So some IBM employees may have helped out with the Kenyan response. Unless the comments were spurious or incorrect, this is a *good* thing. After all, a standard should be as complete, simple, consistent, and clear as possible. If IBM helped Kenya out, and the result was a good critique of the proposed standard, *that's all good*!
If that's all the controversy they can dig up on Kenya's response, it seems like they're reaching for strawmen.
The only answer that would surprise me would be "Microsoft."
Because it doesn't matter *how* they were caught. It doesn't matter who caught them.
They. Were. Buying. Votes. Period.
The fact they were caught is all that matters. They were gaming the system, and in a big way. This is, of course, just one act in a long line of systems-gaming by Microsoft. Microsoft is usually much more subtle than this, which indicates to me they are either getting sloppy, or this is a big deal to them.
I would however love to see a merger between Qt and GTK . . .
That'd be tough, as Gtk+ is C-based, and Qt is C++-based.
This is one of the few cases where the choice of using a C++ toolkit has turned me off. Basing the entire desktop on C++ makes it harder for people who hate C++ (like me) to participate. It's essentially blocked off a huge section of developers from touching it.
Whereas with Gtk+ (and GNOME, and XFCE, etc) or EFL (the Enlightenment Foundation Libraries) it's pretty easy to write bindings for other languages, like Perl or C++ or Objective-C (far superior to C++, IMNSHO) or LISP or (insert your favorite language here). That makes GNOME much more egalitarian than KDE.
It also makes a merger between Gtk+ and Qt technically very, very difficult.
Things may get more interesting on that front, now that Nokia owns Trolltech. I hope they can manage something without scaring the KDE folks.
Yeah, that's gonna be interesting. They *do* have the N810, but the environment is not completely open. Fortunately, they can't take Qt out of circulation, so a project could always fork off, if Nokia proves too domineering.
More proof that Microsoft is a marketing company and not a technology company IMO.
That's funny. I met a PR person who works with Microsoft marketing. She said exactly the same thing-- Microsoft has all these tech people who build great products, but when they are in a workable (still unfinished) state, the marketers come in and start changing things around. She's seen some fan-fuckin'-tastic software in the early stages, yet when it gets released, it's almost unrecognizable, and generally a POS.
This from someone who relies on Microsoft's money (though not Microsoft Money).
Except your old V.90 dial-up modem or hardware graphics acceleration.
I don't know about his, but mine works fine. Dial-up for remote checking of servers (external US Robotics, not one of those crippled winmodems, sure), and graphics acceleration on my ATI Radeon Mobility X1400-based laptop. Spinny cube and everything.
Okay, that's it. I'm gettin' pretty tired of the term, "groupthink," especially in a post that is bawling somebody out for calling people "sheep." (Well, and Godwin.)
As a constitutional libertarian socialist, I agree with the original post. This is merely one strange incident in a whole bizarre pattern of information suppression (via legislation and other means) and misinformation, all in the name of, "We're protecting you from the terrorists. But they might just attack tomorrow." I am *not* anti-social. As I said, I'm quite socialist.
Calling it all "groupthink" just because you don't agree with a whole bunch of people doesn't make them wrong. It just means you disagree with a whole bunch of intelligent people who have different opinions from you. Oh, and a whole bunch of idiots with different opinions, too.
I'd like to start by drawing the attention of the readers to both what our canonical hive minder said and left unsaid.
Okay, this is going too far.
I definitely agree with the 2nd amendment. I agree with everything you have stated about it. In fact, in places with mandatory gun ownership (like Switzerland) there is very little violent crime at all. So you haven't even gone far enough in defending the 2nd amendment.
However, calling someone a "hive minder" is merely a way of avoiding their (possibly valid) opinion. It does nothing to support your claim, and makes your other arguments suspect.
And then you say:
Quivering masses of welfare clients on the other hand... the solution should be obvious.
Ah. "Quivering masses." Beautiful. More senseless rhetoric, with nothing to back it up-- exactly what you (rightly) accused the other poster of doing with gun control.
You can be 100% compliant with the published spec... but if you aren't 100% compliant with what Microsoft apps produce, your product is not an option.
You don't think Microsoft *planned* it this way, did you?
The *only* reason Microsoft purchased... I mean, went through the IEEE standardization process was to fast-track to ISO. This is because places like Massachusetts were pondering passing resolutions that would require certain government agencies (in the case of Mass, the executive branch) to publish documents in a standard, open format. Microsoft, of course, fought that with money, lobbying, and disinformation (Microsoft's best weapons).
By getting a rubber-stamp standard, Microsoft can continue doing exactly what they do now: locking in customers by creating the perception that theirs is the only office suite that can handle the "standard" correctly, making the other suites look inferior (despite the actual compliance of the other suites).
Notice the timing of OOXML-- it happened just as OOo was beginning to render.doc formats exceptionally well. The barrier to conversion to OOo was damned low. So, it was time to introduce another incompatible document format, which is what they have always done when the competition gets too hot.
I don't know why Microsoft doesn't believe they can compete on merit alone. They almost *always* resort to market manipulation to maintain the upper hand. It'd be funny, if they weren't teabagging capitalism in the process.
Do you have a data source? I'd really like to know, truly.
It was my understanding that we started falling behind in the '70s or '80s, but had actually made some progress towards parity near the end of the '90s. Yes, we were still behind, but the decay had been arrested. At least, that was my understanding of reports at the time. That was a decade ago, though, so my memory could very well be faulty.
I'm actually interested in legitimate data sources.
Or just the first db they encountered when they picked up a LAMP book?
Pretty much.
Back in the day, it was also much less featureful, and so PostgreSQL seemed complex by comparison. Oh, and PostgreSQL didn't have fantastic documentation until a little bit later (around 8.0). There were major holes in the documentation, like backup and restore.
At least, this is what a friend of mine tells me. He evaluated PG, but found the documentation lacking.
Meanwhile, go count the number of MySQL books vs. PG books.
There's a huge catch-22 for PG vs. MySQL. There are only a few PG books because everyone uses MySQL. People use MySQL because there are so many books on it (and because some people really do like it). We see the same thing in OOo vs. MS-Office, or free software in general. There are *so* many books available on MS software, so people are going to gravitate towards MS software. We need more free software books, and more shelf space in Barnes and Nobles and Waldenbooks and whatnot.
First, because it will make easier for developers to put more application logic in the database.
This sounds like an education issue, not a tech issue. Teach developers that the database is for data coherence, the middle layer is for application logic, and the client is for data entry and user interaction. Using Java stored procedures for data management tasks is very useful.
Second, because a native compiled stored procedure (native, that is, to the DBMS) would be faster
True. I use plperl in PostgreSQL quite extensively, and although there is a performance difference between Perl and C stored procedures, the C procedures are much harder to develop and debug. There are some things I can do in just a few lines of Perl that would take ten times more work in C, and would be damned hard with plpgsql. If there's a lot of database interaction, the performance difference between C and Perl isn't that great.
It all comes down to a trade-off between maintainability, performance, and sanity, as in all programming.
Your employees spend the whole day after the upgrade just figuring out the new software. That's a man-year of productivity lost.
I don't believe this, even for a thousand users of the office package.
Actually, I see 1,000 employees who've lost time reading/. (or Perez Hilton), playing Solitaire, pimping their MySpace pages, or just staring off into space pretending to work.
In one given day, most people productively *work* only for a couple of hours.
MS-Office is the dominant office suite. MS-Office 2007 saves documents in a format that OOo can't read. Therefore, most people are saving their documents in a format OOo can't read.
Now, every time an IT guy has to go to a desk for the user who called and said, "I can't open this document," and then the IT guy has to go *back* to the office, get the clue-bat, return to the desk, and forcefully whonk the user with the clue-bat, and say, "It's in MS-Office 2007 proprietary format, you imbecile-- you can't open it with anything else!" and then the user has to order a copy of MS-Office 2007 (which doesn't come cheap, my friend), it *costs the company money!*
So it's easy to see how OOo is more expensive than MS-Office.
Maybe they're just saying that anybody who insists on using ODF because Microsoft has a disproportionate influence over OOXML is fooling themselves, because the same can be said (to an extent) of ODF.
If that is what they are saying, they are just plain wrong. Sun has influence over ODF because they participate in the ODF working group. They *participate.* They don't control, though they do have a lot of input, being a highly-skilled bunch of folks.
Microsoft doesn't have a disproportionate amount of control over OOXML-- they have *absolute* control over OOXML. They have reserved to themselves the right to modify and change the standard themselves. No-one else may even participate. So, that's not "disproportionate." That's absolute.
The difference is painfully clear, and impossible to miss. I would say, "Impossible to ignore," but I have heard this bit of misinformation often enough.
What is the purpose of ODF? Is it to empower users? Or is a means for Sun to erode the profitability of core Microsoft products?
So far, ODF is the only open standard editable office document format available. Period. There are no others. Several competitive office suites support ODF, not just OOo/StarOffice. Microsoft could also support ODF, if they so desired, and if they truly had an office suite that would win in the free market, it would. Sun is not barring them from participating in the ODF OASIS working group, nor from adopting ODF as their standard office format. It is Microsoft who refuses to play.
There is *no* product that supports OOXML. Even MS-Office 2007 doesn't save to OOXML specifications; Microsoft isn't even compliant with their own proposed standard. So then the question is not, "Is this Sun trying to erode Microsoft's profitability?" but, "Is this Microsoft trying to maintain their own profitability at the expense of the user?" And also, "Does ODF in its current or proposed form meet the needs of the users?"
In the end, the *only* thing that empowers the user is a freely-available, open standard to which vendors adhere. Otherwise, they have no power whatsoever. They are subject to the whims of someone else. And in this case, the "someone else" has demonstrated a substantial lack of respect for the users, choice, and the free market.
It might not've been in the power of the executive branch *before* this President, it's well within the power now. The President can do pretty much *everything!*
So I reckon that'd be the last thing I'd change, after I change everything else.
Seriously, though, the President can set an agenda, and influence congress to work on certain legislation. It doesn't always work, but it works *sometimes*.
Or you can elect someone like the CFR sponsored candidates (every [sic] else) who will surround themselves with crazy anti-Americans like Musharrif and bin Laden.
Sorry, I really don't know who the CFR is, or whom they represent. So I'm not sure what you're saying here. Honestly. Is that "everyone else," rather than "every else?" The context would seem to indicate that.
Ah. You mean the Council on Foreign Relations. Those guys are amateurs. It seems all they might desire (according to conspiracy theories) is the union of Canada, the US, and Mexico. That actually sounds like a good idea, as it'll be easier to defend our borders if they don't include thousands of miles of unpopulated wilderness. It'll just about end this whole "illegal alien" stupidity that's being used as a smokescreen to draw discussion from serious issues. Plus, I like Mexican food.
I see your conspiracy theory, and raise you one. *I* believe our candidates are controlled by the Bilderberg Group. Now, those guys mean business. They want to start with what the CFR proposes, right enough. That that's *just the first step*. They eventually want world domination under guidance of their group of elite industrialists and politicians. They want to put an implant in everyone, and have a giant computer track our every word, our every movement. We would be controlled by a world police answerable only to the Group.
The CFR doesn't think big enough to scare me.
Oh, and Ron Paul doesn't stand a chance of getting elected if the BG doesn't want him. They already control the elections-- witness the actions of the Supreme Court in 2000. That wasn't an arbitrary decision. They too owe their political lives to the BG.
Personally, I've had a Chuck Norris conspiracy theory since *well* before it was popular. (Who studied with Bruce Lee? Who trained Elvis? Think about it.) He seems to have a strange control over Ron Paul. *That* scares the hell out of me.
First, I'd institute a legislative review process. Each new piece of legislation that is created has an automatic sunset of 2 years. It *must* be reviewed, and re-voted upon, after two years. After its second pass, it must be reviewed after four years. After the third pass, it must be voted upon after eight years. And so on.
Also, the government will institute a website on which all legislation is published as it passes through the house, senate, and executive branches. Attached to the legislation will be all records (including video and audio of the debates concerning the legislation, and records of modifications and who proposed and executed them, and how each member voted).
This website will also contain discussion areas, where non-anonymous comments may be posted by citizens of the United States. Registration would occur automatically with your voter registration card. This is to (hopefully!) keep the level of discussion slightly above Digg. Also, this would allow petitions, so citizens could force a review of unpopular legislation. (Any good ideas on anonymizing this while keeping individual responsibility is welcome.)
This does three things: first, it makes sure we *want* the legislation, and that it works as intended. Secondly, it slows down the amount of legislation that can happen, which is *good*. Thirdly, it'll increase transparency of the legislative process, and provide direct feedback from citizens.
--
Next, I'd repeal the concept of corporate personhood. Corporations would have charters under which they operate. Their charter could be city, county, state, national, or international in scope. They would no longer be allowed to hold patents or copyrights. Only the individuals responsible for the patent or copyright may hold them. Citizens could not, however, hold trademarks. That right would be reserved for corporations.
If the executive body of the corporation is found in any way to operate against the public good, a review process similar to a criminal trial will decide if the corporation may continue, or if the charter will be revoked. If the charter is revoked, the shareholders may re-apply for a new charter. However, any executive personally found guilty of criminal activity will forfeit their shares, which will be liquidated.
The corporate laws that determine whether a company operates against the public good will be similar to criminal laws. Certain kinds of contracts will be prohibited, including exclusive contracts and variants thereof (the "per-processor" fee for MS-DOS, for instance), intentional interference of competition, and whatnot.
Of course, should this legislation pass, it would be up for review in two years.
--
I will reform the education system, such that all schools are funded equally, with respect to student count. This will end one of the barriers to upward mobility for poor citizens. This will not preclude private schools, which may operate as they do currently, but no federal funding will be applied to private schools. That's why they're called "private."
"No Child Left Behind" will be left behind, or reformed and funded properly. (The concept isn't necessarily bad, but the execution was horrible.)
--
I'll steal a lot of the ideas already mentioned here: election reform to make the two-party system obsolete, begin an infrastructure-reconstruction plan in Iraq ("You broke it, you bought it"), legalize pot, reform tax laws along a progressive scale, phase out DHS, reverse the trend of privatizing government, etc.
--
I will strengthen the Monroe doctrine, which originally applied to European conflicts in the Americas, but is now used as an excuse to meddle in the affairs of many countries to the south. I would preclude US military action (including the funding of militant parties) in foreign countries with which we are not at war.
I wouldn't dissolve our overseas bases. In fact, I believe I'd try to make many more, smaller bases in countries that will have us, and work to inc
Yeah, developers do it for the bullet points on their CV, but also because they can.
The CV point is very important. During a recession, when the job market is more competitive, getting some nice development projects on your CV can't hurt. And, assuming you're good, a potential employer can see exactly how good you are *today*, rather than relying on a project you worked on when times were good four years ago.
You honestly don't see a major difference between pointing a gun (or sword) at someone, and handing someone a wad of cash?
Uhm, sorry for the double response, but this has been bugging me, and I couldn't figure out why.
Then I realized, you think that everyone has an opportunity.
Do you know why the unemployment rate is so important? It's a sign of national economic health. It's not an indicator of how many lazy people there are-- it's an indicator of how many people are not being offered a wad of cash, no matter how small a wad it might be. It's a sign of how many people who wish to work, can't.
Now, there are also a *large* number of people who are handed a wad of cash in exchange for work, but that wad is too small to provide anything but bare-minimum subsistence, if that. This number isn't included in unemployment, and so is harder to track, but we do that with the number of people living below the poverty line. About 12% to 17% (depending on if you subscribe to US or UN definitions of "poverty line") currently live below the poverty line.
So my question is this: why are people so unemployed, or living below the poverty line? Do they like it like that? Are they not working hard? Have they just made bad choices in their life?
In any case, it doesn't matter. These people are either unemployed or not making a living wage. That means there either aren't enough jobs (for the unemployed) or the jobs that *are* available, don't pay a living wage. Since the unemployment rate varies due to economics, this rather proves *this isn't by choice.* These people did not *choose* to be unemployed, or to work for wages that can't really support them.
The fact is, the number of jobs that provide a living wage accounts for *no more than* 88% of the population. These are the jobs supported by the economy. And if you lived at the poverty line, I don't think you'd feel too comfortable knowing you were making a "living wage."
As I said in my original post, our current system doesn't involve getting a sword upside the head, and so it is an improvement in that way. Also, the standard of living is greater for a larger number of people. But that doesn't mean those at the bottom (greater than the 12%-17% living below the poverty line) aren't any less serfs, subject to the whims of the very rich. Even upper-middle-class workers are subject to the whims of the very rich-- witness the uncertainty over outsourcing, for instance. (Which I'm all for. It opens up the world economy to the US, though it has the unfortunately side-effect of making the ultra-rich ultra-richer.)
So, not everyone has opportunity. Not everyone is offered a wad of cash. Further, many who *are* offered a wad of cash, are offered a wad of cash smaller than needed to decently live on.
There are no limited "slots" for economic betterment; and while having money can make it easier for one to make more money, it does not stop anyone else from doing so.
Yes, there are limited slots for economic betterment.
The total US economy (or world economy, if you wish to go global) is limited. There is only a certain amount of money to go around. And, since we don't live in some idealistic world were bartering is sufficient for sustaining a family of four in the general case, there's limited possibility to how that wealth is distributed. The amount of wealth is increasing, but at a rate insufficient to make it possible for a large number of people to better themselves. (The US economy grows in single-digit percentages in the best of years.)
Now, if everyone in the US had exactly the same amount of money, everyone would live a decent, if not grand, life. However, that isn't the case. (Nor do I advocate that: I do believe hard work and contribution to society should be rewarded. I'm really not a communist, nor really even a socialist. But I understand capitalism suffers from the same flaws found in communism: human nature fucks it all up.)
The current situation is this: a small minority controls the vast majority of wealth. As with your own checkbook, there's only a certain amount to go around. It might not be a zero-sum game, but it's not as malleable as you describe. There are practical, economic, and social limits.
Actually, they do belong to those with the biggest guns: the government. In most countries and in every real sense of the word, the government actually owns everything.
Ah. Something on which we completely agree.
But you are misplacing the blame by concentrating on those who gain their wealth by voluntary trade, rather than on those who do so by force.
Tell me: why does legislation tend to favor the rich? Could it perhaps be because they have significant influence over the government?
The whole concept of "voluntary trade" sounds good, just as the idea of "we all work for each other" (communism) sounds good. But when segments of the population can control the trade, and the regulation thereof, the "voluntary" portion of that becomes a bit questionable.
Money. Is. Power. I won't say the US government is totally corrupt, but I do assert that big business (and the ultra-rich) have far more influence in government, trade, and culture, than the vast numbers of poor. And that influence has led to barriers for the poor to become moderately well-off, let alone super rich.
And these laws encroaching free speech and the sharing of ideas (I'm not talking music here, though they do) are further barriers. And, they come at the expense of liberty.
Until you tell somebody else. Then it is both yours, *and* theirs. And then they tell somebody else, and that third person *also* owns it.
Information is only valuable as long as it is secret, or distribution can be controlled.
Conflating ownership of things is separate from the "ownership" of ideas. A thing exists only in place. An idea exists in the minds of all who contain it. There is no "ownership." If you don't want to share your idea: fine. If you, and others who might contribute, wish to say, "Fuck you!," then fine. Say that. Just don't try to place restrictions on what I do with *my* mind. Once my mind contains your ideas, it is in *my* mind, not just yours, and for you to try to regulate what *I* can do with my mind is ludicrous, selfish, and somewhat pathetic.
The Soviet union never once tried communism. It tried a dictator-based socialism. Communism *can* work, but only on a very small scale, and generally only for a short while. (There are communes in Isreal that have operated for many years.)
What else do you expect with the starting point that a man's mind is not his own and that intelligence and creativity should be punished.
So, once I contain an idea, you wish to curtail my own creativity and intelligence? If that idea comes from another, and I wish to apply it, you are suggesting that *you* can control what *I* do.
What you wish is exactly the opposite of what you said. Creativity and intelligence isn't punished. The creator and thinker loses nothing in the dissemination of an idea. What you wish is the opposite of that: you think every idea should be rewarded to whatever price the creator of the idea wishes to name-- not just once, but over and over again. And worse, you wish to control other people from spreading the idea, and making use of it.
It seems you are the one that wishes to control others, not me.
It's not the ownership of ideas persee that holds the "peasants" back.
There are two ideas going here, not one. They are inter-related, but not to the extent you claim here.
The thing holding the "peasants" back is lack of economic and social opportunity. There can only be so many rich people, and most of those slots are filled. This has nothing to do with writing a book, or recording a song. It has to do with distribution of a set amount of aggregate economic wealth, and the fact that a *very* small minority of the people control the vast majority of the wealth.
Ownership of ideas is merely one small facet of this. Those with economic wealth wish to control distribution of culture, because people are willing to pay for culture. The tension between the minority wishing to control the majority creates the tension.
For example, in 2006, corporations were granted about 10 times as many patents as all the individuals combined. That is, 90% of all patents were granted to corporations, *not* to individuals. Corporations are keen on owning and controlling access to ideas. By extension, and by the actions of the RIAA and MPAA, they are also keen on controlling access to culture. (Both film and music are central to our culture.) (Disclaimer: yes, I am using hard statistics for patents to help back up an argument about culture. I believe both patents and copyrights are inextricably joined at this point, as is evidenced by the dual patenting and copyrighting of software. Further, I believe the ratio of corporate patents to individual patents demonstrates corporate dominance in the field of ideas.)
But really, those are two ideas that you have so conveniently combined into one. Intertwined ideas, yes, but two separate ideas nonetheless.
The Blu-Ray drive was there because Sony realized next-gen games were going to need a bit more room than DVDs could offer. Sure, they could've gone with HD-DVD, but that's not the format they chose to support. (Blu-Ray was developed by Sony, Pioneer, and several other companies-- not just Sony.)
They included Blu-Ray because it's a true next-gen console, and they needed next-gen storage.
They probably also saw that they had enough engineering hurdles to overcome with Cell and didn't need to make life more difficult for themselves in other areas just for the sake of it.
That might be true. But it doesn't matter-- it's still a hell of an open system. Significantly more open than any other console to date. My PS3 + Linux + 1080p has pretty much replaced my x86 desktop.
Slashdot Mirror
For little girls, and big fuck-off boxers.
(With pardons to Eddie Izzard.)
So? Were the comments valid?
So some IBM employees may have helped out with the Kenyan response. Unless the comments were spurious or incorrect, this is a *good* thing. After all, a standard should be as complete, simple, consistent, and clear as possible. If IBM helped Kenya out, and the result was a good critique of the proposed standard, *that's all good*!
If that's all the controversy they can dig up on Kenya's response, it seems like they're reaching for strawmen.
The only answer that would surprise me would be "Microsoft."
Because it doesn't matter *how* they were caught. It doesn't matter who caught them.
They. Were. Buying. Votes. Period.
The fact they were caught is all that matters. They were gaming the system, and in a big way. This is, of course, just one act in a long line of systems-gaming by Microsoft. Microsoft is usually much more subtle than this, which indicates to me they are either getting sloppy, or this is a big deal to them.
I would however love to see a merger between Qt and GTK . . .
That'd be tough, as Gtk+ is C-based, and Qt is C++-based.
This is one of the few cases where the choice of using a C++ toolkit has turned me off. Basing the entire desktop on C++ makes it harder for people who hate C++ (like me) to participate. It's essentially blocked off a huge section of developers from touching it.
Whereas with Gtk+ (and GNOME, and XFCE, etc) or EFL (the Enlightenment Foundation Libraries) it's pretty easy to write bindings for other languages, like Perl or C++ or Objective-C (far superior to C++, IMNSHO) or LISP or (insert your favorite language here). That makes GNOME much more egalitarian than KDE.
It also makes a merger between Gtk+ and Qt technically very, very difficult.
Things may get more interesting on that front, now that Nokia owns Trolltech. I hope they can manage something without scaring the KDE folks.
Yeah, that's gonna be interesting. They *do* have the N810, but the environment is not completely open. Fortunately, they can't take Qt out of circulation, so a project could always fork off, if Nokia proves too domineering.
More proof that Microsoft is a marketing company and not a technology company IMO.
That's funny. I met a PR person who works with Microsoft marketing. She said exactly the same thing-- Microsoft has all these tech people who build great products, but when they are in a workable (still unfinished) state, the marketers come in and start changing things around. She's seen some fan-fuckin'-tastic software in the early stages, yet when it gets released, it's almost unrecognizable, and generally a POS.
This from someone who relies on Microsoft's money (though not Microsoft Money).
Except your old V.90 dial-up modem or hardware graphics acceleration.
I don't know about his, but mine works fine. Dial-up for remote checking of servers (external US Robotics, not one of those crippled winmodems, sure), and graphics acceleration on my ATI Radeon Mobility X1400-based laptop. Spinny cube and everything.
Okay, that's it. I'm gettin' pretty tired of the term, "groupthink," especially in a post that is bawling somebody out for calling people "sheep." (Well, and Godwin.)
As a constitutional libertarian socialist, I agree with the original post. This is merely one strange incident in a whole bizarre pattern of information suppression (via legislation and other means) and misinformation, all in the name of, "We're protecting you from the terrorists. But they might just attack tomorrow." I am *not* anti-social. As I said, I'm quite socialist.
Calling it all "groupthink" just because you don't agree with a whole bunch of people doesn't make them wrong. It just means you disagree with a whole bunch of intelligent people who have different opinions from you. Oh, and a whole bunch of idiots with different opinions, too.
They could be right, you know.
I'd like to start by drawing the attention of the readers to both what our canonical hive minder said and left unsaid.
Okay, this is going too far.
I definitely agree with the 2nd amendment. I agree with everything you have stated about it. In fact, in places with mandatory gun ownership (like Switzerland) there is very little violent crime at all. So you haven't even gone far enough in defending the 2nd amendment.
However, calling someone a "hive minder" is merely a way of avoiding their (possibly valid) opinion. It does nothing to support your claim, and makes your other arguments suspect.
And then you say:
Quivering masses of welfare clients on the other hand... the solution should be obvious.
Ah. "Quivering masses." Beautiful. More senseless rhetoric, with nothing to back it up-- exactly what you (rightly) accused the other poster of doing with gun control.
You can be 100% compliant with the published spec ... but if you aren't 100% compliant with what Microsoft apps produce, your product is not an option.
.doc formats exceptionally well. The barrier to conversion to OOo was damned low. So, it was time to introduce another incompatible document format, which is what they have always done when the competition gets too hot.
You don't think Microsoft *planned* it this way, did you?
The *only* reason Microsoft purchased... I mean, went through the IEEE standardization process was to fast-track to ISO. This is because places like Massachusetts were pondering passing resolutions that would require certain government agencies (in the case of Mass, the executive branch) to publish documents in a standard, open format. Microsoft, of course, fought that with money, lobbying, and disinformation (Microsoft's best weapons).
By getting a rubber-stamp standard, Microsoft can continue doing exactly what they do now: locking in customers by creating the perception that theirs is the only office suite that can handle the "standard" correctly, making the other suites look inferior (despite the actual compliance of the other suites).
Notice the timing of OOXML-- it happened just as OOo was beginning to render
I don't know why Microsoft doesn't believe they can compete on merit alone. They almost *always* resort to market manipulation to maintain the upper hand. It'd be funny, if they weren't teabagging capitalism in the process.
Do you have a data source? I'd really like to know, truly.
It was my understanding that we started falling behind in the '70s or '80s, but had actually made some progress towards parity near the end of the '90s. Yes, we were still behind, but the decay had been arrested. At least, that was my understanding of reports at the time. That was a decade ago, though, so my memory could very well be faulty.
I'm actually interested in legitimate data sources.
Or just the first db they encountered when they picked up a LAMP book?
Pretty much.
Back in the day, it was also much less featureful, and so PostgreSQL seemed complex by comparison. Oh, and PostgreSQL didn't have fantastic documentation until a little bit later (around 8.0). There were major holes in the documentation, like backup and restore.
At least, this is what a friend of mine tells me. He evaluated PG, but found the documentation lacking.
Meanwhile, go count the number of MySQL books vs. PG books.
There's a huge catch-22 for PG vs. MySQL. There are only a few PG books because everyone uses MySQL. People use MySQL because there are so many books on it (and because some people really do like it). We see the same thing in OOo vs. MS-Office, or free software in general. There are *so* many books available on MS software, so people are going to gravitate towards MS software. We need more free software books, and more shelf space in Barnes and Nobles and Waldenbooks and whatnot.
First, because it will make easier for developers to put more application logic in the database.
This sounds like an education issue, not a tech issue. Teach developers that the database is for data coherence, the middle layer is for application logic, and the client is for data entry and user interaction. Using Java stored procedures for data management tasks is very useful.
Second, because a native compiled stored procedure (native, that is, to the DBMS) would be faster
True. I use plperl in PostgreSQL quite extensively, and although there is a performance difference between Perl and C stored procedures, the C procedures are much harder to develop and debug. There are some things I can do in just a few lines of Perl that would take ten times more work in C, and would be damned hard with plpgsql. If there's a lot of database interaction, the performance difference between C and Perl isn't that great.
It all comes down to a trade-off between maintainability, performance, and sanity, as in all programming.
Your employees spend the whole day after the upgrade just figuring out the new software. That's a man-year of productivity lost.
/. (or Perez Hilton), playing Solitaire, pimping their MySpace pages, or just staring off into space pretending to work.
I don't believe this, even for a thousand users of the office package.
Actually, I see 1,000 employees who've lost time reading
In one given day, most people productively *work* only for a couple of hours.
(OOo costs more than MS Word?!?! WTF??!!)
Yes, OOo costs more than MS-Office. Here's why.
MS-Office is the dominant office suite. MS-Office 2007 saves documents in a format that OOo can't read. Therefore, most people are saving their documents in a format OOo can't read.
Now, every time an IT guy has to go to a desk for the user who called and said, "I can't open this document," and then the IT guy has to go *back* to the office, get the clue-bat, return to the desk, and forcefully whonk the user with the clue-bat, and say, "It's in MS-Office 2007 proprietary format, you imbecile-- you can't open it with anything else!" and then the user has to order a copy of MS-Office 2007 (which doesn't come cheap, my friend), it *costs the company money!*
So it's easy to see how OOo is more expensive than MS-Office.
Maybe they're just saying that anybody who insists on using ODF because Microsoft has a disproportionate influence over OOXML is fooling themselves, because the same can be said (to an extent) of ODF.
If that is what they are saying, they are just plain wrong. Sun has influence over ODF because they participate in the ODF working group. They *participate.* They don't control, though they do have a lot of input, being a highly-skilled bunch of folks.
Microsoft doesn't have a disproportionate amount of control over OOXML-- they have *absolute* control over OOXML. They have reserved to themselves the right to modify and change the standard themselves. No-one else may even participate. So, that's not "disproportionate." That's absolute.
The difference is painfully clear, and impossible to miss. I would say, "Impossible to ignore," but I have heard this bit of misinformation often enough.
What is the purpose of ODF? Is it to empower users? Or is a means for Sun to erode the profitability of core Microsoft products?
So far, ODF is the only open standard editable office document format available. Period. There are no others. Several competitive office suites support ODF, not just OOo/StarOffice. Microsoft could also support ODF, if they so desired, and if they truly had an office suite that would win in the free market, it would. Sun is not barring them from participating in the ODF OASIS working group, nor from adopting ODF as their standard office format. It is Microsoft who refuses to play.
There is *no* product that supports OOXML. Even MS-Office 2007 doesn't save to OOXML specifications; Microsoft isn't even compliant with their own proposed standard. So then the question is not, "Is this Sun trying to erode Microsoft's profitability?" but, "Is this Microsoft trying to maintain their own profitability at the expense of the user?" And also, "Does ODF in its current or proposed form meet the needs of the users?"
In the end, the *only* thing that empowers the user is a freely-available, open standard to which vendors adhere. Otherwise, they have no power whatsoever. They are subject to the whims of someone else. And in this case, the "someone else" has demonstrated a substantial lack of respect for the users, choice, and the free market.
It might not've been in the power of the executive branch *before* this President, it's well within the power now. The President can do pretty much *everything!*
So I reckon that'd be the last thing I'd change, after I change everything else.
Seriously, though, the President can set an agenda, and influence congress to work on certain legislation. It doesn't always work, but it works *sometimes*.
I didn't realize the Canadian Finals Rodeo was so militant.
Or you can elect someone like the CFR sponsored candidates (every [sic] else) who will surround themselves with crazy anti-Americans like Musharrif and bin Laden.
Sorry, I really don't know who the CFR is, or whom they represent. So I'm not sure what you're saying here. Honestly. Is that "everyone else," rather than "every else?" The context would seem to indicate that.
Ah. You mean the Council on Foreign Relations. Those guys are amateurs. It seems all they might desire (according to conspiracy theories) is the union of Canada, the US, and Mexico. That actually sounds like a good idea, as it'll be easier to defend our borders if they don't include thousands of miles of unpopulated wilderness. It'll just about end this whole "illegal alien" stupidity that's being used as a smokescreen to draw discussion from serious issues. Plus, I like Mexican food.
I see your conspiracy theory, and raise you one. *I* believe our candidates are controlled by the Bilderberg Group. Now, those guys mean business. They want to start with what the CFR proposes, right enough. That that's *just the first step*. They eventually want world domination under guidance of their group of elite industrialists and politicians. They want to put an implant in everyone, and have a giant computer track our every word, our every movement. We would be controlled by a world police answerable only to the Group.
The CFR doesn't think big enough to scare me.
Oh, and Ron Paul doesn't stand a chance of getting elected if the BG doesn't want him. They already control the elections-- witness the actions of the Supreme Court in 2000. That wasn't an arbitrary decision. They too owe their political lives to the BG.
Personally, I've had a Chuck Norris conspiracy theory since *well* before it was popular. (Who studied with Bruce Lee? Who trained Elvis? Think about it.) He seems to have a strange control over Ron Paul. *That* scares the hell out of me.
First, I'd institute a legislative review process. Each new piece of legislation that is created has an automatic sunset of 2 years. It *must* be reviewed, and re-voted upon, after two years. After its second pass, it must be reviewed after four years. After the third pass, it must be voted upon after eight years. And so on.
Also, the government will institute a website on which all legislation is published as it passes through the house, senate, and executive branches. Attached to the legislation will be all records (including video and audio of the debates concerning the legislation, and records of modifications and who proposed and executed them, and how each member voted).
This website will also contain discussion areas, where non-anonymous comments may be posted by citizens of the United States. Registration would occur automatically with your voter registration card. This is to (hopefully!) keep the level of discussion slightly above Digg. Also, this would allow petitions, so citizens could force a review of unpopular legislation. (Any good ideas on anonymizing this while keeping individual responsibility is welcome.)
This does three things: first, it makes sure we *want* the legislation, and that it works as intended. Secondly, it slows down the amount of legislation that can happen, which is *good*. Thirdly, it'll increase transparency of the legislative process, and provide direct feedback from citizens.
--
Next, I'd repeal the concept of corporate personhood. Corporations would have charters under which they operate. Their charter could be city, county, state, national, or international in scope. They would no longer be allowed to hold patents or copyrights. Only the individuals responsible for the patent or copyright may hold them. Citizens could not, however, hold trademarks. That right would be reserved for corporations.
If the executive body of the corporation is found in any way to operate against the public good, a review process similar to a criminal trial will decide if the corporation may continue, or if the charter will be revoked. If the charter is revoked, the shareholders may re-apply for a new charter. However, any executive personally found guilty of criminal activity will forfeit their shares, which will be liquidated.
The corporate laws that determine whether a company operates against the public good will be similar to criminal laws. Certain kinds of contracts will be prohibited, including exclusive contracts and variants thereof (the "per-processor" fee for MS-DOS, for instance), intentional interference of competition, and whatnot.
Of course, should this legislation pass, it would be up for review in two years.
--
I will reform the education system, such that all schools are funded equally, with respect to student count. This will end one of the barriers to upward mobility for poor citizens. This will not preclude private schools, which may operate as they do currently, but no federal funding will be applied to private schools. That's why they're called "private."
"No Child Left Behind" will be left behind, or reformed and funded properly. (The concept isn't necessarily bad, but the execution was horrible.)
--
I'll steal a lot of the ideas already mentioned here: election reform to make the two-party system obsolete, begin an infrastructure-reconstruction plan in Iraq ("You broke it, you bought it"), legalize pot, reform tax laws along a progressive scale, phase out DHS, reverse the trend of privatizing government, etc.
--
I will strengthen the Monroe doctrine, which originally applied to European conflicts in the Americas, but is now used as an excuse to meddle in the affairs of many countries to the south. I would preclude US military action (including the funding of militant parties) in foreign countries with which we are not at war.
I wouldn't dissolve our overseas bases. In fact, I believe I'd try to make many more, smaller bases in countries that will have us, and work to inc
Yeah, developers do it for the bullet points on their CV, but also because they can.
The CV point is very important. During a recession, when the job market is more competitive, getting some nice development projects on your CV can't hurt. And, assuming you're good, a potential employer can see exactly how good you are *today*, rather than relying on a project you worked on when times were good four years ago.
Just a thought.
You honestly don't see a major difference between pointing a gun (or sword) at someone, and handing someone a wad of cash?
Uhm, sorry for the double response, but this has been bugging me, and I couldn't figure out why.
Then I realized, you think that everyone has an opportunity.
Do you know why the unemployment rate is so important? It's a sign of national economic health. It's not an indicator of how many lazy people there are-- it's an indicator of how many people are not being offered a wad of cash, no matter how small a wad it might be. It's a sign of how many people who wish to work, can't.
Now, there are also a *large* number of people who are handed a wad of cash in exchange for work, but that wad is too small to provide anything but bare-minimum subsistence, if that. This number isn't included in unemployment, and so is harder to track, but we do that with the number of people living below the poverty line. About 12% to 17% (depending on if you subscribe to US or UN definitions of "poverty line") currently live below the poverty line.
So my question is this: why are people so unemployed, or living below the poverty line? Do they like it like that? Are they not working hard? Have they just made bad choices in their life?
In any case, it doesn't matter. These people are either unemployed or not making a living wage. That means there either aren't enough jobs (for the unemployed) or the jobs that *are* available, don't pay a living wage. Since the unemployment rate varies due to economics, this rather proves *this isn't by choice.* These people did not *choose* to be unemployed, or to work for wages that can't really support them.
The fact is, the number of jobs that provide a living wage accounts for *no more than* 88% of the population. These are the jobs supported by the economy. And if you lived at the poverty line, I don't think you'd feel too comfortable knowing you were making a "living wage."
As I said in my original post, our current system doesn't involve getting a sword upside the head, and so it is an improvement in that way. Also, the standard of living is greater for a larger number of people. But that doesn't mean those at the bottom (greater than the 12%-17% living below the poverty line) aren't any less serfs, subject to the whims of the very rich. Even upper-middle-class workers are subject to the whims of the very rich-- witness the uncertainty over outsourcing, for instance. (Which I'm all for. It opens up the world economy to the US, though it has the unfortunately side-effect of making the ultra-rich ultra-richer.)
So, not everyone has opportunity. Not everyone is offered a wad of cash. Further, many who *are* offered a wad of cash, are offered a wad of cash smaller than needed to decently live on.
There are no limited "slots" for economic betterment; and while having money can make it easier for one to make more money, it does not stop anyone else from doing so.
Yes, there are limited slots for economic betterment.
The total US economy (or world economy, if you wish to go global) is limited. There is only a certain amount of money to go around. And, since we don't live in some idealistic world were bartering is sufficient for sustaining a family of four in the general case, there's limited possibility to how that wealth is distributed. The amount of wealth is increasing, but at a rate insufficient to make it possible for a large number of people to better themselves. (The US economy grows in single-digit percentages in the best of years.)
Now, if everyone in the US had exactly the same amount of money, everyone would live a decent, if not grand, life. However, that isn't the case. (Nor do I advocate that: I do believe hard work and contribution to society should be rewarded. I'm really not a communist, nor really even a socialist. But I understand capitalism suffers from the same flaws found in communism: human nature fucks it all up.)
The current situation is this: a small minority controls the vast majority of wealth. As with your own checkbook, there's only a certain amount to go around. It might not be a zero-sum game, but it's not as malleable as you describe. There are practical, economic, and social limits.
Actually, they do belong to those with the biggest guns: the government. In most countries and in every real sense of the word, the government actually owns everything.
Ah. Something on which we completely agree.
But you are misplacing the blame by concentrating on those who gain their wealth by voluntary trade, rather than on those who do so by force.
Tell me: why does legislation tend to favor the rich? Could it perhaps be because they have significant influence over the government?
The whole concept of "voluntary trade" sounds good, just as the idea of "we all work for each other" (communism) sounds good. But when segments of the population can control the trade, and the regulation thereof, the "voluntary" portion of that becomes a bit questionable.
Money. Is. Power. I won't say the US government is totally corrupt, but I do assert that big business (and the ultra-rich) have far more influence in government, trade, and culture, than the vast numbers of poor. And that influence has led to barriers for the poor to become moderately well-off, let alone super rich.
And these laws encroaching free speech and the sharing of ideas (I'm not talking music here, though they do) are further barriers. And, they come at the expense of liberty.
You say that my good idea is your property?
Hardly. Your good idea is yours.
Until you tell somebody else. Then it is both yours, *and* theirs. And then they tell somebody else, and that third person *also* owns it.
Information is only valuable as long as it is secret, or distribution can be controlled.
Conflating ownership of things is separate from the "ownership" of ideas. A thing exists only in place. An idea exists in the minds of all who contain it. There is no "ownership." If you don't want to share your idea: fine. If you, and others who might contribute, wish to say, "Fuck you!," then fine. Say that. Just don't try to place restrictions on what I do with *my* mind. Once my mind contains your ideas, it is in *my* mind, not just yours, and for you to try to regulate what *I* can do with my mind is ludicrous, selfish, and somewhat pathetic.
The Soviet union never once tried communism. It tried a dictator-based socialism. Communism *can* work, but only on a very small scale, and generally only for a short while. (There are communes in Isreal that have operated for many years.)
What else do you expect with the starting point that a man's mind is not his own and that intelligence and creativity should be punished.
So, once I contain an idea, you wish to curtail my own creativity and intelligence? If that idea comes from another, and I wish to apply it, you are suggesting that *you* can control what *I* do.
What you wish is exactly the opposite of what you said. Creativity and intelligence isn't punished. The creator and thinker loses nothing in the dissemination of an idea. What you wish is the opposite of that: you think every idea should be rewarded to whatever price the creator of the idea wishes to name-- not just once, but over and over again. And worse, you wish to control other people from spreading the idea, and making use of it.
It seems you are the one that wishes to control others, not me.
It's not the ownership of ideas persee that holds the "peasants" back.
There are two ideas going here, not one. They are inter-related, but not to the extent you claim here.
The thing holding the "peasants" back is lack of economic and social opportunity. There can only be so many rich people, and most of those slots are filled. This has nothing to do with writing a book, or recording a song. It has to do with distribution of a set amount of aggregate economic wealth, and the fact that a *very* small minority of the people control the vast majority of the wealth.
Ownership of ideas is merely one small facet of this. Those with economic wealth wish to control distribution of culture, because people are willing to pay for culture. The tension between the minority wishing to control the majority creates the tension.
For example, in 2006, corporations were granted about 10 times as many patents as all the individuals combined. That is, 90% of all patents were granted to corporations, *not* to individuals. Corporations are keen on owning and controlling access to ideas. By extension, and by the actions of the RIAA and MPAA, they are also keen on controlling access to culture. (Both film and music are central to our culture.) (Disclaimer: yes, I am using hard statistics for patents to help back up an argument about culture. I believe both patents and copyrights are inextricably joined at this point, as is evidenced by the dual patenting and copyrighting of software. Further, I believe the ratio of corporate patents to individual patents demonstrates corporate dominance in the field of ideas.)
But really, those are two ideas that you have so conveniently combined into one. Intertwined ideas, yes, but two separate ideas nonetheless.
...only arranged horizontally...
It's arranged horizontally when you're drunk and lieing on the floor. Like I obviously am right now.
Normally, MS-WMC XMB rip-off is *vertical.*
The Blu-Ray drive was there because Sony realized next-gen games were going to need a bit more room than DVDs could offer. Sure, they could've gone with HD-DVD, but that's not the format they chose to support. (Blu-Ray was developed by Sony, Pioneer, and several other companies-- not just Sony.)
They included Blu-Ray because it's a true next-gen console, and they needed next-gen storage.
They probably also saw that they had enough engineering hurdles to overcome with Cell and didn't need to make life more difficult for themselves in other areas just for the sake of it.
That might be true. But it doesn't matter-- it's still a hell of an open system. Significantly more open than any other console to date. My PS3 + Linux + 1080p has pretty much replaced my x86 desktop.