"many liberals stance in conforming is to shun it"
In theory. In practice that hasn't proven to be so. One good example is Political Correctness. PC is all about conformity and is a very hefty source of liberal political power. (PC is cleverly marketed to disguise the conformity and inhibition of freedom of speech that it requires.)
I own a house. I don't live in that house, because I moved for omployment. I would like to sell the house. If my neighbors (really my neightbos' landlords) kept their houses nice my house would already be sold. So, the lack of enforceable appearance standards in my neighborhood has cost me at least $6000 over the past few months.
"Remember when MS used to "innovate", and kind of be the tech leader"
No.
What did MS innovate? Even as late as 1999, MS Word (with all its money and marketing) was still behind WordPerfect in everything except market share. Windows has never relly been innovative, just accretive. IE in pretty vanilla with lots of "innovative" in the marketing. I have to admit, I like Excel. (Though I've never considered it at all innovative.)
Me, too. We can armor Humvee's with them (overlapping to cover the holes). Maybe armor buildings with them too. And use them structurally. Use them to build space-craft. Or submarines that can take ultra-high pressures. Even black hole exploration. Use them for long-lasting (albeit slippery) pavement/floor coverings. Make notched ones to use for non-wearing saw blades. Use them to make non-wearing bearings.
The disposal will be difficult, since they won't biodegrade. And you'd want to be careful what you stored on them, since there are some things that no underappreciated archeologist of the future should have to suffer.
"The Movie people don't want to have to stock two different discs"
How many versions of Star Wars (Episode IV) are there? I'm sure that there are several slashdotters that have original Star Wars VHS, Wide Screen VHS, New Effects VHS, Widescreen New Effects VHS, and another one of each on DVD, and probably a Beta version and a Laserdisc version as well. (or something like that)
I can't believe that Lucas, or Wal-Mart, or anyone but the buyer lost money on that.
I expect that it is difficult for hardware manufacturers to want to spend all the money to re-tool the factory to produce something that won't sell. I think that's where the slowdown is.
But, even without a standard they will sell to some people that are willing to pay to be early adopters.
And, it doesn't matter in the long run, because either (or both) will be obsolete in 10-15 years.
same thing with food. We could all get by on beans and rice, but the percieved value on meats, sweet fruits, spices, bread with leavening, etc. makes an industry out of producing them and drives the price up.
"my wallet is bigger than your wallet because I can drop (insert number here) dollars on a hunk of carbon."
I prefer "my wallet is bigger than your wallet because I can drop (insert number here) dollars on a car." or "my wallet is bigger than your wallet because I can drop (insert number here) dollars on a house." or "my wallet is bigger than your wallet because I can drop (insert number here) dollars on a (insert politician of your part of the world here)." and on/. "my wallet is bigger than your wallet because I can drop (insert number here) dollars on a sweet new box every year, each one costing as much as a decent wedding ring."
There really are cars from the manufacturers that I mentioned that are identical except for minor body styling and brand name (sometimes not even body styling differences).
Anyone that thinks that Daimler-Chrysler will be above that kind of marketing better not handle their own financial decisions.
"you cannot turn a dodge into a mercedes just by changing the badge"
It's been done over and over between VW, audi, and Porche; and between Ford and Mercury; and between Chevrolet, Oldsmobile, Pontiac and Buick. I see no reason why the difference between a Dodge and a Mercedes can't be reduced to the badge. Brand names are only marketing labels, after all, and have no inherent meaning (at least not if owned by the same people).
If you closely examine my comment above, you'll perhaps notice a quote at the beginning.
The quote is what I was referring to.
I don't actually believe that extra-legal, not-agreed-to, somewhat arbitrary computer code standards to have much ethical force.
OTOH, if I had actually given my word that I would adhere to those standards, then I would have to tell my employer up-front, so there would be no ethical conflict between my agreement to follow my employers instructions and the hypothetical promise to adhere to standards.
"Or, is my exam fragmented brain missing something that should be obvious?"
I don't know for sure, but it seems obvious to me. The "Executive Summary" is so full of unsubstatiated assumptions and blatant slant that it is unlikely that the "research" would actually contain any real information.
(I suspect that this kind of "research" is used to support forgone conclusions that need a little extra credibility to show the ignorant.)
"It is nothing personal, it is just business and honestly, my paycheck, not my morals, dictate my work environment."
The second worst thing about that statement is that you sound as if you mean it.
The worst thing is that you sound as if you're proud of it.
This attitude causes most of the suffering and evil in the world. The relatively few people who actually have the goal of harming others wouldn't get very far without lots of wimps with this attitude.
(I may just be troll feeding here, but I still had to call it.)
Slashdot Mirror
Legal right is not the same as moral right.
I have a legal right to waste my life, but not a moral right.
"What, you can just decide what it's ethical for other people to do now?"
So, are you deciding for him that it's not ethical for him to decide what is ethical for others?
Moral relativism is such an illogical merry-go-round.
"many liberals stance in conforming is to shun it"
In theory.
In practice that hasn't proven to be so.
One good example is Political Correctness.
PC is all about conformity and is a very hefty source of liberal political power.
(PC is cleverly marketed to disguise the conformity and inhibition of freedom of speech that it requires.)
I own a house.
I don't live in that house, because I moved for omployment.
I would like to sell the house.
If my neighbors (really my neightbos' landlords) kept their houses nice my house would already be sold.
So, the lack of enforceable appearance standards in my neighborhood has cost me at least $6000 over the past few months.
"No man is an island." - John Donne
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=organisat ion
It's relatively easy to enforce an embargo on illegal automobiles.
It is basically impossible to enforce any kind of embargo on spam.
"Remember when MS used to "innovate", and kind of be the tech leader"
No.
What did MS innovate?
Even as late as 1999, MS Word (with all its money and marketing) was still behind WordPerfect in everything except market share.
Windows has never relly been innovative, just accretive.
IE in pretty vanilla with lots of "innovative" in the marketing.
I have to admit, I like Excel. (Though I've never considered it at all innovative.)
If you're arguing for self-driving cars, citing a homicidal/vengeful car doesn't help.
Besides, the field of positronics in platinum-iridium just hasn't progressed as expected.
How many fathoms are in a vast? Or drams? What about Libraries of Congress?
"An indestructible DVD - that excites me!"
Me, too.
We can armor Humvee's with them (overlapping to cover the holes).
Maybe armor buildings with them too.
And use them structurally.
Use them to build space-craft.
Or submarines that can take ultra-high pressures.
Even black hole exploration.
Use them for long-lasting (albeit slippery) pavement/floor coverings.
Make notched ones to use for non-wearing saw blades.
Use them to make non-wearing bearings.
The disposal will be difficult, since they won't biodegrade.
And you'd want to be careful what you stored on them, since there are some things that no underappreciated archeologist of the future should have to suffer.
"The Movie people don't want to have to stock two different discs"
How many versions of Star Wars (Episode IV) are there?
I'm sure that there are several slashdotters that have original Star Wars VHS, Wide Screen VHS, New Effects VHS, Widescreen New Effects VHS, and another one of each on DVD, and probably a Beta version and a Laserdisc version as well. (or something like that)
I can't believe that Lucas, or Wal-Mart, or anyone but the buyer lost money on that.
I expect that it is difficult for hardware manufacturers to want to spend all the money to re-tool the factory to produce something that won't sell. I think that's where the slowdown is.
But, even without a standard they will sell to some people that are willing to pay to be early adopters.
And, it doesn't matter in the long run, because either (or both) will be obsolete in 10-15 years.
You know yhat song, "99 Dead Baboons"?
I heard it on the Dr. Demento show.
It rained tractors once.
A guy collected them, painted them green (with yellow ruminants), and sold them to farmers.
So, now we know that doing something stupid suddenly becomes smart if you're ragging on some else for doing the stupid thing.
I'm not sure. I couldn't tell if they have the same engine or not.
same thing with food.
We could all get by on beans and rice, but the percieved value on meats, sweet fruits, spices, bread with leavening, etc. makes an industry out of producing them and drives the price up.
and coal is . . .
"my wallet is bigger than your wallet because I can drop (insert number here) dollars on a hunk of carbon."
/.
I prefer
"my wallet is bigger than your wallet because I can drop (insert number here) dollars on a car."
or
"my wallet is bigger than your wallet because I can drop (insert number here) dollars on a house."
or
"my wallet is bigger than your wallet because I can drop (insert number here) dollars on a (insert politician of your part of the world here)."
and on
"my wallet is bigger than your wallet because I can drop (insert number here) dollars on a sweet new box every year, each one costing as much as a decent wedding ring."
There really are cars from the manufacturers that I mentioned that are identical except for minor body styling and brand name (sometimes not even body styling differences).
Anyone that thinks that Daimler-Chrysler will be above that kind of marketing better not handle their own financial decisions.
"you cannot turn a dodge into a mercedes just by changing the badge"
It's been done over and over between VW, audi, and Porche; and between Ford and Mercury; and between Chevrolet, Oldsmobile, Pontiac and Buick. I see no reason why the difference between a Dodge and a Mercedes can't be reduced to the badge. Brand names are only marketing labels, after all, and have no inherent meaning (at least not if owned by the same people).
If you closely examine my comment above, you'll perhaps notice a quote at the beginning.
The quote is what I was referring to.
I don't actually believe that extra-legal, not-agreed-to, somewhat arbitrary computer code standards to have much ethical force.
OTOH, if I had actually given my word that I would adhere to those standards, then I would have to tell my employer up-front, so there would be no ethical conflict between my agreement to follow my employers instructions and the hypothetical promise to adhere to standards.
"Or, is my exam fragmented brain missing something that should be obvious?"
I don't know for sure, but it seems obvious to me.
The "Executive Summary" is so full of unsubstatiated assumptions and blatant slant that it is unlikely that the "research" would actually contain any real information.
(I suspect that this kind of "research" is used to support forgone conclusions that need a little extra credibility to show the ignorant.)
"It is nothing personal, it is just business and honestly, my paycheck, not my morals, dictate my work environment."
The second worst thing about that statement is that you sound as if you mean it.
The worst thing is that you sound as if you're proud of it.
This attitude causes most of the suffering and evil in the world. The relatively few people who actually have the goal of harming others wouldn't get very far without lots of wimps with this attitude.
(I may just be troll feeding here, but I still had to call it.)
It is you. You're increasing. I hope you know what it means when a person is increasing.
He'll do it by changing the definition of malware.