they aren't too knowledgable about the sciences and engineering fields.
I used to think that patents were a good thing. I don't think so any more. The more we try to tie up knowledge of any sort whatsoever, the worse we are as a whole. I used to think it was only fair to give the inventor of a new method a temporary monopoly, but that's when I thought individuals held patents, not major corporations.
I see only two solutions. One: get rid of patents altogether. That's the best solution. The second solution isn't as good, but it'll work a lot better than the current system: only the individual or individuals who create a new method may hold the patent. It is non-transferable. Corporations may not hold patents themselves, nor can the inventors sell or give away the patent. They may, of course, license the patent, but they are the only ones who can enforce the patent rights. A third party may not attempt to enforce the patents at all.
Yes, I know. Corporations would then enter into binding contracts with the patent holders for exclusive, transferable rights to a patent, then buy and sell those as if they were the patents themselves. But it's a start.
Come to think of it, the same system could be applied to music and movies. Only those individuals who create the song or film may hold copyright, and copyright is non-transferable. The only thing a music company can do is negotiate distribution rights.
Out of curiosity, can the government use an "eminent domain" style procedure to take control of a patent or force it into the public domain, in the interest of public safety or national security?
This is the best damned idea ever. If the government mandates the use of something (broadcast bit, this safety feature, etc), they should force the ideas, patents, etc, of the product into the public domain, so that anyone can benefit.
Otherwise, they shouldn't be able to mandate its use.
That would get rid of a lot of unnecessary "mandated" regulations, and keep people from trying to force their patent down everyone's throat for their own benefit, rather than the good of society.
Seriously, consider the following examples to upgrade a machine or an application:
Ubuntu:
1. little icon appears in system launch panel thingy. Pop-up tooltip tells me I have 94 updates to install. 2. Click icon. 3. Enter my own password. 4. Profit!
Seriously, the whole upgrade thing has been a non-issue for a while now. Suse and Red Hat have had similar non-command-line tools for several years. It's not as easy to use as OSX, but it's damned close, and better than the MS-Windows method of upgrade.
I have installed Ubuntu on several computers for non-techies. It works very, very well as a desktop system. I bet the same could be said of Suse and Fedora, too, though I haven't tried either of them in a couple of years. (I'm a Debian snob.)
Or with several different versions of its own operating systems, each with its own quirks and incompatibilities?
Complex software systems are, well, complex. Rolling out an Active Directory infrastructure is a pain in the ass. It's just part of the business.
Suse isn't that different from Red Hat which isn't that different from Ubuntu. The concepts are all the same, and the web is there for anything that might be different (layout of init scripts, location of default configuration scripts,/etc).
It's all just the same old FUD, wrapped up in new banana leaves and presented as haute cuisine. What else should we expect from an employee of Microsoft? Refreshing honesty? Yeah, I can see that: "Hey, everybody! Computers are fantastic! Yes, Microsoft has fucked up the industry and set us back a few years, but they are still great, and we're much, much better than we were. So, go out an use computers, and make them all work together to do the job you need. Free software is great, because you can customize it and it gives you the freedom you need, but hey, Microsoft products are great, too, because they are flashy and pretty, and the admin GUIs really work, and they don't crash like they used to.
"Oh, and Bill totally rulez. Jobs completely droolz."
What is wrong with inventors getting patents for their inventions?
Besides the whole government-created monopoly thing, and the fact that patents stifle "innovation" (a word that has been said so many times it means nothing anymore), nothing is wrong with inventors getting patents for their inventions.
The problem is that many patents are given to corporations. As many people have repeated time and again, corporations are not people, and so shouldn't be punished for things that the people in charge of the corporation do.
By the same token, corporations should not be allowed to hold patents, as corporations (not being people) cannot invent anything. Only the people in the corporation can invent things. As things currently stand (and will continue to stand for the forseeable future), corporations are able to "own" the patent.
To answer all the "but the corporation paid for it" responses, that shouldn't matter. A corporation may sponsor the investigations that lead to a patent for an exclusive license on the patent, but the patent should belong, in a non-transferable for, to the inventor or inventors.
The "non-transferable" part is very important. That'll put a damper on patent trolls.
Well, it's still protected from those of us that do know how to circumvent CSS . ..
Not unless you also avoid using P2P software to download music, which is the claimed purpose of DRM in the first place: to stop casual piracy.
So, it won't stop P2P (DMCA notwithstanding-- copyright infringement is also currently illegal). It won't stop people from downloading software to copy it to their iPods. It basically just won't change anything at all.
I can see WB and other music folks offering entire back catalogs of musicians, or monster anthologies, on DVD. I'd pay big bucks for high-quality, unencumbered collections of all the old soul classics, or a comprehensive anthology of psychodelia, or even an overview of all of a label's current top artists. It'd be cool to get one DVD filled with all that old '70s music you never hear and can't find: Paperlace, Starbuck, War, Jigsaw, 10cc, etc. I'd pay $20 for a DVD of all those old bad one-hit wonders.
That'd be cool, but it ain't happening, because music companies don't give a damn what people *want*, they push what they want to *sell*. And no matter what they do, they won't stop on-line downloads from being the next big distribution mechanism.
So, let's see. It's okay to destroy a portion of a national forest for profit, but it's not okay for a couple of kids to pull off some branches from a tree?
I'm sure with a chainsaw, the kids could do some serious damage to the tree. We should definitely outlaw the selling of chainsaws to minors. Without a chainsaw, what're they going to do? I doubt they could do much real harm to the tree.
A "warning" would've been a cop saying, "Hey! You kids in that tree! What do you think you're doing? Well, get down from there and don't do it anymore!" That would've been a warning. What they got was harrassed, which is a form of intimidation, which is far beyond what the situation as described deserved.
There's no defense for the actions of the cops. There's no reason to teach our kids to be scared of any adventurous actions, except to satisfy the sense of power our law-enforcement officers enjoy.
You seem to be saying that Microsoft got 95% of the market by leveraging their market dominance in an "illegal" way.
They were convicted of using their dominant market share (gained via IBM's entry into the PC business back when Apple and Commodore were the top dogs) to maintain their current market share. The question was, "Why does MS have 95%....", not, "How did they get it?"
Microsoft got dominant because they road on the the coat-tails of the dominant computer force of the time (IBM). They maintained their dominance through unethical behavior (the whole DR-DOS thing, followed up through Netscape, etc).
The "illegal anti-trust" activities are only "illegal" and "anti-trust" once you already have dominant marketshare, which they achieved by providing superior value (in conjunction with the hardware vendors) to the consumers.
I thought the question was about how Microsoft has 95% share today (which they don't, any longer), rather than how they got it? In that case, the GP poster is correct.
But, 'superior value?' Not by any real metric I've ever seen. Microsoft gained market dominance with IBM. Once Compaq cloned the hardware, Microsoft made exclusive distribution deals with them (Compaq just needed an OS). Every big manufacturer of computers went to Microsoft for the OS, because Microsoft was the only game in town.
When DR-DOS started picking up market share because it provided superior value, Microsoft basically told the computer sellers, "If you want to ship MS-DOS, you can't give the consumer the choice of DR-DOS." Later, when MS-Windows finally took off (with MS-Windows 3.1), this restriction had some serious teeth. Later, they used similar "deals" with the distributors to lock out WordPerfect and WordPerfect Office, which provided superior value to MS-Office.
This whole scenerio has been repeated several times in the course of Microsoft's rise to dominance. It was their one way of locking out competition.
There was never one time when Microsoft offered "superior value." There was a time when they had an exclusive deal with IBM (the 800-pound gorilla of the day), because IBM as a corporation didn't take the PC market seriously. By the time the PC took off, Microsoft was already firmly entrenched in the distribution channels, whether it was IBM or Compaq or Gateway. Then it turned out that IBM could eventually produce a superior operating system (OS/2), but didn't know how to market it. Gah! Idiots!
Microsoft ended up where they were because the hardware was a superior value proposition, and they worked it so that they were the only software that could get sold on that hardware. Microsoft worked hard to keep competitors out of their distribution chains. They have been so convicted in several countries, not just the US.
So again, the GP post was correct.
In conclusion, I'd say that Microsoft has hindered progress, not helped it. By locking out competition, Microsoft has been a regulatory force on the industry, pushing their goals on everyone else. And, near as I can tell, they've done this with never once providing "superior value."
All I see is a government availing itself of everything possible technologically to do what it believes is the right thing, with technology enabling the kind of massive, omnibus monitoring.
This may be all you see. I've noticed a lot of people are willing to turn a blind eye on this (and the last) administration.
If the government is only trying to protect us, why are they so quick to step outside the bounds of legality to accomplish its goals? Why have they often resorted to lies and misdirection to accomplish their goals? Why have they so readily blocked investigations that might clear up their honor?
My Dad used to tell me, "If they act untrustworthy, they probably are untrustworthy." Respect and trust are to be earned, not demanded, nor due. This current administration has destroyed the little bit of trust and respect I had after the *last* administration.
The government that demands transparency from its citizens, but is in turn completely opaque, is hiding something dishonorable. *That* is why some of us make a big deal about seemingly insignificant details. After all, most of us realize it takes a lot of pixels to make a picture.
Personally, I'm glad we're making a big deal about this. Part of it is education. There are too many people who think police have the right to infringe on *your* right with no just cause. Too many people are unaware that we as citizens *have* many rights.
And finally, it's always nice to see a bully get his come-uppance. I really hope that fucker gets nailed to the wall. I mean, literally. I've got a hammer they could use.
Well, there *are* things the police can do today they couldn't do fifty years ago. For instance, there's the whole seizure of personal property (including bank accounts and homes) for minor drug busts. In some cases, you don't even have to be convicted, just arrested. The seized property is sold. Some police departments are funded by the selling of seized property.
Then there's the whole widespread phone tapping craze. This is something that could not have been done fifty years ago. Sure, US government resources were spent monitoring regular citizens, but it happened on a case-by-case basis, not wholesale.
We most likely do not live in an Orwellian society. But, y'know, I'd like to keep the government from obtaining the tools required for 1984 to come true. They are currently creating them in front of our very eyes. You may be a pollyanna, but there are some of us that are worried.
Honestly, we have the right to be worried. It's called "oversight of our government." As responsible citizens, it is our right and our duty to question everything the government does in our name.
Bah. Movies have always been bad, and television has always been worse.
Back in the day, we had Jaws, around the same time as Kolchak, the Nigh Stalker. Both were good, but Kolchak was cheesy as hell. It didn't get good until they changed the name to X-Files, and then it only lasted a couple of seasons before it jumped the shark.
Watch Barton Fink. Movies were just as terribly derivative and sucky back in whatever "Golden Age" you might wish to conjure. We still get good movies-- just check out "Good Night, And Good Luck," or "Capote," or "Syriana," or "Slither." All good movies, in their own right. (Slither reminded my very much of "Tremors.") Just because we have to balance that against any of the dreck you've seen recently shouldn't count against them.
(For the record, I didn't like "Dead Man's Chest" the first time I watched it, but really and truly loved it the second time through. So my taste in movies is suspect.)
Movies generally suck. Try to pick a great movie from every year since you were born. It'd be a tough assignment. Some years would have many great movies, and other years would have nothing. Nada.
If you want to watch a great movie, go watch "Psychomania." Go on. I dare you.
You are speaking of a limited sect. of creationists when you bring in the literal Bible premise. You also assume that is the only avenue of debate or understanding. It is you who have put things into a box.
Yes. I have put knowledge in a box, and I have labelled that box "understanding."
As far as I can tell, knowledge about our universe is accurately gained through one epistemology: the scientific method. Near as I can tell, there is no other way to gain new knowledge in a systematic and provable way. Knowledge that is not provable is not knowledge at all, but superstition and delusion.
I believe that evolution will prove out God. Does my belief in something yet unknown scare you?
No. Your belief in something unknown is for you, not for me. Something that is only for you cannot scare me in the slightest. I think your belief is honorable, and though I can't partake in it, I can respect it.
The thought that evolution will prove out God is not based on the scientific method. Therefore, it is not in competition with the theory of evolution through natural selection. My original argument (though I may have stated it offensively, as I was in a foul mood) is simply this: there is no argument.
The debate, the controversy, is synthetic. Made-up. Manufactured.
False.
Until there is a proof for God, there is no room for creationism in the field of science. To base research on a belief in God gets science all backwards.
The current "proof" of the likes of Behe are based on one faulty syllogism. God can produce things that are unexplained. There are many things in biology that are unexplained. Ergo, God must of produced them.
That hardly constitutes a proof. I hope you can understand that.
The problem with mixing science and religion is one of approaches to understanding. Belief in God provides an intuitive understanding. There is room for error there, for misunderstanding, and so that knowledge is imperfect at best, and downright dangerously wrong at worst. We could decode the human DNA, find the message, "I am God, and I have created all that you see and know," and that *still* wouldn't constitute proof of God, because there are potentially other explainations.
Anyway. This is a long post, written days after your response, so it is a bit unfair, but I'm placing it here in the hopes you will find it, and read it, and perhaps understand my position a little better.
Uh, Republicans are the ones who want parents to raise their own kids. Dems are the ones that want all children to be raised by the federal government...and this law is just another way they're making that happen.
Yeah. Heaven forbid the artists actually get money for music they create. Also forbid they get the rights to the music they create. After all, we all know it's the mega-corps that are the *good* guys.
Why should the music industry make things *better* for the purchasing citizens? That's just crazy talk!
Consider iTunes. It'd cost $23 to purchase Battlestar Galactica soundtrack. I can purchase it in stores for $13.
The point isn't to make money, or create a new, better distribution system. It's to tighten control on the system they already have in place. Change will happen in spite of them, not because of them.
It's time to support your independent music distributor.
To most people the Republicans and Democrats are not the same... When you say they are, all you are saying is that you are so far out of mainstream politics that you can't see the differences. They look the same to you because you want something radically different.
Yeah, I know. It's like saying the Cripps and the Bloods are the same. How stupid! Everyone knows that one is red, and the other is blue. It's easy to tell them apart.
Or it's like saying the Broncos are like the 49ers.
Slashdot Mirror
And I highly doubt that Gore would have ousted the Taliban in Afghanistan after 9/11.
He probably wouldn't've given them $43 million four months before 9/11, either.
But, really, this is simple speculation, and complete bullshit anyway. There's no reason to assume he wouldn't've, and every reason to assume he would. Americans wanted someone to blame for the attack. Americans (and the world in general) were behind the invasion of Afghanistan. I doubt Gore would've just sat on his ass after 9/11.
And, better, he wouldn't've invaded Iraq, especially on trumped-up non-9/11 pretexts, taking our eyes off Afghanistan. If you read the news, things aren't going well in either Iraq *or* Afghanistan. Bush hasn't successfully ousted the Taliban from Afghanistan yet. And he hasn't caught bin Laden, either. So, he's 0 for 2. 0 for 3 if you count the faisco in Iraq.
The fact is, Bush has put America in more danger. Instead of taking care of the problem, he's fucked up two foreign contries, squandered the good-will America had after 9/11, lied to and spied on his own citizens, ignored domestic issues, spent our future so the Chinese government owns even more of the US, increased the size of government tremendously, increased the power of the executive branch over the other two branches of government so we no longer have effective checks-and-balances, and has labeled everyone who criticises him as "anti-Patriotic." The two countries he's fucked up are breeding grounds for people who have reason to hate America now. Those "insurgents" aren't all old terrorists. Many of them are citizens of Iraq who have been let down by America's inability to rebuild the infrastructure we destroyed. They don't care that it's not all our fault, that we've been hindered by lack of cooperation from Iraq itself.
All they know is, life is much, much worse in Iraq now that America is in charge.
Basically put, none of the candidates were all that hot; it's getting towards picking the least foul one rather than one you like the most as all of them stink to varying degrees.
Amen to that.
Bush was the worst of all possible candidates. Nader would've been a helluva lot better, even. The scary thing is, we elected him the second time through as well, after seeing what a lying, scheming bastard he really is. Bush turned out to be far, far worse than I imagined. The fact we re-elected him just shows that Americans don't really care about candidates, they just care about "red vs blue," like we were voting for our favorite sports team or something, and we're going to stand by our team, no matter how suck-ass they are, and we're going to shout about how terrible the other team is, no matter how good they really are.
It's not just a matter of counting the votes at all. That's the easy part.
One would think.
So why does Diebold keep fucking it up? They can't even handle the counting part properly. How can we trust them to get the rest of it right?
But, the post to which you reply simply presents a user scenario, and did not discuss the complexity of rolling out a system that will handle the tedious management of presenting a voter with the proper information. A fully-integrated, secure, auditable system would be far superior to the current method of rolling out a paper ballot, recalling the ballot because of last-minute changes (for instance, the case where one candidate died before the election, but it was too late to remove his name from the ballot, and he won), and generally fighting to the last minute with ballot distribution.
A secure, auditable electronic voting system would be much better. A soundproof booth could be set up for blind voters, for instance, and the ballot could be read to them, and they vote by stating out-loud, "I vote no on measure 2." Or simply, "No," in response to, "How do you vote on measure 2?"
But I'm a pollyanna when it comes to stuff like this.
. . . "Snakes on the Plane" is the kind of movie you see on dvd.
No way! I went to see the first showing on Thursday night. My wife and I and our niece have been waiting for this movie for months, since Samuel L. Jackson was on The Daily Show talking about this movie.
Half the fun was sitting with other folks who enjoyed the campiness, the general "this is a bad movie and we know it" feel. The surprise was, SoaP turned out to be a good movie. Just candy, yes, but every once in a while, I like a big heaping bowl of ice cream, with hot fudge and butterscotch. That's what this movie was: pure candy, with no apologies. And still it was a decent movie.
Anyway, the audience was great, and made it well worth going to the theater for this movie.
Microsoft wouldn't port MS-Office to Linux just because it's profitable. Microsoft attempts to destroy anything that might be a threat to their MS-Windows / MS-Office hegemony, their only real source of income. MS-Exchange sells mostly because MS-Outlook is bundled with their other products, and because it fits into the MS-Windows world.
Microsoft doesn't cooperate with anything or anybody that might harm their desktop dominance, because that's the only thing keeping them alive right now. There's nothing profitable about Microsoft that isn't tied directly to MS-Windows. With Vista so long delayed, they haven't had a recent upgrade cycle to pump a lot of money out of other corporations. They certainly won't release a version of MS-Office for Linux until Vista is as widely deployed as XP is now.
Make no mistake. Microsoft is not interested in anything that doesn't push MS-Windows on the desktop. Even MS-Office for the Mac is a very low priority, there mostly because of past deals with Apple, and because they don't see Apple as a threat on the desktop yet.
Linux is a different matter. Linux isn't a threat yet, either, but Microsoft sees how it might be. All it takes is a few high-profile deployments of Linux / Open Office / Firefox on the desktop, and Linux might suddenly displace MS-Windows during Microsoft's next forced-march upgrade cycle, when OEMs no longer bundle XP, and suddenly everyone has to upgrade because the new version of MS-Office doesn't work properly on XP.
It's likely this won't happen. But it might. And so Microsoft is probably more frightened of Linux than they are of Mac OS X.
At least, that's how I understand the situation, based on years of watching Microsoft deal with potential threats to their OS stanglehold.
Giving up your freedoms is not winning, whether it's some ill-defined "war on terror," or getting Linux to a larger audience.
Why should *we* become what *they* want? If Linux is good for them, they will use it. If not, they won't. Big humongous liver-flavored deal. I don't care if businesses adopt Linux or not. I just care that I have the freedom to use Linux on hardware I purchase, and have the freedom to work on the software I want without danger of a slap-happy patent lawsuit.
If we go down the path of sacrificing principles, we are likely to lose those freedoms.
Its never really been about this license vs. that license, but rather about human choice, consumer choice.
Ah! So it *is* about the license. Some licenses are designed to protect choice. Others are designed to remove them.
Choose wisely.
. . . how is Apple and Google any different than Yahoo, Microsoft, or any other big corporation? They're publicly traded companies, and profit is their main concern.
Let's see. Apple makes excellent products and charges a bit more for them. They don't try to lock-in users, nor do they threaten, bully, or try to destroy their own customers (in Microsoft's case, the OEMs).
Google sells ad impressions to other companies. The end-user isn't their customer, it's other companies, who come to Google to purchase ad impressions.
The difference is, both Apple and Google treat their customers as people with money who want goods or services, and they try to attract customers by creating good products, or provided excellent service. Microsoft treats their customers like open wallets. They sell things by being the only game in town, and making sure there is no other game in town.
Making a profit does not require fucking over everyone in the process.
. . . the consesus seems to be that companies should be *doing* something with that warchest rather than sitting on it.
Like giving some of it to the people who own the company, the shareholders?
It has a touchscreen. You could write your own keyboard app, assuming it doesn't already have one.
Frankly, the problem is that lawyers and to some extent business people don't understand how programming works.
But they understand biochemistry, metallurgy, and electrical engineering, right?
If that's the problem, then the same problem applies to the other areas mentioned. Lawyers understand law, and society, and logic. The good ones also understand people. In general, they aren't too knowledgable about the sciences and engineering fields.
I used to think that patents were a good thing. I don't think so any more. The more we try to tie up knowledge of any sort whatsoever, the worse we are as a whole. I used to think it was only fair to give the inventor of a new method a temporary monopoly, but that's when I thought individuals held patents, not major corporations.
I see only two solutions. One: get rid of patents altogether. That's the best solution. The second solution isn't as good, but it'll work a lot better than the current system: only the individual or individuals who create a new method may hold the patent. It is non-transferable. Corporations may not hold patents themselves, nor can the inventors sell or give away the patent. They may, of course, license the patent, but they are the only ones who can enforce the patent rights. A third party may not attempt to enforce the patents at all.
Yes, I know. Corporations would then enter into binding contracts with the patent holders for exclusive, transferable rights to a patent, then buy and sell those as if they were the patents themselves. But it's a start.
Come to think of it, the same system could be applied to music and movies. Only those individuals who create the song or film may hold copyright, and copyright is non-transferable. The only thing a music company can do is negotiate distribution rights.
Out of curiosity, can the government use an "eminent domain" style procedure to take control of a patent or force it into the public domain, in the interest of public safety or national security?
This is the best damned idea ever. If the government mandates the use of something (broadcast bit, this safety feature, etc), they should force the ideas, patents, etc, of the product into the public domain, so that anyone can benefit.
Otherwise, they shouldn't be able to mandate its use.
That would get rid of a lot of unnecessary "mandated" regulations, and keep people from trying to force their patent down everyone's throat for their own benefit, rather than the good of society.
Seriously, consider the following examples to upgrade a machine or an application:
Ubuntu:
1. little icon appears in system launch panel thingy. Pop-up tooltip tells me I have 94 updates to install.
2. Click icon.
3. Enter my own password.
4. Profit!
Seriously, the whole upgrade thing has been a non-issue for a while now. Suse and Red Hat have had similar non-command-line tools for several years. It's not as easy to use as OSX, but it's damned close, and better than the MS-Windows method of upgrade.
I have installed Ubuntu on several computers for non-techies. It works very, very well as a desktop system. I bet the same could be said of Suse and Fedora, too, though I haven't tried either of them in a couple of years. (I'm a Debian snob.)
Or with several different versions of its own operating systems, each with its own quirks and incompatibilities?
/etc).
Complex software systems are, well, complex. Rolling out an Active Directory infrastructure is a pain in the ass. It's just part of the business.
Suse isn't that different from Red Hat which isn't that different from Ubuntu. The concepts are all the same, and the web is there for anything that might be different (layout of init scripts, location of default configuration scripts,
It's all just the same old FUD, wrapped up in new banana leaves and presented as haute cuisine. What else should we expect from an employee of Microsoft? Refreshing honesty? Yeah, I can see that: "Hey, everybody! Computers are fantastic! Yes, Microsoft has fucked up the industry and set us back a few years, but they are still great, and we're much, much better than we were. So, go out an use computers, and make them all work together to do the job you need. Free software is great, because you can customize it and it gives you the freedom you need, but hey, Microsoft products are great, too, because they are flashy and pretty, and the admin GUIs really work, and they don't crash like they used to.
"Oh, and Bill totally rulez. Jobs completely droolz."
What is wrong with inventors getting patents for their inventions?
Besides the whole government-created monopoly thing, and the fact that patents stifle "innovation" (a word that has been said so many times it means nothing anymore), nothing is wrong with inventors getting patents for their inventions.
The problem is that many patents are given to corporations. As many people have repeated time and again, corporations are not people, and so shouldn't be punished for things that the people in charge of the corporation do.
By the same token, corporations should not be allowed to hold patents, as corporations (not being people) cannot invent anything. Only the people in the corporation can invent things. As things currently stand (and will continue to stand for the forseeable future), corporations are able to "own" the patent.
To answer all the "but the corporation paid for it" responses, that shouldn't matter. A corporation may sponsor the investigations that lead to a patent for an exclusive license on the patent, but the patent should belong, in a non-transferable for, to the inventor or inventors.
The "non-transferable" part is very important. That'll put a damper on patent trolls.
Anyway, those're my ideas on patent reform.
Well, it's still protected from those of us that do know how to circumvent CSS . . .
Not unless you also avoid using P2P software to download music, which is the claimed purpose of DRM in the first place: to stop casual piracy.
So, it won't stop P2P (DMCA notwithstanding-- copyright infringement is also currently illegal). It won't stop people from downloading software to copy it to their iPods. It basically just won't change anything at all.
I can see WB and other music folks offering entire back catalogs of musicians, or monster anthologies, on DVD. I'd pay big bucks for high-quality, unencumbered collections of all the old soul classics, or a comprehensive anthology of psychodelia, or even an overview of all of a label's current top artists. It'd be cool to get one DVD filled with all that old '70s music you never hear and can't find: Paperlace, Starbuck, War, Jigsaw, 10cc, etc. I'd pay $20 for a DVD of all those old bad one-hit wonders.
That'd be cool, but it ain't happening, because music companies don't give a damn what people *want*, they push what they want to *sell*. And no matter what they do, they won't stop on-line downloads from being the next big distribution mechanism.
So, let's see. It's okay to destroy a portion of a national forest for profit, but it's not okay for a couple of kids to pull off some branches from a tree?
I'm sure with a chainsaw, the kids could do some serious damage to the tree. We should definitely outlaw the selling of chainsaws to minors. Without a chainsaw, what're they going to do? I doubt they could do much real harm to the tree.
A "warning" would've been a cop saying, "Hey! You kids in that tree! What do you think you're doing? Well, get down from there and don't do it anymore!" That would've been a warning. What they got was harrassed, which is a form of intimidation, which is far beyond what the situation as described deserved.
There's no defense for the actions of the cops. There's no reason to teach our kids to be scared of any adventurous actions, except to satisfy the sense of power our law-enforcement officers enjoy.
You seem to be saying that Microsoft got 95% of the market by leveraging their market dominance in an "illegal" way.
They were convicted of using their dominant market share (gained via IBM's entry into the PC business back when Apple and Commodore were the top dogs) to maintain their current market share. The question was, "Why does MS have 95%....", not, "How did they get it?"
Microsoft got dominant because they road on the the coat-tails of the dominant computer force of the time (IBM). They maintained their dominance through unethical behavior (the whole DR-DOS thing, followed up through Netscape, etc).
The "illegal anti-trust" activities are only "illegal" and "anti-trust" once you already have dominant marketshare, which they achieved by providing superior value (in conjunction with the hardware vendors) to the consumers.
I thought the question was about how Microsoft has 95% share today (which they don't, any longer), rather than how they got it? In that case, the GP poster is correct.
But, 'superior value?' Not by any real metric I've ever seen. Microsoft gained market dominance with IBM. Once Compaq cloned the hardware, Microsoft made exclusive distribution deals with them (Compaq just needed an OS). Every big manufacturer of computers went to Microsoft for the OS, because Microsoft was the only game in town.
When DR-DOS started picking up market share because it provided superior value, Microsoft basically told the computer sellers, "If you want to ship MS-DOS, you can't give the consumer the choice of DR-DOS." Later, when MS-Windows finally took off (with MS-Windows 3.1), this restriction had some serious teeth. Later, they used similar "deals" with the distributors to lock out WordPerfect and WordPerfect Office, which provided superior value to MS-Office.
This whole scenerio has been repeated several times in the course of Microsoft's rise to dominance. It was their one way of locking out competition.
There was never one time when Microsoft offered "superior value." There was a time when they had an exclusive deal with IBM (the 800-pound gorilla of the day), because IBM as a corporation didn't take the PC market seriously. By the time the PC took off, Microsoft was already firmly entrenched in the distribution channels, whether it was IBM or Compaq or Gateway. Then it turned out that IBM could eventually produce a superior operating system (OS/2), but didn't know how to market it. Gah! Idiots!
Microsoft ended up where they were because the hardware was a superior value proposition, and they worked it so that they were the only software that could get sold on that hardware. Microsoft worked hard to keep competitors out of their distribution chains. They have been so convicted in several countries, not just the US.
So again, the GP post was correct.
In conclusion, I'd say that Microsoft has hindered progress, not helped it. By locking out competition, Microsoft has been a regulatory force on the industry, pushing their goals on everyone else. And, near as I can tell, they've done this with never once providing "superior value."
All I see is a government availing itself of everything possible technologically to do what it believes is the right thing, with technology enabling the kind of massive, omnibus monitoring.
This may be all you see. I've noticed a lot of people are willing to turn a blind eye on this (and the last) administration.
If the government is only trying to protect us, why are they so quick to step outside the bounds of legality to accomplish its goals? Why have they often resorted to lies and misdirection to accomplish their goals? Why have they so readily blocked investigations that might clear up their honor?
My Dad used to tell me, "If they act untrustworthy, they probably are untrustworthy." Respect and trust are to be earned, not demanded, nor due. This current administration has destroyed the little bit of trust and respect I had after the *last* administration.
The government that demands transparency from its citizens, but is in turn completely opaque, is hiding something dishonorable. *That* is why some of us make a big deal about seemingly insignificant details. After all, most of us realize it takes a lot of pixels to make a picture.
Personally, I'm glad we're making a big deal about this. Part of it is education. There are too many people who think police have the right to infringe on *your* right with no just cause. Too many people are unaware that we as citizens *have* many rights.
And finally, it's always nice to see a bully get his come-uppance. I really hope that fucker gets nailed to the wall. I mean, literally. I've got a hammer they could use.
Well, there *are* things the police can do today they couldn't do fifty years ago. For instance, there's the whole seizure of personal property (including bank accounts and homes) for minor drug busts. In some cases, you don't even have to be convicted, just arrested. The seized property is sold. Some police departments are funded by the selling of seized property.
Then there's the whole widespread phone tapping craze. This is something that could not have been done fifty years ago. Sure, US government resources were spent monitoring regular citizens, but it happened on a case-by-case basis, not wholesale.
We most likely do not live in an Orwellian society. But, y'know, I'd like to keep the government from obtaining the tools required for 1984 to come true. They are currently creating them in front of our very eyes. You may be a pollyanna, but there are some of us that are worried.
Honestly, we have the right to be worried. It's called "oversight of our government." As responsible citizens, it is our right and our duty to question everything the government does in our name.
Bah. Movies have always been bad, and television has always been worse.
Back in the day, we had Jaws, around the same time as Kolchak, the Nigh Stalker. Both were good, but Kolchak was cheesy as hell. It didn't get good until they changed the name to X-Files, and then it only lasted a couple of seasons before it jumped the shark.
Watch Barton Fink. Movies were just as terribly derivative and sucky back in whatever "Golden Age" you might wish to conjure. We still get good movies-- just check out "Good Night, And Good Luck," or "Capote," or "Syriana," or "Slither." All good movies, in their own right. (Slither reminded my very much of "Tremors.") Just because we have to balance that against any of the dreck you've seen recently shouldn't count against them.
(For the record, I didn't like "Dead Man's Chest" the first time I watched it, but really and truly loved it the second time through. So my taste in movies is suspect.)
Movies generally suck. Try to pick a great movie from every year since you were born. It'd be a tough assignment. Some years would have many great movies, and other years would have nothing. Nada.
If you want to watch a great movie, go watch "Psychomania." Go on. I dare you.
You are speaking of a limited sect. of creationists when you bring in the literal Bible premise. You also assume that is the only avenue of debate or understanding. It is you who have put things into a box.
Yes. I have put knowledge in a box, and I have labelled that box "understanding."
As far as I can tell, knowledge about our universe is accurately gained through one epistemology: the scientific method. Near as I can tell, there is no other way to gain new knowledge in a systematic and provable way. Knowledge that is not provable is not knowledge at all, but superstition and delusion.
I believe that evolution will prove out God. Does my belief in something yet unknown scare you?
No. Your belief in something unknown is for you, not for me. Something that is only for you cannot scare me in the slightest. I think your belief is honorable, and though I can't partake in it, I can respect it.
The thought that evolution will prove out God is not based on the scientific method. Therefore, it is not in competition with the theory of evolution through natural selection. My original argument (though I may have stated it offensively, as I was in a foul mood) is simply this: there is no argument.
The debate, the controversy, is synthetic. Made-up. Manufactured.
False.
Until there is a proof for God, there is no room for creationism in the field of science. To base research on a belief in God gets science all backwards.
The current "proof" of the likes of Behe are based on one faulty syllogism. God can produce things that are unexplained. There are many things in biology that are unexplained. Ergo, God must of produced them.
That hardly constitutes a proof. I hope you can understand that.
The problem with mixing science and religion is one of approaches to understanding. Belief in God provides an intuitive understanding. There is room for error there, for misunderstanding, and so that knowledge is imperfect at best, and downright dangerously wrong at worst. We could decode the human DNA, find the message, "I am God, and I have created all that you see and know," and that *still* wouldn't constitute proof of God, because there are potentially other explainations.
Anyway. This is a long post, written days after your response, so it is a bit unfair, but I'm placing it here in the hopes you will find it, and read it, and perhaps understand my position a little better.
Uh, Republicans are the ones who want parents to raise their own kids. Dems are the ones that want all children to be raised by the federal government...and this law is just another way they're making that happen.
410 voted for. 15 voted against.
Republicans control the house.
Several of the 15 votes against were democrats.
Are you bad at politics, or math?
Yeah. Heaven forbid the artists actually get money for music they create. Also forbid they get the rights to the music they create. After all, we all know it's the mega-corps that are the *good* guys.
Why should the music industry make things *better* for the purchasing citizens? That's just crazy talk!
Consider iTunes. It'd cost $23 to purchase Battlestar Galactica soundtrack. I can purchase it in stores for $13.
The point isn't to make money, or create a new, better distribution system. It's to tighten control on the system they already have in place. Change will happen in spite of them, not because of them.
It's time to support your independent music distributor.
To most people the Republicans and Democrats are not the same... When you say they are, all you are saying is that you are so far out of mainstream politics that you can't see the differences. They look the same to you because you want something radically different.
Yeah, I know. It's like saying the Cripps and the Bloods are the same. How stupid! Everyone knows that one is red, and the other is blue. It's easy to tell them apart.
Or it's like saying the Broncos are like the 49ers.
I think you see what I'm saying.