Identity theft has as much to do with the **AA's as bank robbing has to do with child abduction.
I consider my personal information to be personal property. The thief is using something that is "mine" as "their own".
Why is it referred to as "theft" if the stolen "stuff" isn't "property"?
What a bizarre lunge for the bandwagon, points for effort I guess.
Not really.
This woman had something stolen that belonged to her. Now that information is being shared online without her being able to do much about it.
The RIAA and MPAA represents artists (I didn't say represents "well") who have personal information (songs, movies) that are being shared online without them being able to do much about it.
Although the information contained in the bits and bytes is different in content, it is still stolen information.
"I can't believe that people are allowed to do this kind of thing," she said. "Why can't [the authorities] do anything about this?"
"Welcome to the world of information theft, ma'am". She should look carefully her hard drive and take notes of how many mp3 and mpeg files she has as she complains about theft. Perhaps she will take stock of any cavalier attitude she may have had regarding the protection of "online" property.
I don't support the abusive tactics that the RIAA and the MPAA use to secure information about thieves, but their initial reaction to file sharing was probably the same as this woman's.
I'm no lawyer (are you?), so I can't confirm your assertion one way or the other.
No, but I don't need a lawyer in my car to know the speed limit. You needn't trust my word on this, check with any social service organization in the state you live in. I'm betting that it is illegal to leave a child alone without supervision.
Ah, the fresh smell of/. sarcasm. Incidentally, both of MY parents worked as well, though my Mom (reasonably) waited until my sister and I were both in grade school to return to work, and chose a career (teaching) where her schedule matched those of her children so that she was home when we were. Is that a reasonable world to you?
One: I don't know how you could "smell" my sarcasm over the odor of the sanctimonious post that preceded it. Two: Whether it is "reasonable" depends on what your parents objectives were. My parents couldn't raise two kids on my dad's income alone. Your derision conserning those of us who were raised by "strangers" is what drew my scorn.
I am quite well despite being raised by "strangers", thank you.
How would I know? Do degrees automatically equal productivity?...I don't think degrees automatically equal productivity.
Does a productivity equal a good society? I don't think productivity is the end-all of a society.
I just described my own personal experiences and the difficulty my team and my employer are having due to women employees needing excessive time off for children.
Due to women employees needing "excessive" time off?
Where the fuck are the fathers?!
Dad and Mom don't have kids in the first place. (gasp! shocker!)
Yeah, those fucking breeders.
Here's another: how about no transient workers at all?
Get ready for the immigrant wave! Zero population growth means imported labor. That idea doesn't bother me, but now YOU'VE got to deal with a new set of cultural standards. And how are your foreign language skills? Are you going to be able to get a job if your native language is no longer the lingua franca?
So many things to speculate about. But here is the real kicker:
...and doesn't require your employer to give you special treatment?
Raising kids is special treatment? Wow, I guess you should be glad your parents ignored your attitude toward rasing a family.
My point exactly...your employer DID discuss, prior to your employment, your family/child situation.
No, asshat. *I* brought it up.
As stated in other posts, that's not acceptable.
I brought it up. That is *not* unacceptable.
Even if you bring it up unasked, the employer isn't supposed to consider it.
In hiring me? You are right.
Nor are they supposed to consider my gender. Nor are they supposed to consider my race. Nor are they supposed to consider my religion. Nor are they supposed to consider my political affiliation.
But my fellow teammates cannot complain when they brought me on board that I have other committments.
Except for those who, like yourself, have issues with people who raise families.
"Still in business" doesn't equal "maximum".
It is not my "business" to maximize. If the companies I worked for did not account for their employees having issues realted to being a "human", then they deserved to go down the tubes.
I guess we could get into a business discussion if you wanted
If only there were so many jobs out there that I had the luxury to pick one with good family values.
You're right. But by not putting that expectation upfront in your discussions with a perspective employer you will never make them aware how many fathers would like that flexibility.
I hope you aren't insinuating that I agree with the 'women take care of the children' policy, because I don't.
Great, then why do you so actively defend the policy? Instead of taking the attitude that "it is just the way it is", you should be telling perspective employers that "I am willing to make sacrifices in my career to make sure my kids grow up with a dad in their life".
you then have to understand why the single guy who may be less qualified than you gets the promotion instead of you.
I understand quite well why the less qualifed person gets promoted. He "appears" to be more productive because he sits in his chair everyday and never complains.
But that is not what makes companies successful. That is what gives them short-term profitability.
They can send him away for the weekend and ask him to work long hours because they don't have to worry about him leaving to take care of his children.
For those of us "with" children, you may be right. But their are plenty of empty nest employees who *also* fit that bill who have also fulfilled their duty to society by raising good kids.
Then you have to accept that you won't go as far and get the same opportunities as your co-workers who don't.
Your measure of success is not the same as mine. I am not the highest paid (compensated, etc) employee in my company or even my group. But the greatest success I have experienced to date has been seeing my kids grow up.
Those people who hold higher positions (most of whom are miserable and lonely) will enjoy their declining years telling their roommate in the nursing home how rich and powerful they were in their working life.
I will be enjoying my declining years with my familiy.
Guess who wins.
And to bring us back on topic that is one reason why women don't go as far in the workplace as men. Because they are the ones who most often put the family above the career (and are expected to by society) and are thus passed up when promotions come around.
That's one way to look at it. The other way to look at it is: "Women don't go as far in the workplace because fathers are too selfish to put their careers on the *daddy-track*".
From my experience, male employers expect male employees to have their wives take care of those types of issues (if they are married). I'm not saying it is right, or that I agree with it.
Then don't reinforce the trend. Look for employers who are more enlightened.
I'm saying that if there is no mother then the company will expect the father to be responsible, but he will suffer the same setbacks as a mother in that case.
What is more important, your job or your children?
Kind of shitty that someone would ask *you*, a male, that kind of question, right?
Those are the choices that women have made for years.
The men, even if they're willing, aren't given the same flexibility as the women..
That's because they rarely ask.
Legally or culturally.
Bullshit on item one, and things are changing for item two.
Are you suggesting that employers will force the single-parent father to leave his small children to stay at home by themselves?
Here in America, that is now illegal.
So how would Dad get time off from HIS job if Mom can't get the time off from hers?
I just tell my employer that my wife can't leave work.
Pretty simple.
In the end, productivity suffers somewhere, right?
Yeah and if we continue to fail our children then productivity suffers even more.
And in the long run, we ALL suffer, because dual-income households mean day care, so in the long run we end up with a society of adults raised by strangers instead of their parents.
I don't know what world you grew up in but BOTH of my parents worked and I spent a great deal of time in daycare. I was also latchkey for a number of years.
I hold two degrees, have a great job with great pay, and I work in my children's schools and the surrounding community as a volunteer.
Looks like society got the benefit of that arrangement, right?
I have no issue with Dad staying at home and Mom working.
Neither do I. But it doesn't need to be a "this" or "the other" situation, does it?
If I was married with children, I would want to have one parent at home, either parent.
Then we are discussing personal preferences, aren't we?
I have a son and two daughters. All of them get good grades, have active social lives, and they spent their days in a daycare when both of their parents were at work. I spent the remaining time with them until they went to bed, and every weekend as well, while my wife worked on her studies. When she went on an internship and was gone for four months, I was sole provider and worked 50 hours a week.
I'm practical, so I would say the parent earning the most should work, and the other would stay at home.
I bucked the trend. My kids are college-bound and are well adjusted.
I didn't have to make the sacrifices you claim are "legally" required.
I do have issue with someone demanding that they be allowed to have it all at someone else's expense. How is that fair? A woman can demand career and family even if it costs someone else (person or corporation), but a man can't? That's not equal.
Sounds like you work for a fucked up company.
You should look for a more enlightened employer.
Here's a good one for you: Dad and Mom are transient workers and can't afford daycare. The children grow up in the fields, working right next to their parents. They never attend a class in their life because they never show up in the system due to their mobility. Their parents, however, are EXTREMELY productive.
I guess productivity isn't *the* Holy Grail for a successful society, but only one important component.
I chose to let my employers know that I am on-call to stay at home if my children are sick and cannot attend school. When they hired me it was not an issue because they knew up front what my requirements were.
The companies that hired me are still in business, so I guess they survived my *low* productivity.
The only problem with this is it is the mothers who are allowed to take the time off for their children..
That's strange. My experience has been that fathers are just reluctant to take time off.
Even if the gp was married with children I bet he still wouldn't get the time off because his kids are sick, it would be expected that the mother would take care of that.
Only because the father has reinforced that view at his job. If the father lets it be known at interview time that he has to take time off occasionally because he has small children at home then there is rarely a complaint.
Are you suggesting that employers will force widowers or single-parent fathers to marry so that they will have reliable daycare? If so, please name that company.
Women who are educated simply shouldn't have children at all. All children can be raised by poor people instead.
I guess you didn't have a father?
Have you every *heard* of one?
I spent the formative years of my children's growth as the father and sole provider. My wife was working hard at the time earning her degree so that we BOTH would be able to provide for our children without living paycheck to paycheck.
Any family that takes the "father" out of the equation in child-rearing (and I mean providing more than just discipline) is a family on the road to failure.
"It was during his time down in New Mexico that Gates was stopped for a traffic infraction. Unfortunately, the complete details of his arrest and mugshot have been lost to time, either intentionally (if you're a conspirator) or simply because who would have thought anyone would give a shit about some geek getting pulled over 20 years ago."
...I have a feeling this will be a bunch of +5 Funny Microsoft-bash posts.
That isn't the point as I see it.
I don't know if Microsoft is the largest software company or just the most profitable, but their economic momentum is what many critics object to. What you perceive as craping and whinging (and there is some of that too) is instead, as we see it, our job as consumers. We are fulfilling our obligations to make our demands known ("Market Forces" and all that).
I use Linux two reasons:
1) it is cool techology that I personally find enjoyable to use and learn, and 2) to provide Microsoft with an anti-monopoly alternative.
The second one is something that Microsoft users should appreciate more than Linux users. Microsoft's record on product development in areas where they are market leader is abysmal. Without us nipping at his heals, he wouldn't be pushing out a new OS until 2012.
Your post conveys to your readers that you are also obviously "impressed" by the company. There isn't anything particularly wrong with that, but don't dismiss our objections out of hand too easily. After all, every motivation of Microsoft should be scrutinized by the Linux community. They are our competitor; being suspicious is our #2 job.
Gates/Ballmer have no love for Linux, either the code, or the developers. But I may be overly harsh with Microsoft. After all, the Microsoft organization *has* tried to win Linux users back. It is true. Bill and his Vice Presidents have accused us of being anti-American, socialists, and communists. I haven't read a news release from Microsoft lately, so they may have already accused us of being terrorists as well.
I just wish Microsoft realized that we are more than we more than just anti-American, socialists, and communists. We are consumers too. We are telling Microsoft something without relying on focus groups, and without the sophisticated market research. The answers are right there - right in the source code. All Bill and Co. have to do is cram their front-end on it and they could be the largest software publisher of Linux on the planet.
For the userbase that started using Linux less than five years after Torvald's usenet post, we have seen a small hobby project grow into a major contender in the software industry. We don't need Bill and Co. any more. Linux has smart engineers too, but the contributor-community just has a different philosophy about how software should be constructed. For me and other Linux users like me, we are not *just* interested in getting software for free (although it really beats paying). We just want software we like.
And there is nothing more red-blooded, capitalist, jack-booted, international commerce rader-esque than that.
and used mommy's IBM contacts to get his operating system put on IBM PCs.
There were plenty of families in the Seattle area who were MUCH wealthier than the Gates family in the late 70's and early 80's.
Why didn't one of JP Getty's kids become the richest people in the world?
go from being a millionaire by inheritence
I don't think his family was that wealthy.
Dude, when I was a young lad, my friend's dad became a millionaire in 1974. His dad owned his own surveying business. My friend is now working as a temporary worker in construction management.
Funny how having been born into wealth doesn't guarantee success.
In the process he foisted shoddy products on a captive public, held the technology back at least 15 years, and did irreperable harm to the industry (and countless thousands of lives, many of whome were far more innovative and creative thah he or his minions).
Lots of people got rich as MSFT rose to the top. Many of them were developers of products targeted to run on MSFT's platform.
Call them and ask them if they have any complaints.
And were you around BEFORE the PC revolution? I have personnally benefitted from Microsoft's success. I was able to afford a personal computer when the average price tag for an entry-level machine was $2K. An entry level machine is now priced below $500 (a huge drop if you factor in inflation). The companies who make these machines wouldn't have been able to sell near the volume they did in the 1990's had it not been for Windows.
And I say this having been a Linux user since 1996. Believe me, I recognize the negative side of MSFT's behavior. But without MSFT driving consumer demand for PCs, the price/performance level of today's machines would be nearly impossible to recreate in the same timeframe.
Would you expect, say, Proctor & Gamble to grow 70% a year? I doubt it.
They did it before, and they could do it again.
It depends on whether P&G could produce another market killer like Tide again.
In a similar vein, if MSFT were to produce a truly killer application or product, there should be no reason why their stock couldn't rocket up again.
But the business focus lately has been to milk the existing cash cows and attempt, yet again, to enter markets they failed in before - like entertainment centers (ala webtv) and telephones.
Game consoles are losing money for them at this point. They need to kill Sony to really make serious cash in gaming.
Gates has also transformed his image from that of a sometimes arrogant and aloof individual to a kind of polished media darling.
The guy is a dork. He will always be a dork, no matter how rich he is.
Face it: If it weren't for his $46B, there isn't a newspaper in the world that would talk to him, much less a woman who would sleep with him (without paying, of course).
He is hardly a media darling. Rock stars and glamour girls are media darlings. Computer wonks are side show freaks.
Seriously. But only on topics that he obviously knows NOTHING about.
For instance, he was wrong about the impact of the internet. He has also been wrong in forcasting technology trends, 14 YEARS IN A ROW.
I admire the fact that Bill has been able to become rich and successful. To his credit, he drove his company to take risks and challenge his competitors. If it weren't for the principles of Microsoft fighting for their market share, the industry might look much less inviting than it is today. Competition is a good thing, and Microsoft is nothing if not competative.
But when Bill wanders off the reservation, he gets himself in trouble. His ideas about world health are noble, but I don't think US pharma companies look too kindly at his dumping millions of dollars into areas where they could be raking in profits.
Free medicine? Ask Big Pharma what they thing that political philosophy constitutes.
Bill should keep his discussion focused on Microsoft and his competition. That is what he is best at. Commenting on open source products, not the philosophy that creates them, is probably a whole lot safer and let prone to embarrass His Highness.
Bill Gates is as clueless about open source as Nicolas II was about his peasantry.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm not the one who a) is overly sensitive, and b) got personal. In both cases, that was you.
Perhaps. But you lack sensitivity for people who were not as fortunate as you were in having a parent watching over you when you were a child.
Have you considered that the rest of the world is not so fortunate?
You call me sanctimonious?? Ha. I call bullshit.
As I said, you haven't read your previous posts from the perspective of someone less fortunate than yourself.
You shouldn't. If that is the premise for your argument, then I agree.
But that isn't how you presented your argument. Instead you bemoaned time taken off as "excessive" if it dealt with child care.
Reread your posts.
If acknowledging what is true is sanctimonious, so be it.
No, denigrating others for not being born in your family is santimonious.
I'm not saying I'm better than you, I'm not attacking you.
Not me specifically, just those people who take time off to take care of their children.
Well, let's speculate about that. Why do people have children?
I can't speak for all parents but I had children because I wanted to have a family.
Is that a crime now?
You're telling me that you had children because of some noble ideal that you needed to replenish the population to prevent "the immigrant wave"?
No, I gave my reason above. If you adhere to a zero population position, immigration is the only solution to a labor shortage.
If you can't catch the sneering, anti-family tone in your posts, perhaps you should show them to your folks.
For you to assume your children are going to be "good" people is just sheer arrogance..
You're right.
I assume your parents thought likewise.
Now they know.
You forgot to mod "off-topic".
Really? How so?
Identity theft has as much to do with the **AA's as bank robbing has to do with child abduction.
I consider my personal information to be personal property. The thief is using something that is "mine" as "their own".
Why is it referred to as "theft" if the stolen "stuff" isn't "property"?
What a bizarre lunge for the bandwagon, points for effort I guess.
Not really.
This woman had something stolen that belonged to her. Now that information is being shared online without her being able to do much about it.
The RIAA and MPAA represents artists (I didn't say represents "well") who have personal information (songs, movies) that are being shared online without them being able to do much about it.
Although the information contained in the bits and bytes is different in content, it is still stolen information.
"I can't believe that people are allowed to do this kind of thing," she said. "Why can't [the authorities] do anything about this?"
"Welcome to the world of information theft, ma'am". She should look carefully her hard drive and take notes of how many mp3 and mpeg files she has as she complains about theft. Perhaps she will take stock of any cavalier attitude she may have had regarding the protection of "online" property.
I don't support the abusive tactics that the RIAA and the MPAA use to secure information about thieves, but their initial reaction to file sharing was probably the same as this woman's.
I'm no lawyer (are you?), so I can't confirm your assertion one way or the other.
/. sarcasm. Incidentally, both of MY parents worked as well, though my Mom (reasonably) waited until my sister and I were both in grade school to return to work, and chose a career (teaching) where her schedule matched those of her children so that she was home when we were. Is that a reasonable world to you?
...and doesn't require your employer to give you special treatment?
No, but I don't need a lawyer in my car to know the speed limit. You needn't trust my word on this, check with any social service organization in the state you live in. I'm betting that it is illegal to leave a child alone without supervision.
Ah, the fresh smell of
One: I don't know how you could "smell" my sarcasm over the odor of the sanctimonious post that preceded it. Two: Whether it is "reasonable" depends on what your parents objectives were. My parents couldn't raise two kids on my dad's income alone. Your derision conserning those of us who were raised by "strangers" is what drew my scorn.
I am quite well despite being raised by "strangers", thank you.
How would I know? Do degrees automatically equal productivity?...I don't think degrees automatically equal productivity.
Does a productivity equal a good society? I don't think productivity is the end-all of a society.
I just described my own personal experiences and the difficulty my team and my employer are having due to women employees needing excessive time off for children.
Due to women employees needing "excessive" time off?
Where the fuck are the fathers?!
Dad and Mom don't have kids in the first place. (gasp! shocker!)
Yeah, those fucking breeders.
Here's another: how about no transient workers at all?
Get ready for the immigrant wave! Zero population growth means imported labor. That idea doesn't bother me, but now YOU'VE got to deal with a new set of cultural standards. And how are your foreign language skills? Are you going to be able to get a job if your native language is no longer the lingua franca?
So many things to speculate about. But here is the real kicker:
Raising kids is special treatment? Wow, I guess you should be glad your parents ignored your attitude toward rasing a family.
My point exactly...your employer DID discuss, prior to your employment, your family/child situation.
No, asshat. *I* brought it up.
As stated in other posts, that's not acceptable.
I brought it up. That is *not* unacceptable.
Even if you bring it up unasked, the employer isn't supposed to consider it.
In hiring me? You are right.
Nor are they supposed to consider my gender. Nor are they supposed to consider my race. Nor are they supposed to consider my religion. Nor are they supposed to consider my political affiliation.
But my fellow teammates cannot complain when they brought me on board that I have other committments.
Except for those who, like yourself, have issues with people who raise families.
"Still in business" doesn't equal "maximum".
It is not my "business" to maximize. If the companies I worked for did not account for their employees having issues realted to being a "human", then they deserved to go down the tubes.
I guess we could get into a business discussion if you wanted
Yeah, why bother?
My intent is not to attack you,
Anyone reading your post would call bullshit.
You seem to feel that I like/want things this way....I never said I agree or condone this view point, I was just pointing it out.
You are right, you never did.
Sorry paint you in that light.
If only there were so many jobs out there that I had the luxury to pick one with good family values.
You're right. But by not putting that expectation upfront in your discussions with a perspective employer you will never make them aware how many fathers would like that flexibility.
I hope you aren't insinuating that I agree with the 'women take care of the children' policy, because I don't.
Great, then why do you so actively defend the policy? Instead of taking the attitude that "it is just the way it is", you should be telling perspective employers that "I am willing to make sacrifices in my career to make sure my kids grow up with a dad in their life".
you then have to understand why the single guy who may be less qualified than you gets the promotion instead of you.
I understand quite well why the less qualifed person gets promoted. He "appears" to be more productive because he sits in his chair everyday and never complains.
But that is not what makes companies successful. That is what gives them short-term profitability.
They can send him away for the weekend and ask him to work long hours because they don't have to worry about him leaving to take care of his children.
For those of us "with" children, you may be right. But their are plenty of empty nest employees who *also* fit that bill who have also fulfilled their duty to society by raising good kids.
Then you have to accept that you won't go as far and get the same opportunities as your co-workers who don't.
Your measure of success is not the same as mine. I am not the highest paid (compensated, etc) employee in my company or even my group. But the greatest success I have experienced to date has been seeing my kids grow up.
Those people who hold higher positions (most of whom are miserable and lonely) will enjoy their declining years telling their roommate in the nursing home how rich and powerful they were in their working life.
I will be enjoying my declining years with my familiy.
Guess who wins.
And to bring us back on topic that is one reason why women don't go as far in the workplace as men. Because they are the ones who most often put the family above the career (and are expected to by society) and are thus passed up when promotions come around.
That's one way to look at it. The other way to look at it is: "Women don't go as far in the workplace because fathers are too selfish to put their careers on the *daddy-track*".
I think you missed the joke. Gates owns Corbis.
Cluebat at the ready; set to stun!
From my experience, male employers expect male employees to have their wives take care of those types of issues (if they are married). I'm not saying it is right, or that I agree with it.
Then don't reinforce the trend. Look for employers who are more enlightened.
I'm saying that if there is no mother then the company will expect the father to be responsible, but he will suffer the same setbacks as a mother in that case.
What is more important, your job or your children?
Kind of shitty that someone would ask *you*, a male, that kind of question, right?
Those are the choices that women have made for years.
The men, even if they're willing, aren't given the same flexibility as the women..
That's because they rarely ask.
Legally or culturally.
Bullshit on item one, and things are changing for item two.
Are you suggesting that employers will force the single-parent father to leave his small children to stay at home by themselves?
Here in America, that is now illegal.
So how would Dad get time off from HIS job if Mom can't get the time off from hers?
I just tell my employer that my wife can't leave work.
Pretty simple.
In the end, productivity suffers somewhere, right?
Yeah and if we continue to fail our children then productivity suffers even more.
And in the long run, we ALL suffer, because dual-income households mean day care, so in the long run we end up with a society of adults raised by strangers instead of their parents.
I don't know what world you grew up in but BOTH of my parents worked and I spent a great deal of time in daycare. I was also latchkey for a number of years.
I hold two degrees, have a great job with great pay, and I work in my children's schools and the surrounding community as a volunteer.
Looks like society got the benefit of that arrangement, right?
I have no issue with Dad staying at home and Mom working.
Neither do I. But it doesn't need to be a "this" or "the other" situation, does it?
If I was married with children, I would want to have one parent at home, either parent.
Then we are discussing personal preferences, aren't we?
I have a son and two daughters. All of them get good grades, have active social lives, and they spent their days in a daycare when both of their parents were at work. I spent the remaining time with them until they went to bed, and every weekend as well, while my wife worked on her studies. When she went on an internship and was gone for four months, I was sole provider and worked 50 hours a week.
I'm practical, so I would say the parent earning the most should work, and the other would stay at home.
I bucked the trend. My kids are college-bound and are well adjusted.
I didn't have to make the sacrifices you claim are "legally" required.
I do have issue with someone demanding that they be allowed to have it all at someone else's expense. How is that fair? A woman can demand career and family even if it costs someone else (person or corporation), but a man can't? That's not equal.
Sounds like you work for a fucked up company.
You should look for a more enlightened employer.
Here's a good one for you: Dad and Mom are transient workers and can't afford daycare. The children grow up in the fields, working right next to their parents. They never attend a class in their life because they never show up in the system due to their mobility. Their parents, however, are EXTREMELY productive.
I guess productivity isn't *the* Holy Grail for a successful society, but only one important component.
I chose to let my employers know that I am on-call to stay at home if my children are sick and cannot attend school. When they hired me it was not an issue because they knew up front what my requirements were.
The companies that hired me are still in business, so I guess they survived my *low* productivity.
The only problem with this is it is the mothers who are allowed to take the time off for their children..
That's strange. My experience has been that fathers are just reluctant to take time off.
Even if the gp was married with children I bet he still wouldn't get the time off because his kids are sick, it would be expected that the mother would take care of that.
Only because the father has reinforced that view at his job. If the father lets it be known at interview time that he has to take time off occasionally because he has small children at home then there is rarely a complaint.
Are you suggesting that employers will force widowers or single-parent fathers to marry so that they will have reliable daycare? If so, please name that company.
At least in my experience.
We have different experiences.
I guess you've never been lampooned before.
Your suggestion has as much merit as Gates using deadly force to prohibit distribution of these photos.
Get it?
Every single week. Its usually because their children are sick or they can't find a baby sitter, or day care isn't open, or whatever.
Sounds like more of a "dad" problem than a "mom" problem.
Re-read your post and imagine that there were fathers who could step up and do *their* jobs.
Women who are educated simply shouldn't have children at all. All children can be raised by poor people instead.
I guess you didn't have a father ?
Have you every *heard* of one?
I spent the formative years of my children's growth as the father and sole provider. My wife was working hard at the time earning her degree so that we BOTH would be able to provide for our children without living paycheck to paycheck.
Any family that takes the "father" out of the equation in child-rearing (and I mean providing more than just discipline) is a family on the road to failure.
Or....
Gates should invent a high-powered laser rifle. Then he could eviscerate anyone who used this picture.
Both suggestions have the same likelihood of occurring.
I liked the following:
"It was during his time down in New Mexico that Gates was stopped for a traffic infraction. Unfortunately, the complete details of his arrest and mugshot have been lost to time, either intentionally (if you're a conspirator) or simply because who would have thought anyone would give a shit about some geek getting pulled over 20 years ago."
Rotten is priceless.
Bill Gates was born in 1955.
The pictures of him were taken in 1983.
Bill Gates was 28 in 1983.
The average age of the Tiger Beat reader is 13.
YUCK!
How could transparency possibly be enforced?
One word: Skepticism.
If you believe everything you read uncritically you deserve to be treated like a fool.
...I have a feeling this will be a bunch of +5 Funny Microsoft-bash posts.
That isn't the point as I see it.
I don't know if Microsoft is the largest software company or just the most profitable, but their economic momentum is what many critics object to. What you perceive as craping and whinging (and there is some of that too) is instead, as we see it, our job as consumers. We are fulfilling our obligations to make our demands known ("Market Forces" and all that).
I use Linux two reasons:
1) it is cool techology that I personally find enjoyable to use and learn, and
2) to provide Microsoft with an anti-monopoly alternative.
The second one is something that Microsoft users should appreciate more than Linux users. Microsoft's record on product development in areas where they are market leader is abysmal. Without us nipping at his heals, he wouldn't be pushing out a new OS until 2012.
Your post conveys to your readers that you are also obviously "impressed" by the company. There isn't anything particularly wrong with that, but don't dismiss our objections out of hand too easily. After all, every motivation of Microsoft should be scrutinized by the Linux community. They are our competitor; being suspicious is our #2 job.
Gates/Ballmer have no love for Linux, either the code, or the developers. But I may be overly harsh with Microsoft. After all, the Microsoft organization *has* tried to win Linux users back. It is true. Bill and his Vice Presidents have accused us of being anti-American, socialists, and communists. I haven't read a news release from Microsoft lately, so they may have already accused us of being terrorists as well.
I just wish Microsoft realized that we are more than we more than just anti-American, socialists, and communists. We are consumers too. We are telling Microsoft something without relying on focus groups, and without the sophisticated market research. The answers are right there - right in the source code. All Bill and Co. have to do is cram their front-end on it and they could be the largest software publisher of Linux on the planet.
For the userbase that started using Linux less than five years after Torvald's usenet post, we have seen a small hobby project grow into a major contender in the software industry. We don't need Bill and Co. any more. Linux has smart engineers too, but the contributor-community just has a different philosophy about how software should be constructed. For me and other Linux users like me, we are not *just* interested in getting software for free (although it really beats paying). We just want software we like.
And there is nothing more red-blooded, capitalist, jack-booted, international commerce rader-esque than that.
I agree. It posted that image without problems.
He was born rich,
Not $46B rich.
and used mommy's IBM contacts to get his operating system put on IBM PCs.
There were plenty of families in the Seattle area who were MUCH wealthier than the Gates family in the late 70's and early 80's.
Why didn't one of JP Getty's kids become the richest people in the world?
go from being a millionaire by inheritence
I don't think his family was that wealthy.
Dude, when I was a young lad, my friend's dad became a millionaire in 1974. His dad owned his own surveying business. My friend is now working as a temporary worker in construction management.
Funny how having been born into wealth doesn't guarantee success.
In the process he foisted shoddy products on a captive public, held the technology back at least 15 years, and did irreperable harm to the industry (and countless thousands of lives, many of whome were far more innovative and creative thah he or his minions).
Lots of people got rich as MSFT rose to the top. Many of them were developers of products targeted to run on MSFT's platform.
Call them and ask them if they have any complaints.
And were you around BEFORE the PC revolution? I have personnally benefitted from Microsoft's success. I was able to afford a personal computer when the average price tag for an entry-level machine was $2K. An entry level machine is now priced below $500 (a huge drop if you factor in inflation). The companies who make these machines wouldn't have been able to sell near the volume they did in the 1990's had it not been for Windows.
And I say this having been a Linux user since 1996. Believe me, I recognize the negative side of MSFT's behavior. But without MSFT driving consumer demand for PCs, the price/performance level of today's machines would be nearly impossible to recreate in the same timeframe.
You do realize that Tide is only 5-6% of P&G's total sales.
Not when it came out. It blew the competition out of the water.
P&G will probably never, ever again grow 70% in a year.
All prognosticators are wrong.
That's outrageous, and probably not ever going to happen.
And you were accurate about the explosive growth of MSFT in the years 1994-1999?
Pull up your previous predictions and lets have a look at them.
Would you expect, say, Proctor & Gamble to grow 70% a year? I doubt it.
They did it before, and they could do it again.
It depends on whether P&G could produce another market killer like Tide again.
In a similar vein, if MSFT were to produce a truly killer application or product, there should be no reason why their stock couldn't rocket up again.
But the business focus lately has been to milk the existing cash cows and attempt, yet again, to enter markets they failed in before - like entertainment centers (ala webtv) and telephones.
Game consoles are losing money for them at this point. They need to kill Sony to really make serious cash in gaming.
What's amazing is that they still have $119M in market cap with a penny stock.
For an absolutely freakish comparison, look at the market cap and stock price of this turd:
http://finance.yahoo.com/q?s=SCOX
Smaller market cap, higher stock price.
Gates has also transformed his image from that of a sometimes arrogant and aloof individual to a kind of polished media darling.
The guy is a dork. He will always be a dork, no matter how rich he is.
Face it: If it weren't for his $46B, there isn't a newspaper in the world that would talk to him, much less a woman who would sleep with him (without paying, of course).
He is hardly a media darling. Rock stars and glamour girls are media darlings. Computer wonks are side show freaks.
Seriously. But only on topics that he obviously knows NOTHING about.
For instance, he was wrong about the impact of the internet. He has also been wrong in forcasting technology trends, 14 YEARS IN A ROW.
I admire the fact that Bill has been able to become rich and successful. To his credit, he drove his company to take risks and challenge his competitors. If it weren't for the principles of Microsoft fighting for their market share, the industry might look much less inviting than it is today. Competition is a good thing, and Microsoft is nothing if not competative.
But when Bill wanders off the reservation, he gets himself in trouble. His ideas about world health are noble, but I don't think US pharma companies look too kindly at his dumping millions of dollars into areas where they could be raking in profits.
Free medicine? Ask Big Pharma what they thing that political philosophy constitutes.
Bill should keep his discussion focused on Microsoft and his competition. That is what he is best at. Commenting on open source products, not the philosophy that creates them, is probably a whole lot safer and let prone to embarrass His Highness.
Bill Gates is as clueless about open source as Nicolas II was about his peasantry.