Yes. I'm no fan of Microsoft, but I have to agree. I mean, what's this headline supposed to mean?
"For a company which on some fronts decries government intervention, Microsoft seems to have a different tack here."
Of course and so what. "Intervention" is a pretty broad term. A strip search could be considered government intervention. So could maintaining a municipal fire department. There's nothing ironic about being in favor of one, and not the other.
Slashdot editors: inflammatory remarks are not "insightful" or "interesting". The topic of discussion seems worthy, but silly little editorial snippets like these seem to owe more to the tradition of trash television and tabloids than to serious journalism.
I was very excited about RCN moving into my neighborhood. A competitive telco providing a gamut of services! Excellent! So I joined the revolution!
Well, I've made bigger mistakes in my life, but this one was up there. Their customer service was terrible (really long hold times, phone calls weren't returned, scheduled service dates were missed, phone service was once down for days, our bills were often screwed up, promised DSL availability was repeatedly delayed, etc.).
Maybe this is all part of growing up. They have aggresive ambitions and aggressive marketing, but in my experience, it just wasn't there yet.
I hope that RCN, or someone like RCN, gets it right, because I would love to see more compitition in this market. But I'm not going to be first one on my block to stick my neck out again.
My advice: ask your neighbors. Find out from people _in your area, who are subscribed to the same services_ what they think.
"They will find (or buy $$$) some lousy, overbroad, fundamental patent which is relied upon deep in the kernel, and while that won't dissuade the hobbyist, it will dissuade the system adminstrator and company management."
Maybe I'm taking this a little OT, but there are companies who support free software who also defend their intellectual property with patents. Isn't IBM the largest patent holder in the world? We also have Bruce Peren's HP, SGI, the ever opportunistic Oracle, etc.
It seems to me that the whole patent discussion as presented by free software advocates is sometimes a bit hypocritical. Perhaps copyrights, rather than patents, are the M.O. for free software advocates. But we certainly seem quite willing to turn a blind eye to benefactors who make patents an integral component of their business model.
Don't let that obscure the fact that they are the sole proprietors of a stable of products which potentially rival MS Office. Wordperfect, Paint, Draw, Paradox, Ventura, Bryce, etc. These products had (have) abilities far beyond the ken of their anemic Linux brethren (at least for now). While not true Linux applications, it doesn't take much imagination to see that a company that also produces a Linux distribution might like to improve the synergy of its product lines. An ambitious and risky undertaking, wouldn't you say? How do you fill the coffers while you undertake such a large consolidation effort?
With a few paltry millions, Microsoft has bought and neutralized yet another potential competitor. In the process they may have set back the development of a truly viable desktop application suite for Linux by years.
Corel had it's share of problems, but shame on those who applaud or approve of their demise. They needed help, sure. But the help they got from Microsoft was a deal with the devil.
(1) the additional electronics will make the sets cost more.
(2) sets without these "features" will be more desireable to consumers.
I.E. unless there is some kind of unethical/illegal conspiracy among the the established set-top box oligarchy, it would seem logical that the market would make it unprofitable to produce such a thing.
Sounds like you're talking about the Windows Registry.
Homogeniety creates more problems than it solves. Diversity has it's own problems, but gives us all something to argue about. It sort of sounds like you're wishing that world of computing will coelesce into some kind of perfect crystaline unity. It won't. Not ever. Thank goodness.
If you want to make the world a better place, find something bite sized to work on, and chew on it.
Although written to help clarify issues in the Microsoft antitrust case, if the ideas in this brief are used to adjudicate these procedings, they will have broader ramifications.
To overstate the obvious, code sharing and product tying are widespread phenomenon. Read this brief again, and substitute "Linux Distribution" for "Windows". Hopefully there are people out there with more insight than me, but there are things about this brief that make me uncomfortable.
How do you define "combination"? Is linking against a static library a "combination"? A shared library? Is an amalgamation of programs bundled into a distribution a combination?
Is the integration of products in RH7.0 "different" and "better" than what a consumer would get if they combined those component on their own? Why is it o.k. for an OEM to integrate products, but not o.k. for the producer of those products to do so?
I'm not saying there aren't good answers to these questions. I just don't see them articulated in this brief.
Come on people! Who has a word processor to compete with Word? And don't give me any malarky about the anemic substitutes that are left over. Who was closest to getting such a competetive threat to run on Linux?
Corel has something that no other Linux vendor on the planet can boast: industrial strength desktop applications. Whether or not this is a reflection of their innovative talent (it isn't) is moot. The fact is that they have acquired a suite desktop applications which, feature for feature, can compete with the best anyone has to offer.
Microsoft may not be able to control Linux itself, but with a few paltry millions, they have obtained control of a suite of applications which has the potential to threaten their desktop monopoly. Which in my opinion is more of a de-facto standard than the OS itself. People buy computers for the applications. Sendmail and Apache may be fun for the geeks among us, but most people want an office suite. Linux has other desktop application alternatives, but they have a long way to go to match the power of the application stable that Cowpland plowed under.
What does Microsoft lose by selling Corel's Linux interests? Not a damn thing. They can download an ISO image for free just like the rest of us.
What's the difference between having ads in your browser and having ads in your web pages?
Not all sites have ads, to be sure, but enough do (e.g. Slashdot) that they're pretty hard to avoid. I blackhole doubleclick.net, etc., but that doesn't always work because certain domains (e.g. akamaitech.net) also provide content I *do* want to see. So (sigh) I don't really know how ads can be avoided.
At least if they're in the browser itself, presumably I may be able to scootch it around on my desktop in such a way that I know they'll get covered up...;)
I'm very much enjoying this miniseries. I'm sure all the critics on this forum, ironically, are watching the series in preference to anything else on television. Why, if it's so unenjoyable? To nitpick? For christsakes, loosen up and have some fun with this. Geez.
As for the characterizations, the comments I've read basically amount to "I had always imagined this character differently." Hmm, maybe the book didn't paint such a vivid portrait after all, if different people can come to have different perspectives on the same character. Or maybe that's just an inherent quality of literature, and people should get over the fact that no-one asked them for creative input during the production process.
I get the impression that people won't be satisfied until they are presented with a gut-wrenching vision that changes the course of history. People seem to take this story way too seriously, and are (surprise) disappointed that some director's interpretation doesn't live up to their expectations. I'm convinced that for this crowd, no interpretation ever will.
When I first read Dune, I couldn't imagine that anyone would even *concieve* of trying to bring the story to life. I get the impression that an awful lot of people on this forum take an awful lot for granted. I often wonder if the average age of the Slashdot readership even exceeds the drinking age.
It's not perfect. It doesn't have to be. Ever been to a play? Ever hear of suspension of disbelief?
All the people who worked on this project should be congratulated on their achievement. They spread thier limited funds a very long way. Their only mistake was to extend any effort whatever to placate the anal retentive geeks who have apparently wasted years of thier lives studying this stuff.
And hrumph to all the mewling anal-retentive critics who's idea of analysis is to to nitpick how precisely the adaptation matches the book. And hrumph especially to the nitwits who simply view this as an excuse to prattle about their knowledge of CGI idiosyncracies. And then there are those who for some reason feel compelled to compare to Star Wars!?
If you must have the book: turn off the TV, and read the damn book then! If you can't let your mind go enough to overlook the limitations of CG technology, you'll just have to wait awhile before you can enjoy these kinds of escapist fantasies. And if you think Star Wars is the yardstick of all things SciFi, well, I don't know how to help you.
This was good entertainment. I hope future such projects aren't put off by the lamentations of a few detail-obsessed nuts who haven't the faintest clue how to do better.
If the government proposes to tax free software at a value equivilent to, say, MS software; it is then in the government's best interest that the price of MS software be high.
Anyone else have a problem with government having a vested interest in product pricing?
I agree that the absence of the.css files is annoying. Could someone _authoritative_ comment on whether this is a mistake?
Meanwhile, a kludgy way to read the html without blasting every file through a stream editor is to open via file:/ rather than dumping the docs on your web server.
I'm sure the absence of the.css files is simply an oversight, as their inclusion would in no way interfere with any kind of business model I've ever heard of. Hopefully we will see them online soon.
Open software PLUS open documentation! The world is getting better all the time - and the President of the United States has nothing to do with it!;^)
Is understanding the meaning of "Free Software" really that difficult? You seem to understand it. Most other/. readers understand it.
My two year old daughter confuses the words "me" and "you". It's tricky to explain - "You're 'you', and I'm 'me', umm, what I mean to say is, you're 'me', and I'm 'you', no wait a minute...
There's a little semantic trickery to get through there. But somehow we all seem to manage to get through it.
The people who should concern themselves the most with the definition of "Free Software", and the issues it raises, are those who licence software. If they are too dumb or lazy to figure out what "Free Software" means, I don't think a small semantic concession is really going to help them.
Of course. And if you were referring to the wealth acquiring parent(s), I would have no quarrel with this. But what moral principal mandates that this inequality should extend to the children? That's the real issue here, and you're missing that completely. In a very real sense, this arrangement rewards for nothing more than one generation's worth of genetic makeup. Do you disagree with this; or do you agree, but think that's o.k.?
And for all those who would take the moral high ground, and assert that property is some kind of natural right, please articulate the basis for this position. There are any number of faiths and philosophies that would assert just the opposite. I'm not espousing any faith-based precepts here, but I'd like to know how anyone can get off claiming that Bill Gate's right to inter himself with billions of pez dispensers is some kind of a 'moral' right.
Not so long ago, primogeniture used to be the modus operandi for inheriting wealth. For inbred institutions like the British monarchy, it still is. But most of us have moved on. Inheritance is not a moral right, it is an historical institution. Nothing more, nothing less.
My position probably sounds extreme, so let me be clear: as far as I'm concerned, this is not a matter of absolutes, it's a matter of degree. I believe everyone should have the right to dispose of their property as they see fit. But not to a fare-thee-well.
Because I also believe that in an ideal world, children would enter a level playing field. They would not be discrimininated against according to the misfortunes of their parents. Nor would they be unduly advantaged.
The amount of wealth and power inherited by the upper eschelons of society *is* amazing and astounding. And all out of proportion to their ability to use it to either thier own or society's benefit.
Perhaps our socioeconomic profile resembles a diamond, but like a diamond, many believe it to be hard and unyielding. There are signs that the "social mobility" David Brin praises may become an anachronism. Just look up the phrase on Google, to peruse some representative takes on the subject.
For example, from http://www.urban.org/periodcl/update26.htm:
"...she cited one study that indicated that the children of a father whose income was at the 75th percentile of income, had about twice as much chance of making it into the top quintile of all income as the children of a father whose income was at the 25th percentile. Another study found that sons of white-collar fathers were almost twice as likely as the sons of blue-collar fathers to secure upper white-collar jobs."
This view stands in stark contrast to the highly moderated objection to Brin's article that the rich deserve all their capital, because they "earned" it. The point is quite simple, many of them did *not* earn a damn thing. Brin is not disparaging those who have legitimately earned their fortunes; he is lamenting the sad state of affairs that allows prep-school playboys to preside with impunity over vast fortunes, the acquisition of which they had nothing to do with.
There's an interesting an idea I heard once, I don't remember where. The idea is that although the majority of people may benefit from populist policies, many will still favor policy that benefits the rich. Why? Because everyone would like to believe that someday *they* will be rich. Obviously, though, for most, that is simply a sad delusion.
Bingo. Substitute your chosen profession for "programmer", to a be a bit more general.
My wife is pregnant with our second child. Point being, that there's a lot more to life than work. A *lot* more.
Having one child, daycare was within the realm of financial feasibility. Having two, well, it's simple arithmetic, really. So I'm going to bringing home the bacon for a few years. This has nothing to do with some antiquated 50's ideal we have about the role of men and women. It's just a simple fact that this is how things work out best for us.
At some point, the kids will be in school; at which point my wife will have more time available to get back into the workforce. Meanwhile, I can assure you, she's not keeping up with the latest trends in technology.
Of course not everyone wants to be a parent, but for those of us who are parents, I can say it sure keeps you occupied. And probably makes it tougher for more women than men to stay on the cutting edge.
Most access providers who can provision your home with broadband today will *not* provision you with a static IP address. More egalitarian companies exist - please give them your business. If you can get it.
This is at least as big a deal as domain name or bandwidth shortages.
By artificially eliminating IP addresses from your market basket, telepolies and large ISPs force consumers to purchase services they could provide themselves - for free and with higher quality. Like domain name services, SMTP mail service, web + CGI services. You must rely on your ISP to provide virtually ALL IMAGINABLE INTERNET SERVICES.
Basically, the incumbents are terrified that consumers will start running their own servers, thereby diminishing demand for their anemic substitutes. They *should* be afraid.
In the same way the telecommunication act requires telepolies to provide access to their cable plant and central switching equipment, legislation is needed to outlaw IP address squatting.
This may seem a bit off the topic of broadband to the home. Quite the contrary. One of the primary reasons you'd *want* dedicated broadband access is to allow you do *more* with your connection than simply download MP3's faster.
Until this situation is resolved - DO NOT DO BUSINESS WITH ISP'S THAT WILL NOT GIVE YOU A STATIC IP ADDRESS. At least not if you have a choice.
You can't vote for anarchy.
on
Lawsuits Suck
·
· Score: 1
I tend to side with the position that information that can be shared, should be shared. But there's a thorny issue here that bothers me.
What about privacy?
I see people saying things like "once you decide to share information with someone else, then it's their perogative to share that information with others, without any further recourse to you".
But what about medical records? Credit card numbers? Legal briefs? Classified military information?
In other words, there *are* in fact cases where unrestricted distribution of knowledge may be harmful. It's not as simple as saying "distribution costs have been driven to zero, therefore distribution rights should be unlimited".
I think, I *hope*, that all the smart people reading slashdot would agree with this. So rather than wasting energy fanning the flames of an tired old polar debate, I wish the smart people on this forum would expend some energy discussing the thorny issue of how to define a reasonable boundary.
Intel sells more chips to large OEMs than to individuals. Will OEMs care about this? Nah. If there's any associated cost, they'll just pass it on to the consumer.
If you were an OEM, would you want your customers upgrading their existing computers? Or would you prefer they buy a new one?
So maybe Intel caters to the whims of their largest customers, the OEMs. If that's true, I'd say that's shortsighted. Because ultimately its still the end-user who drives demand, not the middleman. End-users need to be educated, though, that there are alternatives.
Sounds like Jon hit a raw nerve, here, doesn't it?
"Not coddling idiots." "...the tides are turning" "Go bust your ass and then come talk to me."
Or how's this: "There aren't armies of geeks wanting to come to your door and baby your email when it doesn't work."
Probably not. But what's your point? Every one should be like you, or piss off? There are armies of policemen who will come to your aid and save your ass. There are armies of firefighters who will come to your aid and save your ass. There are armies of doctors who will save your life. There are armies of lawyers and lawmakers who will defend your civil liberties. And on and on and on.
But if someone needs some help with their email, they should kiss your ass? You are being an egomaniacal nitwit. You sound *exactly* like the insulated self-absorbed technocrat (please, Bruce, get a new domain name) this book and this article lament.
Moreover, geek culture, as you might know if you stepped out of your cubicle, is not the only meritocracy in the world.
And tell me, what do you mean when you say "good with tech"? You know C++ and UNIX systems programming? You can twiddle the fiddly bits on your compiler?
So what? Can you put your skills within the social context of what people using your work want to do? Judging by your disdain of everyone outside your little world, I doubt it.
Here's an example of what I mean:
"I dislike companies that have a we-are-the-high-priests-of-hardware-so-you'll-like -what-we-give-you attitude. I like commodity markets in which iron-and-silicon hawkers know that they exist to provide fast toys for software types like me to play with..." -- Eric S. Raymond
Eric's got the right attitude about the hardware makers. I wonder, though, if he has the right attitude about the "software types". Why and for who do the "software types" exist? Themselves? And we should consider ourselves lucky to pick up the droppings from their playground?
Maybe it's time to forget about what happened in the third grade. Maybe it's time to go outside and look at something far away. Maybe it's time to connect with people who aren't just like you.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes. I'm no fan of Microsoft, but I have to agree. I mean, what's this headline supposed to mean?
"For a company which on some fronts decries government intervention, Microsoft seems to have a different tack here."
Of course and so what. "Intervention" is a pretty broad term. A strip search could be considered government intervention. So could maintaining a municipal fire department. There's nothing ironic about being in favor of one, and not the other.
Slashdot editors: inflammatory remarks are not "insightful" or "interesting". The topic of discussion seems worthy, but silly little editorial snippets like these seem to owe more to the tradition of trash television and tabloids than to serious journalism.
I was very excited about RCN moving into my neighborhood. A competitive telco providing a gamut of services! Excellent! So I joined the revolution!
Well, I've made bigger mistakes in my life, but this one was up there. Their customer service was terrible (really long hold times, phone calls weren't returned, scheduled service dates were missed, phone service was once down for days, our bills were often screwed up, promised DSL availability was repeatedly delayed, etc.).
Maybe this is all part of growing up. They have aggresive ambitions and aggressive marketing, but in my experience, it just wasn't there yet.
I hope that RCN, or someone like RCN, gets it right, because I would love to see more compitition in this market. But I'm not going to be first one on my block to stick my neck out again.
My advice: ask your neighbors. Find out from people _in your area, who are subscribed to the same services_ what they think.
As others have pointed out - but of course. What's the story here? This headline is merely an invitation to a flamefest.
"They will find (or buy $$$) some lousy, overbroad, fundamental patent which is relied upon deep in the kernel, and while that won't dissuade the hobbyist, it will dissuade the system adminstrator and company management."
Maybe I'm taking this a little OT, but there are companies who support free software who also defend their intellectual property with patents. Isn't IBM the largest patent holder in the world? We also have Bruce Peren's HP, SGI, the ever opportunistic Oracle, etc.
It seems to me that the whole patent discussion as presented by free software advocates is sometimes a bit hypocritical. Perhaps copyrights, rather than patents, are the M.O. for free software advocates. But we certainly seem quite willing to turn a blind eye to benefactors who make patents an integral component of their business model.
Sure, Corel, as a company, was a failure.
Don't let that obscure the fact that they are the sole proprietors of a stable of products which potentially rival MS Office. Wordperfect, Paint, Draw, Paradox, Ventura, Bryce, etc. These products had (have) abilities far beyond the ken of their anemic Linux brethren (at least for now). While not true Linux applications, it doesn't take much imagination to see that a company that also produces a Linux distribution might like to improve the synergy of its product lines. An ambitious and risky undertaking, wouldn't you say? How do you fill the coffers while you undertake such a large consolidation effort?
With a few paltry millions, Microsoft has bought and neutralized yet another potential competitor. In the process they may have set back the development of a truly viable desktop application suite for Linux by years.
Corel had it's share of problems, but shame on those who applaud or approve of their demise. They needed help, sure. But the help they got from Microsoft was a deal with the devil.
(1) the additional electronics will make the sets cost more.
(2) sets without these "features" will be more desireable to consumers.
I.E. unless there is some kind of unethical/illegal conspiracy among the the established set-top box oligarchy, it would seem logical that the market would make it unprofitable to produce such a thing.
Sounds like you're talking about the Windows Registry.
Homogeniety creates more problems than it solves. Diversity has it's own problems, but gives us all something to argue about. It sort of sounds like you're wishing that world of computing will coelesce into some kind of perfect crystaline unity. It won't. Not ever. Thank goodness.
If you want to make the world a better place, find something bite sized to work on, and chew on it.
Although written to help clarify issues in the Microsoft antitrust case, if the ideas in this brief are used to adjudicate these procedings, they will have broader ramifications.
To overstate the obvious, code sharing and product tying are widespread phenomenon. Read this brief again, and substitute "Linux Distribution" for "Windows". Hopefully there are people out there with more insight than me, but there are things about this brief that make me uncomfortable.
How do you define "combination"? Is linking against a static library a "combination"? A shared library? Is an amalgamation of programs bundled into a distribution a combination?
Is the integration of products in RH7.0 "different" and "better" than what a consumer would get if they combined those component on their own? Why is it o.k. for an OEM to integrate products, but not o.k. for the producer of those products to do so?
I'm not saying there aren't good answers to these questions. I just don't see them articulated in this brief.
Come on people! Who has a word processor to compete with Word? And don't give me any malarky about the anemic substitutes that are left over. Who was closest to getting such a competetive threat to run on Linux?
Corel has something that no other Linux vendor on the planet can boast: industrial strength desktop applications. Whether or not this is a reflection of their innovative talent (it isn't) is moot. The fact is that they have acquired a suite desktop applications which, feature for feature, can compete with the best anyone has to offer.
Microsoft may not be able to control Linux itself, but with a few paltry millions, they have obtained control of a suite of applications which has the potential to threaten their desktop monopoly. Which in my opinion is more of a de-facto standard than the OS itself. People buy computers for the applications. Sendmail and Apache may be fun for the geeks among us, but most people want an office suite. Linux has other desktop application alternatives, but they have a long way to go to match the power of the application stable that Cowpland plowed under.
What does Microsoft lose by selling Corel's Linux interests? Not a damn thing. They can download an ISO image for free just like the rest of us.
What's the difference between having ads in your browser and having ads in your web pages?
;)
Not all sites have ads, to be sure, but enough do (e.g. Slashdot) that they're pretty hard to avoid. I blackhole doubleclick.net, etc., but that doesn't always work because certain domains (e.g. akamaitech.net) also provide content I *do* want to see. So (sigh) I don't really know how ads can be avoided.
At least if they're in the browser itself, presumably I may be able to scootch it around on my desktop in such a way that I know they'll get covered up...
Yes, I must be included in my own flames... ;)
I'm very much enjoying this miniseries. I'm sure all the critics on this forum, ironically, are watching the series in preference to anything else on television. Why, if it's so unenjoyable? To nitpick? For christsakes, loosen up and have some fun with this. Geez.
As for the characterizations, the comments I've read basically amount to "I had always imagined this character differently." Hmm, maybe the book didn't paint such a vivid portrait after all, if different people can come to have different perspectives on the same character. Or maybe that's just an inherent quality of literature, and people should get over the fact that no-one asked them for creative input during the production process.
I get the impression that people won't be satisfied until they are presented with a gut-wrenching vision that changes the course of history. People seem to take this story way too seriously, and are (surprise) disappointed that some director's interpretation doesn't live up to their expectations. I'm convinced that for this crowd, no interpretation ever will.
Cheap sets?
When I first read Dune, I couldn't imagine that anyone would even *concieve* of trying to bring the story to life. I get the impression that an awful lot of people on this forum take an awful lot for granted. I often wonder if the average age of the Slashdot readership even exceeds the drinking age.
It's not perfect. It doesn't have to be. Ever been to a play? Ever hear of suspension of disbelief?
All the people who worked on this project should be congratulated on their achievement. They spread thier limited funds a very long way. Their only mistake was to extend any effort whatever to placate the anal retentive geeks who have apparently wasted years of thier lives studying this stuff.
I enjoyed last nights episode immensely.
And hrumph to all the mewling anal-retentive critics who's idea of analysis is to to nitpick how precisely the adaptation matches the book. And hrumph especially to the nitwits who simply view this as an excuse to prattle about their knowledge of CGI idiosyncracies. And then there are those who for some reason feel compelled to compare to Star Wars!?
If you must have the book: turn off the TV, and read the damn book then! If you can't let your mind go enough to overlook the limitations of CG technology, you'll just have to wait awhile before you can enjoy these kinds of escapist fantasies. And if you think Star Wars is the yardstick of all things SciFi, well, I don't know how to help you.
This was good entertainment. I hope future such projects aren't put off by the lamentations of a few detail-obsessed nuts who haven't the faintest clue how to do better.
If the government proposes to tax free software at a value equivilent to, say, MS software; it is then in the government's best interest that the price of MS software be high.
Anyone else have a problem with government having a vested interest in product pricing?
I agree that the absence of the .css files is annoying. Could someone _authoritative_ comment on whether this is a mistake?
.css files is simply an oversight, as their inclusion would in no way interfere with any kind of business model I've ever heard of. Hopefully we will see them online soon.
;^)
Meanwhile, a kludgy way to read the html without blasting every file through a stream editor is to open via file:/ rather than dumping the docs on your web server.
I'm sure the absence of the
Open software PLUS open documentation! The world is getting better all the time - and the President of the United States has nothing to do with it!
Is understanding the meaning of "Free Software" really that difficult? You seem to understand it. Most other /. readers understand it.
My two year old daughter confuses the words "me" and "you". It's tricky to explain - "You're 'you', and I'm 'me', umm, what I mean to say is, you're 'me', and I'm 'you', no wait a minute...
There's a little semantic trickery to get through there. But somehow we all seem to manage to get through it.
The people who should concern themselves the most with the definition of "Free Software", and the issues it raises, are those who licence software. If they are too dumb or lazy to figure out what "Free Software" means, I don't think a small semantic concession is really going to help them.
Of course. And if you were referring to the wealth acquiring parent(s), I would have no quarrel with this. But what moral principal mandates that this inequality should extend to the children? That's the real issue here, and you're missing that completely. In a very real sense, this arrangement rewards for nothing more than one generation's worth of genetic makeup. Do you disagree with this; or do you agree, but think that's o.k.?
And for all those who would take the moral high ground, and assert that property is some kind of natural right, please articulate the basis for this position. There are any number of faiths and philosophies that would assert just the opposite. I'm not espousing any faith-based precepts here, but I'd like to know how anyone can get off claiming that Bill Gate's right to inter himself with billions of pez dispensers is some kind of a 'moral' right.
Not so long ago, primogeniture used to be the modus operandi for inheriting wealth. For inbred institutions like the British monarchy, it still is. But most of us have moved on. Inheritance is not a moral right, it is an historical institution. Nothing more, nothing less.
My position probably sounds extreme, so let me be clear: as far as I'm concerned, this is not a matter of absolutes, it's a matter of degree. I believe everyone should have the right to dispose of their property as they see fit. But not to a fare-thee-well.
Because I also believe that in an ideal world, children would enter a level playing field. They would not be discrimininated against according to the misfortunes of their parents. Nor would they be unduly advantaged.
The amount of wealth and power inherited by the upper eschelons of society *is* amazing and astounding. And all out of proportion to their ability to use it to either thier own or society's benefit.
Perhaps our socioeconomic profile resembles a diamond, but like a diamond, many believe it to be hard and unyielding. There are signs that the "social mobility" David Brin praises may become an anachronism. Just look up the phrase on Google, to peruse some representative takes on the subject.
For example, from http://www.urban.org/periodcl/update26.htm:
"...she cited one study that indicated that the children of a father whose income was at the 75th percentile of income, had about twice as much chance of making it into the top quintile of all income as the children of a father whose income was at the 25th percentile. Another study found that sons of white-collar fathers were almost twice as likely as the sons of blue-collar fathers to secure upper white-collar jobs."
This view stands in stark contrast to the highly moderated objection to Brin's article that the rich deserve all their capital, because they "earned" it. The point is quite simple, many of them did *not* earn a damn thing. Brin is not disparaging those who have legitimately earned their fortunes; he is lamenting the sad state of affairs that allows prep-school playboys to preside with impunity over vast fortunes, the acquisition of which they had nothing to do with.
There's an interesting an idea I heard once, I don't remember where. The idea is that although the majority of people may benefit from populist policies, many will still favor policy that benefits the rich. Why? Because everyone would like to believe that someday *they* will be rich. Obviously, though, for most, that is simply a sad delusion.
Since Linux will fit on a watch, why not just put an embedded version of Linux in a phone to run a telephony application?
Why let the telepolies once again tie our hands, rob us at gunpoint, and ask us to be grateful?
"you can be a programmer and still have a life."
Bingo. Substitute your chosen profession for "programmer", to a be a bit more general.
My wife is pregnant with our second child. Point being, that there's a lot more to life than work. A *lot* more.
Having one child, daycare was within the realm of financial feasibility. Having two, well, it's simple arithmetic, really. So I'm going to bringing home the bacon for a few years. This has nothing to do with some antiquated 50's ideal we have about the role of men and women. It's just a simple fact that this is how things work out best for us.
At some point, the kids will be in school; at which point my wife will have more time available to get back into the workforce. Meanwhile, I can assure you, she's not keeping up with the latest trends in technology.
Of course not everyone wants to be a parent, but for those of us who are parents, I can say it sure keeps you occupied. And probably makes it tougher for more women than men to stay on the cutting edge.
Most access providers who can provision your home with broadband today will *not* provision you with a static IP address. More egalitarian companies exist - please give them your business. If you can get it.
This is at least as big a deal as domain name or bandwidth shortages.
By artificially eliminating IP addresses from your market basket, telepolies and large ISPs force consumers to purchase services they could provide themselves - for free and with higher quality. Like domain name services, SMTP mail service, web + CGI services. You must rely on your ISP to provide virtually ALL IMAGINABLE INTERNET SERVICES.
Basically, the incumbents are terrified that consumers will start running their own servers, thereby diminishing demand for their anemic substitutes. They *should* be afraid.
In the same way the telecommunication act requires telepolies to provide access to their cable plant and central switching equipment, legislation is needed to outlaw IP address squatting.
This may seem a bit off the topic of broadband to the home. Quite the contrary. One of the primary reasons you'd *want* dedicated broadband access is to allow you do *more* with your connection than simply download MP3's faster.
Until this situation is resolved - DO NOT DO BUSINESS WITH ISP'S THAT WILL NOT GIVE YOU A STATIC IP ADDRESS. At least not if you have a choice.
'nuff said.
I tend to side with the position that information that can be shared, should be shared. But there's a thorny issue here that bothers me.
What about privacy?
I see people saying things like "once you decide to share information with someone else, then it's their perogative to share that information with others, without any further recourse to you".
But what about medical records? Credit card numbers? Legal briefs? Classified military information?
In other words, there *are* in fact cases where unrestricted distribution of knowledge may be harmful. It's not as simple as saying "distribution costs have been driven to zero, therefore distribution rights should be unlimited".
I think, I *hope*, that all the smart people reading slashdot would agree with this. So rather than wasting energy fanning the flames of an tired old polar debate, I wish the smart people on this forum would expend some energy discussing the thorny issue of how to define a reasonable boundary.
Intel sells more chips to large OEMs than to individuals. Will OEMs care about this? Nah. If there's any associated cost, they'll just pass it on to the consumer.
If you were an OEM, would you want your customers upgrading their existing computers? Or would you prefer they buy a new one?
So maybe Intel caters to the whims of their largest customers, the OEMs. If that's true, I'd say that's shortsighted. Because ultimately its still the end-user who drives demand, not the middleman. End-users need to be educated, though, that there are alternatives.
Sounds like Jon hit a raw nerve, here, doesn't it?
e -what-we-give-you attitude. I like commodity markets in which iron-and-silicon hawkers know that they exist to provide fast toys for software types like me to play with..."
"Not coddling idiots." "...the tides are turning" "Go bust your ass and then come talk to me."
Or how's this: "There aren't armies of geeks wanting to come to your door and baby your email when it doesn't work."
Probably not. But what's your point? Every one should be like you, or piss off? There are armies of policemen who will come to your aid and save your ass. There are armies of firefighters who will come to your aid and save your ass. There are armies of doctors who will save your life. There are armies of lawyers and lawmakers who will defend your civil liberties. And on and on and on.
But if someone needs some help with their email, they should kiss your ass? You are being an egomaniacal nitwit. You sound *exactly* like the insulated self-absorbed technocrat (please, Bruce, get a new domain name) this book and this article lament.
Moreover, geek culture, as you might know if you stepped out of your cubicle, is not the only meritocracy in the world.
And tell me, what do you mean when you say "good with tech"? You know C++ and UNIX systems programming? You can twiddle the fiddly bits on your compiler?
So what? Can you put your skills within the social context of what people using your work want to do? Judging by your disdain of everyone outside your little world, I doubt it.
Here's an example of what I mean:
"I dislike companies that have a we-are-the-high-priests-of-hardware-so-you'll-lik
-- Eric S. Raymond
Eric's got the right attitude about the hardware makers. I wonder, though, if he has the right attitude about the "software types". Why and for who do the "software types" exist? Themselves? And we should consider ourselves lucky to pick up the droppings from their playground?
Maybe it's time to forget about what happened in the third grade. Maybe it's time to go outside and look at something far away. Maybe it's time to connect with people who aren't just like you.