Try yelling "fire" in a theater when there isn't one. Try threatening the President.
Ah, yes... The practice questions for the LSAT. Neither of these is exclusively wrong. Consider the context:
1) Am I prohibited, as an actor on the stage, from yelling "fire" in a theater when their isn't one?
2) Can I threaten the President in a play, book, or other creative context?
There are limits. Sorry, but it's true.
And any idiot can tell you that, but what is difficult is defining what *is* and *isn't* objectionable, much less indecent to every individual. That is why the 'community standards' provision is such a shaky foundation on which to rest these decisions.
The original poster was just pointing out the obvious.
No, I belive the original poster was thrashing Stern for what he believes is indecent or obscene.
I was pointing out that I don't want him or the government making that decision for me
don't like it? start campaigning.
I don't have to campaign. The Bill of Rights protects my point of view. What the FCC regulates is free-air transmissions. When free-air broadcasting becomes the exclusive realm of infomercials and christain talk radio, then people will begin to realize how stupid the 'community stadards' provisions are.
If someone can cite an FCC obscenity test case that went all the way to the SCOTUS, perhaps we could see where the Constitution stands on the question of what is obscene in broadcasting.
Wow, I'm sorry I gave you an opportunity to debate your position in an adult manner.
The Libertarian position would be to let the consumer make the decision on what is indecent and allow them to use the on/off control. Letting the government decide for *me* what is indecent is incredibly patronizing.
The tort system does need revision, but the only proposal I've seen so far gives relief exclusively to corporations. For tort reform to work, it will have to include:
1) eliminating slap suits, 2) limiting damages that individuals must pay to corporations (what's good for the goose, etc), and 3) shifting the burden of proof from the defendant to the plaintiff (same as for criminal cases).
Then I can support tort reform.
Otherwise tort reform is yet another corporate bailout.
These factors add a TON of cost to the insurance for hospital bills in the US.
A TON?
I seriously doubt that insurance rates for malpractice add that much to the bottom line.
But malpractice insurance is a problem. The tort system does need revision, but the only proposal I've seen so far gives relief exclusively to corporations. For tort reform to work, it will have to include:
1) eliminating slap suits, 2) limiting damages that individuals must pay to corporations (good for the goose...), and 3) shifting the burden of proof from the defendant to the plaintiff (same as for criminal cases).
Then I can support tort reform.
Otherwise tort reform is yet another corporate bailout.
But to say there's nothing to complain about Microsoft would be too much. There is a *lot* to complain about. They are getting better. They move slowly. If you think they are not meeting your expectations then you vote with your feet. It's that simple.
I agree with much of what you have written in your last post. While I wouldn't go so far as to say that there is a *lot* wrong with Microsoft's products, I do think their corporate structure leaves a *lot* to be desired when it comes to customer service.
I am definately happy that Microsoft became the software industry's best success story. My home state has benefitted greatly by their presence here. But that success has also grown some warts over time and Microsoft is in need of a serious challenger to improve their product quality. I believe open source represents our best hope for a healthy software industry.
Also, I did vote with my feet - I began to move to open source products. Are they of superior quality in every sense to Microsoft's? No, but neither was MSDOS superior to VAX or UNIX when I made the switch to personal computers.
No software, no matter who produces it, is without flaws. That is a given in our discussion. But the manner in how a company responds to complaints about their product conveys a great deal about how they perceive they customer base. My impression is that Microsoft views its customers as a cash valve.
No offense intended, but I refuse to accept the premise, "But again let's be fair here - what customer support doesn't suck?", despite the fact that it is true. If we users do not strive to hold vendor's feet to the fire, what incentive do they have to improve their products? After all, if you are willing to buy crap products, why should they make better ones? Improving products costs money and/or time (in the case of open source).
What open source represents to me, and perhaps to others, is an alternative to buying crap and not having any leverage to force improvements. Open source may not be a panecea as some would like to think, but it does motivate Microsoft to produce better products. As an advocate of Microsoft products, I believe you would welcome those improvements.
The real issue is whether there is enough competition in the proprietary software market to force behavioral changes within the Redmond campus. I do not believe there is that pressure from proprietary products. Some of that lack is due to the fact that Microsoft has better products, some is also due to the fact that small ventures have a difficult time getting the necessary financing in order to compete. Therein lies the rub: without competitors, Microsoft has no market motivation to improve their products.
You may believe differently, but that is the business of business. AT&T and IBM, as well as a host of other former monopolies, have proven this to be true again and again.
For that reason alone, you and I *both* need open source to succeed.
Believe it or not, UK soil is subject to UK law, not American law.
Riiiiight.
The US has been engaged in extra-territorial law enforcement for over ten years.
The World is our playground. The guys at the top of the current Administration are big-time interventionists when it comes to property law enforcement and drug law enforcement.
When the Democrats are in power, the extra-territorial enforcement is for human-rights violations.
Get used to it World. Until there is a significant change in the political process here in America, you can be sure she will indeed goes abroad, "in search of monsters to destroy."
What do you mean "competing software"? Those are worm code names, not product names. Correct?
The names cited in the previous post are worms, that is correct.
What I am trying to draw out here is your opinion on whether Microsoft has any legitimate problems with their software, and if so, whether they bear any responsibility for those problems.
Virtually every discussion of Microsoft products on slashdot begin with a "chicken little" description of the problem (although it is fair to say that some problems are that severe) followed by replies by Microsoft supporters who either attempt to minimize the problem, or point to an equally egregious problem in a competing open source product.
To me, the issue is about accountability. I pay for most of my software. When it doesn't function as promised, and the customer service rep that I have on the phone attempts to make it appear that I am the cause of the problem, then I feel I have a legitimate reason to complain about that company.
I read the EULA for every piece of software I install. I know the limitations that the vendor has assigned to my product. I am not complaining about data loss associated with hardware failure or something outside of Microsoft's control. What I am asking is: "Do you believe that there are any legitimate complaints regarding Microsoft's products?"
As I have said, I believe that those problems would exist even without the existence of competing products, so any discussion of them is irrelevant.
A lot (though not all) IE problems, Nimda, CodeRed, Blaster, etc.
Can you be more specific without referring to any competing software?
Please write your response as though no other alternative software existed. Because I can tell you without fear of equivocation that the problems you will enumerate would have existed without the presence of open source software.
The problems that Microsoft's products have, in my opinion, are a symptom of a problem endemic to the company's production structure.
When did they get a mandate to spend money developing video codecs.
Governments have deep pockets.
That issue aside, governments also have an interest in setting a base-level standard (as they have done for other transmission media) that all operators must incorporate into their devices. That "minimum functionality" mandate does not inhibit the ability of the manufacturer to propose, design, and implement their own protocols.
Interestingly, neither of these de facto FOSS leaders started out with "Destroy Microsoft!"
You are obviously reading too much into what I have written.
When I write "open source wouldn't exist without Microsoft" I mean that the entire open source movement would probably comprise just those individuals who were already producing free software for themselves and others to use. The jihadist mentality that you ascribe to my comments is completely out of context and has nothing to do with this discussion.
Again with the revisionist history.
Really?
You assume that Linux just sprang into the fore without some form of support from a user community. You see the server farms quietly being replaced as Linux slowly takes over other *nix products like some infectious organism zapping lowly Sparc-boxen.
The fact are a bit different than just the replacement statistics alone. Without a userbase of hobbiests, academics, and advocates, Linux would still be at 1.0. The users are as important as the developers in the open source world. It was the users who begged for drivers to run their equipment. The developers obliged and everyone in the open source movement began to realize that community software could be more than the sum of its parts. But most of those users were disgruntled Microsoft users, like myself, who were exploring alternatives to crap products.
If open source developers forget that they are working not only for themselves but for the users as well, then open source as a movement will fail. The article that is the subject of this discussion underscores my point.
The vast majority of people involved in free software do it because they like doing cool stuff, they like writing software, and they like doing as part of a community which appreciates what they do and gives them free reign to play and contribute.
Just as I said: personal interest.
Why do people use open source software?
Because they are tired of the other stuff they've been using.
No matter how many times I write that statement, someone will fire back that I just don't understand why people write open source software.
Slashdot Mirror
Try yelling "fire" in a theater when there isn't one. Try threatening the President.
Ah, yes... The practice questions for the LSAT. Neither of these is exclusively wrong. Consider the context:
1) Am I prohibited, as an actor on the stage, from yelling "fire" in a theater when their isn't one?
2) Can I threaten the President in a play, book, or other creative context?
There are limits. Sorry, but it's true.
And any idiot can tell you that, but what is difficult is defining what *is* and *isn't* objectionable, much less indecent to every individual. That is why the 'community standards' provision is such a shaky foundation on which to rest these decisions.
The original poster was just pointing out the obvious.
No, I belive the original poster was thrashing Stern for what he believes is indecent or obscene.
I was pointing out that I don't want him or the government making that decision for me
don't like it? start campaigning.
I don't have to campaign. The Bill of Rights protects my point of view. What the FCC regulates is free-air transmissions. When free-air broadcasting becomes the exclusive realm of infomercials and christain talk radio, then people will begin to realize how stupid the 'community stadards' provisions are.
If someone can cite an FCC obscenity test case that went all the way to the SCOTUS, perhaps we could see where the Constitution stands on the question of what is obscene in broadcasting.
Read the signature.
"...fat,midwestern, "sensitive" house fraus can change the station without disturbing the bedsores."
That was a great line.
Bite my ass?
Wow, I'm sorry I gave you an opportunity to debate your position in an adult manner.
The Libertarian position would be to let the consumer make the decision on what is indecent and allow them to use the on/off control. Letting the government decide for *me* what is indecent is incredibly patronizing.
Freedom of speech isn't an absolute freedom.
Fair enough. Your right has been terminated. You opinions are no longer community accepted and you are hereby denied the right to speak.
How does it feel to have the cannon pointed at you?
The tort system does need revision, but the only proposal I've seen so far gives relief exclusively to corporations. For tort reform to work, it will have to include:
1) eliminating slap suits,
2) limiting damages that individuals must pay to corporations (what's good for the goose, etc), and
3) shifting the burden of proof from the defendant to the plaintiff (same as for criminal cases).
Then I can support tort reform.
Otherwise tort reform is yet another corporate bailout.
If the parent got the same message as I did, then their post was *definately* not offtopic.
Sourceforge is/was offline for maintenance.
These factors add a TON of cost to the insurance for hospital bills in the US.
A TON?
I seriously doubt that insurance rates for malpractice add that much to the bottom line.
But malpractice insurance is a problem. The tort system does need revision, but the only proposal I've seen so far gives relief exclusively to corporations. For tort reform to work, it will have to include:
1) eliminating slap suits,
2) limiting damages that individuals must pay to corporations (good for the goose...), and
3) shifting the burden of proof from the defendant to the plaintiff (same as for criminal cases).
Then I can support tort reform.
Otherwise tort reform is yet another corporate bailout.
They are outsourcing the Total Information Awareness Project to Global Information Group Ltd. in the Bahamas.
Be afraid... be very afraid.
This legal reasoning (as opposed to "real" reasoning) can be used against law-abiding gun manufacturers as well.
Any device can be used for both "good" and "bad" purposes.
Outlaw rocks.
Yeah. Now it goes to eleven.
Nice catch!
I think the abstract said "at least comparable to cubic diamond".
That would change Mohs hardness scale if it were harder.
OK, you *can* put a web browser in your gas pump, but should you? Having seen BP's implementation, I would say not.
Do they use a Schlumberger system?
But to say there's nothing to complain about Microsoft would be too much. There is a *lot* to complain about. They are getting better. They move slowly. If you think they are not meeting your expectations then you vote with your feet. It's that simple.
I agree with much of what you have written in your last post. While I wouldn't go so far as to say that there is a *lot* wrong with Microsoft's products, I do think their corporate structure leaves a *lot* to be desired when it comes to customer service.
I am definately happy that Microsoft became the software industry's best success story. My home state has benefitted greatly by their presence here. But that success has also grown some warts over time and Microsoft is in need of a serious challenger to improve their product quality. I believe open source represents our best hope for a healthy software industry.
Also, I did vote with my feet - I began to move to open source products. Are they of superior quality in every sense to Microsoft's? No, but neither was MSDOS superior to VAX or UNIX when I made the switch to personal computers.
No software, no matter who produces it, is without flaws. That is a given in our discussion. But the manner in how a company responds to complaints about their product conveys a great deal about how they perceive they customer base. My impression is that Microsoft views its customers as a cash valve.
No offense intended, but I refuse to accept the premise, "But again let's be fair here - what customer support doesn't suck?", despite the fact that it is true. If we users do not strive to hold vendor's feet to the fire, what incentive do they have to improve their products? After all, if you are willing to buy crap products, why should they make better ones? Improving products costs money and/or time (in the case of open source).
What open source represents to me, and perhaps to others, is an alternative to buying crap and not having any leverage to force improvements. Open source may not be a panecea as some would like to think, but it does motivate Microsoft to produce better products. As an advocate of Microsoft products, I believe you would welcome those improvements.
The real issue is whether there is enough competition in the proprietary software market to force behavioral changes within the Redmond campus. I do not believe there is that pressure from proprietary products. Some of that lack is due to the fact that Microsoft has better products, some is also due to the fact that small ventures have a difficult time getting the necessary financing in order to compete. Therein lies the rub: without competitors, Microsoft has no market motivation to improve their products.
You may believe differently, but that is the business of business. AT&T and IBM, as well as a host of other former monopolies, have proven this to be true again and again.
For that reason alone, you and I *both* need open source to succeed.
Best regards.
They removed your doc.
Got link?
Believe it or not, UK soil is subject to UK law, not American law.
Riiiiight.
The US has been engaged in extra-territorial law enforcement for over ten years.
The World is our playground. The guys at the top of the current Administration are big-time interventionists when it comes to property law enforcement and drug law enforcement.
When the Democrats are in power, the extra-territorial enforcement is for human-rights violations.
Get used to it World. Until there is a significant change in the political process here in America, you can be sure she will indeed goes abroad, "in search of monsters to destroy."
Republicans: Democrats without the guilt
What do you mean "competing software"? Those are worm code names, not product names. Correct?
The names cited in the previous post are worms, that is correct.
What I am trying to draw out here is your opinion on whether Microsoft has any legitimate problems with their software, and if so, whether they bear any responsibility for those problems.
Virtually every discussion of Microsoft products on slashdot begin with a "chicken little" description of the problem (although it is fair to say that some problems are that severe) followed by replies by Microsoft supporters who either attempt to minimize the problem, or point to an equally egregious problem in a competing open source product.
To me, the issue is about accountability. I pay for most of my software. When it doesn't function as promised, and the customer service rep that I have on the phone attempts to make it appear that I am the cause of the problem, then I feel I have a legitimate reason to complain about that company.
I read the EULA for every piece of software I install. I know the limitations that the vendor has assigned to my product. I am not complaining about data loss associated with hardware failure or something outside of Microsoft's control. What I am asking is: "Do you believe that there are any legitimate complaints regarding Microsoft's products?"
As I have said, I believe that those problems would exist even without the existence of competing products, so any discussion of them is irrelevant.
A lot (though not all) IE problems, Nimda, CodeRed, Blaster, etc.
Can you be more specific without referring to any competing software?
Please write your response as though no other alternative software existed. Because I can tell you without fear of equivocation that the problems you will enumerate would have existed without the presence of open source software.
The problems that Microsoft's products have, in my opinion, are a symptom of a problem endemic to the company's production structure.
Oh, sure.
Care to cite some then?
Unlike free software apparently..
Apparently not.
Are there ever legitimate complaints regarding Microsoft's products?
Are you volunteering to be the false positive?
We are all volunteers.
When was the last time you inspected every component of your automobile?
You are relying on engineering statistics to keep you safe as well.
When did they get a mandate to spend money developing video codecs.
Governments have deep pockets.
That issue aside, governments also have an interest in setting a base-level standard (as they have done for other transmission media) that all operators must incorporate into their devices. That "minimum functionality" mandate does not inhibit the ability of the manufacturer to propose, design, and implement their own protocols.
...able to stop close to Riom (Puy-de-Dome).
I love listening to people who speak French, but when I read it phonetically I can't help but think of Inspector Clouseau.
"Is that your minkey?"
I said "write" because you, in your original post, said "why would you take the time to write alternative software?".
I have no idea how you got that quote from my "original" post.
My original post doesn't contain anything like the quote you attribute to me.
The post you are probably thinking of is here and was written in response to another poster who also misunderstood what I had written.
I know it's frustrating when people answer your questions with "You just don't get it," but frankly, that appears to be the case.
I agree that you just don't get it.
And the fault for the misunderstanding rests entirely with me for not being clear enough.
Read this comment to see if it clarifies things a bit.
Interestingly, neither of these de facto FOSS leaders started out with "Destroy Microsoft!"
You are obviously reading too much into what I have written.
When I write "open source wouldn't exist without Microsoft" I mean that the entire open source movement would probably comprise just those individuals who were already producing free software for themselves and others to use. The jihadist mentality that you ascribe to my comments is completely out of context and has nothing to do with this discussion.
Again with the revisionist history.
Really?
You assume that Linux just sprang into the fore without some form of support from a user community. You see the server farms quietly being replaced as Linux slowly takes over other *nix products like some infectious organism zapping lowly Sparc-boxen.
The fact are a bit different than just the replacement statistics alone. Without a userbase of hobbiests, academics, and advocates, Linux would still be at 1.0. The users are as important as the developers in the open source world. It was the users who begged for drivers to run their equipment. The developers obliged and everyone in the open source movement began to realize that community software could be more than the sum of its parts. But most of those users were disgruntled Microsoft users, like myself, who were exploring alternatives to crap products.
If open source developers forget that they are working not only for themselves but for the users as well, then open source as a movement will fail. The article that is the subject of this discussion underscores my point.
The vast majority of people involved in free software do it because they like doing cool stuff, they like writing software, and they like doing as part of a community which appreciates what they do and gives them free reign to play and contribute.
Just as I said: personal interest.
Why do people use open source software?
Because they are tired of the other stuff they've been using.
No matter how many times I write that statement, someone will fire back that I just don't understand why people write open source software.