GreyPoopon put it so well, there's not much I can add, except maybe this:
Maybe some IT types who need to brought down a peg or two think they are entitled to a luxurious lifestyle, but I don't think that's the general mentality. Working nights for code changes, on call duties, plus just plain working extra due to unreasonable deadlines imposed by upper management, all of these things are a tough pill to swallow and yet you cannot support your family on one income. Plus, all of these things tend to dilute a salary. After all, who wants to make 60K a year and work 60+ hours a week? That's like working two jobs. There was a story here just yesterday talking about this very thing. I don't think anyone reasonable expects an employer to pay enough to afford a second home or a fancy car on one income. I do think that it is reasonable to expect that someone who is halfway competent and who deals with all the CRAP that comes along with a job in IT should make enough to have at least a *modest* existence on one income. Working in IT requires that you are highly trained and keep abreast of ever-changing technology. And yet the guy in sales or marketing often makes more money?
I am not quite sure which side you are taking in the discussion, but...
"It's not terrible for two adults in the same household to be working." True, it's not terrible, but it's not necessarily advantageous, either.
If you have two people working, you: 1) must pay for child care 2) must do all household chores, shopping, and cooking after hours 3) have both people working (assuming both work at roughly the same times) during the only hours when some businesses, stores, etc are open 4) less time together, since after hours you have to do housework 5) usually require two cars, since both people have to get to work 6) live a more hectic life 7) have more money, but *typically* not much more savings (instead you just buy a bigger house, etc). If you don't believe that, then consider that the US has more two-income families than ever, and also more credit card debt than ever. Cause and effect or effect and cause? I don't know. 8) both mates have the satisfaction (or maybe dissatisfaction) of working
If you have one income and one person at home, you: 1) make material sacrifices, less creature comforts, maybe just one new car or two old ones 2) have someone at home watching children and taking care of the house, which is HARD WORK. I'd know. My wife does this and she does a LOT. 3) have more time together 4) spend less money 5) have a less hectic life 6) in case of financial trouble, you have someone else who could conceivably get a job. Or in other words, you're income isn't always pegged out at full capacity. 7) children are typically better cared for, assuming the person staying home is a decent parent (and by decent I mean simple things like reading to the children, taking them fun places, spending a reasonable amount of time with them, etc)
I have been on both sides of the coin here. In my experience, it is definitely much better to have someone stay home with small children and, if needed, work part-time.
You are making a logical error in this thread. You are assuming that just because 75% of child abuse happens at the hands of a relative that EACH child runs a 75% risk of being abused at home.
"I agree that if you are offered a salary, then that's it. The job is estimated at a standard work week, you work until the job is done, and you can only expect a certain constant paycheck in return. If you have to work longer hours, suck it up, that's part of being a professional."
You must not work in IT yet. Oftentimes, whether or not you have to work extra is not dependent on your competence. If your boss' boss decides he wants to move up a deadline because he is having a pissing contest with one of his peers, guess who gets to work OT? If your boss decides that he wants to add ten things to a project that is due soon? If the client changes his mind at the last minutes and escalates things to the highest levels when you have to move the release date? Now, I will admit this: those things don't happen to everyone.
I rarely work OT, and that's due to two things: I am capable of working very fast when needed, and also the fact that I have never, in my 8 years, been given an "impossible" deadline. But few people are so fortunate. I know people who have had to work 80-90 hour weeks for months on end for no good reason at all, other than some executive's ego for "his" being able to deliver something on a tight timeframe. And if people don't raise hell and instead just bend over and work, then it happens again and again.
So no, corporations do not adhere to an "estimated 40 hour work week". They give you as much work as they can, and unless you are fortunate enough to have a good boss, nobody cares about the effect on your life. If you work for a corporation that routinely makes you work even 50+ hours a week, then you need to leave. Being a "professional" isn't worth the toll it takes on your life and health. Giving the benefit of the doubt to the corporation is just foolish. They DON'T CARE ABOUT YOU. They have NO incentive to honor any 40 hour week nonsense, and it's very naive to think otherwise.
In response, I guess you could say that being a bit miffed is a fitting punishment for one who uses a product or a brand to define oneself. Taking your example, a $100K car cannot make up for a small wiener or whatever ineptitude you are trying to compensate for. A Mercedes is mass produced just like a Chevy. It's not as though they are hand crafted by elves from virgin metals in a misty valley of verdant beauty and bestowed upon their owners by divine providence. It's essentially a churched-up Dodge.
Or, in other words, as you said: "Not that society should care about the rational anger of first adopters." I think it's just distasteful that Woz is complaining about the money. There is no moral objection to anything, just the fact that he had to spend money that, had he waited two frickin months, he would not have had to spend. As a previous poster said, if you have the kind of disposable income to get an iPhone (or iPhones) then you should stop whining about the price. You willingly spent what you spent. If you feel that an iPhone is worth $1000 and you pay for it, how on earth can you whine about paying $1000 for an iPhone? If you want to whine about it, then do like everyone else: write a rant in your blog site that nobody cares about. But just because he's Woz he gets an article to contain his ranting. I like Woz but in this case I say he needs to grow up. I think he is SO used to preferential treatment that he's come to expect it.
DES was 56 bit encryption, and it has been speculated by some that the NSA was capable of brute-forcing that back in the 70's. It's probably a safe bet that the NSA is ahead of the game. They are probably reading this right now, or at least, they would be if they gave a crap about me.
I think the one thing the NSA doesn't have is all of the data that Google has (or maybe they do? ok, the tinfoil hat is off now). If Google gave up their data, the NSA would have more than a bunch of search queries. Think of the queries themselves. Those might cough up a lot of insight into how people think.
"So Ubuntu doesn't play mp3's out of the box. It DOES play.ogg files." Sorry, but if someone is coming from Windows and wants to try Linux, what on earth does.ogg do for them and their 30GB library of mp3 or.aac files? What, you seriously expect someone to convert their entire music library? Get real. Whether you want to accept reality or not, that alone is a HUGE barrier to adopting a new OS for the vast majority of people. Now, if you want to look down your nose at people for having the "unreasonable" expectation that they should be able to migrate to Linux without a huge headache, then go ahead.
As has been said in other posts, you have absolutely missed the point.
"No media codecs" Well, yes, this is a pain, but what is Dell supposed to do? Ship it with all the "bad" and "ugly" codecs? If I were a PC manufacturer in the US, I sure wouldn't want to do that. You're just asking for the mafiaa to come after you.
Actually, with feisty, I just opened up RhythmBox and it prompted me to install the other codecs. IIRC, I didn't have to anything in the CLI.
I don't think this post was a troll. In fact it makes a parallel that is there to make: the American slave owners and modern industrialists have some things in common, not the least of which is the total willingness to make a buck at the expense of their fellow man. Even if sweatshops, etc aren't quite like American slavery, it's still a situation where the rich are exploiting those who can be exploited.
Can't exploit people here on American soil? Fine, we'll go somewhere else. Case in point, from TFA: "Currently owned by the Missouri-based Doe Run Corporation, the plant has been largely responsible for the dangerously high lead levels found in children's blood. " I live in Missouri, have family in SE Missouri. There are still some streams, to this day, that are unfishable due the rampant lead mining that once took place at the hands of companies like Doe Run. The name Doe Run is vilified in SE Missouri. AFAIK, Doe Run doesn't do any mining in the US, though they do operate here.
From TFA, speaking about China: "Rapid development and unequivocal faith in industry has led to the development of hundreds of unregulated coal mines, steel factories and refineries" Have the Chinese learned nothing from industrial revolution era USA? Faith in industry? Who in their right mind would put faith in an entity whose sole purpose is to maximize profits? This is why corporations NEED regulation. Guaranteed, almost any polluted site in the world could have been prevented if the government had actually stood up and did what a government is supposed to do: take care of its people.
I think if there is one post in this entire discussion that needs to be read, it's yours.
Oh, and this post telling people to read your post. I think if there are two posts in this entire discussion that need to be read...eh, you get the idea.
"Craig Mundie's statement is fallacy at both ends. Microsoft didn't lay the foundation - they delivered it." You're just playing with words there. One could argue (and I already have) that delivering the platform for that small segment of the population, also known as the entire non-geek world, to access the web laid the groundwork for the web as a way for corporations like Google to make truckloads of money. I am not foolishly saying that MSFT laid the *technical* groundwork for the web. They just brought all the morons to the web. And the morons brought their wallets. And companies like Google opened those wallets. If the internet were some esoteric geek playground, nobody would be making any money on the web; it would be filled with discussions and facts and information but NOT with sites like eBay and Amazon and so on.
Now, as for the rest of your post, I agree. Google, instead of resorting to underhanded lock-in techniques like MSFT, just makes good tools that are compelling to use. I cannot and will not dispute that. Anyone use MSN search? Anyone? No? Of course not, it sucks! Make no mistake, though, Google is just as interested in your wallet as MSFT is. But at least Google still (for now, at least) relies on merit and not lock-in. That is definitely the high road, and I think Google does well because they deserve to. MSFT does well only because of FUD and inertia, and once that wears off (and it will) they'll have to actually innovate or die.
I am not talking about browsers here. But since you are, ask yourself: which OS did Netscape primarily run on? Linux? MacOS? Bzzt! Wrong. It was windows and I think maybe you're smart enough to know that.
IE was, still is, and always will be a total Piece Of Crap. Windows 95, 2000 and XP at least were decent, but not horrid (like 98, ME, and Vista). My post was merely talking about how Windows in fact allowed a whole new demographic onto the web, namely, that tiny little segment of the population otherwise known as the entire non-geek world. Which created enormous cash flow from the web, which is quite remarkable when you step back and think about it. Which in turn allowed many geeks to become some very rich geeks. As I said, people should at least give credit where it's due. MSFT did some dumb things, but not to be counted among those dumb things was creating a platform that, for whatever reason, became THE means for 99% of people to access the web.
You make some very good points. I guess that's the problem with this type of discussion; it's just impossible to say what might have happened. *shrugs*
Dude, read your own comment: "I was using a SLIP connection to access the Internet from Linux and OS/2 before Windows 95 came along."
What's the first word in that sentence? I? Yeah. Ask most people on the street what Linux and OS2 are and you'll get a blank stare. At work, our web servers are RHEL. We have a guy on our team who is deaf, and his interpreter, during a conference call, asked how to spell that word we kept using, what was it, linx? linuts? liniz?. I howled with laughter; I mean, what rock was she living under, right? But in reality, stuff geeks might prefer to use are incomprehensible to most folks. That's why we're geeks. If someone calls himself a windows geek, we laugh, right? I know I do.
My point was this: just because some people were using the net before windows 95 came out doesn't mean that everyone was capable of doing that. If the web wasn't polluted with 999,900,000 people who know jack about technology but like to buy stuff online, google would be just another geek tool like telnet or SQL. Yes MSFT was a late comer, but they also made it easier (maybe just by perception) for average Joe to get online. That brought the money, and that's why many of us have jobs today. If not MSFT, then probably someone else, and things might have been better for it today. But that's not the way it went down, and it's pointless to speculate on what would or could have happened. As much as I don't like MSFT, you do have to give credit where credit's due.
Again, I don't even understand why that's such a controversial statement. You'd think I advocated DRM or something.
"Really, it tends to be complete garbage to say that a particular advance would not have happened if whoever did it hadn't been there." Um, no, I am not saying that. That's you putting words in my mouth.
You are right, someone else would have done what MSFT did. But MSFT was there, and they did what they did well -- bring computing to the masses, nefarious business practices aside. I guess I said something contrary to the groupthink here because people are pretty rabidly trying to refute my post, which in most cases, it is obvious they did not read. I am NOT defending MSFT, I too dislike their business practices. I generally dislike their software, and I too believe that IE is THE inhibitor to the web's progress. It's just that in the mid 90's, MSFT did *something* right, even if that something was to market an inferior OS to the point it became dominant.
When you mention obscure operating systems, I have to laugh. The point that you and almost everyone else who replied to me fails to see is that if the internet was just a place for geeks, hobbyists, and scientists to communicate, that is, if someone hadn't made it feasible for virtually EVERYONE to have a home PC, google might exist but they most certainly wouldn't be the multi-billion dollar corporation they are now. That is no slam on google -- as someone else posted, everyone stands on the shoulders of giants. Innovation comes from innovation.
Again, I AM NOT defending MSFT. But give credit where credit's due, even if that credit is to acknowledge that a company was very successful in marketing an inferior OS to the masses. Saying that MSFT did a good job in marketing an inferior product to the masses, which in turn allowed for everyone to be on the internet, which in turn paved the way for countless individuals to make a crapload of money is not the same thing as saying MSFT invented the internet or that google owes MSFT royalties. I don't know how much clearer I can make it. Please don't put words in my mouth.
And what is wrong with admitting that MSFT has been successful at making the world of computing more accessible to the layperson? I honestly didn't think that would be such a controversial statement; it just seems like an acknowledgment of fact. It's not like I am even saying that Windows is better than *nix or Mac OS, or that the popularity of Windows hasn't caused problems of its own, or that I think all the people on the net these days make meaningful contributions, or even that MSFT still makes computing easy. Those would be opinions. I figured what I stated is a fact, provable that most poor computer users are all prisoners of bill to this day, and most PCs used by people to connect to the net are (malware infested) windows computers.
Not that it necessarily is. But if the internet was just a place for geeks and scientists, Google wouldn't be a multi-billion dollar corporation, now would they? And this conversation wouldn't have happened.
I don't know about that. Yes, there were web crawlers way back in the day. But you have to admit, Microsoft helped bring computing to the masses. If there had been no Microsoft, the internet would be what USENET was back in the day: something used by geeks and scientists and not much else. In that sense, I think he's right.
On the other hand, that doesn't entitle MSFT to any preferential treatment. By his same logic, the phone companies and the electric companies laid the framework for the internet because without copper and electricity there would be no computers. MSFT doesn't provide free software to telephone companies and electric companies. Google shouldn't "take it easy" on MSFT either.
In other words, every invention lays the groundwork for successive inventions. Nothing new about that. It's not so much a baseless claim as it is a "duh, so what?" statement.
On the first point, I don't watch that much TV. It doesn't consume that much electricity; it's not on 8 hours a day. Really, to be honest, this is not an issue I have paid close attention to other than reading about it here because, as I have said, I really don't care much about TV. In fact, my comments here may reflect my lack of in-depth knowledge on the topic. I mean, I am not totally ignorant, but your post did contain some things I wasn't aware of, so you seem to know more about this than I do. Here are the grounds on which I object to this whole brouhaha: I don't like forced upgrades. If I have something that works perfectly, I don't like being told that I have to replace it. And it's not selfishness, as you assert -- I object to the throwaway culture that we have. I don't like being told to throw away something that is perfectly good. I don't like Vista. I don't want a $3000 plasma TV. I don't buy a new car every three years. And so on.
That said, your post makes some good points. First responders, cell coverage, etc, is way more important than television or my 20 year old television seeing 30 years. I am aware that's a factor, but I just wonder if that's the only motivation behind this?
In other words, I'll be shocked when that nice chunk of bandwidth is auctioned off and the money is actually spent on first responders and not some more pet project or Iraq. I'll be shocked when that bandwidth is auctioned off and our cell phone bills decrease and quality of service increases. Assuming that the bandwidth actually goes to the first responders, I would bet that government inefficiency will ensure that it won't be used for a while anyhow. Katrina, for example, didn't happen the way it did because first responders couldn't easily talk to each other. That was a failing of the government at the highest levels. I won't be shocked when the greedy media companies use digital TV get their precious broadcast flag into everything, thus entrenching their DRM. Broadcast radio will be next, and then that means that you will have two choices: internet radio (which, if you read/., you know that small players are being shut out of as we speak) and services like Sirius. In other words, you see the power of the media being wrested from the hands of the people and placed into the hands of the rich and powerful. When you have up and coming politicians (like McCain) vehemently campaigning for things like this you just have to wonder what the real motives are. First responders are a very convenient excuse -- all you have to do is mention 911 or Katrina and people cave. Sad as those events were, I have a very strong suspicion that they are being used to accomplish political agendas. Shocking, I know.
As for cost savings for cell phone users (read somewhere that its said cell phone bills would decrease like by 25%), well, these arguments sound a lot like the telco arguments for "net neutrality": do what we want and you'll save money. Really, boy scouts honor, we promise! Umm...yeah, right.
Hell, maybe I am just feeling cynical today. At any rate, thanks for your informative reply. I'll read more on this, because some of the things you mentioned have piqued my interest.
"* You can use the s-video or component output of the converter to your analog TV and get better quality than the analog OTA signal will give you." You're assuming that all TVs have these. For example, I have a 20 year old TV that works just fine and it just has a coax jack on the back. I see no need to replace it or to buy a $25 converter. Sure, the image can be ghosty or fuzzy with OTA TV, but who cares? It's just TV! If I don't see the wrinkles in the anchorwoman's face on the ten o'clock news, do I care?
I surely am not going to replace five analog televisions just because someone decides that analog TV (which works just fine for many people) is now somehow obsolete. I'd rather spend my money upgrading things that actually matter and provide real benefits, like energy efficient appliances or computer upgrades, not just stuff makes people say "oooo! aaahhhh! it's new! it's kewl!"
"Analog TV needs to just die." It's as OP said -- in the public perception, the only people who stand to benefit are those who want to auction off the spectrum and those who buy it. The only, and I mean ONLY, compelling argument that I have heard for killing analog TV is that it would free up some bandwidth for more important things (and that doesn't mean things that merely allow private corporations to "earn" more profit). Otherwise, what? A clearer picture for the same old shows? Give me a break. Just because *you* are excited about your digital broadcasts doesn't mean everyone else has to get excited about that. Many people couldn't care less.
If you want people to upgrade, show them the benefits. That's capitalism: the invisible hand of supply and demand will make people upgrade once they see a BENEFIT. Forcing people to upgrade is stupid. Chiding people because they choose not to or are unable to spend money on new hardware is arrogant.
Yes! I have seen the light! All those people who don't see the need to replace all of the televisions in their home (which work just fine, btw) must HATE AMERICA! Bunch of old-television terrorists!
Where I work I was provided a copy of dreamweaver, which costs several hundred dollars. I hated it and offered to trade it for textpad, which cost $17 for a license (that was before I found jEdit, which better than textpad in many ways). What do you think happened to my request for a textpad license? Ironically, it was rejected because textpad is classified as freeware. So, the answer went something like this: you can't pay for it because its freeware, but you can't use freeware because we won't pay for it. Logic loops like this are the very engine of bureaucracy.
Slashdot Mirror
GreyPoopon put it so well, there's not much I can add, except maybe this:
Maybe some IT types who need to brought down a peg or two think they are entitled to a luxurious lifestyle, but I don't think that's the general mentality. Working nights for code changes, on call duties, plus just plain working extra due to unreasonable deadlines imposed by upper management, all of these things are a tough pill to swallow and yet you cannot support your family on one income. Plus, all of these things tend to dilute a salary. After all, who wants to make 60K a year and work 60+ hours a week? That's like working two jobs. There was a story here just yesterday talking about this very thing. I don't think anyone reasonable expects an employer to pay enough to afford a second home or a fancy car on one income. I do think that it is reasonable to expect that someone who is halfway competent and who deals with all the CRAP that comes along with a job in IT should make enough to have at least a *modest* existence on one income. Working in IT requires that you are highly trained and keep abreast of ever-changing technology. And yet the guy in sales or marketing often makes more money?
I am not quite sure which side you are taking in the discussion, but...
"It's not terrible for two adults in the same household to be working."
True, it's not terrible, but it's not necessarily advantageous, either.
If you have two people working, you:
1) must pay for child care
2) must do all household chores, shopping, and cooking after hours
3) have both people working (assuming both work at roughly the same times) during the only hours when some businesses, stores, etc are open
4) less time together, since after hours you have to do housework
5) usually require two cars, since both people have to get to work
6) live a more hectic life
7) have more money, but *typically* not much more savings (instead you just buy a bigger house, etc). If you don't believe that, then consider that the US has more two-income families than ever, and also more credit card debt than ever. Cause and effect or effect and cause? I don't know.
8) both mates have the satisfaction (or maybe dissatisfaction) of working
If you have one income and one person at home, you:
1) make material sacrifices, less creature comforts, maybe just one new car or two old ones
2) have someone at home watching children and taking care of the house, which is HARD WORK. I'd know. My wife does this and she does a LOT.
3) have more time together
4) spend less money
5) have a less hectic life
6) in case of financial trouble, you have someone else who could conceivably get a job. Or in other words, you're income isn't always pegged out at full capacity.
7) children are typically better cared for, assuming the person staying home is a decent parent (and by decent I mean simple things like reading to the children, taking them fun places, spending a reasonable amount of time with them, etc)
I have been on both sides of the coin here. In my experience, it is definitely much better to have someone stay home with small children and, if needed, work part-time.
You are making a logical error in this thread. You are assuming that just because 75% of child abuse happens at the hands of a relative that EACH child runs a 75% risk of being abused at home.
"I agree that if you are offered a salary, then that's it. The job is estimated at a standard work week, you work until the job is done, and you can only expect a certain constant paycheck in return. If you have to work longer hours, suck it up, that's part of being a professional."
You must not work in IT yet. Oftentimes, whether or not you have to work extra is not dependent on your competence. If your boss' boss decides he wants to move up a deadline because he is having a pissing contest with one of his peers, guess who gets to work OT? If your boss decides that he wants to add ten things to a project that is due soon? If the client changes his mind at the last minutes and escalates things to the highest levels when you have to move the release date? Now, I will admit this: those things don't happen to everyone.
I rarely work OT, and that's due to two things: I am capable of working very fast when needed, and also the fact that I have never, in my 8 years, been given an "impossible" deadline. But few people are so fortunate. I know people who have had to work 80-90 hour weeks for months on end for no good reason at all, other than some executive's ego for "his" being able to deliver something on a tight timeframe. And if people don't raise hell and instead just bend over and work, then it happens again and again.
So no, corporations do not adhere to an "estimated 40 hour work week". They give you as much work as they can, and unless you are fortunate enough to have a good boss, nobody cares about the effect on your life. If you work for a corporation that routinely makes you work even 50+ hours a week, then you need to leave. Being a "professional" isn't worth the toll it takes on your life and health. Giving the benefit of the doubt to the corporation is just foolish. They DON'T CARE ABOUT YOU. They have NO incentive to honor any 40 hour week nonsense, and it's very naive to think otherwise.
Interesting.
In response, I guess you could say that being a bit miffed is a fitting punishment for one who uses a product or a brand to define oneself. Taking your example, a $100K car cannot make up for a small wiener or whatever ineptitude you are trying to compensate for. A Mercedes is mass produced just like a Chevy. It's not as though they are hand crafted by elves from virgin metals in a misty valley of verdant beauty and bestowed upon their owners by divine providence. It's essentially a churched-up Dodge.
Or, in other words, as you said: "Not that society should care about the rational anger of first adopters." I think it's just distasteful that Woz is complaining about the money. There is no moral objection to anything, just the fact that he had to spend money that, had he waited two frickin months, he would not have had to spend. As a previous poster said, if you have the kind of disposable income to get an iPhone (or iPhones) then you should stop whining about the price. You willingly spent what you spent. If you feel that an iPhone is worth $1000 and you pay for it, how on earth can you whine about paying $1000 for an iPhone? If you want to whine about it, then do like everyone else: write a rant in your blog site that nobody cares about. But just because he's Woz he gets an article to contain his ranting. I like Woz but in this case I say he needs to grow up. I think he is SO used to preferential treatment that he's come to expect it.
DES was 56 bit encryption, and it has been speculated by some that the NSA was capable of brute-forcing that back in the 70's. It's probably a safe bet that the NSA is ahead of the game. They are probably reading this right now, or at least, they would be if they gave a crap about me.
I think the one thing the NSA doesn't have is all of the data that Google has (or maybe they do? ok, the tinfoil hat is off now). If Google gave up their data, the NSA would have more than a bunch of search queries. Think of the queries themselves. Those might cough up a lot of insight into how people think.
"So Ubuntu doesn't play mp3's out of the box. It DOES play .ogg files." .ogg do for them and their 30GB library of mp3 or .aac files? What, you seriously expect someone to convert their entire music library? Get real. Whether you want to accept reality or not, that alone is a HUGE barrier to adopting a new OS for the vast majority of people. Now, if you want to look down your nose at people for having the "unreasonable" expectation that they should be able to migrate to Linux without a huge headache, then go ahead.
Sorry, but if someone is coming from Windows and wants to try Linux, what on earth does
As has been said in other posts, you have absolutely missed the point.
"No media codecs"
Well, yes, this is a pain, but what is Dell supposed to do? Ship it with all the "bad" and "ugly" codecs? If I were a PC manufacturer in the US, I sure wouldn't want to do that. You're just asking for the mafiaa to come after you.
Actually, with feisty, I just opened up RhythmBox and it prompted me to install the other codecs. IIRC, I didn't have to anything in the CLI.
I don't think this post was a troll. In fact it makes a parallel that is there to make: the American slave owners and modern industrialists have some things in common, not the least of which is the total willingness to make a buck at the expense of their fellow man. Even if sweatshops, etc aren't quite like American slavery, it's still a situation where the rich are exploiting those who can be exploited.
Can't exploit people here on American soil? Fine, we'll go somewhere else. Case in point, from TFA: "Currently owned by the Missouri-based Doe Run Corporation, the plant has been largely responsible for the dangerously high lead levels found in children's blood. "
I live in Missouri, have family in SE Missouri. There are still some streams, to this day, that are unfishable due the rampant lead mining that once took place at the hands of companies like Doe Run. The name Doe Run is vilified in SE Missouri. AFAIK, Doe Run doesn't do any mining in the US, though they do operate here.
From TFA, speaking about China: "Rapid development and unequivocal faith in industry has led to the development of hundreds of unregulated coal mines, steel factories and refineries"
Have the Chinese learned nothing from industrial revolution era USA? Faith in industry? Who in their right mind would put faith in an entity whose sole purpose is to maximize profits? This is why corporations NEED regulation. Guaranteed, almost any polluted site in the world could have been prevented if the government had actually stood up and did what a government is supposed to do: take care of its people.
I think if there is one post in this entire discussion that needs to be read, it's yours.
Oh, and this post telling people to read your post. I think if there are two posts in this entire discussion that need to be read...eh, you get the idea.
Right, and I think it would have increased regardless. Someone would have come up with a good way to make it easy for general users to access the net.
You can't use that to discredit MSFT's role in it all, though. I feel kinda dirty defending MSFT here, but again...give credit where it's due.
"Craig Mundie's statement is fallacy at both ends. Microsoft didn't lay the foundation - they delivered it."
You're just playing with words there. One could argue (and I already have) that delivering the platform for that small segment of the population, also known as the entire non-geek world, to access the web laid the groundwork for the web as a way for corporations like Google to make truckloads of money. I am not foolishly saying that MSFT laid the *technical* groundwork for the web. They just brought all the morons to the web. And the morons brought their wallets. And companies like Google opened those wallets. If the internet were some esoteric geek playground, nobody would be making any money on the web; it would be filled with discussions and facts and information but NOT with sites like eBay and Amazon and so on.
Now, as for the rest of your post, I agree. Google, instead of resorting to underhanded lock-in techniques like MSFT, just makes good tools that are compelling to use. I cannot and will not dispute that. Anyone use MSN search? Anyone? No? Of course not, it sucks! Make no mistake, though, Google is just as interested in your wallet as MSFT is. But at least Google still (for now, at least) relies on merit and not lock-in. That is definitely the high road, and I think Google does well because they deserve to. MSFT does well only because of FUD and inertia, and once that wears off (and it will) they'll have to actually innovate or die.
I am not talking about browsers here. But since you are, ask yourself: which OS did Netscape primarily run on? Linux? MacOS? Bzzt! Wrong. It was windows and I think maybe you're smart enough to know that.
IE was, still is, and always will be a total Piece Of Crap. Windows 95, 2000 and XP at least were decent, but not horrid (like 98, ME, and Vista). My post was merely talking about how Windows in fact allowed a whole new demographic onto the web, namely, that tiny little segment of the population otherwise known as the entire non-geek world. Which created enormous cash flow from the web, which is quite remarkable when you step back and think about it. Which in turn allowed many geeks to become some very rich geeks. As I said, people should at least give credit where it's due. MSFT did some dumb things, but not to be counted among those dumb things was creating a platform that, for whatever reason, became THE means for 99% of people to access the web.
You make some very good points. I guess that's the problem with this type of discussion; it's just impossible to say what might have happened. *shrugs*
Anyhow, thanks for the reply.
Dude, read your own comment: "I was using a SLIP connection to access the Internet from Linux and OS/2 before Windows 95 came along."
What's the first word in that sentence? I? Yeah. Ask most people on the street what Linux and OS2 are and you'll get a blank stare. At work, our web servers are RHEL. We have a guy on our team who is deaf, and his interpreter, during a conference call, asked how to spell that word we kept using, what was it, linx? linuts? liniz?. I howled with laughter; I mean, what rock was she living under, right? But in reality, stuff geeks might prefer to use are incomprehensible to most folks. That's why we're geeks. If someone calls himself a windows geek, we laugh, right? I know I do.
My point was this: just because some people were using the net before windows 95 came out doesn't mean that everyone was capable of doing that. If the web wasn't polluted with 999,900,000 people who know jack about technology but like to buy stuff online, google would be just another geek tool like telnet or SQL. Yes MSFT was a late comer, but they also made it easier (maybe just by perception) for average Joe to get online. That brought the money, and that's why many of us have jobs today. If not MSFT, then probably someone else, and things might have been better for it today. But that's not the way it went down, and it's pointless to speculate on what would or could have happened. As much as I don't like MSFT, you do have to give credit where credit's due.
Again, I don't even understand why that's such a controversial statement. You'd think I advocated DRM or something.
"Really, it tends to be complete garbage to say that a particular advance would not have happened if whoever did it hadn't been there."
Um, no, I am not saying that. That's you putting words in my mouth.
You are right, someone else would have done what MSFT did. But MSFT was there, and they did what they did well -- bring computing to the masses, nefarious business practices aside. I guess I said something contrary to the groupthink here because people are pretty rabidly trying to refute my post, which in most cases, it is obvious they did not read. I am NOT defending MSFT, I too dislike their business practices. I generally dislike their software, and I too believe that IE is THE inhibitor to the web's progress. It's just that in the mid 90's, MSFT did *something* right, even if that something was to market an inferior OS to the point it became dominant.
When you mention obscure operating systems, I have to laugh. The point that you and almost everyone else who replied to me fails to see is that if the internet was just a place for geeks, hobbyists, and scientists to communicate, that is, if someone hadn't made it feasible for virtually EVERYONE to have a home PC, google might exist but they most certainly wouldn't be the multi-billion dollar corporation they are now. That is no slam on google -- as someone else posted, everyone stands on the shoulders of giants. Innovation comes from innovation.
Again, I AM NOT defending MSFT. But give credit where credit's due, even if that credit is to acknowledge that a company was very successful in marketing an inferior OS to the masses. Saying that MSFT did a good job in marketing an inferior product to the masses, which in turn allowed for everyone to be on the internet, which in turn paved the way for countless individuals to make a crapload of money is not the same thing as saying MSFT invented the internet or that google owes MSFT royalties. I don't know how much clearer I can make it. Please don't put words in my mouth.
And what is wrong with admitting that MSFT has been successful at making the world of computing more accessible to the layperson? I honestly didn't think that would be such a controversial statement; it just seems like an acknowledgment of fact. It's not like I am even saying that Windows is better than *nix or Mac OS, or that the popularity of Windows hasn't caused problems of its own, or that I think all the people on the net these days make meaningful contributions, or even that MSFT still makes computing easy. Those would be opinions. I figured what I stated is a fact, provable that most poor computer users are all prisoners of bill to this day, and most PCs used by people to connect to the net are (malware infested) windows computers.
Not that it necessarily is. But if the internet was just a place for geeks and scientists, Google wouldn't be a multi-billion dollar corporation, now would they? And this conversation wouldn't have happened.
I don't know about that. Yes, there were web crawlers way back in the day. But you have to admit, Microsoft helped bring computing to the masses. If there had been no Microsoft, the internet would be what USENET was back in the day: something used by geeks and scientists and not much else. In that sense, I think he's right.
On the other hand, that doesn't entitle MSFT to any preferential treatment. By his same logic, the phone companies and the electric companies laid the framework for the internet because without copper and electricity there would be no computers. MSFT doesn't provide free software to telephone companies and electric companies. Google shouldn't "take it easy" on MSFT either.
In other words, every invention lays the groundwork for successive inventions. Nothing new about that. It's not so much a baseless claim as it is a "duh, so what?" statement.
Hmm, I found this article recently. I wonder if it's related?
On the first point, I don't watch that much TV. It doesn't consume that much electricity; it's not on 8 hours a day. Really, to be honest, this is not an issue I have paid close attention to other than reading about it here because, as I have said, I really don't care much about TV. In fact, my comments here may reflect my lack of in-depth knowledge on the topic. I mean, I am not totally ignorant, but your post did contain some things I wasn't aware of, so you seem to know more about this than I do. Here are the grounds on which I object to this whole brouhaha: I don't like forced upgrades. If I have something that works perfectly, I don't like being told that I have to replace it. And it's not selfishness, as you assert -- I object to the throwaway culture that we have. I don't like being told to throw away something that is perfectly good. I don't like Vista. I don't want a $3000 plasma TV. I don't buy a new car every three years. And so on.
/., you know that small players are being shut out of as we speak) and services like Sirius. In other words, you see the power of the media being wrested from the hands of the people and placed into the hands of the rich and powerful. When you have up and coming politicians (like McCain) vehemently campaigning for things like this you just have to wonder what the real motives are. First responders are a very convenient excuse -- all you have to do is mention 911 or Katrina and people cave. Sad as those events were, I have a very strong suspicion that they are being used to accomplish political agendas. Shocking, I know.
That said, your post makes some good points. First responders, cell coverage, etc, is way more important than television or my 20 year old television seeing 30 years. I am aware that's a factor, but I just wonder if that's the only motivation behind this?
In other words, I'll be shocked when that nice chunk of bandwidth is auctioned off and the money is actually spent on first responders and not some more pet project or Iraq. I'll be shocked when that bandwidth is auctioned off and our cell phone bills decrease and quality of service increases. Assuming that the bandwidth actually goes to the first responders, I would bet that government inefficiency will ensure that it won't be used for a while anyhow. Katrina, for example, didn't happen the way it did because first responders couldn't easily talk to each other. That was a failing of the government at the highest levels. I won't be shocked when the greedy media companies use digital TV get their precious broadcast flag into everything, thus entrenching their DRM. Broadcast radio will be next, and then that means that you will have two choices: internet radio (which, if you read
As for cost savings for cell phone users (read somewhere that its said cell phone bills would decrease like by 25%), well, these arguments sound a lot like the telco arguments for "net neutrality": do what we want and you'll save money. Really, boy scouts honor, we promise! Umm...yeah, right.
Hell, maybe I am just feeling cynical today. At any rate, thanks for your informative reply. I'll read more on this, because some of the things you mentioned have piqued my interest.
Oh, c'mon, it was a joke, man!
"* You can use the s-video or component output of the converter to your analog TV and get better quality than the analog OTA signal will give you."
You're assuming that all TVs have these. For example, I have a 20 year old TV that works just fine and it just has a coax jack on the back. I see no need to replace it or to buy a $25 converter. Sure, the image can be ghosty or fuzzy with OTA TV, but who cares? It's just TV! If I don't see the wrinkles in the anchorwoman's face on the ten o'clock news, do I care?
I surely am not going to replace five analog televisions just because someone decides that analog TV (which works just fine for many people) is now somehow obsolete. I'd rather spend my money upgrading things that actually matter and provide real benefits, like energy efficient appliances or computer upgrades, not just stuff makes people say "oooo! aaahhhh! it's new! it's kewl!"
"Analog TV needs to just die."
It's as OP said -- in the public perception, the only people who stand to benefit are those who want to auction off the spectrum and those who buy it. The only, and I mean ONLY, compelling argument that I have heard for killing analog TV is that it would free up some bandwidth for more important things (and that doesn't mean things that merely allow private corporations to "earn" more profit). Otherwise, what? A clearer picture for the same old shows? Give me a break. Just because *you* are excited about your digital broadcasts doesn't mean everyone else has to get excited about that. Many people couldn't care less.
If you want people to upgrade, show them the benefits. That's capitalism: the invisible hand of supply and demand will make people upgrade once they see a BENEFIT. Forcing people to upgrade is stupid. Chiding people because they choose not to or are unable to spend money on new hardware is arrogant.
Yes! I have seen the light! All those people who don't see the need to replace all of the televisions in their home (which work just fine, btw) must HATE AMERICA! Bunch of old-television terrorists!
Where I work I was provided a copy of dreamweaver, which costs several hundred dollars. I hated it and offered to trade it for textpad, which cost $17 for a license (that was before I found jEdit, which better than textpad in many ways). What do you think happened to my request for a textpad license? Ironically, it was rejected because textpad is classified as freeware. So, the answer went something like this: you can't pay for it because its freeware, but you can't use freeware because we won't pay for it. Logic loops like this are the very engine of bureaucracy.
Ok, wait -- so the guy has such a problem that he looks at Asian kiddie porn AT WORK and so they transfer him to China?!
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
That'll teach them for sending poisonous toys to the US!