I'm curious how the EU decides what to force microsoft should do -- while they may legally do a lot of things, who decides what is feasible to force them to implement in a certain timeframe, and what constitutes non-complience? The article mentions a "monitoring trust," but who ARE they?
Forcing designers to design a certain product in an unreasonable amount of time is typical "pointy haired boss" syndrome; what do you do with "pointy haired judge" syndrome? A quote from MS's legal chair, from the article: "the firm had done its utmost to comply with the EU's demands, but Brussels kept changing the goalposts." That sounds like a pretty common conflict in normal business: designers design something, but it's not what the client thought they wanted, so they change specs at the last minute, etc. Except in this case, the "monitoring trust" (client) has the backing of the whole entire EU!
Maybe MS is being belligerant about the whole thing, maybe not. Either way though, I think it's a valid issue: who decides, and what qualifies them to make that decision?
"You're home on a friday night reading slashdot!!! You're either a geek or married."
Or both! (Extra bonus points: I'm working from home tonight too!) My wife is playing Super Tux (and knows who Tux is) because she's already finished Knights of the Old Republic I & II. And I have the last of the New Jedi Order Star Wars books that I'll finish reading tomorrow.
Maybe it's cool to be a geek, maybe not -- but either way, it sure is a lot of fun! Many of our friends walk in and see an Item of Geek Paraphenalia (like the star wars books) and suddenly realize that we are, perhaps, just a little geeky. Then we all play a game of Cranium and have a great time. Geeky? Sure! Are we happy? Yup! Do I care if it's cool? Not really.
It was only a matter of time before you get some off topic LDS/Utah bashing....
Reading the "Utah & Religion" realated posts, reminds me how nasty we can alll get. Time for a moment of the Larger Picture. We all know it already, but just a reminder.
What "makes this country great" is neither free speech nor freedom from persection, though those are greatly important. Instead, its the unpredicted ability for a whole bunch of people with really different viewpoints to influence the direction the country goes, and for the most part, it works. The "founding fathers" didn't originally intend for a multi-party system, but it worked much better than they expected. Lesson one, somehow, differing opinions balance out.
Hey, maybe there are some radical ultra conservative church people in Utah, or the south, or wherever. They yell and scream when things don't fit their agenda. There's some pretty radical anti-religionists that yell and scream when they see a church member with a differing opinion. Both sides call each other names and use Great Rhetorical Strategies, like Namecalling, 3rd-Grade Wordplay, Over-Generalization, and Common Misconceptions. Both sides complain that the other side says that their opinion is the only right one. Lesson two, even the people who have really different viewpoints are sometimes very similar.
And then.... there's the people sorta in the middle, but never totally, who are usually ALSO quite capable of the same tactices and logical fallacies if you get them stuck on the right issue. No one is perfect. Some of them go to curch, some don't. They have agendas, and their view of how the world "ought to be" -- but who doesn't? And we find that its pretty easy to call someone with an agenda a drone if they belive strongly enough in it. Lesson three: people are biased, even the smart ones.
Then, as the progress of time rolls on, lots of people can say how the country has "gotten worse" -- conservatives say it's getting too liberal, liberals say it's getting too conservative. Lesson five: the world actually goes on.
The fears that both sides have ("facets" would be more accurate; issues and people have complex interactions) are actually very valid: defining and preserving social morals is a very real and important issue, because its really about discovering the ramifications of socital change. Some change is good, and some not, but everyone doesn't agree on what is good. Preserving free speech is equally important, because it allows the opinions to circulate and to a certain degree penetrate the misconceptions that we all have. Eliminating either of these elements leads to a "bad" government.
Of course, people have "beliefs" -- call it religion or not -- and, of course, it's going to influence their politics. I don't know what the governor of Utah's personal biases are. They are probably not rooted in a blind and sinister religious consipiracy. Nor are they 100% free of personal bias from religion, poitics, education, lobbies, poll opinions, or whatever.
Last lesson from the soapbox: It would be ignorant to assume that everyone can or even should eliminate all personal bias and agendas (religious or non-religious)-- wouldn't that be just a different form form of a done?
Slashdot Mirror
I'm curious how the EU decides what to force microsoft should do -- while they may legally do a lot of things, who decides what is feasible to force them to implement in a certain timeframe, and what constitutes non-complience? The article mentions a "monitoring trust," but who ARE they?
Forcing designers to design a certain product in an unreasonable amount of time is typical "pointy haired boss" syndrome; what do you do with "pointy haired judge" syndrome? A quote from MS's legal chair, from the article: "the firm had done its utmost to comply with the EU's demands, but Brussels kept changing the goalposts." That sounds like a pretty common conflict in normal business: designers design something, but it's not what the client thought they wanted, so they change specs at the last minute, etc. Except in this case, the "monitoring trust" (client) has the backing of the whole entire EU!
Maybe MS is being belligerant about the whole thing, maybe not. Either way though, I think it's a valid issue: who decides, and what qualifies them to make that decision?
"You're home on a friday night reading slashdot!!! You're either a geek or married." Or both! (Extra bonus points: I'm working from home tonight too!) My wife is playing Super Tux (and knows who Tux is) because she's already finished Knights of the Old Republic I & II. And I have the last of the New Jedi Order Star Wars books that I'll finish reading tomorrow. Maybe it's cool to be a geek, maybe not -- but either way, it sure is a lot of fun! Many of our friends walk in and see an Item of Geek Paraphenalia (like the star wars books) and suddenly realize that we are, perhaps, just a little geeky. Then we all play a game of Cranium and have a great time. Geeky? Sure! Are we happy? Yup! Do I care if it's cool? Not really.
It was only a matter of time before you get some off topic LDS/Utah bashing....
Reading the "Utah & Religion" realated posts, reminds me how nasty we can alll get. Time for a moment of the Larger Picture. We all know it already, but just a reminder.
What "makes this country great" is neither free speech nor freedom from persection, though those are greatly important. Instead, its the unpredicted ability for a whole bunch of people with really different viewpoints to influence the direction the country goes, and for the most part, it works. The "founding fathers" didn't originally intend for a multi-party system, but it worked much better than they expected. Lesson one, somehow, differing opinions balance out.
Hey, maybe there are some radical ultra conservative church people in Utah, or the south, or wherever. They yell and scream when things don't fit their agenda. There's some pretty radical anti-religionists that yell and scream when they see a church member with a differing opinion. Both sides call each other names and use Great Rhetorical Strategies, like Namecalling, 3rd-Grade Wordplay, Over-Generalization, and Common Misconceptions. Both sides complain that the other side says that their opinion is the only right one. Lesson two, even the people who have really different viewpoints are sometimes very similar.
And then.... there's the people sorta in the middle, but never totally, who are usually ALSO quite capable of the same tactices and logical fallacies if you get them stuck on the right issue. No one is perfect. Some of them go to curch, some don't. They have agendas, and their view of how the world "ought to be" -- but who doesn't? And we find that its pretty easy to call someone with an agenda a drone if they belive strongly enough in it. Lesson three: people are biased, even the smart ones.
Then, as the progress of time rolls on, lots of people can say how the country has "gotten worse" -- conservatives say it's getting too liberal, liberals say it's getting too conservative. Lesson five: the world actually goes on.
The fears that both sides have ("facets" would be more accurate; issues and people have complex interactions) are actually very valid: defining and preserving social morals is a very real and important issue, because its really about discovering the ramifications of socital change. Some change is good, and some not, but everyone doesn't agree on what is good. Preserving free speech is equally important, because it allows the opinions to circulate and to a certain degree penetrate the misconceptions that we all have. Eliminating either of these elements leads to a "bad" government.
Of course, people have "beliefs" -- call it religion or not -- and, of course, it's going to influence their politics. I don't know what the governor of Utah's personal biases are. They are probably not rooted in a blind and sinister religious consipiracy. Nor are they 100% free of personal bias from religion, poitics, education, lobbies, poll opinions, or whatever.
Last lesson from the soapbox: It would be ignorant to assume that everyone can or even should eliminate all personal bias and agendas (religious or non-religious)-- wouldn't that be just a different form form of a done?