Don't confuse the RIAA with evil. You, the voter, are evil. They just followed the letter of the laws you wanted.
Uhm, no. They are following the letter of the laws they purchased through a Free Market Government.
"Evil" is not in elections, or anything else. Evil is the willingness to fuck over someone for your own gain. Pure evil is when that gain is just for your own enjoyment.
The folks at the RIAA are willing to fuck over as many people as they can to ensure their own position in the distribution of music, a very profitable position. File sharing is dangerous, not just because people can download the latest lame Metallica song, but because it will allow people to distribute their own music. Yes, there's a lot of really, really bad stuff out there for free (some of it worse than Metallica's recent stuff), but as review sites progress, and the truly independent music scene evolves, people will be able to find the music they like, and the RIAA is cut out completely.
Independent music is doing to the RIAA what free software is doing to Microsoft-- making them stay up at night, even if it doesn't appear to be a real threat at the moment. P2P is essential for a solid independent music scene. The RIAA is trying not just to eliminate file sharing of copyrighted works (which is wrong, no matter how heavy-handed the bad guys are), but to paint all file sharing as evil.
If they can do that, they can destroy the truly independed music scene before it even gets started.
As I understand it (imperfectly, for sure) there are legaly significant differences between the XML schema for Office 2003 and the upcoming Office 12.
There are major differences, both technically and legally, between MS-Office 2003 XML and MS-Office 12 XML. Microsoft is submitting the MS-Office 2003 XML schema to ECMA; so far, they have not indicated they are doing the same with the MSO 12 schema. Also, their covenant not to sue over patents is specific to the 2003 schema. Finally, the 2003 xml schema is optional; it's my understanding that the MSO 12 schema is the primary format for the upcoming version of MS-Office.
Microsoft loses nothing by offering up the 2003 schema as a sacrificial lamb; most people still use.doc as their primary format within MS-Office. Near as I can tell, Microsoft is merely trying to cloud the issue in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.
Of course, I could be wrong. But I don't think so.
Agreed, rights exist inspite of government, not because of it.
Dude, I'm with you, except for this.
Our "rights" exist only within the framework of what we can and cannot legally do. Our "rights" are only what the government proscribes-- this is in spite of, not because of, the Declaration of Independence, and the Constitution of the United States of America.
The ability to perform an action is inate-- that is, we can perform any action we choose, even killing another human. However, the actions that are allowed under law are much more limited. There is no natural right to any specific action, and what is considered a right today (say, the ability to say that our current President is a fucking lying war criminal) may be unlawful tomorrow, and is no longer a "right."
Rights are granted by the policies and practices of the government, as secured by the citizens. If we are going to be fucking "free," we had better secure those rights.
Anyway, I like the way you think. I just don't think we've been given any "rights," nor are we guaranteed the ability to practice those "rights." Liberty is secured, not given; freedom is not a gift, but obtained through personal sacrifice of many.
At least, that's my opinion. It goes without saying (though I shall), I could be wrong.
Your analogy is much to simplistic. A DVD player is a generic device that will (hopefully) play any random DVD purchased at your local store.
Game systems are much more like the old saying, "Give away the razor, and sell the blades." If the razor you give away can only be used with your blades, you lock people into perhaps spending a lot more per blade than if you had purchased a razor that accepted generic blades.
It's not so much about economics as it is marketing. Economics only comes into play when deciding how much money Microsoft wants to lose, in the hopes of making it up on the games. Otherwise, it's all about making more games that people want to play.
Heinlein's best geek was Manny, from his best book, "The Moon Is A Harsh Mistress." He was definitely a geek. And, barring RAH's usual sexism, it is an excellent work.
And Pohl should have had Gateway on the list.
Gibson. Feh. I have tried to read Neoromancer probably a dozen times. It sucks, at least it sucks for me.
Y'know, I've heard that line excuse some of the most foul, unacceptable behaviour, and I'm tired of it. No, it's not just business. Business is like any other interaction-- you treat people fairly, or you don't fucking treat them at all.
I see all kinds of posts lambasting frivolous lawsuits and the general decline of morals in America; often, those posts are from the same people who stand up for ill-behaved corporations and say inane things like, "It's just business."
Well, fuck them in the ass with a spinning roto-rooter.
Things done in the name of business represent some of the most immoral things in our culture today-- the purchasing of government by corporations, for instance. So, no, it's not just "business;" business should include treating each other with decency and ethics, just like all human interaction.
It's not surprising Dvorak thought that; Mr. William Gates III said exactly the same thing in "The Road Ahead," published about the same time, said pretty much the same thing. The extent of Dvorak and Bill Gates' vision consisted of, bigger, faster, stronger.
Now we see that it's more than just more. People sometimes forget that less is also important, and that the simplest answer is often the best.
Computer power gives us the ability to make computers more subtle. Consider on-line communication: back in the days of the BBS, communication took effort. You had to choose your BBS, dial up, and actively navigate the system. Better, more ubiquitious networking gives us the ability to passively navigate-- just click whatever link you see in your web browser, and there you are.
Until computers can fetch me another beer, though, they're worthless at the moment.
I agree with your premise. Microsoft often can't afford to take advantage of truly innovative technology, because that technology might erode their desktop monopoly.
Some of the logic along the way is... problematic.
Microsoft introduced ActiveX to ensure the web was tied to their platform. The reason ActiveX was "much maligned" is because it was just DCOM wrapped up in web semantics. Since DCOM was poorly-designed, ActiveX inherited many problems, including extremely poor security. At the time, CORBA was the standard for remote execution, and although it was a standard, it had many drawback when compared to DCOM-- namely, poor implementations that often didn't work together properly, naming service issues (still a problem, though its getting better), and huge bloat / performance issues.
Their platform was hardly fantastic. It was cobbled together, riddled with stability and security issues, and was tied intimately to the MS-Windows platform. The primary reason nobody adopted it on the web, outside of the compatibility nightmare, was that ActiveX controls required a Microsoft server on the other end, meaning exposing an important service to the internet. I believe that was Microsoft's intent-- get application developers to use ActiveX (most app developers were MS-Windows developers), and force the sysadmins to install MS-Windows servers to support them. But that might just be paranoid delusions on my part.
I'm glad you remember to glory days of ActiveX and IIS servers with such a warm fuzzy glow. All I remember were the serious ActiveXploits, IIS worms, and performance problems created by this "fantastic platform."
To all o' you people asking, "What does it give me?"
It gives you nothing. You're already on the internet.
IPv6 is going to give India and China and other high-populous countries connectivity. As it is, they don't have enough IPv4 addresses even to *nat* their country, let alone to provide real services with which NATing interferes.
And that's why you and I have very little say about the adoption of IPv6. It's gonna happen, and it's gonna happen soon (say, the next 5 years, tops). Pretty soon, those of us who remember IPv4 are going to be like 3-digit/. users-- old, out-of-date, and constantly reminiscing about the old days.
Ah. I'm closing my eyes, trying to conjure up the vision of spam on my TV. I'm watching a Friends re-run; let's see, Joey's drinking a Coke, Phoebe's buying an apothecary table from Pottery Barn. . . hmmmm, now I'm interrupted by a commercial for Zoloft (whatever the hell *that* is, since they can't legally tell me what it does and I have to ask my doctor), Chandler makes some lame joke about Trojan condoms. . .
Remember, the reaction of humans to the virus is also a selection process, and we will select very, VERY strongly against highly lethal strains.
Yes. By dying.
The survivors will mostly have some genetic predisposition to survive the disease. Many of the others will be dead. We cannot, as a society, protect against a highly-contagious, highly fatal disease with a pre-symptomatic period of a few days. That's one of the reasons many are so frightened of the ebola virus; if it were to spread to a highly-developed country like the US or England, air travel would allow it to spread elsewhere before anyone even had a clue it wasn't confined to some small African village.
We have many things working for us-- decent health care (except for the 45 million Americans without health insurance), decent living conditions (except for the 38 million Americans living in poverty), and awareness of contagion vectors and other disease-related stuff.
We also have many things working against us: high population densities, especially among those living below the median income; a dependence on fast, efficient mass transportation like trains and airplanes; and a medical system that is not prepared for a pandemic.
Dude, you are smoking the finest-grade selfish bullshit in the world.
First, it's usually no 'accident' that people end up with the children they conceived. I'm at a complete loss as to what you could mean by that.
The "accident" is not the children; it's the parents. The only thing that differentiates Paris Hilton from a crack whore of similar bad taste is the parents to which she was born.
Basic economics tells us that it costs nothing, and is basically fair, to let things work naturally, such as families.
"Basic economics" of the capitalist variety tells us, in general, that which rich people wish to hear. It is otherwise just as artificial as any other economic theory.
If you want to do something to change the natural state of affairs, it's going to cost a ton of money, like trying to keep all forests free of debris!
Basic social theory tells us there is a direct correlation between a person's education and their ability to be "successful," by almost any definition of the word. Our education system is structured such that those in poor communities receive poorer education than those in well-to-do communities; and this doesn't even address private schools. Basically, if you are born poor, you are more likely to stay poor.
If you want to do something to help those people, it's because you want to provide them with an unearned benefit to artificially IMPROVE their lot.
This statement is based on complete ignorance. "Those people" are just as deserving as you. Many of them moreso, I'd judge from your selfishness. Success is not measured by a bank account; worth is not measured by a paycheck. If that were true, CEOs would not receive salarys 500 times greater than a corporation's lowest salary.
Personally, I believe the only way forward is to help each other forward, instead of punching the weak in the face. But that's me. I'm kind of an idiot that way.
Fuck, one can find a few likeminded idiots all around the world who still believe that tripe and keep avoiding all the historical facts about what their beloved leaders actually did and what their cherished system always lead to because of its inherent failings.
Jesus, you ain't kidding. 51% of the voting public here in the US voted for Bush the second time around. Talk about avoiding historical facts, and cherishing a fucked-up system.
I respectfully disagree, and would say that its basic form means stealing what is not yours and giving it to others. In almost all cases, especially in the United States, the politically connected are the ones who benefit the most.
I believe when people talk of socialism here, they are referring to the ideal of socialism, not how it's been practiced in the past (or currently, either).
You could equally say that the capitalist ideal allows fair distribution of goods and services by the law of supply and demand; but as practiced here in the States, its basic form means stealing what is not yours and giving it to yourself. In almost all cases, especially in the United States, the politically connected are the ones who benefit the most.
. . . where democracy is tempered with certain constitutional rights that inhibit the grosser deficiencies of democracy.
Until some nutter comes along and removes those constitutional rights under the guise of "protection from the enemy," where "enemy" can be drugs, terrorism, yourself, your neighbor, homosexuals, heathens, or some other trumped-up bogeyman.
As shown by the current US administration, people in power will abuse the system, as they did with the push to war in Iraq (with lies and manipulative PR), Valerie Plame, and the systematic abuse of prisoners. It doesn't matter how good-intentioned most people are; given the tools of abuse, abuse will happen. The question then becomes, on what scale?
Terrorism is the excuse-de-jour for oppression and abuse. Whether it's secret US prisons in central Europe, or CIA exemptions for anti-torture legislation, or secret laws that US citizens must follow but cannot access, abuse is occurring. It doesn't take black helicopters or vast conspiracies to erode the selfsame liberties that at one time made our country admirable; all it takes is a few well-positioned fucknuts to destroy the American way of life (which is all but dead).
Just as programmers at Microsoft are just there to do the best job they can, they have no say over Microsoft's corporate attitudes. Same with Sony; I can't imagine the average worker at Sony wants to install a rootkit on your computer. And I can't imagine the average American wanted 100,000+ Iraqis to die in this most recent war.
As is oft said but little understood, the road to Hell is paved with good intentions. Right now, those laying to bricks mean well, but those leading the US down that road are screwing us over.
No, Sir. I don't like it. I don't like it one bit.
Microsoft has always had a hard-on for full desktop control. Their entry into the server market was as much to fight Novell (a cross-platform networking system) as it was to go after Unix. This is evident from the way the screwed over Novell*, as well as the general design of NT-- it essentially emulated Netware's capabilities.
The one single thing in which Microsoft has proven exceptional is controlling the market. From using the market against DR-DOS to bundling IE with MS-Windows 95, to forcing OEMs to bundle MS-Office instead of Wordperfect Office, Microsoft has controlled the market perfectly. At least, as perfectly as anyone can control the market.
These days, Microsoft is fighting not one, not two, but three major battles which they cannot control. First and foremost is Google, which is re-inventing information access by combining world-wide information access with an easy-to-use portal. Second is Apple, with the iPod. As Apple is currently the dominant distributor of on-line media, Apple is in a better position to control DRM. This could prove disasterous for Microsoft, as media distribution is going to be a huge market. Finally, the slow but invevitable move to open document standards is proving hard to manipulate, as it's hard to justify *not* moving to open standards.
As big of a Linux fanatic as I am (and oh, I am), I don't think Linux is a threat per se to Microsoft. I think as Microsoft loses its grip, Linux will be positioned to quickly become the platform of choice; but I do not believe Linux itself capable of toppling the giant. As open standards are adopted, I think Linux will have a better chance of becoming a problem for MS.
Unfortunately, I see Apple's control of the media market to be a potentially bigger issue in the next 5 years.
Anyway, that's why Microsoft is scared of Google. It means they are losing control, and mindshare, and like most bullies, they don't want to stop being the center of attention.
* Funny story. Ever wonder why MS-Windows NT was first released as MS-Windows NT 3.5, instead of NT 1.0 or MS-Windows 4.0? It seems the licensing agreement between Novell and Microsoft allowed Microsoft to ship Netware clients for any MS-Windows 3.x platform. When it came time for Microsoft to ship NT, they needed to have full compatibility with Netware, as that was the dominant networking architecture in most businesses. So, instead of re-negotiating with Novell (Microsoft knew Novell would not be happy about the competition), they simply dubbed their brand-new OS MS-Windows NT 3.5, sidestepping the problem entirely.
basically, at what point does a compromise with the hardware makers become the best option?
When the hardware manufacturers are willing to compromise.
The best solution is for them to develop a kernel module and submit the driver for acceptance into the mainline kernel. The manufacturers would like to be able to release binary-only drivers. This means they are not available for Linux-- they are available for a specific build of Linux (say, x86), and not available for other architectures (ARM, PPC, any other non-supported architecture).
A compromise would be this: the manufacturers release full specifications to their hardware interfaces and allow third parties to develop kernel modules. *That's* compromise, where both parties give something, and receive something in return.
Going with a full binary API doesn't solve the Linux problem of lack of support. It solves the manufacturers' problem of not having a "Linux support" checkbox.
That's it. I'm going to patent "Comments designed to cause emotional depression in a forum-like communication system," to hopefully stop posts like this.
Dude, you're bringing me down. I don't want to face the raw truth of our own state of fuckedness. Please, post something happy, like an amusing story in which MIT accepts an application to their school 30 years late, but fortunately the applicant had the foresight to pray himself to sleep beforehand.
I mean, that's a weird idea, but it seems to me that they're basically forcing the government to deal with the problem. Surely any halfway intelligent person can see that this system just isn't working
I've highlighted the flaws in your argument. Otherwise, it's the only sane explanation.
Beautiful. So Microsoft plays marketting games. As others have pointed out, it's just business as usual (fucking businesses-- their charters should be revoked).
And what do I see at the bottom of the webpage?
Advertising is the rattling of a stick inside a swill bucket. -- George Orwell
The Neuros 442 is not intended to be an iPod killer; it's designed to be a portable multimedia device. It'll play and record video. Its MP3 playback is far superior to the iPod. And, you don't have to spend $400 to hack on this device: you can get a developer board for about $160.
Anyway, I'm on the list for a board when they become available; and I am listening to the Eels on my 442 right now. For an MP3 device, the interface is not impressive but the playback is; as a portable video device, it's tre cool.
It's just business, everyone does it, it's what the US society is based on (like it or not).
Really? I thought the US was founded with the ideals of liberty and democracy.
Of course, I'm kind of old-fashioned that way.
You can't blame Bill for the state of the american corporate system. It's the politicians and law makers who have over time have continuously slipped further and further into a state of institutionalised corruption.
Excusing evil and corruption by claiming others are *really* the cause is a bit... silly. It's like ripping off your neighbor because there are no cops around, and other people robbed your neighbor last year anyway, so if you didn't do it, somebody *else* would.
So is he really so bad ?
Yes. But he has done some good things, like this. Bad people can do good things, even on purpose. Good people can do bad things, even on purpose.
I guess that's just one of those absurd paradoxes that make life so much worth living.
Slashdot Mirror
Don't confuse the RIAA with evil. You, the voter, are evil. They just followed the letter of the laws you wanted.
Uhm, no. They are following the letter of the laws they purchased through a Free Market Government.
"Evil" is not in elections, or anything else. Evil is the willingness to fuck over someone for your own gain. Pure evil is when that gain is just for your own enjoyment.
The folks at the RIAA are willing to fuck over as many people as they can to ensure their own position in the distribution of music, a very profitable position. File sharing is dangerous, not just because people can download the latest lame Metallica song, but because it will allow people to distribute their own music. Yes, there's a lot of really, really bad stuff out there for free (some of it worse than Metallica's recent stuff), but as review sites progress, and the truly independent music scene evolves, people will be able to find the music they like, and the RIAA is cut out completely.
Independent music is doing to the RIAA what free software is doing to Microsoft-- making them stay up at night, even if it doesn't appear to be a real threat at the moment. P2P is essential for a solid independent music scene. The RIAA is trying not just to eliminate file sharing of copyrighted works (which is wrong, no matter how heavy-handed the bad guys are), but to paint all file sharing as evil.
If they can do that, they can destroy the truly independed music scene before it even gets started.
As I understand it (imperfectly, for sure) there are legaly significant differences between the XML schema for Office 2003 and the upcoming Office 12.
.doc as their primary format within MS-Office. Near as I can tell, Microsoft is merely trying to cloud the issue in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.
There are major differences, both technically and legally, between MS-Office 2003 XML and MS-Office 12 XML. Microsoft is submitting the MS-Office 2003 XML schema to ECMA; so far, they have not indicated they are doing the same with the MSO 12 schema. Also, their covenant not to sue over patents is specific to the 2003 schema. Finally, the 2003 xml schema is optional; it's my understanding that the MSO 12 schema is the primary format for the upcoming version of MS-Office.
Microsoft loses nothing by offering up the 2003 schema as a sacrificial lamb; most people still use
Of course, I could be wrong. But I don't think so.
Agreed, rights exist inspite of government, not because of it.
Dude, I'm with you, except for this.
Our "rights" exist only within the framework of what we can and cannot legally do. Our "rights" are only what the government proscribes-- this is in spite of, not because of, the Declaration of Independence, and the Constitution of the United States of America.
The ability to perform an action is inate-- that is, we can perform any action we choose, even killing another human. However, the actions that are allowed under law are much more limited. There is no natural right to any specific action, and what is considered a right today (say, the ability to say that our current President is a fucking lying war criminal) may be unlawful tomorrow, and is no longer a "right."
Rights are granted by the policies and practices of the government, as secured by the citizens. If we are going to be fucking "free," we had better secure those rights.
Anyway, I like the way you think. I just don't think we've been given any "rights," nor are we guaranteed the ability to practice those "rights." Liberty is secured, not given; freedom is not a gift, but obtained through personal sacrifice of many.
At least, that's my opinion. It goes without saying (though I shall), I could be wrong.
Your analogy is much to simplistic. A DVD player is a generic device that will (hopefully) play any random DVD purchased at your local store.
Game systems are much more like the old saying, "Give away the razor, and sell the blades." If the razor you give away can only be used with your blades, you lock people into perhaps spending a lot more per blade than if you had purchased a razor that accepted generic blades.
It's not so much about economics as it is marketing. Economics only comes into play when deciding how much money Microsoft wants to lose, in the hopes of making it up on the games. Otherwise, it's all about making more games that people want to play.
Heinlein's best geek was Manny, from his best book, "The Moon Is A Harsh Mistress." He was definitely a geek. And, barring RAH's usual sexism, it is an excellent work.
And Pohl should have had Gateway on the list.
Gibson. Feh. I have tried to read Neoromancer probably a dozen times. It sucks, at least it sucks for me.
It's just business.
Y'know, I've heard that line excuse some of the most foul, unacceptable behaviour, and I'm tired of it. No, it's not just business. Business is like any other interaction-- you treat people fairly, or you don't fucking treat them at all.
I see all kinds of posts lambasting frivolous lawsuits and the general decline of morals in America; often, those posts are from the same people who stand up for ill-behaved corporations and say inane things like, "It's just business."
Well, fuck them in the ass with a spinning roto-rooter.
Things done in the name of business represent some of the most immoral things in our culture today-- the purchasing of government by corporations, for instance. So, no, it's not just "business;" business should include treating each other with decency and ethics, just like all human interaction.
Now, where the hell did I put my lithium?
It's not surprising Dvorak thought that; Mr. William Gates III said exactly the same thing in "The Road Ahead," published about the same time, said pretty much the same thing. The extent of Dvorak and Bill Gates' vision consisted of, bigger, faster, stronger.
Now we see that it's more than just more. People sometimes forget that less is also important, and that the simplest answer is often the best.
Computer power gives us the ability to make computers more subtle. Consider on-line communication: back in the days of the BBS, communication took effort. You had to choose your BBS, dial up, and actively navigate the system. Better, more ubiquitious networking gives us the ability to passively navigate-- just click whatever link you see in your web browser, and there you are.
Until computers can fetch me another beer, though, they're worthless at the moment.
I agree with your premise. Microsoft often can't afford to take advantage of truly innovative technology, because that technology might erode their desktop monopoly.
Some of the logic along the way is... problematic.
Microsoft introduced ActiveX to ensure the web was tied to their platform. The reason ActiveX was "much maligned" is because it was just DCOM wrapped up in web semantics. Since DCOM was poorly-designed, ActiveX inherited many problems, including extremely poor security. At the time, CORBA was the standard for remote execution, and although it was a standard, it had many drawback when compared to DCOM-- namely, poor implementations that often didn't work together properly, naming service issues (still a problem, though its getting better), and huge bloat / performance issues.
Their platform was hardly fantastic. It was cobbled together, riddled with stability and security issues, and was tied intimately to the MS-Windows platform. The primary reason nobody adopted it on the web, outside of the compatibility nightmare, was that ActiveX controls required a Microsoft server on the other end, meaning exposing an important service to the internet. I believe that was Microsoft's intent-- get application developers to use ActiveX (most app developers were MS-Windows developers), and force the sysadmins to install MS-Windows servers to support them. But that might just be paranoid delusions on my part.
I'm glad you remember to glory days of ActiveX and IIS servers with such a warm fuzzy glow. All I remember were the serious ActiveXploits, IIS worms, and performance problems created by this "fantastic platform."
To all o' you people asking, "What does it give me?"
/. users-- old, out-of-date, and constantly reminiscing about the old days.
It gives you nothing. You're already on the internet.
IPv6 is going to give India and China and other high-populous countries connectivity. As it is, they don't have enough IPv4 addresses even to *nat* their country, let alone to provide real services with which NATing interferes.
And that's why you and I have very little say about the adoption of IPv6. It's gonna happen, and it's gonna happen soon (say, the next 5 years, tops). Pretty soon, those of us who remember IPv4 are going to be like 3-digit
can you imagine spam on your tv?
Ah. I'm closing my eyes, trying to conjure up the vision of spam on my TV. I'm watching a Friends re-run; let's see, Joey's drinking a Coke, Phoebe's buying an apothecary table from Pottery Barn. . . hmmmm, now I'm interrupted by a commercial for Zoloft (whatever the hell *that* is, since they can't legally tell me what it does and I have to ask my doctor), Chandler makes some lame joke about Trojan condoms. . .
Uhm, nope. I can't imagine spam on my TV at all.
Remember, the reaction of humans to the virus is also a selection process, and we will select very, VERY strongly against highly lethal strains.
Yes. By dying.
The survivors will mostly have some genetic predisposition to survive the disease. Many of the others will be dead. We cannot, as a society, protect against a highly-contagious, highly fatal disease with a pre-symptomatic period of a few days. That's one of the reasons many are so frightened of the ebola virus; if it were to spread to a highly-developed country like the US or England, air travel would allow it to spread elsewhere before anyone even had a clue it wasn't confined to some small African village.
We have many things working for us-- decent health care (except for the 45 million Americans without health insurance), decent living conditions (except for the 38 million Americans living in poverty), and awareness of contagion vectors and other disease-related stuff.
We also have many things working against us: high population densities, especially among those living below the median income; a dependence on fast, efficient mass transportation like trains and airplanes; and a medical system that is not prepared for a pandemic.
Dude, you are smoking the finest-grade selfish bullshit in the world.
First, it's usually no 'accident' that people end up with the children they conceived. I'm at a complete loss as to what you could mean by that.
The "accident" is not the children; it's the parents. The only thing that differentiates Paris Hilton from a crack whore of similar bad taste is the parents to which she was born.
Basic economics tells us that it costs nothing, and is basically fair, to let things work naturally, such as families.
"Basic economics" of the capitalist variety tells us, in general, that which rich people wish to hear. It is otherwise just as artificial as any other economic theory.
If you want to do something to change the natural state of affairs, it's going to cost a ton of money, like trying to keep all forests free of debris!
Basic social theory tells us there is a direct correlation between a person's education and their ability to be "successful," by almost any definition of the word. Our education system is structured such that those in poor communities receive poorer education than those in well-to-do communities; and this doesn't even address private schools. Basically, if you are born poor, you are more likely to stay poor.
If you want to do something to help those people, it's because you want to provide them with an unearned benefit to artificially IMPROVE their lot.
This statement is based on complete ignorance. "Those people" are just as deserving as you. Many of them moreso, I'd judge from your selfishness. Success is not measured by a bank account; worth is not measured by a paycheck. If that were true, CEOs would not receive salarys 500 times greater than a corporation's lowest salary.
Personally, I believe the only way forward is to help each other forward, instead of punching the weak in the face. But that's me. I'm kind of an idiot that way.
Fuck, one can find a few likeminded idiots all around the world who still believe that tripe and keep avoiding all the historical facts about what their beloved leaders actually did and what their cherished system always lead to because of its inherent failings.
Jesus, you ain't kidding. 51% of the voting public here in the US voted for Bush the second time around. Talk about avoiding historical facts, and cherishing a fucked-up system.
I respectfully disagree, and would say that its basic form means stealing what is not yours and giving it to others. In almost all cases, especially in the United States, the politically connected are the ones who benefit the most.
I believe when people talk of socialism here, they are referring to the ideal of socialism, not how it's been practiced in the past (or currently, either).
You could equally say that the capitalist ideal allows fair distribution of goods and services by the law of supply and demand; but as practiced here in the States, its basic form means stealing what is not yours and giving it to yourself. In almost all cases, especially in the United States, the politically connected are the ones who benefit the most.
Sorry about the plagarism.
. . . where democracy is tempered with certain constitutional rights that inhibit the grosser deficiencies of democracy.
Until some nutter comes along and removes those constitutional rights under the guise of "protection from the enemy," where "enemy" can be drugs, terrorism, yourself, your neighbor, homosexuals, heathens, or some other trumped-up bogeyman.
Fuckers.
What you say is truth.
It is also irrelevent.
As shown by the current US administration, people in power will abuse the system, as they did with the push to war in Iraq (with lies and manipulative PR), Valerie Plame, and the systematic abuse of prisoners. It doesn't matter how good-intentioned most people are; given the tools of abuse, abuse will happen. The question then becomes, on what scale?
Terrorism is the excuse-de-jour for oppression and abuse. Whether it's secret US prisons in central Europe, or CIA exemptions for anti-torture legislation, or secret laws that US citizens must follow but cannot access, abuse is occurring. It doesn't take black helicopters or vast conspiracies to erode the selfsame liberties that at one time made our country admirable; all it takes is a few well-positioned fucknuts to destroy the American way of life (which is all but dead).
Just as programmers at Microsoft are just there to do the best job they can, they have no say over Microsoft's corporate attitudes. Same with Sony; I can't imagine the average worker at Sony wants to install a rootkit on your computer. And I can't imagine the average American wanted 100,000+ Iraqis to die in this most recent war.
As is oft said but little understood, the road to Hell is paved with good intentions. Right now, those laying to bricks mean well, but those leading the US down that road are screwing us over.
No, Sir. I don't like it. I don't like it one bit.
Microsoft has always had a hard-on for full desktop control. Their entry into the server market was as much to fight Novell (a cross-platform networking system) as it was to go after Unix. This is evident from the way the screwed over Novell*, as well as the general design of NT-- it essentially emulated Netware's capabilities.
The one single thing in which Microsoft has proven exceptional is controlling the market. From using the market against DR-DOS to bundling IE with MS-Windows 95, to forcing OEMs to bundle MS-Office instead of Wordperfect Office, Microsoft has controlled the market perfectly. At least, as perfectly as anyone can control the market.
These days, Microsoft is fighting not one, not two, but three major battles which they cannot control. First and foremost is Google, which is re-inventing information access by combining world-wide information access with an easy-to-use portal. Second is Apple, with the iPod. As Apple is currently the dominant distributor of on-line media, Apple is in a better position to control DRM. This could prove disasterous for Microsoft, as media distribution is going to be a huge market. Finally, the slow but invevitable move to open document standards is proving hard to manipulate, as it's hard to justify *not* moving to open standards.
As big of a Linux fanatic as I am (and oh, I am), I don't think Linux is a threat per se to Microsoft. I think as Microsoft loses its grip, Linux will be positioned to quickly become the platform of choice; but I do not believe Linux itself capable of toppling the giant. As open standards are adopted, I think Linux will have a better chance of becoming a problem for MS.
Unfortunately, I see Apple's control of the media market to be a potentially bigger issue in the next 5 years.
Anyway, that's why Microsoft is scared of Google. It means they are losing control, and mindshare, and like most bullies, they don't want to stop being the center of attention.
* Funny story. Ever wonder why MS-Windows NT was first released as MS-Windows NT 3.5, instead of NT 1.0 or MS-Windows 4.0? It seems the licensing agreement between Novell and Microsoft allowed Microsoft to ship Netware clients for any MS-Windows 3.x platform. When it came time for Microsoft to ship NT, they needed to have full compatibility with Netware, as that was the dominant networking architecture in most businesses. So, instead of re-negotiating with Novell (Microsoft knew Novell would not be happy about the competition), they simply dubbed their brand-new OS MS-Windows NT 3.5, sidestepping the problem entirely.
. . . stupidity unguided by secret cabals or ninja assassins or Skull and Bones members.
A lot of the stupidity I see in the US is guided by a Skull and Bones member, which is a secret(ive) cabal.
I don't think he's a ninja assassin though.
basically, at what point does a compromise with the hardware makers become the best option?
When the hardware manufacturers are willing to compromise.
The best solution is for them to develop a kernel module and submit the driver for acceptance into the mainline kernel. The manufacturers would like to be able to release binary-only drivers. This means they are not available for Linux-- they are available for a specific build of Linux (say, x86), and not available for other architectures (ARM, PPC, any other non-supported architecture).
A compromise would be this: the manufacturers release full specifications to their hardware interfaces and allow third parties to develop kernel modules. *That's* compromise, where both parties give something, and receive something in return.
Going with a full binary API doesn't solve the Linux problem of lack of support. It solves the manufacturers' problem of not having a "Linux support" checkbox.
By using Linux, that's how.
Yeah, I'm a Linux fanboy. Sue me.
That's it. I'm going to patent "Comments designed to cause emotional depression in a forum-like communication system," to hopefully stop posts like this.
Dude, you're bringing me down. I don't want to face the raw truth of our own state of fuckedness. Please, post something happy, like an amusing story in which MIT accepts an application to their school 30 years late, but fortunately the applicant had the foresight to pray himself to sleep beforehand.
Please?
I mean, that's a weird idea, but it seems to me that they're basically forcing the government to deal with the problem. Surely any halfway intelligent person can see that this system just isn't working
I've highlighted the flaws in your argument. Otherwise, it's the only sane explanation.
Beautiful. So Microsoft plays marketting games. As others have pointed out, it's just business as usual (fucking businesses-- their charters should be revoked).
And what do I see at the bottom of the webpage?
Advertising is the rattling of a stick inside a swill bucket. -- George Orwell
Suuuu-EEEEE. Suuuu-EEEEEE.
The Neuros 442 is not intended to be an iPod killer; it's designed to be a portable multimedia device. It'll play and record video. Its MP3 playback is far superior to the iPod. And, you don't have to spend $400 to hack on this device: you can get a developer board for about $160.
Anyway, I'm on the list for a board when they become available; and I am listening to the Eels on my 442 right now. For an MP3 device, the interface is not impressive but the playback is; as a portable video device, it's tre cool.
It's just business, everyone does it, it's what the US society is based on (like it or not).
Really? I thought the US was founded with the ideals of liberty and democracy.
Of course, I'm kind of old-fashioned that way.
You can't blame Bill for the state of the american corporate system. It's the politicians and law makers who have over time have continuously slipped further and further into a state of institutionalised corruption.
Excusing evil and corruption by claiming others are *really* the cause is a bit... silly. It's like ripping off your neighbor because there are no cops around, and other people robbed your neighbor last year anyway, so if you didn't do it, somebody *else* would.
So is he really so bad ?
Yes. But he has done some good things, like this. Bad people can do good things, even on purpose. Good people can do bad things, even on purpose.
I guess that's just one of those absurd paradoxes that make life so much worth living.