Good point. I suppose they got lazy and angry, that it takes some work to prosecute file-sharers (but hey, most file-sharers probably live in EU and USA where that's not hard at all, IMHO), so they thought: let's just force the ISPs to help.
Of course it's hard for the ISP to see what's illegal and what isn't, so all P2P is illegal now (maybe, if the ISP doesn't want to be hold accountable).
You're also right that encryption will continue to subvert many control measures by Big Brother anyway. Though encrypted P2P like Freenet is said to be very slow.
Yep, wasn't a bad discussion. Let me just add that IMHO the original USA were an almost libertarian country, with the exception of slavery, and the general conservative attitude of many people back then (though many libertarians are also conservative).
You could classify my views under Austrian school, and anarcho-capitalism I'd say. I'm definitely sympathetic to minarchism (small government) and also somewhat to left-libertarianism (see the Wikipedia article; it mentions quite a few shared points with anarcho-capitalism, following Murray Rothband and Roderick Long, my two "favorite" anarchists).
Well, I'm getting tired of a discussion which won't lead anywhere anyway. Just two cents: I used to be Socialist, so some of your almost-libertarian opinions aren't too far from me. But (the second cent) I don't think you really understood libertarianism, maybe the rules, but now how it works or used to work.
Liberty doesn't mean do-as-you-please in all cases. If you're genuinely interested, mises.org has lots of material available for free on property rights, on environmental pollution, and other things, in many cases involving arguments like yours above.
Oh sure, that's how life is when you visit another state or country. That's how life is when you decide to code apps for Mac OS, for Windows, for Solaris. That's how life is when you decide to code in another language that has different constructs. That's how life is when you decide to go work for somebody. It's always about compromise.
"Arbitrary" laws means that anybody (a dictator, or 55% of the population) can set arbitrary laws. For instance, the federal US gov can basically institute new laws, even if they are against the constitution. If necessary, judges will be replaced first.
A system founded on basic human and property rights can't be circumvented. There's a clearly defined right and wrong. Your "ultracapitalism" also included many bribes, I'm sure. Society was pretty much aristocrat back then, as it is again today in most countries.
"doesn't really tell us where that ends and where that begins" -- you've got property rights for that. Don't burn my lawn, but you may burn your own lawn;)
Regarding patents: you think just because some armed government defends your idea, just because you published the idea first, gives you the moral right to keep me from using that idea too? That's quite totalitarian, IMHO.
Fraud and theft violate property rights, or prevent honest agreements from happening. In the sense that it violates the principle that humans have equal rights, and stand on an equal footing, these crimes can't be tolerated. Everything else is basically not harmful, thus allowed.
Regarding free choice: well, there is no right to have an OS that will play Unreal Tournament, so indeed: tough luck. Third World is different: there are mostly no property rights at all, so there's no capitalist system that will ensure that people won't starve. There's no infrastructure being built, no investment being done in farming etc. So if those countries had property rights, I think far less people would "choose" prostitution (indeed, as maybe the least bad choice they could make). And if the Chinese threaten to shoot you, there's clearly no choice, but force and violence involved. It violates your right to be left alone and intact.
Checks and balances: the legal system should fix those, based on human and property rights.
Choice: if Windows is really that bad, and if Linux needs more software so badly, then many people should write code for Linux and many clients should buy that code/software. And indeed that's happening all the time, and many people choose Linux (or Macs). Some people don't *like* the choice, but that's entirely their problem. There is no right to software that will do whatever you want.
Maybe you think individuals and corps should be restricted by pretty much arbitrary laws. I strongly differ.
I think that both should do whatever they want, as long as they don't harm anybody. I.e. I can write whatever code I want, as long as I don't harm your property. MS can build and sell whatever they like, as long as they don't commit fraud, they don't steal, they don't blackmail anyone. And in fact all of MS's clients chose their clientship. I'm the existent proof that there is a completely open choice for everybody. I chose Linux, then BSD, now a Mac. That's why MS isn't evil, even if it sucks (IMHO a fair share of their software does).
Market share doesn't matter at all, because there are the same choices, no matter if the market is 95% MS, 3% Linux and 2% Mac. It could just as well be 33% each. There's lots of software for any system. Imagine you have three machines in your home: Linux PC, Win PC, Mac. Now WHY in the world should there be a moral right to point a gun to MS's ears and force them to interoperate? It's *just another system*. Hate MS? Just don't fucking buy/use their stuff!
BTW: nothing wrong with maximizing profit, as long as you don't commit crimes. IF you commit crimes, you're criminal. Quite simple rule, really. Selling something (as long as it's not fraudulent; and we all know that Windows has its problems, so there's no fraud) can't be a crime, morally. It can be criminal if government doesn't like it, but mostly government is run by corrupt freaks anyway. Regarding monopolies: there are quasi monopolies, which aren't harmful at all, like the MS one where I can freely choose alternatives. Legal monopolies (enforced by government guns) are harmful though, as they actively prohibit competition, such as the AT&T case, where dozens of phone providers were destroyed, or even the current heavy FCC regulation, which probably harms competition as well.
Ok, so you're bound to the wand... your decision. Many people chose different wands, like myself. Just because so overwhelmingly many people *chose* the Gnome's wand doesn't mean that anyone can force him to put certain features in his wand or remove other features (that are standard features in other systems, like browsers or media players).
As I said, there are sockets, there is SQL, there is Java. You can easily extract whatever you want using proprietary MS APIs (the part that is open) and ship that information to other systems. You don't really need the SMB, NTFS or other hidden information. About unified logons: well I'm sure the information has to get into the Windows system at some point, probably via LDAP, or maybe it's stored in MS-SQL. Again: it should be easy to put the data in there with Java or something portable that connects to a Unix system. Maybe it's not perfect, but Windows isn't perfect (now if government *forces* MS to make their software more perfect, maybe that'll stop the whole switch-to-Unix thing, quite the opposite of what they want (or is it?)).
Many organizations are actively using Windows, Linux, Solaris and Macs side by side (and many many more just Windows and some Unix).
But even if it wasn't practical: there is still no moral argument for just blackmailing MS to do whatever you want them to. MS has lots of voluntary clients that invested in MS tools over the years, and they're happy (while other clients start switching, which is fine, and totally possible too).
I don't see whom government is protecting, and from whom. Don't like their stuff? Just quit it. Just because *many more* people chose to buy MS than people chose to buy Macs, doesn't give government the right to start dictating that company. It's not like MS build up a bad monopoly. It's the other way round: so fucking many people *chose* to be MS clients, *despite* the alternatives that do exist. So there has to be some point in using MS stuff. Now just because the clients are so overwhelmingly many gives us the right to force MS to make its system more open? Why? The logical way to go would be to quit MS NOW if you don't like it and go to the competition, not to make MS more powerful.
Sure, by the legal definition MS is bad and needs some good beating, but in the moral sense I clearly disagree. I haven't used MS stuff for quite a while. No problems. Just because so many people whine about how they'd like this or that feature in Windows doesn't give them the right to force it.
Argh, I meant "threat of a fine" of course, not thread.
And to add something to the not-so-open NTFS & co: Windows has sockets, so it's perfectly possible to write something that uses the Windows API and the socket API to transfer just ANYTHING you like to a Unix or other system. No problems there at all. Some goes for disks: write *anything* to disk, and read it in on Unix again.
Well, some facts:
* either you choose to buy MS's stuff, or you don't I don't; I used Linux and several BSDs for a while, and own a Mac for a while now.
* just because one system doesn't interoperate out of the box with another one, doesn't give anybody else the right to point a gun to their ears and force them. There's something called third-party tools, that can be used for instance to mount a Linux FS on Windows, or maybe to do the opposite. But if you don't like that MS doesn't open their NTFS or SMB, then just don't use it.
* the EU's intention might not be to steal money (even though it steals money from its citizens to feed useless eurocrats), but it's only using the thread of a fine to blackmail MS to open up its information
(you don't think it's blackmail? what is it then?)
* it doesn't matter if HTTP, or Windows, or anything else is a de-facto monopoly. *Everybody* out there can use something else, and for those very few areas where there is no software for Unix/X11 or the Mac, it wouldn't be too hard to port a Windows program to use the other GUI or IPC/I/O libraries instead.
I've used other OSes for quite a while without any problems, and if there were any serious demand for them, there *would* be software written for those systems. Just because people want to keep their Photoshop and Age of Empires doesn't mean there's no alternative.
Once upon a time there was a Gnome called Microhard ("Little Rock"). His parents wanted him to study, but he preferred to tinker around with magic wands. He made some quick gold by buying a cheap, tiny wand from a cranky old wizard and selling in to the Big Poseidon, God of the blue, who wanted to impress his following with incredibly small magic.
Later the gnome decided to build magic wands himself. Many people hated him, because sometimes the wands backfired, destroying their homes or their work, but other people loved him, because his magic wands were easier to use than the Unix Wizards' wands, which could only be wielded by long-bearded gurus.
The little gnome sold his wands all over the world (well, some countries stole them, because they couldn't afford them, but the result was that even there everybody used the Gnome's wands, instead of other wands), because his clients liked his produce, and chose to pay gold for it. Only in Europe a group of angry thieves roamed the woods. They were jealous at the Gnome, and hated him, because his newer wands could also invoke music and world-wide webs (other magic wands could do the same already, but the Gnome sold so many, that they hated him for it). So the group of thieves (led by a certain l33t guy called rObIn hEUd) decided to blackmail the gnome. If he wouldn't open up all trade secrets about how his wands were constructed, they would ambush and rob all deliveries in Europe. Every day they would steal two million gold pieces.
Well, there's no happy end: nobody in Europe was allowed to bear arms and rise up against the thieves, and so they went on stealing to the end of their days...
How bad does it have to be until you, the customer, change ISPs?
Seriously? Well, I'd say you answer that question yourself. Happy: stay; unhappy: switch. As long as everybody can do whatever they choose to do, the world is fine. And that pretty much means the market *does* sort it out.
First of all, I don't think the constitution needs an update (the German one could use one, but that's another story).
The problem right now in the US is that nobody cares shit about the constitution, at least not the federal government. It hasn't cared about it for maybe a hundred years, and before that it didn't either (need I say "slavery"?).
Hm, I'm sure your complaints are valid, but it also looks as if they are mostly implementation-dependent.
I'd wager the guess that CORBA applications can be well distributed (i.e. allow load balancing) and that an ORB could also include QoS features. Fault tolerance... are you talking about network errors, or simple return values in contrast to exceptions?
Maintainability is clearly a bigger problem, as APIs evolve, but no technology can really solve that one, it's an organisational problem.
Well, the spitting doesn't hurt anybody, but it creates dirt, so let's say that's not good.
Swapping warez is good if it's people that wouldn't buy the anyway (Windows got a HUGE market share in countries where nobody has up to now bought it; that's a strategic advantage without which MS might lose to Linux in those countries), but bad if it's just "stealing", i.e. copying instead of buying, even though $PERSON has the money.
And cross-selling is the least harmless of all three: it's even GOOD, because creates revenue and makes a happy customer (otherwise he wouldn't buy).
I'm thankful that there's a good browser included with my OS (Safari), and I'm sure some Windows users are, too. If not, they're free to dl Firefox, which has really enough advertisements everywhere.
That's tons of links. But what is the law? Which law did MS break? What does it say?
Thou shalt not use thy market power to cross-sell other goods? Well, *everybody* does that.
The simple fact that Windows has a vastly larger market share than Linux or Mac OS doesn't mean anything. Especially it didn't prevent me choosing Netscape all along, and later VLC as the media player, and it didn't prevent me from switching 80% to Linux in 99, and switching 100% to Mac OS in winter 03.
So even if there is a law that says something like my sentence above, it would be pretty much useless.
OMG, they bundled a web browser with their operating system (and back in my Windows days I *still* used Netscape instead, because of *choice*), just what Apple and several Linux distributors do, not to mention mobile operating systems. Same goes for media player (who the hell would EVER use WMP? it skips; it sometimes even plays videos on half or double speed! in short, it's completely broken for regular viewing).
OMG, they have a huge market share. I'm dying of fear. I was able to choose Netscape, I was able to choose Linux, and now a Mac. I don't see where there is *any* problem, nor what law MS allegedly broke.
Well, I got my first computer with 19 (when I finished high school), even though I was interested in programming, since I was 12 or so (I browsed some books on Basic and Pascal back then, which I got from the local library).
During my year of civil service (in lieu of army service in Germany) I read up on everything I thought I should be able to do when studying CS. I read ESR's Hacker Howto, I started messing around with Linux (because I HATED Win 98, back then I installed Debian 2.1) and all that stuff, und turns out that when I started university I was well ahead of most people there. Since, I continued studying everything I was interested in.
True, there are huge differences between hardcore coders and more "normal" CS people, but that shouldn't be a deterrent to anyone. If you're interested, you can get ahead, if you take the time to study/catch up.
Of course there are lots of geeks in technology. I also try to have some distance between the hardcore geeks and myself (I'd say I'm semi-geekoid).
But sorry, if that makes somebody avoid the major, again: their problem. I don't think geekiness has anything to do with gender. There are girls that study CS without being too geeky, and they do just fine, socially.
Summer of Code is free to everybody. If no women apply, that's honestly their own fault.
Should we reach out for them on a silver tablet and bring them breakfast into their bed? Hell, no. Let them complain all they want (some crazy feminists that is), but until they *choose* to go into engineering, just don't bother with quotas and other crazy stuff.
I had a Nokia before, and that phone was a veritable PITA. Sony, on their website, has information about environmental policy (not they're much better than the competition, but still...), they have information that they work with the Mac (hello Nokia!), and in general, their website had lots of information more.
I sold the Nokia for 80 more than I bought the Sony for (a K700), but the Sony is MUCH better, and much more responsive, plus it actually plays MP3s without randomly stopping in a song and starting the next one.
Plus, the Sony can *gasp* run Java apps I upload with BT, which the Nokia couldn't (jar? jad? unknown file format, bitch of a phone!!).
This is a no-brainer. The only thing that's not quite perfect about the phone is the not-too-great camera (which I never use anyway) and the fact that it's got that Vodafone branding.
Maybe you can hack *some* Nokias, but mine was very abysmal (and other Nokias has a really ugly design, or were reviewed to be very slow too, so not my thing really; Samsung has an awful model numbering and website, so I have no idea what kinds of phones they sell; every provider seems to change the model numbers even more).
Slashdot Mirror
Good point. I suppose they got lazy and angry, that it takes some work to prosecute file-sharers (but hey, most file-sharers probably live in EU and USA where that's not hard at all, IMHO), so they thought: let's just force the ISPs to help.
Of course it's hard for the ISP to see what's illegal and what isn't, so all P2P is illegal now (maybe, if the ISP doesn't want to be hold accountable).
You're also right that encryption will continue to subvert many control measures by Big Brother anyway. Though encrypted P2P like Freenet is said to be very slow.
Yep, wasn't a bad discussion. Let me just add that IMHO the original USA were an almost libertarian country, with the exception of slavery, and the general conservative attitude of many people back then (though many libertarians are also conservative).
You could classify my views under Austrian school, and anarcho-capitalism I'd say. I'm definitely sympathetic to minarchism (small government) and also somewhat to left-libertarianism (see the Wikipedia article; it mentions quite a few shared points with anarcho-capitalism, following Murray Rothband and Roderick Long, my two "favorite" anarchists).
Good.
For a moment I thought, Franco was in charge again, and the whole internet (P2P!) was illegal.
Well, I'm getting tired of a discussion which won't lead anywhere anyway. Just two cents: I used to be Socialist, so some of your almost-libertarian opinions aren't too far from me. But (the second cent) I don't think you really understood libertarianism, maybe the rules, but now how it works or used to work.
Liberty doesn't mean do-as-you-please in all cases. If you're genuinely interested, mises.org has lots of material available for free on property rights, on environmental pollution, and other things, in many cases involving arguments like yours above.
Oh sure, that's how life is when you visit another state or country. That's how life is when you decide to code apps for Mac OS, for Windows, for Solaris. That's how life is when you decide to code in another language that has different constructs. That's how life is when you decide to go work for somebody. It's always about compromise.
"Arbitrary" laws means that anybody (a dictator, or 55% of the population) can set arbitrary laws. For instance, the federal US gov can basically institute new laws, even if they are against the constitution. If necessary, judges will be replaced first.
;)
A system founded on basic human and property rights can't be circumvented. There's a clearly defined right and wrong. Your "ultracapitalism" also included many bribes, I'm sure. Society was pretty much aristocrat back then, as it is again today in most countries.
"doesn't really tell us where that ends and where that begins" -- you've got property rights for that. Don't burn my lawn, but you may burn your own lawn
Regarding patents: you think just because some armed government defends your idea, just because you published the idea first, gives you the moral right to keep me from using that idea too? That's quite totalitarian, IMHO.
Fraud and theft violate property rights, or prevent honest agreements from happening. In the sense that it violates the principle that humans have equal rights, and stand on an equal footing, these crimes can't be tolerated. Everything else is basically not harmful, thus allowed.
Regarding free choice: well, there is no right to have an OS that will play Unreal Tournament, so indeed: tough luck. Third World is different: there are mostly no property rights at all, so there's no capitalist system that will ensure that people won't starve. There's no infrastructure being built, no investment being done in farming etc. So if those countries had property rights, I think far less people would "choose" prostitution (indeed, as maybe the least bad choice they could make). And if the Chinese threaten to shoot you, there's clearly no choice, but force and violence involved. It violates your right to be left alone and intact.
Checks and balances: the legal system should fix those, based on human and property rights.
Choice: if Windows is really that bad, and if Linux needs more software so badly, then many people should write code for Linux and many clients should buy that code/software. And indeed that's happening all the time, and many people choose Linux (or Macs). Some people don't *like* the choice, but that's entirely their problem. There is no right to software that will do whatever you want.
You mean ... you're forced to run/buy Windows ... if you want to keep running Windows?
Oh my God, that's so inhuman!
Maybe you think individuals and corps should be restricted by pretty much arbitrary laws. I strongly differ.
I think that both should do whatever they want, as long as they don't harm anybody. I.e. I can write whatever code I want, as long as I don't harm your property. MS can build and sell whatever they like, as long as they don't commit fraud, they don't steal, they don't blackmail anyone. And in fact all of MS's clients chose their clientship. I'm the existent proof that there is a completely open choice for everybody. I chose Linux, then BSD, now a Mac. That's why MS isn't evil, even if it sucks (IMHO a fair share of their software does).
Market share doesn't matter at all, because there are the same choices, no matter if the market is 95% MS, 3% Linux and 2% Mac. It could just as well be 33% each. There's lots of software for any system. Imagine you have three machines in your home: Linux PC, Win PC, Mac. Now WHY in the world should there be a moral right to point a gun to MS's ears and force them to interoperate? It's *just another system*. Hate MS? Just don't fucking buy/use their stuff!
BTW: nothing wrong with maximizing profit, as long as you don't commit crimes. IF you commit crimes, you're criminal. Quite simple rule, really. Selling something (as long as it's not fraudulent; and we all know that Windows has its problems, so there's no fraud) can't be a crime, morally. It can be criminal if government doesn't like it, but mostly government is run by corrupt freaks anyway. Regarding monopolies: there are quasi monopolies, which aren't harmful at all, like the MS one where I can freely choose alternatives. Legal monopolies (enforced by government guns) are harmful though, as they actively prohibit competition, such as the AT&T case, where dozens of phone providers were destroyed, or even the current heavy FCC regulation, which probably harms competition as well.
Ok, so you're bound to the wand... your decision. Many people chose different wands, like myself. Just because so overwhelmingly many people *chose* the Gnome's wand doesn't mean that anyone can force him to put certain features in his wand or remove other features (that are standard features in other systems, like browsers or media players).
As I said, there are sockets, there is SQL, there is Java. You can easily extract whatever you want using proprietary MS APIs (the part that is open) and ship that information to other systems. You don't really need the SMB, NTFS or other hidden information. About unified logons: well I'm sure the information has to get into the Windows system at some point, probably via LDAP, or maybe it's stored in MS-SQL. Again: it should be easy to put the data in there with Java or something portable that connects to a Unix system. Maybe it's not perfect, but Windows isn't perfect (now if government *forces* MS to make their software more perfect, maybe that'll stop the whole switch-to-Unix thing, quite the opposite of what they want (or is it?)).
Many organizations are actively using Windows, Linux, Solaris and Macs side by side (and many many more just Windows and some Unix).
But even if it wasn't practical: there is still no moral argument for just blackmailing MS to do whatever you want them to. MS has lots of voluntary clients that invested in MS tools over the years, and they're happy (while other clients start switching, which is fine, and totally possible too).
I don't see whom government is protecting, and from whom. Don't like their stuff? Just quit it. Just because *many more* people chose to buy MS than people chose to buy Macs, doesn't give government the right to start dictating that company. It's not like MS build up a bad monopoly. It's the other way round: so fucking many people *chose* to be MS clients, *despite* the alternatives that do exist. So there has to be some point in using MS stuff. Now just because the clients are so overwhelmingly many gives us the right to force MS to make its system more open? Why? The logical way to go would be to quit MS NOW if you don't like it and go to the competition, not to make MS more powerful.
Sure, by the legal definition MS is bad and needs some good beating, but in the moral sense I clearly disagree. I haven't used MS stuff for quite a while. No problems. Just because so many people whine about how they'd like this or that feature in Windows doesn't give them the right to force it.
Argh, I meant "threat of a fine" of course, not thread.
And to add something to the not-so-open NTFS & co: Windows has sockets, so it's perfectly possible to write something that uses the Windows API and the socket API to transfer just ANYTHING you like to a Unix or other system. No problems there at all. Some goes for disks: write *anything* to disk, and read it in on Unix again.
Well, some facts:
* either you choose to buy MS's stuff, or you don't
I don't; I used Linux and several BSDs for a while, and own a Mac for a while now.
* just because one system doesn't interoperate out of the box with another one, doesn't give anybody else the right to point a gun to their ears and force them. There's something called third-party tools, that can be used for instance to mount a Linux FS on Windows, or maybe to do the opposite. But if you don't like that MS doesn't open their NTFS or SMB, then just don't use it.
* the EU's intention might not be to steal money (even though it steals money from its citizens to feed useless eurocrats), but it's only using the thread of a fine to blackmail MS to open up its information
(you don't think it's blackmail? what is it then?)
* it doesn't matter if HTTP, or Windows, or anything else is a de-facto monopoly. *Everybody* out there can use something else, and for those very few areas where there is no software for Unix/X11 or the Mac, it wouldn't be too hard to port a Windows program to use the other GUI or IPC/I/O libraries instead.
I've used other OSes for quite a while without any problems, and if there were any serious demand for them, there *would* be software written for those systems. Just because people want to keep their Photoshop and Age of Empires doesn't mean there's no alternative.
Once upon a time there was a Gnome called Microhard ("Little Rock"). His parents wanted him to study, but he preferred to tinker around with magic wands. He made some quick gold by buying a cheap, tiny wand from a cranky old wizard and selling in to the Big Poseidon, God of the blue, who wanted to impress his following with incredibly small magic.
Later the gnome decided to build magic wands himself. Many people hated him, because sometimes the wands backfired, destroying their homes or their work, but other people loved him, because his magic wands were easier to use than the Unix Wizards' wands, which could only be wielded by long-bearded gurus.
The little gnome sold his wands all over the world (well, some countries stole them, because they couldn't afford them, but the result was that even there everybody used the Gnome's wands, instead of other wands), because his clients liked his produce, and chose to pay gold for it. Only in Europe a group of angry thieves roamed the woods. They were jealous at the Gnome, and hated him, because his newer wands could also invoke music and world-wide webs (other magic wands could do the same already, but the Gnome sold so many, that they hated him for it). So the group of thieves (led by a certain l33t guy called rObIn hEUd) decided to blackmail the gnome. If he wouldn't open up all trade secrets about how his wands were constructed, they would ambush and rob all deliveries in Europe. Every day they would steal two million gold pieces.
Well, there's no happy end: nobody in Europe was allowed to bear arms and rise up against the thieves, and so they went on stealing to the end of their days...
How bad does it have to be until you, the customer, change ISPs?
Seriously? Well, I'd say you answer that question yourself. Happy: stay; unhappy: switch. As long as everybody can do whatever they choose to do, the world is fine. And that pretty much means the market *does* sort it out.
First of all, I don't think the constitution needs an update (the German one could use one, but that's another story).
The problem right now in the US is that nobody cares shit about the constitution, at least not the federal government. It hasn't cared about it for maybe a hundred years, and before that it didn't either (need I say "slavery"?).
Everybody knows that government is important, and necessary to provide services that people themselves are too stupid to provide.
Finally someone has bought personal data, something that people themselves would never have done with their hard-earned money.
Hooray for government, the group of wise, good, virtuous people that holds the Unites States of America (and other countries) together!!!
Hm, I'm sure your complaints are valid, but it also looks as if they are mostly implementation-dependent.
I'd wager the guess that CORBA applications can be well distributed (i.e. allow load balancing) and that an ORB could also include QoS features. Fault tolerance... are you talking about network errors, or simple return values in contrast to exceptions?
Maintainability is clearly a bigger problem, as APIs evolve, but no technology can really solve that one, it's an organisational problem.
Yes, probably there are lots of other factors, maybe even stress and general environmental pollution that influence our immune system.
This includes the fact that fertility in general is decreasing too. Something we do with industrialization is very wrong.
Well, the spitting doesn't hurt anybody, but it creates dirt, so let's say that's not good.
Swapping warez is good if it's people that wouldn't buy the anyway (Windows got a HUGE market share in countries where nobody has up to now bought it; that's a strategic advantage without which MS might lose to Linux in those countries), but bad if it's just "stealing", i.e. copying instead of buying, even though $PERSON has the money.
And cross-selling is the least harmless of all three: it's even GOOD, because creates revenue and makes a happy customer (otherwise he wouldn't buy).
I'm thankful that there's a good browser included with my OS (Safari), and I'm sure some Windows users are, too. If not, they're free to dl Firefox, which has really enough advertisements everywhere.
That's tons of links. But what is the law? Which law did MS break? What does it say?
Thou shalt not use thy market power to cross-sell other goods? Well, *everybody* does that.
The simple fact that Windows has a vastly larger market share than Linux or Mac OS doesn't mean anything. Especially it didn't prevent me choosing Netscape all along, and later VLC as the media player, and it didn't prevent me from switching 80% to Linux in 99, and switching 100% to Mac OS in winter 03.
So even if there is a law that says something like my sentence above, it would be pretty much useless.
What law did they break, please inform me?
OMG, they bundled a web browser with their operating system (and back in my Windows days I *still* used Netscape instead, because of *choice*), just what Apple and several Linux distributors do, not to mention mobile operating systems. Same goes for media player (who the hell would EVER use WMP? it skips; it sometimes even plays videos on half or double speed! in short, it's completely broken for regular viewing).
OMG, they have a huge market share. I'm dying of fear. I was able to choose Netscape, I was able to choose Linux, and now a Mac. I don't see where there is *any* problem, nor what law MS allegedly broke.
Well, I got my first computer with 19 (when I finished high school), even though I was interested in programming, since I was 12 or so (I browsed some books on Basic and Pascal back then, which I got from the local library).
During my year of civil service (in lieu of army service in Germany) I read up on everything I thought I should be able to do when studying CS. I read ESR's Hacker Howto, I started messing around with Linux (because I HATED Win 98, back then I installed Debian 2.1) and all that stuff, und turns out that when I started university I was well ahead of most people there. Since, I continued studying everything I was interested in.
True, there are huge differences between hardcore coders and more "normal" CS people, but that shouldn't be a deterrent to anyone. If you're interested, you can get ahead, if you take the time to study/catch up.
Of course there are lots of geeks in technology. I also try to have some distance between the hardcore geeks and myself (I'd say I'm semi-geekoid).
But sorry, if that makes somebody avoid the major, again: their problem. I don't think geekiness has anything to do with gender. There are girls that study CS without being too geeky, and they do just fine, socially.
Exactly.
Summer of Code is free to everybody. If no women apply, that's honestly their own fault.
Should we reach out for them on a silver tablet and bring them breakfast into their bed? Hell, no. Let them complain all they want (some crazy feminists that is), but until they *choose* to go into engineering, just don't bother with quotas and other crazy stuff.
Um, no?
I had a Nokia before, and that phone was a veritable PITA. Sony, on their website, has information about environmental policy (not they're much better than the competition, but still...), they have information that they work with the Mac (hello Nokia!), and in general, their website had lots of information more.
I sold the Nokia for 80 more than I bought the Sony for (a K700), but the Sony is MUCH better, and much more responsive, plus it actually plays MP3s without randomly stopping in a song and starting the next one.
Plus, the Sony can *gasp* run Java apps I upload with BT, which the Nokia couldn't (jar? jad? unknown file format, bitch of a phone!!).
This is a no-brainer. The only thing that's not quite perfect about the phone is the not-too-great camera (which I never use anyway) and the fact that it's got that Vodafone branding.
Maybe you can hack *some* Nokias, but mine was very abysmal (and other Nokias has a really ugly design, or were reviewed to be very slow too, so not my thing really; Samsung has an awful model numbering and website, so I have no idea what kinds of phones they sell; every provider seems to change the model numbers even more).