I remember the uncomfortably look I got in a hotel meetingroom in Bloomington, Minnesota back in about 1997 when the 'Red Hat' representatives showed up for a presentation. They were all uncomfortably suited folks, and we were the unwashed hacker masses.
I further remember the uncomfortable look I got when I asked the pantsuited sales lady if it was okay if I made copies of my Red Hat 5.0 CDs to share with friends.
It's also 'shooting yourself in the foot' if you want to sell a product, and will have 1500 competitors selling your code to your potential customer base.
'Giving away source code' is the way things 'always used to be done' when IBM and DEC could count on expensive mainframe/mini sales, and on a constant revenue stream from their fleet of customer engineers.
The history of the 'PC' industry going back a LONG TIME is not one of 'giving away source code.'
It's okay to advocate a new way of doing things, but it's wrong to distort history to claim it's a 'return to the good old times.' It isn't. The fact that a small subculture of UNIX enthusiasts and hackers did that kind of thing in the past does NOT represent what the Computer Industry was doing.
There are millions of Linux 'experts' in IRC channels and in Usenet groups. There are tons of half-written and often obsolete HOWTO documents. There are dozens of people telling you dozens of ways of doing each simple task.
That's not necessarily a good thing. It's not what management at a company wants to rely on. It's a good opportunity for sales-types to sell a Linux solution and clean up after the committment with support lock-ins, though. Again, that's not what management at a company wants to rely on.
I use Linux at home and have had a lot of success with it (I prefer NetBSD, personally, but that's an aside, I've used Slackware in various capacities since the first half of the 90's). I'm not sure I advocate it for everybody.
Working with numbers is not always automatically 'arithemetic.' Some of the important skills in scientific/technical fields is how to balance proportions, do quick calculations in the head, etc.
Since the demise of the slide-rule engineering has been on a 'raw numbers' binge. The ability to estimate and work things out without mechanical assistance is valuable.
Sadly, in fields like EE and even Mechanical engineering these days, all people do is throw numbers around in computers to achive their designs.
Where I am working on contract now, the techs spend half their day plugging numbers into Excel spreadsheets to hand up to the engineers, for the engineers to condense and hand up to management. It amounts to that much less 'hands on' with the real tech, and the quality of the work they get out of people is reduced.
The cost of living also varies widely right within the United States. Here in the chunk of flyover that I live in, I got a 1900 house on five acres of land for $120K. You won't do that in California.
There aren't as many high-paying tech jobs here as there were the last place I lived, but I like having this chunk of land to mess around on. I just need another out building to store all my cool tech stuff in (there is still plenty of tech here to pick up at auctions, etc.) A small tractor would be nice, too.
Books and newspapers that edit out of context in order to distort the original message are called propaganda. His message, because of the way he delivers it, is dishonest.
Because to a 'leftist' the aesthetic is a much more wide-open thing. There are plenty of 'conservative' artists. They get overwhelmed by the huge quantity of garbage vendors who claim to be artists, though. Anybody can proclaim themselves to be an artist. And the loud and left fit right in there.
As long as your defintion of 'The Coverage' is michaelmoore.com and various other rant sites with as much credibility to the mainstream as holocaust-denail sites.
You and all the other Moore-ons defending your hero in this discussion should start issuing cites from somewhere other than michaelmoore.com. Running to the mother ship for propaganda doesn't cut it in an open discussion.
It makes Moore-ism look even more like a hive mentality than it already did.
No, he's not. I knew a guy in college who M. Moore reminds me of a lot. He was an english major, and the kind of guy who would get all flitty and frantic about anything technical. And condescending about the technical people who came to his aid.
At many companies, the management budgets ~$500 a year per employee for software lisencing, and ~$1400 a week per employee for salary. A slightly less optimal IT infrastructure might cost the company 15% less productive employees.
Slashdot Mirror
I remember the uncomfortably look I got in a hotel meetingroom in Bloomington, Minnesota back in about 1997 when the 'Red Hat' representatives showed up for a presentation. They were all uncomfortably suited folks, and we were the unwashed hacker masses.
I further remember the uncomfortable look I got when I asked the pantsuited sales lady if it was okay if I made copies of my Red Hat 5.0 CDs to share with friends.
For I am only a lonely slashdot subscriber.
Then where's the star after your username? You're no slashdot subscriber!!
(in case anybody wondered, yes, having a 4-digit or less Slashdot UID and/or a star after your name gets you laid regularly **)
(** but you better develop a liking for those bearded dudes who hang out in the back of the room at the LUG meetings)
It's also 'shooting yourself in the foot' if you want to sell a product, and will have 1500 competitors selling your code to your potential customer base.
'Giving away source code' is the way things 'always used to be done' when IBM and DEC could count on expensive mainframe/mini sales, and on a constant revenue stream from their fleet of customer engineers.
The history of the 'PC' industry going back a LONG TIME is not one of 'giving away source code.'
It's okay to advocate a new way of doing things, but it's wrong to distort history to claim it's a 'return to the good old times.' It isn't. The fact that a small subculture of UNIX enthusiasts and hackers did that kind of thing in the past does NOT represent what the Computer Industry was doing.
There are millions of Linux 'experts' in IRC channels and in Usenet groups. There are tons of half-written and often obsolete HOWTO documents. There are dozens of people telling you dozens of ways of doing each simple task.
That's not necessarily a good thing. It's not what management at a company wants to rely on. It's a good opportunity for sales-types to sell a Linux solution and clean up after the committment with support lock-ins, though. Again, that's not what management at a company wants to rely on.
I use Linux at home and have had a lot of success with it (I prefer NetBSD, personally, but that's an aside, I've used Slackware in various capacities since the first half of the 90's). I'm not sure I advocate it for everybody.
Microsoft products, and TI hardware, and a lot of other stuff gets used in critical applications as well.
Just not out-of-the-box, without a heck of a lot of additional testing and evaluation.
It's more accurate to say that Microsoft becomes the standard.
Working with numbers is not always automatically 'arithemetic.' Some of the important skills in scientific/technical fields is how to balance proportions, do quick calculations in the head, etc.
Since the demise of the slide-rule engineering has been on a 'raw numbers' binge. The ability to estimate and work things out without mechanical assistance is valuable.
Sadly, in fields like EE and even Mechanical engineering these days, all people do is throw numbers around in computers to achive their designs.
Where I am working on contract now, the techs spend half their day plugging numbers into Excel spreadsheets to hand up to the engineers, for the engineers to condense and hand up to management. It amounts to that much less 'hands on' with the real tech, and the quality of the work they get out of people is reduced.
The cost of living also varies widely right within the United States. Here in the chunk of flyover that I live in, I got a 1900 house on five acres of land for $120K. You won't do that in California.
There aren't as many high-paying tech jobs here as there were the last place I lived, but I like having this chunk of land to mess around on. I just need another out building to store all my cool tech stuff in (there is still plenty of tech here to pick up at auctions, etc.) A small tractor would be nice, too.
Your proposals are just insane. They're a riot.
Are you here all week?
Back when I was a kid, excitement was buying a bag of mixed, unsorted, and unmarked transistors from Radio Shack.
The genetic material being 'protected' is very similar to the kind of 'intellectual property' protection that everybody here bemoans.
The Peruvian government is doing virtually the same thing as the RIAA and MPAA, in effect. National soverenity issues are irrelevant and off-topic.
Books and newspapers that edit out of context in order to distort the original message are called propaganda. His message, because of the way he delivers it, is dishonest.
So you're going to make the claim that an organization that gave M. Moore six million bucks to make his film is trying to censor him???
Geez. I wish I could find somebody to censor me by giving me six million bucks.
actually their stated reason for not distributing the film is political fallout in florida
Can you provide a mainstream media cite? Please don't link yet again to www.michaelmoore.com, we've seen enough links to his vanity page already.
You ever wonder why so many artists are leftists?
Because to a 'leftist' the aesthetic is a much more wide-open thing. There are plenty of 'conservative' artists. They get overwhelmed by the huge quantity of garbage vendors who claim to be artists, though. Anybody can proclaim themselves to be an artist. And the loud and left fit right in there.
Salvador Dali was a fascist. Did you know that?
As long as your defintion of 'The Coverage' is michaelmoore.com and various other rant sites with as much credibility to the mainstream as holocaust-denail sites.
At least Moore is OBVIOUS about it.
No, he's not. He edits clips out of context, he distorts people's message. He creates parodies out of people he depicts in his works.
It's typical propaganda. Gets sort of boring after awhile.
Censorship does not have to be governmental in nature.
Actually, it does.
But people like you batt around the term 'fascist' incorrectly all the time, too.
And to plug some different words into one of your sentences above:
"The fact that what Moore is doing is legal is totally irrelevant to the question if it is truthful."
Or does such a source exist?
Further clarification of request. A source that is not michaelmoore.com.
So far I see a lot of clowns posting links to the mother ship and not much else.
There are over 1000 comments because this is a flamebait topic.
If you need the revenue that bad, why not post articles about abortion regularly, Malda.
You and all the other Moore-ons defending your hero in this discussion should start issuing cites from somewhere other than michaelmoore.com. Running to the mother ship for propaganda doesn't cut it in an open discussion.
It makes Moore-ism look even more like a hive mentality than it already did.
Why do you post off-topic drivel with your Karma Bonus?
I specifically check the 'No Karma Bonus' box when I'm going to post a comment off the topic.
Please take your garbage commentary elsewhere.
Moore's films are anything but mockumentaries. They are neither staged nor scripted!!!
Mr. Moore's films are very, very cleverly edited. He takes clips and snips of footage and present them very out of context.
I don't think he intends his works to be the farces they end up being.
No, he's not. I knew a guy in college who M. Moore reminds me of a lot. He was an english major, and the kind of guy who would get all flitty and frantic about anything technical. And condescending about the technical people who came to his aid.
Your typical Chomsky disciple. Nothing more.
At many companies, the management budgets ~$500 a year per employee for software lisencing, and ~$1400 a week per employee for salary. A slightly less optimal IT infrastructure might cost the company 15% less productive employees.
Do the math.