Just because America isn't feeding them doesn't make it Americas fault they can't feed themselves.
It isn't quite so simple, though -- the western world (not just America -- I'm not an American either) does do harm to poorer countries through farm subsidies and other unfair trade practices. These make it basically impossible for many poor countries to develop a self-sufficient agricultural sector.
Sure, not many (largish) public companies will go out of business after one unprofitable quarter, but their stock price will fall. That is where the pressure comes from -- the stock has got to keep on going up, up, up.
(Yes, some businesses do manage to think more in the long-term, but management is primarily responsible to stockholders, and they'll be pissed if profits/revenue fall -- the market will not accept "Oh, this will pay of 10 years down the line" as an excuse for today's tanking prices.)
someone can't afford to spend time thinking about something that may become a big thing in 10 years if they need to help their company survive this year, every year.
Buddy, I think that when you say they think in years, you are overestimating most companies foresight. Management thinks in quarters. Got a quarter that has revenue or profits below the forecasts? Well, a bunch of executives will be out of jobs, cuz the shareholders will be pissed. A chronic inability to actually think in the long term seems to be another wonderful side effect of corporate structure.
...that MS has all this money and yet such poor quality software. I'm not just trying to bash them, but billions of cash in reserve and yet their software is repeatedly delayed and then still buggy and full of security holes.
I personally think that their problem is a fundamentally flawed production model (ie design decisions heavily based on marketing, legacy code, etc). All the money in the world won't help you if your basic premises and priorities are screwy.
I've seen some (not all) of The Prisoner, and yeah, that is a very good show -- but shows like that are very rare compared to the tidal wave of crud that makes up the bulk of TV broadcasts.
Yes, there have been individual examples of decent shows, and there still are. But quality TV has always been the exception that proves the rule -- the vast majority of it is and always has been lowest-common-denominator pap.
You then have a choice of licenses: you can choose to continue to follow the Seavsoft license, which will get you access to future revs of the code, or you can redistribute under the terms of the GPL which results in termination of the Seavsoft license and access to future revs.
But the code isn't his...it's GPLed. What right does he have to relicense other people's code under a more restrictive license? This two license thing doesn't make sense unless Sveasoft actually owns the copyright to *all* of the code they're distributing.
But in those two books, he does an excellent job of explaining, well, *the universe* in a way that even I can understand.
Several years ago (well, it's probably more like 10 now...ugh) I saw Hawkings give a lecture aimed at the layman to a packed theatre. It was really very impressive -- despite the nature of what he was talking about and his physical limitations, he was engaging, humourous, and very understandable. He's a credit to his field and science in general -- not only through his intellectual achievements, but also through the class and humanity with which he conducts himself.
The last article in the Onion's "Our Dumb Century" is headlined "All Corporations Merge Into OmniCorp."
"Under the terms of the record $9.2 quadrillion merger, the Global Tetrahedron Conglomerate gains controlling shares of its final two competitors, Time-WarTurABCDisSonylumbiaAT&T and GM-LockheedZweibSKGBank, creating what company spokespersons called 'an unstoppable juggernaut wielding unparalleled wealth and power.' As a cost-saving measure, dealmakers also negoiated the absorption of all world governments into OmniCorp, making the corporate behemoth the sole ruler of humankind."
I think folks would switch in droves if they could get an open-source Mac copy to run on their PC hardware.
Yes, droves -- cuz there's such a huge demand for the proprietary Mac OS. That's why they outnumber Windows users twenty times over, right?...oh sorry, it's actually the other way around, isn't it...
I'm sorry, I really don't intend this as a Mac flame (honest!) -- but the reality is, the vast majority of desktops use Windows, and if you want your free desktop to have mass appeal, making it familiar to Windows users is the name of the game. Expecting a huge market for a free Mac-type OS when the original holds such a small share of the market (compared to Windows) just seems unrealistic to me.
Re:Might not be a bad thing.
on
IPv6 is Here
·
· Score: 1
Ideally, at least, I would like to think that Internet anonymity is more comparable to that we enjoy while voting.
Are you saying that classical music students don't listen to pop?
Lots of them don't. I'm a classical music student, and I listen to very very little pop music. But, I think the harpsichordist was just an example of an individual who didn't want to be paying money to napster for a service they didn't want.
Hmmm... Next argument...
Hmmm...looks like you missed the whole point of the parent's point! I believe he was saying that it is wrong to coerce all of the students at a university to pay money to a private corporation (or organization of private corporations), even if they have no use or desire for their product. Compulsorary subscriptions have NO PLACE in universities. You failed to address that. So, your turn...next argument...
Most patrons are barely capable of using existing public-access terminals let alone a multi-tabbed browser.
Heh, perhaps, but it's not like using Firefox is any more complicated than using IE -- casual users may not use the extra features such as tabbed browsing (hey, most of them might not even notice that it's not IE), but the advantages of using Firefox will still be there (security, the extra features for those who knows the software, and most importantly, freedom. Libraries just seem like the most natural home for free software. Conversely, libraries dependent on proprietary software just seems...wrong, somehow).
Additionally, the majority of catalog lookups are single-item queries--I'm not convinced that throwing a better browser at them would significantly enhance their library experience.
Sure, but some people also use libraries as their only net connection (particularly for e-mail, I'd imagine). These people deserve a proper browser too.
First of all: for the record, no, I don't really consider NASCAR racing a sport -- or F1 racing, for that matter (you were probably talking about one of the Schumachers being the highest paid athlete around). However, an argument can be made that they are, since they do far more than sit behind a wheel -- it requires a great deal of physical exertion, training, and endurance to be able to control a vehicle going that fast. The key thing here is physical skill. If you ask most people what a sport is, they'll tell you that it is a physical competition. *Physical* is the key. Yes, chess requires a great deal of endurance, but it is endurance of entirely different sort.
But this wasn't really my point; I think you might be misunderstanding me. I don't watch NASCAR, and I certainly respect top chess or go players, or top mathematicians, etc, a lot more than I do some jock who can throw a ball into a hoop from twenty paces. My point is this: what is accomplished by demanding that these intellectual fields be recognized as "sports"? NOTHING. They will not gain wider acceptance. The people who are good at these skills will not suddenly become as respected as atheletes (or as well paid). *The ONLY thing such demands illustrate are the insecurities of those who make the demands.* It strikes me as sad because it's demanding recognition from the same people that really don't give a fuck about chess tournaments, math competitions, and so forth. SCREW THOSE PEOPLE! Don't go crawling up to them demanding recognition! It doesn't -- or at least shouldn't -- make a difference to the people who actually care about stuff like that whether or not it's called a sport!
Oh, and just for fun: You're so off base with this, you're not even wrong. Oh yeah, and don't put arguments/words into somebody else's mouth when it's not implied at all by what they're saying. How did I say that anything that has the potential to be competitive is a sport?
Have you head of chess or go? There are a lot of federations, so it must be sport then
What??? Buddy, just because something is organized into "a lot of federations," does NOT mean that it is a sport. Organized != Athletic. This is not trying to put down these fields, but they are NOT sports. Insisting that they are is pretty sad, IMHO; it reeks of demanding legitimization from the mainstream, WHO DON'T GIVE A DAMN ANYWAYS. Fuck the mainstream. You're into competitive math tournaments, or physics tournaments, or trivia? Great. Be proud about that. Don't grovel and whine that it's a "sport."
Let's say for a second that these people are successful, and chess, Jeopardy, math, physics, etc, are all reclassified as "sports." Do you think that will really make any difference? The mainstream still won't respect it or you anymore ("Look at these nerds -- Mathletes! Psh! What channel is Nascar on?").
Maybe I'm coming off a little harsh, but this pushes a few of my buttons. People should be proud of what they do, even if it is not very prestigious according to that Nascar crowd. Don't whore yourself out to mainstream acceptibility.
Dude, you *nailed* it. That's exactly why there will probably never be 500 channels in the average home. -- the quality of programming is simply too weak, and too diluted. Why should I pay for a few hundred channels that I'll never watch? Why should I pay a monthly fee to get ad-supported channels? Which brings up another point -- there's only so many advertising dollars to go around. If you're running channel 499, the "Not Cool, Zeus" channel, you're going to be competing with hundreds of other channels for a small pool of money.
Slashdot Mirror
...mean that we can't complain it's a dupe?
When I see stuff like that, I assume it is just because some mod wants the poster to get at least a little bit or karma for a funny post.
It isn't quite so simple, though -- the western world (not just America -- I'm not an American either) does do harm to poorer countries through farm subsidies and other unfair trade practices. These make it basically impossible for many poor countries to develop a self-sufficient agricultural sector.
(Yes, some businesses do manage to think more in the long-term, but management is primarily responsible to stockholders, and they'll be pissed if profits/revenue fall -- the market will not accept "Oh, this will pay of 10 years down the line" as an excuse for today's tanking prices.)
Buddy, I think that when you say they think in years, you are overestimating most companies foresight. Management thinks in quarters. Got a quarter that has revenue or profits below the forecasts? Well, a bunch of executives will be out of jobs, cuz the shareholders will be pissed. A chronic inability to actually think in the long term seems to be another wonderful side effect of corporate structure.
Dude, that was so random you just broke my braims.
I personally think that their problem is a fundamentally flawed production model (ie design decisions heavily based on marketing, legacy code, etc). All the money in the world won't help you if your basic premises and priorities are screwy.
I've seen some (not all) of The Prisoner, and yeah, that is a very good show -- but shows like that are very rare compared to the tidal wave of crud that makes up the bulk of TV broadcasts.
Yes, there have been individual examples of decent shows, and there still are. But quality TV has always been the exception that proves the rule -- the vast majority of it is and always has been lowest-common-denominator pap.
When was TV anything else besides a barren wasteland of corporate-enforced mediocrity?
But the code isn't his...it's GPLed. What right does he have to relicense other people's code under a more restrictive license? This two license thing doesn't make sense unless Sveasoft actually owns the copyright to *all* of the code they're distributing.
Several years ago (well, it's probably more like 10 now...ugh) I saw Hawkings give a lecture aimed at the layman to a packed theatre. It was really very impressive -- despite the nature of what he was talking about and his physical limitations, he was engaging, humourous, and very understandable. He's a credit to his field and science in general -- not only through his intellectual achievements, but also through the class and humanity with which he conducts himself.
"Under the terms of the record $9.2 quadrillion merger, the Global Tetrahedron Conglomerate gains controlling shares of its final two competitors, Time-WarTurABCDisSonylumbiaAT&T and GM-LockheedZweibSKGBank, creating what company spokespersons called 'an unstoppable juggernaut wielding unparalleled wealth and power.' As a cost-saving measure, dealmakers also negoiated the absorption of all world governments into OmniCorp, making the corporate behemoth the sole ruler of humankind."
Yes, droves -- cuz there's such a huge demand for the proprietary Mac OS. That's why they outnumber Windows users twenty times over, right? ...oh sorry, it's actually the other way around, isn't it...
I'm sorry, I really don't intend this as a Mac flame (honest!) -- but the reality is, the vast majority of desktops use Windows, and if you want your free desktop to have mass appeal, making it familiar to Windows users is the name of the game. Expecting a huge market for a free Mac-type OS when the original holds such a small share of the market (compared to Windows) just seems unrealistic to me.
Ideally, at least, I would like to think that Internet anonymity is more comparable to that we enjoy while voting.
Simple: that it fail to suck.
Nope, it must have been Tibor.
Are you saying that classical music students don't listen to pop?
Lots of them don't. I'm a classical music student, and I listen to very very little pop music. But, I think the harpsichordist was just an example of an individual who didn't want to be paying money to napster for a service they didn't want.
Hmmm... Next argument...
Hmmm...looks like you missed the whole point of the parent's point! I believe he was saying that it is wrong to coerce all of the students at a university to pay money to a private corporation (or organization of private corporations), even if they have no use or desire for their product. Compulsorary subscriptions have NO PLACE in universities. You failed to address that. So, your turn...next argument...
Heh, perhaps, but it's not like using Firefox is any more complicated than using IE -- casual users may not use the extra features such as tabbed browsing (hey, most of them might not even notice that it's not IE), but the advantages of using Firefox will still be there (security, the extra features for those who knows the software, and most importantly, freedom. Libraries just seem like the most natural home for free software. Conversely, libraries dependent on proprietary software just seems...wrong, somehow).
Additionally, the majority of catalog lookups are single-item queries--I'm not convinced that throwing a better browser at them would significantly enhance their library experience.
Sure, but some people also use libraries as their only net connection (particularly for e-mail, I'd imagine). These people deserve a proper browser too.
But this wasn't really my point; I think you might be misunderstanding me. I don't watch NASCAR, and I certainly respect top chess or go players, or top mathematicians, etc, a lot more than I do some jock who can throw a ball into a hoop from twenty paces. My point is this: what is accomplished by demanding that these intellectual fields be recognized as "sports"? NOTHING. They will not gain wider acceptance. The people who are good at these skills will not suddenly become as respected as atheletes (or as well paid). *The ONLY thing such demands illustrate are the insecurities of those who make the demands.* It strikes me as sad because it's demanding recognition from the same people that really don't give a fuck about chess tournaments, math competitions, and so forth. SCREW THOSE PEOPLE! Don't go crawling up to them demanding recognition! It doesn't -- or at least shouldn't -- make a difference to the people who actually care about stuff like that whether or not it's called a sport!
Oh, and just for fun: You're so off base with this, you're not even wrong. Oh yeah, and don't put arguments/words into somebody else's mouth when it's not implied at all by what they're saying. How did I say that anything that has the potential to be competitive is a sport?
What??? Buddy, just because something is organized into "a lot of federations," does NOT mean that it is a sport. Organized != Athletic. This is not trying to put down these fields, but they are NOT sports. Insisting that they are is pretty sad, IMHO; it reeks of demanding legitimization from the mainstream, WHO DON'T GIVE A DAMN ANYWAYS. Fuck the mainstream. You're into competitive math tournaments, or physics tournaments, or trivia? Great. Be proud about that. Don't grovel and whine that it's a "sport."
Let's say for a second that these people are successful, and chess, Jeopardy, math, physics, etc, are all reclassified as "sports." Do you think that will really make any difference? The mainstream still won't respect it or you anymore ("Look at these nerds -- Mathletes! Psh! What channel is Nascar on?").
Maybe I'm coming off a little harsh, but this pushes a few of my buttons. People should be proud of what they do, even if it is not very prestigious according to that Nascar crowd. Don't whore yourself out to mainstream acceptibility.
MS Bugs: They're the New SCO.
That is, without doubt, the most gratuitous exclamation mark I have ever seen.
Dude, you *nailed* it. That's exactly why there will probably never be 500 channels in the average home. -- the quality of programming is simply too weak, and too diluted. Why should I pay for a few hundred channels that I'll never watch? Why should I pay a monthly fee to get ad-supported channels? Which brings up another point -- there's only so many advertising dollars to go around. If you're running channel 499, the "Not Cool, Zeus" channel, you're going to be competing with hundreds of other channels for a small pool of money.
Of course, since children never play, and we absolutely need to discourage them from doing so.