We hate it, sometimes with good cause, just as often with no cause but social inertia.
Generally, the dislike of big business is not due to "pseudo-socialism," but for the other factors you mention: the abuse that accompanies "success." We hate oil because they gouge the customer, hire thugs to shoot up villages in Africa, and abuse their position as gatekeepers to the world's energy.
We hate Wal*Mart because their full-time workers don't make enough at their full-time job to live off, even if they shop at Wal*Mart. We hate Microsoft because they used their dominant market position to shut out competitors in the late 80s, early 90s, and are generally the Budwieser of software. We hate big pharmaceuticals because they research impotence cures, and not things like AIDS cures (they leave that to the universities, but they'll be the first to patent any real results).
In every case, the company is using their superior position (usually government-protected monopoly; or in the case of Microsoft, a "natural" monopoly the abuse of which the government ignores) to destroy perceived competition, rather than competing on their merits. They do anything to maximize profit; and that generally means screwing the citizens of the world (often not even their customers).
The easiest definition of "evil" is fucking over someone for your own gain. Big companies often do that as a first recourse, rather than a last resort. Enron's manipulation of the energy market cost California billions of dollars. Enron is a shining example of corporate success, if only they didn't get caught. Hell, even getting caught hardly did anything. The people most responsible are still walking free, enjoying their riches.
As long as corporations can fuck over people for their own good, there is no free market. It's not like a candy store; we can't just open up next door and compete with Exxon. The market is regulated more by big business than by big government, to the point where government is in the pocket of big business.
I can think of no giant international business that didn't get where it is by intentionally fucking over lots and lots of people. I'm sure there are some. I certainly don't despise all big business; just the ones I know are evil.
The GPL does not expose a company's source code to competitors unless they choose to incorporate GPL code into their own. This is a choice, a conscious decision. It's a decision you don't even have with proprietary closed-source software.
To claim GPL'd code is somehow inferior to closed-source commercial software because of this is laughable. Simply laughable.
You can make all kinds of flame arguments about GPL vs. BSD vs. MPL vs. . . . well, any of the other open / free licenses. Go on, I dare you.
Not all releases have been improvements. MS-Windows NT 3.51 was their most stable; since, MS-Windows 2k and MS-Windows XP have not been close to the general stability of 3.51. The UI improvements have been incremental, and certainly nothing to write home about.
Active Directory was certainly an improvement over domains, so they score one there.
The point of the original post was this: all the hype surrounding each version of MS-Windows has been just that: hype. Although each version has been an overall improvement (except MS-Windows 2000 and MS-Windows ME), the overall improvement leaves something to be desired.
Near as I can tell, Vista is just like the others, in that the biggest improvement is the hype.
Smartass comments aside, I think it's because there's just too much knowledge. It's painful trying to understand complex ideas, and the world is full of complex ideas. It's much simpler to embrace a simple viewpoint, one which will give you the answers you seek without requiring thought.
Consider simple moral questions. In the real world, moral judgements are sometimes difficult. By embracing a set of pre-written moral standards and applying them uncritically, life becomes much easier. "Homosexuality is wrong," and "Anyone who claims to believe in Jesus is right," or "The invisible hand of the market will make everything right!" Shades of grey are transformed instantly into wonderful black-and-white just by running it through your Jesus filter (or your Allah filter, or your Ayn Rand filter, or... you get the point).
I doubt we'll ever see a true age of enlightenment.
It will put national security at risk for a headline story.
Amen, Brother!
The terrorists hate our freedom. The only way to stop them is by giving up our freedoms willingly! Thank God there are more people like you and George Bush who realize this!
Several of the targets were *not* related in any way to foreign nationals. Several of the targets were anti-war protestors, or other who have vocally and publicly stated opposition to the war in Iraq.
The number of "leads" generated by the NSA as a direct result of this operation has in fact reduced the efficiency of real investigations, as it has been burdensome to the FBI and others. Basically, they're getting deluged with requests to investigate people such as George Main and others like him have been the target of the domestic spying operation.
A few years ago, the common cry was, "There's no money to be made in Linux servers." Now Linux servers are a $5B/year market, increasing at a phenomenal rate (still double-digit increases last quarter).
This is an interesting year, in that Microsoft will release a version of MS-Windows that pressures big companies to upgrade their desktop hardware; the new version of MS-Office will produce documents that are not backwards-compatible for the first time in almost a decade, ading further pressure to upgrade; and Linux has been in the news for quite some time, so CIOs are more comfortable with the idea of Linux.
Couple that with Apple's spectacular presence in the x86 market, and I think the awareness of choice will make Linux a viable desktop.
But, that might just be my optomistic ol' self thinking happy thoughts.
This is probably the biggest problem facing those who would adopt Linux: there is such a huge morass of options it's hard to tell which path is the easy one.
I think your first point generally addresses that: most vanilla installs of the bigger distros (Debian / Ubuntu, Red Hat / Fedora, Suse) pretty much take care of those choices for you, unless you want to start exploring. The adventurous user has the option to explore, while the generic user just uses the stuff that's installed.
The adventurous user is in for quite an adventure, though.
. . . SUPPORT would cost much, much more with every Linux based system that they sell.
Thanks for all the proof you provide to support this claim. I've been wondering when someone would just stop spouting "support costs more!" gibberish and provide some evidence that it does.
They are a company. They can do the hell they want with their products.
Damned straight.
And we are customers, and we have demands. We have the right to demand what we want, just as they have the right to refuse us. That doesn't mean we can't write articles detailing how coy Dell is being with their Linux desktops. We can write whatever the hell we like, especially if it's the truth.
They are a company. One would hope they listen to their customers, try to keep their customers satisfied. I would further hope that people with money to spend would demand the things they want, as loudly and publicly as possible.
His right to do what he wants with his company supercedes your right to see the word "linux" on the front page of dell.com.
That doesn't mean we don't have a right to demand it.
You seem to advocate quiet, sheep-like customers. I advocate just the opposite: demanding, loud, annoying customers. Demand Linux on the first page! Demand we don't pay a Microsoft tax! Demand we get what we want to get!
Let Mike Dell do whatever he wants with those demands. That's his company's right. But don't try to silence the customer. It's not called "supply and demand" for nothing.
If Jesus ever did sin he couldn't be God, God is Holy and therefore sinless.
Yeah, I'm just a stupid athiest and stuff, but doesn't this make Jesus' sacrifice, well, worthless? I mean, if he were truly 'God,' as is claimed, then his sacrifice was really nothing. 'Sacrifice' means giving something up; what did Jesus give up, if all He did was go up to heaven to stand bside His Father, casting judgement and hell upon all who do not believe in Him?
That sounds like a selfish, egotistical God to me, not a kind and loving God. If Jesus sacrificed himself, He'd have to give up something pretty special to make up for our sins, now, wouldn't He?
I think that was the point of TLTOC. That Jesus had the chance to become more than God-- to become Human, to give up the brief, transient pain and truly be a Man. And that was the sacrifice. After all, He really couldn't give up His life, now, could he? He's God; He's immortal. There's no life to give up, just a brief amount of pain. After that-- 70 virgins!
I think. I might be getting my religious zealoutry mixed up a little.
Seriously, Kong wasnt that bad,it was decent for a monster movie, but thats that. Everybody knows the next King Konk movies SUCKED big time, purely sticking to the success of the first, no one wants to see them EVER again.
Jeez, no kidding. Talk about exploitation in the worst way possible; take a cheesy '70s movie based on a cheesy (but very influential) '30s movie, and make some terrble derivative pap.
However, I think he's referring to a video game sequel, not a movie sequel. Peter Jackson has more integrity than *that*.
Now, I'll wait for all the slashtrolls to come out and wave all the money Kong made in my face; as if that's any measure of the product's actual quality.
Jackson did Kong because he could, and not for any other reason. It was like a director masturbating on film, and us just lapping it up. And I liked it a lot.
But, if you want to see Jackson as his story-telling best, watch _Heavenly Creatures_. If you are human, you will be stunned about the time the credits start rolling. Amazing movie. Just fucking amazing.
LOTR was good, no doubt about it. Perhaps a bit self-indulgent (though no Kong), but good. Jackson has already proven himself a spare story-teller; now he's just showing off.
I can't blame him one bit.
I guess I'll have to get the Kong game, based on your recommendation.
If by "nobody" you mean "people who take their civil rights seriously," then you are correct.
As far as assuming the government is evil, the evidence is stacked firmly against them. They are fucking people over for their own gain; that constitutes "evil" to me.
When we helped arm and train the Afghan Muslims (including Saudi Muslims like bin Ladin) to fight the Soviet Union, we promised to help them rebuild their country after. Instead, we left Afghanistan to their warlords, and eventually the Taliban.
We did not aid them in rebuilding their country. Once they accomplished our common aim (displacing the soviets), we left them to their own poorly-funded devices.
Yeah. Not keeping promises is part of what got us into this mess.
I think most people feel the game is rigged. In the majority of the elections, we are presented with two "opponents" who are usually not as different as they would like us to believe.
We share our part of the blame, too. But we are not offering ourselves for sale; nor are we generally the ones buying, as we don't have enough money for that game.
You may be right; I read about the al Queda connection in the book "Against All Enemies," by Richard Clarke, who was Clinton's "Terrorist Czar." We didn't know who al Queda was at the time; Clarke asserts he first heard of al Queda during the Kosovo thingy.
And all of this is from memory, so I could very well be wrong.
I fucking hate the word "usage." Nobody uses it correctly, if there is a single correct use. Usually, the use "usage" when they mean "use."
What total losage.
I blame comic books. They contribute to a short attention span. Fucking comic books, with their pretty pictures and busty, half-clad superwomen. Mmmmm.... Superwoman. If Superwoman and Wonder Woman had a fight in, say, a tub of Jell-o, who do you think would lose her top first?
More people communicate today than have ever communicated before. The poor grammar they exhibit is probably a result of these amatuers being, well, amatuers. People 100 years ago mostly didn't write; those that did were generally better-educated.
I would say that literacy is on the rise, not the inverse.
Yeah, this batch of Republicans aren't that Republican, are they? What is it they're always busting the chops of the Democrats for? Oh, yeah, big government, big spending, the government messing with the lives of average Americans, the Democrats tarnishing the US Constitution....
I tend to be liberal, myself, but I support a lot of the Republican ideals, like the reduction of government spending (but I'd still maintain social programs, and give federal funding to schools, and other liberal junk), decrease of government, protection of the US Constitution, including the second amendment, etc. I think I'm socially liberal, fiscally conservative.
Mostly.
But even *I* can tell this current batch doesn't give a monkey's testicle about the US Constitution, nor the other ideals generally espoused by the Replublicans. I just can't figure out why so many other people just accept it.
Slashdot Mirror
We hate it, sometimes with good cause, just as often with no cause but social inertia.
Generally, the dislike of big business is not due to "pseudo-socialism," but for the other factors you mention: the abuse that accompanies "success." We hate oil because they gouge the customer, hire thugs to shoot up villages in Africa, and abuse their position as gatekeepers to the world's energy.
We hate Wal*Mart because their full-time workers don't make enough at their full-time job to live off, even if they shop at Wal*Mart. We hate Microsoft because they used their dominant market position to shut out competitors in the late 80s, early 90s, and are generally the Budwieser of software. We hate big pharmaceuticals because they research impotence cures, and not things like AIDS cures (they leave that to the universities, but they'll be the first to patent any real results).
In every case, the company is using their superior position (usually government-protected monopoly; or in the case of Microsoft, a "natural" monopoly the abuse of which the government ignores) to destroy perceived competition, rather than competing on their merits. They do anything to maximize profit; and that generally means screwing the citizens of the world (often not even their customers).
The easiest definition of "evil" is fucking over someone for your own gain. Big companies often do that as a first recourse, rather than a last resort. Enron's manipulation of the energy market cost California billions of dollars. Enron is a shining example of corporate success, if only they didn't get caught. Hell, even getting caught hardly did anything. The people most responsible are still walking free, enjoying their riches.
As long as corporations can fuck over people for their own good, there is no free market. It's not like a candy store; we can't just open up next door and compete with Exxon. The market is regulated more by big business than by big government, to the point where government is in the pocket of big business.
I can think of no giant international business that didn't get where it is by intentionally fucking over lots and lots of people. I'm sure there are some. I certainly don't despise all big business; just the ones I know are evil.
Thanks for letting me rant.
Earnie Ball, for one.
Some people just prefer the old business model, y'know?
Yes, of course they do. It's called Stockholm Syndrome.
The GPL does not expose a company's source code to competitors unless they choose to incorporate GPL code into their own. This is a choice, a conscious decision. It's a decision you don't even have with proprietary closed-source software.
To claim GPL'd code is somehow inferior to closed-source commercial software because of this is laughable. Simply laughable.
You can make all kinds of flame arguments about GPL vs. BSD vs. MPL vs. . . . well, any of the other open / free licenses. Go on, I dare you.
Not all releases have been improvements. MS-Windows NT 3.51 was their most stable; since, MS-Windows 2k and MS-Windows XP have not been close to the general stability of 3.51. The UI improvements have been incremental, and certainly nothing to write home about.
Active Directory was certainly an improvement over domains, so they score one there.
The point of the original post was this: all the hype surrounding each version of MS-Windows has been just that: hype. Although each version has been an overall improvement (except MS-Windows 2000 and MS-Windows ME), the overall improvement leaves something to be desired.
Near as I can tell, Vista is just like the others, in that the biggest improvement is the hype.
Why hasn't a new age of enlightenment kicked in?
Because most people are stupid?
What do I win?
Smartass comments aside, I think it's because there's just too much knowledge. It's painful trying to understand complex ideas, and the world is full of complex ideas. It's much simpler to embrace a simple viewpoint, one which will give you the answers you seek without requiring thought.
Consider simple moral questions. In the real world, moral judgements are sometimes difficult. By embracing a set of pre-written moral standards and applying them uncritically, life becomes much easier. "Homosexuality is wrong," and "Anyone who claims to believe in Jesus is right," or "The invisible hand of the market will make everything right!" Shades of grey are transformed instantly into wonderful black-and-white just by running it through your Jesus filter (or your Allah filter, or your Ayn Rand filter, or... you get the point).
I doubt we'll ever see a true age of enlightenment.
It will put national security at risk for a headline story.
Amen, Brother!
The terrorists hate our freedom. The only way to stop them is by giving up our freedoms willingly! Thank God there are more people like you and George Bush who realize this!
Several of the targets were *not* related in any way to foreign nationals. Several of the targets were anti-war protestors, or other who have vocally and publicly stated opposition to the war in Iraq.
The number of "leads" generated by the NSA as a direct result of this operation has in fact reduced the efficiency of real investigations, as it has been burdensome to the FBI and others. Basically, they're getting deluged with requests to investigate people such as George Main and others like him have been the target of the domestic spying operation.
You ignore this at peril to your own liberty.
There is no money in selling Linux desktops.
Especially if you don't market it.
A few years ago, the common cry was, "There's no money to be made in Linux servers." Now Linux servers are a $5B/year market, increasing at a phenomenal rate (still double-digit increases last quarter).
This is an interesting year, in that Microsoft will release a version of MS-Windows that pressures big companies to upgrade their desktop hardware; the new version of MS-Office will produce documents that are not backwards-compatible for the first time in almost a decade, ading further pressure to upgrade; and Linux has been in the news for quite some time, so CIOs are more comfortable with the idea of Linux.
Couple that with Apple's spectacular presence in the x86 market, and I think the awareness of choice will make Linux a viable desktop.
But, that might just be my optomistic ol' self thinking happy thoughts.
This is probably the biggest problem facing those who would adopt Linux: there is such a huge morass of options it's hard to tell which path is the easy one.
I think your first point generally addresses that: most vanilla installs of the bigger distros (Debian / Ubuntu, Red Hat / Fedora, Suse) pretty much take care of those choices for you, unless you want to start exploring. The adventurous user has the option to explore, while the generic user just uses the stuff that's installed.
The adventurous user is in for quite an adventure, though.
. . . SUPPORT would cost much, much more with every Linux based system that they sell.
Thanks for all the proof you provide to support this claim. I've been wondering when someone would just stop spouting "support costs more!" gibberish and provide some evidence that it does.
They are a company. They can do the hell they want with their products.
Damned straight.
And we are customers, and we have demands. We have the right to demand what we want, just as they have the right to refuse us. That doesn't mean we can't write articles detailing how coy Dell is being with their Linux desktops. We can write whatever the hell we like, especially if it's the truth.
They are a company. One would hope they listen to their customers, try to keep their customers satisfied. I would further hope that people with money to spend would demand the things they want, as loudly and publicly as possible.
His right to do what he wants with his company supercedes your right to see the word "linux" on the front page of dell.com.
That doesn't mean we don't have a right to demand it.
You seem to advocate quiet, sheep-like customers. I advocate just the opposite: demanding, loud, annoying customers. Demand Linux on the first page! Demand we don't pay a Microsoft tax! Demand we get what we want to get!
Let Mike Dell do whatever he wants with those demands. That's his company's right. But don't try to silence the customer. It's not called "supply and demand" for nothing.
If Jesus ever did sin he couldn't be God, God is Holy and therefore sinless.
Yeah, I'm just a stupid athiest and stuff, but doesn't this make Jesus' sacrifice, well, worthless? I mean, if he were truly 'God,' as is claimed, then his sacrifice was really nothing. 'Sacrifice' means giving something up; what did Jesus give up, if all He did was go up to heaven to stand bside His Father, casting judgement and hell upon all who do not believe in Him?
That sounds like a selfish, egotistical God to me, not a kind and loving God. If Jesus sacrificed himself, He'd have to give up something pretty special to make up for our sins, now, wouldn't He?
I think that was the point of TLTOC. That Jesus had the chance to become more than God-- to become Human, to give up the brief, transient pain and truly be a Man. And that was the sacrifice. After all, He really couldn't give up His life, now, could he? He's God; He's immortal. There's no life to give up, just a brief amount of pain. After that-- 70 virgins!
I think. I might be getting my religious zealoutry mixed up a little.
Seriously, Kong wasnt that bad,it was decent for a monster movie, but thats that. Everybody knows the next King Konk movies SUCKED big time, purely sticking to the success of the first, no one wants to see them EVER again.
Jeez, no kidding. Talk about exploitation in the worst way possible; take a cheesy '70s movie based on a cheesy (but very influential) '30s movie, and make some terrble derivative pap.
However, I think he's referring to a video game sequel, not a movie sequel. Peter Jackson has more integrity than *that*.
I hope.
Now, I'll wait for all the slashtrolls to come out and wave all the money Kong made in my face; as if that's any measure of the product's actual quality.
Jackson did Kong because he could, and not for any other reason. It was like a director masturbating on film, and us just lapping it up. And I liked it a lot.
But, if you want to see Jackson as his story-telling best, watch _Heavenly Creatures_. If you are human, you will be stunned about the time the credits start rolling. Amazing movie. Just fucking amazing.
LOTR was good, no doubt about it. Perhaps a bit self-indulgent (though no Kong), but good. Jackson has already proven himself a spare story-teller; now he's just showing off.
I can't blame him one bit.
I guess I'll have to get the Kong game, based on your recommendation.
Enlightenment 16 has different backgrounds. E17 has animated backgrounds.
Gotta love the eye candy.
Geeze, what does a president have to do these days to get impeached when breaking an enshrined value in the constitution, and a law isn't enough?
Get a blowjob from an intern.
Oh wait, nobody cares about that anymore either.
If by "nobody" you mean "people who take their civil rights seriously," then you are correct.
As far as assuming the government is evil, the evidence is stacked firmly against them. They are fucking people over for their own gain; that constitutes "evil" to me.
Yeah. Google won't let me watch it. I get the message:
This video is not playable in your country.
And yes, I do live in the Land of the Free (TM). And my civil rights like taking it up the ass. They enjoy it.
Yeah, they're wrong, and you are right. That makes a fuckload of sense.
When we helped arm and train the Afghan Muslims (including Saudi Muslims like bin Ladin) to fight the Soviet Union, we promised to help them rebuild their country after. Instead, we left Afghanistan to their warlords, and eventually the Taliban.
We did not aid them in rebuilding their country. Once they accomplished our common aim (displacing the soviets), we left them to their own poorly-funded devices.
Yeah. Not keeping promises is part of what got us into this mess.
I think most people feel the game is rigged. In the majority of the elections, we are presented with two "opponents" who are usually not as different as they would like us to believe.
We share our part of the blame, too. But we are not offering ourselves for sale; nor are we generally the ones buying, as we don't have enough money for that game.
You may be right; I read about the al Queda connection in the book "Against All Enemies," by Richard Clarke, who was Clinton's "Terrorist Czar." We didn't know who al Queda was at the time; Clarke asserts he first heard of al Queda during the Kosovo thingy.
And all of this is from memory, so I could very well be wrong.
I fucking hate the word "usage." Nobody uses it correctly, if there is a single correct use. Usually, the use "usage" when they mean "use."
What total losage.
I blame comic books. They contribute to a short attention span. Fucking comic books, with their pretty pictures and busty, half-clad superwomen. Mmmmm.... Superwoman. If Superwoman and Wonder Woman had a fight in, say, a tub of Jell-o, who do you think would lose her top first?
More people communicate today than have ever communicated before. The poor grammar they exhibit is probably a result of these amatuers being, well, amatuers. People 100 years ago mostly didn't write; those that did were generally better-educated.
I would say that literacy is on the rise, not the inverse.
Yeah, this batch of Republicans aren't that Republican, are they? What is it they're always busting the chops of the Democrats for? Oh, yeah, big government, big spending, the government messing with the lives of average Americans, the Democrats tarnishing the US Constitution....
I tend to be liberal, myself, but I support a lot of the Republican ideals, like the reduction of government spending (but I'd still maintain social programs, and give federal funding to schools, and other liberal junk), decrease of government, protection of the US Constitution, including the second amendment, etc. I think I'm socially liberal, fiscally conservative.
Mostly.
But even *I* can tell this current batch doesn't give a monkey's testicle about the US Constitution, nor the other ideals generally espoused by the Replublicans. I just can't figure out why so many other people just accept it.
Remember that Bill Gates is the Dr. Death of software. HE decides when Microsoft's software is no longer usable, not the customers.
I decided their software wasn't usable a long time ago. Bill Gates didn't have to tell me that.