I think the point he was making was that Mandrake was buggy. I also would like to add it had some financial shenanigans that placed a cloud over it.
I also use Mandrake during its heyday. It had some neat features that tried to make Linux easier, but it was mostly a Red Hat distribution that used KDE instead of Gnome.
So I think you're both right. Meaning, Ubuntu was created by someone with sound financial resources, and they based their distribution on a package manager that didn't suck.
You made examples out of the lowest paid entry level positions for utilities and DOT. By the way, on large construction projects the guy holding the flag is most likely a contractor.
As for your FDA example, enforcing food safety would not work well in the private sector because their isn't much profit in it. Besides, the FDA is tasked with keeping an eye ON the private sector. You had food produced and prepared by the private sector put you in the hospital.
Comparing FDA to UL is like comparing Apples to oranges. The reason you experienced good luck with UL appliances (if you ignore all those pesky recalls that lower the UL effective rate since the original product passed inspection prior to reaching the market) is that the appliance design are tested as a finished product and toasters don't spoil. Food on the other hand does and must be prepared by someone before you eat it. Considering the large amount of food being consumed every day and the small number of cases of food born illnesses, I think the FDA is being effective.
As for your Internet example, the changing point was giving access to more consumers creating a viable marketplace for services. However it is a network of computers designed and built by the US government (actually research facilities) that set the stage for the information age. I didn't witness any parallel development in the private sector during the same time period. Instead the government design succeeded and the private sectored built from it. Not to mention that it was the government that created a need for the computer and communication hardware, and consumers benefited by enjoying the products developed partly by the funds derived from fulfilling government contracts.
Which brings me to my point (finally!), all the examples that you gave are part of the infrastructure. If the government didn't provide this infrastructure, we as a society would not be able to spend effort creating frivolous stuff such as YouTube, Hulu, and World of Warcraft.
Attempted murder doesn't get you as much. Solicitation of murder, even less.
I think solicitation for murder should have a higher penalty.
Both are very very bad, however attempted murder could be a crime of passion or intense anger with very little reasoning. While solicitation for murder always indicate premeditation.
Forget the fact that photographing every street is expensive and Google isn't just doing it out of the kindness of their heart or just because it is cool...
There is nothing inherently wrong with street views, making a map, or even making a phone directory.
What if we had a corporation that spent an inordinate amount of money to making searching the web easier? Good we needed a better search engine.
What if that same corporation also made it easier for you to look up a phone number? Cool. Seems like a logical extension.
What if that corporation also got into the web advertising business, and tailored the ads based on the web sites you visited or search terms you entered? Hmm. Kinda cool, seems a little creepy.
What if that corporation also made it easy for you to look up an address and show it on a map? Cool. I've been needing this and MapQuest is not as polished.
What if that map allowed satellite images to be layered on top of the map info? Even Cooler.
What if that map also allowed you to view what the street looks like? Cool.
Then that company made a phone OS that automatically syncs your contacts to your mail account hosted by them. Cool and convenient.
So now we have a single company that:
1. Knows what websites you visit,
2. the search terms that you use to browse the web,
3. has the ability to link a person's name and city to a phone listing,
4. allows you to click on the phone directory and view the address on the map,
5. allows you to see what the address looks like with a photograph from the street,
6. knows all the contacts stored on your phone that uses their OS,
7. is getting into electronic health records?
Wow, I would say that company is really good at data mining and selling it's services. I worry about it becoming the all knowing corporation who's seems hell bent on gathering every bit of information, but they say they're being responsible...
Now what if that corporation's CEO public stated that if your not doing anything wrong, you have nothing to hide?
I'm worried about WTF does he meant about that? More importantly, why is he using the same excuse that the Bush administration used to justify illegal wiretaps?
Google someone's name with city and state. You will get a phonebook listing, and a link to view the given address on the map. Click on the map link, and you can then enter a street view to see what the person's house may look like.
I didn't say Google was being nefarious. Although a lot of Google apologists seem to think that. What I said is Google is pretty damn good at mining data about you including the view of your house from the street.
Well Google has a track record of mining every bit of data about you. Even to the point of hiring contractors to take pictures of your house (from the "street" of course). They have a phone OS, and they are pushing cloud services.
Microsoft has a track record of being the last one to enter a market, and doing a mediocre job within that market.
So the question becomes "Do you want your privacy invaded by a company who's developed the technology and are really good at it, or by a company which is not so good at it?"
1. Making a similar product is completely legal unless it violates those pesky software patents (which should be abhorred).
2. If you copy code or images from the original to make the derivative then that is copyright infringement and not what you would call theft.
#2 above was decided by a ruling Dowley v. US back in 1985.
The problem I have with "copyright infringement is not theft" argument is that it insinuates that copyright infringement is not a criminal offense. In reality it is. From wikipedia:
"The United States No Electronic Theft Act (NET Act), a federal law passed in 1997, provides for criminal prosecution of individuals who engage in copyright infringement, even when there is no monetary profit or commercial benefit from the infringement. Maximum penalties can be five years in prison and up to $250,000 in fines. The NET Act also raised statutory damages by 50%.."
While copyright infringement is NOT theft, it can still get you into serious trouble...
Sometime "clones" spawn innovation, because the writers need a starting point to realize some of the concepts introduced by the original.
I think the word clone is being misused, and I think that it's being used to strengthen a case for software patents which offer the protections that the detractors of clone desire.
If we didn't have "one-off" products (which is what we call some of our works that we create for others to copy) we couldn't seed the market place with an idea that would later be a basis for innovation.
If we didn't have what you called "cloning" which was rampant in the 80's, we would be still using Wangs for word processing, Visicalc for spreadsheets, Mosaic for browsing the web, and Lycos or Altavista for searching the internet.
Actually since you seem to be hell bent on throwing insults, I'm thinking you're the one who is bullshitting.
Hell even the link you gave had a section on shareholder rights which include:
1. Voting Power on Major Decisions.
2. Ownership in a Portion of the Corporation.
3. Right to transfer ownership.
4. Dividend Entitlement.
5. Opportunity to Inspect Corporate Books and Records.
6. Suing for Wrongful Acts
Nothing jumps out and justifies your statement:
Any publicly held corporation has the legal obligation to return value to it's shareholders, it's not a defense, it's the stone cold truth - hence the Revlon Rule [investopedia.com].
I already pointed out that the Revlon Rule was over a matter of a questionable sale of the company to a low bidder that caused financial harm to the shareholders (hence #6 above).
I googled other shareholder lawsuits in the press and they pretty much fall along those lines. The board made questionable financial decisions with derivatives. The board lied to the shareholders about the health of the corporation. But not a single one for a company that didn't make the highest profit possible, for not being the market leader, or refusing to do business over moral grounds..
I seriously doubt the courts would support an argument that would give Google any liability for choosing NOT to do business in China or any other oppressive government. Unless Google purposely are over optimistic with their reports concerning their future earnings, and depended on a declared goal of doing business with China to meet the projection. But this is a conscious decsion by Google's board. No one put a gun to Google's head and said "You must do business with China or we will sue!".
The cases I did find were:
1. Las Vegas Sands Casino v. Shareholders over the dilution of shareholders portion of ownership from questionable stock trades.
2. Merck v. Shareholders over misrepresenting the financial risks with the prescription drug Vioxx.
3. Yahoo v. Shareholders over the Microsoft buyout attempt (Here the Revlon Rule may apply).
4. Sprint v. Shareholders over the acquisition of Virgin Mobile.
ad nauseam.
I think my point stands. I also think I smell some bovines coming from your general direction.
Actually being a publicly held company, Google has a legal obligation to adhere to it's mission statement approved by the share holders.
Um... Bullshit. No such legal obligation exists. In fact, this is the first time I've ever even heard such a claim.
Really? I think most of the stock market bubble was caused by first time investors believing that had more protections than they actually did. Can't blame them, those pesky attorneys will tell them anything to get a client.
Share holders are trying to recover some of their lost money by filing claims against the companies that they own stock. In order for their suits to have any merit they must make a case that the stock losses were due to misrepresentation, fraud, or that the board didn't act appropriately to mitigate a crisis. I would assume that it would be to the board's best interest to live up to it's mission statement and any other proxies approved at a share holders meeting.
Any publicly held corporation has the legal obligation to return value to it's shareholders, it's not a defense, it's the stone cold truth - hence the Revlon Rule [investopedia.com].
Google is not for sale. Therefore Google is not going to sale to a low bid and ignore a higher bid - hence the Revlon Rule does not apply.
A corporation should make the best effort to insure the value of the shareholders stock when placing the business for sale. However, this does not equate to a corporation should operate in a manner to maximize profits regardless of the means.
It's not like some other engine would spring up in Google's place that will allow these searches to work, so Google's presence doesn't leave the Chinese everyman any worse off than if they were absent, and in fact their presence makes it better in some ways. Given that, I can't agree that it directly parallels giving actual money to finance Hitler's rise to power.
I've been hearing that line of reason since Nixon visited China. We can change China from within.
What has this accomplished? China appears more palatable to westerners. US manufacturing went to China. The US has a huge trade deficit with China. China is now the US's largest debt holder. China stands to secure it's supply of fossil fuels with a deals signed in Iraq and Afghanistan and using US troops to protect their business interests.
All I see is China doing just enough to acquire western money and doing that well...
Your right, instead we should invade or strong-arm every government into doing things our way.
What? How is not actively participating in the suppression of human rights, the same as strong-arming or invading a government?
Somehow I doubt you, and others supporting this view, have done much yourselves -- it's easy to be a critic.
Wow. So now you're rebuffing specific actions with generalities and character attacks? I have news for you, I turned down lots of money over principles. I can sleep at night - can you?
If Google didn't agree to the terms it would not have operated in China, leaving the Chinese citizens with less exposure to the outside world. It is not evil, it is following the rules and trying to provide the most good legally possible.
If you overlook the fact that Google is acting like a trap for the Chinese government, and the internet is the bait. What Google is doing is luring more people to use their search engine, and then handing over the details to Chinese government.
No what Google is doing is selling out to the current Chinese government in order to build brand loyalty.
To be fair, doesn't that fundamentally have more to do with the Chinese government than it does Google? I'm sure there are those who feel that Google should be willing to "stand up" to the Chinese Government, but when you boil it down to the basics, there is nothing obliging Google as a company to engage in this fight.
You're absolutely correct, nothing obliges Google from making money... even if it help someone else do evil. Sort of like all those people who supported the Nazis so they continue doing business with Germany prior to the US entry into WWII.
Yea someone can yell Godwin's Law, but in this case I see a eary similarity between US interests prior to the US entry into WWII and Google's dealings with China. Placing money before principles, and trying to absolve themselves by saying we're only doing what is required to do business with China.
The functionality you are wanting is already present in OS X. It's called Spaces. You can group your your windows together (any way you like) within a single desktop, and switch between desktops with a hot key. Gnome, KDE, and Windows have this functionality as well.
A technicality, and depends on someone else's definition of on time. My main assertion was streaming is UDP not TCP.
Besides, I didn't mean that UDP was necessarily an open spigot and thanks to the vagueness of english "as soon as possible" can equal "on time".
I meant the protocols don't take other traffic into consideration. Pacing out the UDP to satisfy some predetermined timing requirement still doesn't prevent congestion.
Also you assume that a single transmission would be a bandwidth hog, this is not the case. It's the multitude of transmissions using that protocol in the series of tubes that don't take congestion into consideration (pacing or not you are still slinging packets) that leads to problems.
Trying looking at the forest rather than the tree...
Slashdot Mirror
I think the point he was making was that Mandrake was buggy. I also would like to add it had some financial shenanigans that placed a cloud over it.
I also use Mandrake during its heyday. It had some neat features that tried to make Linux easier, but it was mostly a Red Hat distribution that used KDE instead of Gnome.
So I think you're both right. Meaning, Ubuntu was created by someone with sound financial resources, and they based their distribution on a package manager that didn't suck.
You made examples out of the lowest paid entry level positions for utilities and DOT. By the way, on large construction projects the guy holding the flag is most likely a contractor.
As for your FDA example, enforcing food safety would not work well in the private sector because their isn't much profit in it. Besides, the FDA is tasked with keeping an eye ON the private sector. You had food produced and prepared by the private sector put you in the hospital.
Comparing FDA to UL is like comparing Apples to oranges. The reason you experienced good luck with UL appliances (if you ignore all those pesky recalls that lower the UL effective rate since the original product passed inspection prior to reaching the market) is that the appliance design are tested as a finished product and toasters don't spoil. Food on the other hand does and must be prepared by someone before you eat it. Considering the large amount of food being consumed every day and the small number of cases of food born illnesses, I think the FDA is being effective.
As for your Internet example, the changing point was giving access to more consumers creating a viable marketplace for services. However it is a network of computers designed and built by the US government (actually research facilities) that set the stage for the information age. I didn't witness any parallel development in the private sector during the same time period. Instead the government design succeeded and the private sectored built from it. Not to mention that it was the government that created a need for the computer and communication hardware, and consumers benefited by enjoying the products developed partly by the funds derived from fulfilling government contracts.
Which brings me to my point (finally!), all the examples that you gave are part of the infrastructure. If the government didn't provide this infrastructure, we as a society would not be able to spend effort creating frivolous stuff such as YouTube, Hulu, and World of Warcraft.
Probably more like, it's not what you steal but who you steal from...
I'm sure Bernie Madoff would disagree with you...
I think solicitation for murder should have a higher penalty.
Both are very very bad, however attempted murder could be a crime of passion or intense anger with very little reasoning. While solicitation for murder always indicate premeditation.
Talk about not seeing the forest for the trees.
Forget the fact that photographing every street is expensive and Google isn't just doing it out of the kindness of their heart or just because it is cool...
There is nothing inherently wrong with street views, making a map, or even making a phone directory.
What if we had a corporation that spent an inordinate amount of money to making searching the web easier? Good we needed a better search engine.
What if that same corporation also made it easier for you to look up a phone number? Cool. Seems like a logical extension.
What if that corporation also got into the web advertising business, and tailored the ads based on the web sites you visited or search terms you entered? Hmm. Kinda cool, seems a little creepy.
What if that corporation also made it easy for you to look up an address and show it on a map? Cool. I've been needing this and MapQuest is not as polished.
What if that map allowed satellite images to be layered on top of the map info? Even Cooler.
What if that map also allowed you to view what the street looks like? Cool.
Then that company made a phone OS that automatically syncs your contacts to your mail account hosted by them. Cool and convenient.
So now we have a single company that:
1. Knows what websites you visit,
2. the search terms that you use to browse the web,
3. has the ability to link a person's name and city to a phone listing,
4. allows you to click on the phone directory and view the address on the map,
5. allows you to see what the address looks like with a photograph from the street,
6. knows all the contacts stored on your phone that uses their OS,
7. is getting into electronic health records?
Wow, I would say that company is really good at data mining and selling it's services. I worry about it becoming the all knowing corporation who's seems hell bent on gathering every bit of information, but they say they're being responsible...
Now what if that corporation's CEO public stated that if your not doing anything wrong, you have nothing to hide?
I'm worried about WTF does he meant about that? More importantly, why is he using the same excuse that the Bush administration used to justify illegal wiretaps?
FUD? I think you are using the word incorrectly.
I countered the FUD coming from GP that equated Microsoft's heavy handed tactics with Microsoft's zeal to disrespect your privacy.
I just changed the the criteria to the more logical choice of "If you want to remain private, which service would you use?"
The choices are Google which has a business model based on mining data, or Microsoft which has a model of being involved in everything PC.
Sorry if I didn't tow the party line of jeering Microsoft and cheering Google.
I didn't say they were evil. I just said they were good at mining data. What they do with that data is another matter.
How am I being disingenuous?
Google someone's name with city and state. You will get a phonebook listing, and a link to view the given address on the map. Click on the map link, and you can then enter a street view to see what the person's house may look like.
I didn't say Google was being nefarious. Although a lot of Google apologists seem to think that. What I said is Google is pretty damn good at mining data about you including the view of your house from the street.
Wow talk about jumping from the frying pan and into the fire! ;P
Well Google has a track record of mining every bit of data about you. Even to the point of hiring contractors to take pictures of your house (from the "street" of course). They have a phone OS, and they are pushing cloud services.
Microsoft has a track record of being the last one to enter a market, and doing a mediocre job within that market.
So the question becomes "Do you want your privacy invaded by a company who's developed the technology and are really good at it, or by a company which is not so good at it?"
Agree.
However, I do see a danger that it gives a false impression of the legal ramification.
I think I agree with you.
1. Making a similar product is completely legal unless it violates those pesky software patents (which should be abhorred).
2. If you copy code or images from the original to make the derivative then that is copyright infringement and not what you would call theft.
#2 above was decided by a ruling Dowley v. US back in 1985.
The problem I have with "copyright infringement is not theft" argument is that it insinuates that copyright infringement is not a criminal offense. In reality it is. From wikipedia:
"The United States No Electronic Theft Act (NET Act), a federal law passed in 1997, provides for criminal prosecution of individuals who engage in copyright infringement, even when there is no monetary profit or commercial benefit from the infringement. Maximum penalties can be five years in prison and up to $250,000 in fines. The NET Act also raised statutory damages by 50%.."
While copyright infringement is NOT theft, it can still get you into serious trouble...
Sometime "clones" spawn innovation, because the writers need a starting point to realize some of the concepts introduced by the original.
I think the word clone is being misused, and I think that it's being used to strengthen a case for software patents which offer the protections that the detractors of clone desire.
If we didn't have "one-off" products (which is what we call some of our works that we create for others to copy) we couldn't seed the market place with an idea that would later be a basis for innovation.
If we didn't have what you called "cloning" which was rampant in the 80's, we would be still using Wangs for word processing, Visicalc for spreadsheets, Mosaic for browsing the web, and Lycos or Altavista for searching the internet.
Actually since you seem to be hell bent on throwing insults, I'm thinking you're the one who is bullshitting.
Hell even the link you gave had a section on shareholder rights which include:
1. Voting Power on Major Decisions.
2. Ownership in a Portion of the Corporation.
3. Right to transfer ownership.
4. Dividend Entitlement.
5. Opportunity to Inspect Corporate Books and Records.
6. Suing for Wrongful Acts
Nothing jumps out and justifies your statement:
I already pointed out that the Revlon Rule was over a matter of a questionable sale of the company to a low bidder that caused financial harm to the shareholders (hence #6 above).
I googled other shareholder lawsuits in the press and they pretty much fall along those lines. The board made questionable financial decisions with derivatives. The board lied to the shareholders about the health of the corporation. But not a single one for a company that didn't make the highest profit possible, for not being the market leader, or refusing to do business over moral grounds..
I seriously doubt the courts would support an argument that would give Google any liability for choosing NOT to do business in China or any other oppressive government. Unless Google purposely are over optimistic with their reports concerning their future earnings, and depended on a declared goal of doing business with China to meet the projection. But this is a conscious decsion by Google's board. No one put a gun to Google's head and said "You must do business with China or we will sue!".
The cases I did find were:
1. Las Vegas Sands Casino v. Shareholders over the dilution of shareholders portion of ownership from questionable stock trades.
2. Merck v. Shareholders over misrepresenting the financial risks with the prescription drug Vioxx.
3. Yahoo v. Shareholders over the Microsoft buyout attempt (Here the Revlon Rule may apply).
4. Sprint v. Shareholders over the acquisition of Virgin Mobile.
ad nauseam.
I think my point stands. I also think I smell some bovines coming from your general direction.
That is actually pretty funny....
I am obviously not a lawyer:
Really? I think most of the stock market bubble was caused by first time investors believing that had more protections than they actually did. Can't blame them, those pesky attorneys will tell them anything to get a client.
Share holders are trying to recover some of their lost money by filing claims against the companies that they own stock. In order for their suits to have any merit they must make a case that the stock losses were due to misrepresentation, fraud, or that the board didn't act appropriately to mitigate a crisis. I would assume that it would be to the board's best interest to live up to it's mission statement and any other proxies approved at a share holders meeting.
Google is not for sale. Therefore Google is not going to sale to a low bid and ignore a higher bid - hence the Revlon Rule does not apply.
A corporation should make the best effort to insure the value of the shareholders stock when placing the business for sale. However, this does not equate to a corporation should operate in a manner to maximize profits regardless of the means.
But at what cost?
I've been hearing that line of reason since Nixon visited China. We can change China from within.
What has this accomplished? China appears more palatable to westerners. US manufacturing went to China. The US has a huge trade deficit with China. China is now the US's largest debt holder. China stands to secure it's supply of fossil fuels with a deals signed in Iraq and Afghanistan and using US troops to protect their business interests.
All I see is China doing just enough to acquire western money and doing that well...
Actually being a publicly held company, Google has a legal obligation to adhere to it's mission statement approved by the share holders.
The "Legal obligation to place money over principles" is a defense executives and PR firms like to toss around to shift blame.
What? How is not actively participating in the suppression of human rights, the same as strong-arming or invading a government?
Wow. So now you're rebuffing specific actions with generalities and character attacks? I have news for you, I turned down lots of money over principles. I can sleep at night - can you?
If you overlook the fact that Google is acting like a trap for the Chinese government, and the internet is the bait. What Google is doing is luring more people to use their search engine, and then handing over the details to Chinese government.
No what Google is doing is selling out to the current Chinese government in order to build brand loyalty.
You're absolutely correct, nothing obliges Google from making money... even if it help someone else do evil. Sort of like all those people who supported the Nazis so they continue doing business with Germany prior to the US entry into WWII.
Yea someone can yell Godwin's Law, but in this case I see a eary similarity between US interests prior to the US entry into WWII and Google's dealings with China. Placing money before principles, and trying to absolve themselves by saying we're only doing what is required to do business with China.
The functionality you are wanting is already present in OS X. It's called Spaces. You can group your your windows together (any way you like) within a single desktop, and switch between desktops with a hot key. Gnome, KDE, and Windows have this functionality as well.
A technicality, and depends on someone else's definition of on time. My main assertion was streaming is UDP not TCP.
Besides, I didn't mean that UDP was necessarily an open spigot and thanks to the vagueness of english "as soon as possible" can equal "on time".
I meant the protocols don't take other traffic into consideration. Pacing out the UDP to satisfy some predetermined timing requirement still doesn't prevent congestion.
Also you assume that a single transmission would be a bandwidth hog, this is not the case. It's the multitude of transmissions using that protocol in the series of tubes that don't take congestion into consideration (pacing or not you are still slinging packets) that leads to problems.
Trying looking at the forest rather than the tree...