It's funny how so many people equate rich with evil. So if a poor guy took something from a rich company it's ok but if a rich company takes something from a poor guy then it's automatically a problem.
But if you believed that they were actually KILLING someone you wouldn't have a problem with infringing on someones privacy or telling them what to do. If you lived in the North 150 years ago and felt that in the South they were treating HUMAN BEINGS subhumanly and that that was wrong, you would be willing to go to war with them, telling them, adults, what to do with what they didn't consider human life.
We as a society, don't allow the killing of mentally handicapped children or paraplegics. We don't pass judgement on their quality of life but provide them the same rights, privileges and protections as everyone else. It would be an anomaly to do otherwise.
Anyhow, the bottomline remains the same. If you felt that someones life was being taken wrongly, you would probably be just as much for intervening as the anti-abortionists are. If there were clinics across the country where, pick a nationality, say Estonians, were being killed because they were not considered human and you felt that was wrong, it is possible you might feel compelled to do something about it - including firebombing the people commiting the "crime".
We will only know who is right once we understand consciousness and I don't believe we are anywhere close to doing that soon. We don't understand "life" and how it comes about and until we do, we won't know whether this is murder or amputation.
I don't believe that consciousness occurs before childbirth or at least late-term and I am as repelled by the concept of the government interfering with peoples bodies and their privacy so I do hope that what I believe is established.
Doesn't FAA require that any device that transmits a signal, such as a cell phone, be turned off during the entire flight? Wouldn't this restriction also apply to wireless ethernet?
No, the restrictions on cellphones is from the FCC. A cellphone in the air, where it has direct line-of-sight to about 30 cellphone towers will play havoc with the cells because it will block out a channel band in each of those cells.
I doubt the FAA cares about the intentions of the device - only whether or not it actually does transmit a signal. I guess the assumption is that the particular wireless protocol used is known to not cause interference with the airplanes navigation systems.
The FAA regulations apply only to US registered carriers and flights operating in and out of the United States. However, the FAA regulations are considered the de facto standard in formulating regulations by other aviation authorities.
There are many people who take many flights longer than 3 hours. Have you ever traveled outside the United States? Do you have any idea how many flights fly out of this country every day and how many people fly on those flights?
Further, I don't know where you came up with the 3 hour limit. YOU might want to catch a nap while you're on the plane but that doesn't mean that's what everyone else wants to do. I can't sleep on short flights so for me, personally, any flying time is a complete waste. I usually synch up my laptop before emplaning and spend my time replying to my email. Having network connectivity would be great for me!
And how the hell did you conclude that these modifications would make the plane tickets any more expensive? If an airline has to raise prices to offer this service, consumers who don't care about the service won't take that airline any more!
Anyway, this service will probably not be offered in Cattle^H^H^H^H^Hoach Class to begin with, anyway.
If you believed what they did, you'd do what they do.
I don't believe that an unborn child is a live human being but they do. Given what they believe they are doing what is the most logical thing for them to do.
You or I are no more or less qualified to determine at what point does a child become a human life mainly because we understand so little about consciousness and life. Arguing that it happens at the point of childbirth is just as ridiculous as pinning it at another time in the process is, though.
I have read Jon Katz's articles. He argues with the intelligence of someone who never held a job and probably lives in his mothers basement. Anyone who rants on about the evils of corporations without realizing that corporations are just groups of people (without fiscal liability) doing things that groups of _people_ do obviously doesn't have any sort of a clue and has been listening to crackpot demagogues too much. Corporations aren't any more evil or good than the people who run them. They do make ideal fodder for those who preach to idle minds though because they don't have a human face and therefore don't prompt a lot of people to think with compassion for.
You might want to pretend that your life and the world would somehow be better were it not for "evil corporations" but that is not the truth. That argument holds as much water as a 10-year old arguing that his "evil parents suck" because they yelled at him for doing something stupid.
Umm.. and I could make $40,000 instead of the $80,000 I make right now. You have to admit that $40,000 is a lot of room to cut my salary. By your logic I should ask my boss for a pay cut.
You obviously know nothing about mass politics or economics. What public backlash are you talking about? Remember that for the vast majority of the population Windows is the only thing remotely usable and they automatically perceive doing anything bad to Microsoft as a bad thing.
OK, first of all, the ozone hole and global warming are two separate, largely unrelated problems. Was it you or Carl Sagan who confused the two?
I have known this since age 10. Why do so many people just not get it?! If I had a penny for every time I heard some activist say the Ozone hole will lead to global warming, I'd be a very rich person. So for those of you who still don't get it, the Ozone hole problem and global warming are entirely different issues!. Do yourself a favor and don't mention them in the same sentence ever unless you want to look like a fool.
Theoretically, with a digital signal there is enough redundancy built in that even if the signal is very weak you will still be able to get a very crisp, distortion-free image.
If your cable signal sucks, you should call your cable operator and complain. If they don't comply, call your states public utility commission.
A friend of mine runs a business from home with her father and two employees. Every time they get a call like that they tell them they need to speak with Mr. Randy Stevens. Phone calls for Mr. Randy Stevens get put on hold waiting for him because he's very busy.
So far he's already been pre-approved for 3 platinum credit cards based on his excellent credit record.
but where does microscrew get the right to tell a sovereign what to do?
That right comes from the Freedom of Speech (or were you asleep in Civics class?) Everyone has the right to criticize a country and its policies. I can't believe someone would deny anyone their right to express an opinion. The Australian government doesn't have to listen to what they say - or even read their paper. And yes, the CEO, stockholders and even YOU are free to criticize the Australian government - or the US government for that matter.
how the heck does microscrew expect their stupid commentary to influence anything
Did you even read the article? The paper contains some very valid criticism. Fortunately the Australian government doesn't have its head as far up its ass as you seem to. The article quotes an official as saying they were aware of some of the issues raised and were looking to correct them.
And btw, the company is called Microsoft - learn to spell or you'll be seen for the moron you are.
It is not unfair if someone has more than you do. It is only unfair if that was achieved by stealing what was rightfully yours. If the poorest 99% were to rise up and steal the wealth of the richest 1% simply because they are the majority, then THAT would be unfair.
I don't pretend that the wealth of the richest 1% was rightfully obtained. But you make no argument to show that it wasn't. It would be just as stupid to presume that it wasn't rightfully obtained just because.
You don't have a RIGHT to own a car, or a house, or fancy clothes. You are given those rights by your peers (in terms of money) in return for your contribution (in terms of a job, selling what you produce, services, etc.) to them. If you're not doing anything that's benefiting the rest of society then you don't automatically have a RIGHT to benefit from the fruits of their labors.
That's how capitalism works, brother. Now go out there and be useful and stop expecting to leech off other peoples endeavors anytime soon.
It used to be that juries sat on all criminal proceedings.
First, this is not a criminal case. Secondly, a jury is a random selection of people. If we start with the premise that some people are biased, a statistical sampling plus the juror elimination process (assuming competent representation for both parties) will only guarantee that we have good odds that the jury that is not overwhelmingly biased one way or the other.
Juries are excellent at deciding simple criminal matters like "does the glove fit?" or evaluating the evidence and deciding what it shows. However, the lay person is not qualified to judge sophisticated legal matters like Antitrust law is. Even the legal experts are divided upon whether Microsoft broke the law here or not.
Let me guess? You also thought the movie people were stupid when they made movies in color since, obviously, they couldn't be shown on your TV and no one would EVER want to spend the money for a color TV! And no one would ever need more than 640Kb of RAM.
I was very sceptical of DVD until I watched my first DVD movie. I can't watch VHS anymore. I've never actually seen HDTV but I'm excited about the possibilities.
This Cisco exec should then be sued by the shareholders of Cisco for not making a business decision with solely the interests of Cisco the company and its shareholder value in mind. If someone is employed/appointed to the board of a company it is their responsibility to act solely in their interests with respect to his/her authority in the company.
I wouldn't blame the IPO company for offering the bribe.
The article simply quotes him as saying that he considered Linux to be Microsofts biggest problem. He argued this on the basis that Linux was a competitor in a market Microsoft controls while Sun and Oracle hold market share which Microsoft aims to capture and by saying that he considered the former kind bigger problems than the latter. How can you possibly disagree with that?
Every company has problems. Steve Ballmer was simply ranking MS's problems. No intelligent reading of the article can possibly read any more than that. Remember that this was a meeting organized by a financial institution - not a press release - most likely attended by people interested in the future business prospects of the company.
Re:What IT Is And Isn't
on
What is 'IT'?
·
· Score: 2
My bet says it's some sort of super-clean, super-cool transportation. And since it was "turned on", it has something electrical
If you invented a super-cool transportation device, why would you be demo-ing it to Jeff Bezos and Steve Jobs?
Slashdot Mirror
It's funny how so many people equate rich with evil. So if a poor guy took something from a rich company it's ok but if a rich company takes something from a poor guy then it's automatically a problem.
And Jupiter is just one big mass of gas.
The way I learned it was My Very Educated Mother Just Showed Us Nine Planets. Where I come from, we call the third planet "Earth".
You must be from that 9th planet out there. I'm glad to hear you call us Pluto. What do you call yourself?
PS: Sorry about the demotion, mate
Damn, and here I was getting ready to put the frowny on T-shirts and use the T-shirts as free speech argument to defend myself in court!
But if you believed that they were actually KILLING someone you wouldn't have a problem with infringing on someones privacy or telling them what to do. If you lived in the North 150 years ago and felt that in the South they were treating HUMAN BEINGS subhumanly and that that was wrong, you would be willing to go to war with them, telling them, adults, what to do with what they didn't consider human life.
We as a society, don't allow the killing of mentally handicapped children or paraplegics. We don't pass judgement on their quality of life but provide them the same rights, privileges and protections as everyone else. It would be an anomaly to do otherwise.
Anyhow, the bottomline remains the same. If you felt that someones life was being taken wrongly, you would probably be just as much for intervening as the anti-abortionists are. If there were clinics across the country where, pick a nationality, say Estonians, were being killed because they were not considered human and you felt that was wrong, it is possible you might feel compelled to do something about it - including firebombing the people commiting the "crime".
We will only know who is right once we understand consciousness and I don't believe we are anywhere close to doing that soon. We don't understand "life" and how it comes about and until we do, we won't know whether this is murder or amputation.
I don't believe that consciousness occurs before childbirth or at least late-term and I am as repelled by the concept of the government interfering with peoples bodies and their privacy so I do hope that what I believe is established.
Doesn't FAA require that any device that transmits a signal, such as a cell phone, be turned off during the entire flight? Wouldn't this restriction also apply to wireless ethernet?
No, the restrictions on cellphones is from the FCC. A cellphone in the air, where it has direct line-of-sight to about 30 cellphone towers will play havoc with the cells because it will block out a channel band in each of those cells.
I doubt the FAA cares about the intentions of the device - only whether or not it actually does transmit a signal. I guess the assumption is that the particular wireless protocol used is known to not cause interference with the airplanes navigation systems.
The FAA regulations apply only to US registered carriers and flights operating in and out of the United States. However, the FAA regulations are considered the de facto standard in formulating regulations by other aviation authorities.
You mean like this?
There are many people who take many flights longer than 3 hours. Have you ever traveled outside the United States? Do you have any idea how many flights fly out of this country every day and how many people fly on those flights?
Further, I don't know where you came up with the 3 hour limit. YOU might want to catch a nap while you're on the plane but that doesn't mean that's what everyone else wants to do. I can't sleep on short flights so for me, personally, any flying time is a complete waste. I usually synch up my laptop before emplaning and spend my time replying to my email. Having network connectivity would be great for me!
And how the hell did you conclude that these modifications would make the plane tickets any more expensive? If an airline has to raise prices to offer this service, consumers who don't care about the service won't take that airline any more!
Anyway, this service will probably not be offered in Cattle^H^H^H^H^Hoach Class to begin with, anyway.
If you believed what they did, you'd do what they do.
I don't believe that an unborn child is a live human being but they do. Given what they believe they are doing what is the most logical thing for them to do.
You or I are no more or less qualified to determine at what point does a child become a human life mainly because we understand so little about consciousness and life. Arguing that it happens at the point of childbirth is just as ridiculous as pinning it at another time in the process is, though.
I can't speak for everyone else here.
I have read Jon Katz's articles. He argues with the intelligence of someone who never held a job and probably lives in his mothers basement. Anyone who rants on about the evils of corporations without realizing that corporations are just groups of people (without fiscal liability) doing things that groups of _people_ do obviously doesn't have any sort of a clue and has been listening to crackpot demagogues too much. Corporations aren't any more evil or good than the people who run them. They do make ideal fodder for those who preach to idle minds though because they don't have a human face and therefore don't prompt a lot of people to think with compassion for.
You might want to pretend that your life and the world would somehow be better were it not for "evil corporations" but that is not the truth. That argument holds as much water as a 10-year old arguing that his "evil parents suck" because they yelled at him for doing something stupid.
Umm.. and I could make $40,000 instead of the $80,000 I make right now. You have to admit that $40,000 is a lot of room to cut my salary. By your logic I should ask my boss for a pay cut.
You obviously know nothing about mass politics or economics. What public backlash are you talking about? Remember that for the vast majority of the population Windows is the only thing remotely usable and they automatically perceive doing anything bad to Microsoft as a bad thing.
OK, first of all, the ozone hole and global warming are two separate, largely unrelated problems. Was it you or Carl Sagan who confused the two?
I have known this since age 10. Why do so many people just not get it?! If I had a penny for every time I heard some activist say the Ozone hole will lead to global warming, I'd be a very rich person. So for those of you who still don't get it, the Ozone hole problem and global warming are entirely different issues!. Do yourself a favor and don't mention them in the same sentence ever unless you want to look like a fool.
I feel a lot better now that I'm done venting.
The picture shows the right side of the keyboard to the left. Now I know why typing was so hard!
Theoretically, with a digital signal there is enough redundancy built in that even if the signal is very weak you will still be able to get a very crisp, distortion-free image.
If your cable signal sucks, you should call your cable operator and complain. If they don't comply, call your states public utility commission.
A friend of mine runs a business from home with her father and two employees. Every time they get a call like that they tell them they need to speak with Mr. Randy Stevens. Phone calls for Mr. Randy Stevens get put on hold waiting for him because he's very busy.
So far he's already been pre-approved for 3 platinum credit cards based on his excellent credit record.
Don't forget who the real scum of the earth is. It's those damn meter maids. Next time I see one I'm going to tell him about my anal sex experience...
The article was poorly written. Further reading shows that Microsoft was bitching that the government cut the tax incentives.
What kind of a lame ass troll is this?
but where does microscrew get the right to tell a sovereign what to do?
That right comes from the Freedom of Speech (or were you asleep in Civics class?) Everyone has the right to criticize a country and its policies. I can't believe someone would deny anyone their right to express an opinion. The Australian government doesn't have to listen to what they say - or even read their paper. And yes, the CEO, stockholders and even YOU are free to criticize the Australian government - or the US government for that matter.
how the heck does microscrew expect their stupid commentary to influence anything
Did you even read the article? The paper contains some very valid criticism. Fortunately the Australian government doesn't have its head as far up its ass as you seem to. The article quotes an official as saying they were aware of some of the issues raised and were looking to correct them.
And btw, the company is called Microsoft - learn to spell or you'll be seen for the moron you are.
It is not unfair if someone has more than you do. It is only unfair if that was achieved by stealing what was rightfully yours. If the poorest 99% were to rise up and steal the wealth of the richest 1% simply because they are the majority, then THAT would be unfair.
I don't pretend that the wealth of the richest 1% was rightfully obtained. But you make no argument to show that it wasn't. It would be just as stupid to presume that it wasn't rightfully obtained just because.
You don't have a RIGHT to own a car, or a house, or fancy clothes. You are given those rights by your peers (in terms of money) in return for your contribution (in terms of a job, selling what you produce, services, etc.) to them. If you're not doing anything that's benefiting the rest of society then you don't automatically have a RIGHT to benefit from the fruits of their labors.
That's how capitalism works, brother. Now go out there and be useful and stop expecting to leech off other peoples endeavors anytime soon.
It used to be that juries sat on all criminal proceedings.
First, this is not a criminal case. Secondly, a jury is a random selection of people. If we start with the premise that some people are biased, a statistical sampling plus the juror elimination process (assuming competent representation for both parties) will only guarantee that we have good odds that the jury that is not overwhelmingly biased one way or the other.
Juries are excellent at deciding simple criminal matters like "does the glove fit?" or evaluating the evidence and deciding what it shows. However, the lay person is not qualified to judge sophisticated legal matters like Antitrust law is. Even the legal experts are divided upon whether Microsoft broke the law here or not.
Let me guess? You also thought the movie people were stupid when they made movies in color since, obviously, they couldn't be shown on your TV and no one would EVER want to spend the money for a color TV! And no one would ever need more than 640Kb of RAM.
I was very sceptical of DVD until I watched my first DVD movie. I can't watch VHS anymore. I've never actually seen HDTV but I'm excited about the possibilities.
This Cisco exec should then be sued by the shareholders of Cisco for not making a business decision with solely the interests of Cisco the company and its shareholder value in mind. If someone is employed/appointed to the board of a company it is their responsibility to act solely in their interests with respect to his/her authority in the company.
I wouldn't blame the IPO company for offering the bribe.
Did you even read the article?
The article simply quotes him as saying that he considered Linux to be Microsofts biggest problem. He argued this on the basis that Linux was a competitor in a market Microsoft controls while Sun and Oracle hold market share which Microsoft aims to capture and by saying that he considered the former kind bigger problems than the latter. How can you possibly disagree with that?
Every company has problems. Steve Ballmer was simply ranking MS's problems. No intelligent reading of the article can possibly read any more than that. Remember that this was a meeting organized by a financial institution - not a press release - most likely attended by people interested in the future business prospects of the company.
My bet says it's some sort of super-clean, super-cool transportation. And since it was "turned on", it has something electrical
If you invented a super-cool transportation device, why would you be demo-ing it to Jeff Bezos and Steve Jobs?