I wonder if this is a Mozilla bug. I played with the HTML, but I can't seem to get the names to appear. Does Mozilla not have a mouseover event for image maps?
You honestly think that the Microsoft lobbiests will let the Feds choose something that's open-source over their proprietary formats?
Campaign finance reform has little to do with corporations' hold over the government. If individuals (myself included, I admit) would utilize the representative system already in place, we would be able to wield the influence we think is to be had only the the rich and the corporate.
Write your congressman. Use your right to vote. If everyone who wanted to see Linux used in the government would write to all of their local, regional, and national representatives, we would see a lot more Linux used in the government. What John Weathersby is doing is good and necessary, but that doesn't mean we should expect him to do it alone.
Write. Vote. The power is and always has been in our hands.
There's really not much of an issue, here. The author of the article complains that Microsoft has copied many of its aspects from Java development environments. No surprise there: not only do we all copy code and ideas, but if I remember correctly, Microsoft has been accused of this before....;)
Second, Microsoft - and Sun, to be honest - is a corporation whose primary objective is to make money for itself. The execs in Redmond don't care if something is innovative or even technically impressive, so long as it is popular and profitable. (Yes, that is an exaggeration - MS may be the Empire, but there are real, live people there, too.)
Finally - and most importantly - Microsoft's.NET platform is going to be attractive primarily to developers and companies who are already using Windows-based products. They already have a large user base and a brand name that will attract new customers. All they have to do is keep coming out with new things often enough to keep people's interest.
MS doesn't expand its user base by developing creative new products, it wins people over by marketing a perception that its products are easy (or at least easier) to use. It's up to the developers to wrestle technical shortcomings under control so that the users never know there's a problem.
But that will always be our job: keep technology looking like magic.;) --- --- --- --- ---
I don't for a moment believe the rich are suffering at the tyranny of the poor. Please make a better argument than that.
I really don't believe one class suffers at the tyranny of another, regardless what politicians or envy dictate. People are people.
This argument is old and tired, and I believe the basic problem is that one group - let's call them Bandies - believe that each person should contribute as much as possible to what the Bandies believe is the greater good of society, while the other group - I'll call them Indies - believe that each person is morally responsible for.
The Bandies see a successful person's resources as having been gained either 1) because of the support structure of the community or 2) from the combined resources of the rest of the community. The moral obligation for every successful person then, say the Bandies, is to return to the community whatever level of resources are held that are greater than the median - or at least a significant portion thereof - so that the community as a whole will benefit and grow.
The Indies, rather, believe that each person is responsible for their own life. Each person should live their life in whatever manner they choose, so long as they do not interfere with the right of each other person to live their life the way they choose.
A Spreader believes an Indie is selfish and detrimental to society, while an Indie sees Bandies as oppressive and irresponsible. They cannot persuade each other by simple merit of their points-of-view, because their positions are skew: they are neither parallel nor intersecting.
As for how this relates to taxes, it should be easy to see why the two groups would take such a different view. Each group's beliefs describe the strength of humanity as living in a different aspect: Bandies' have it in community; Indies' have it in each person. Therefore, a Bandie would believe that those with the greatest resources (I hesitate to use the term "Top [or bottom] x%," because I don't believe a measure of someone's wealth places them above or below any other) should contribute a larger portion of their earnings. An Indie, on the other hand, would say that each person's should be proportionally the same so that each person would share equal responsibility.
I have avoided using more common terms such as "socialist," "communist," "capitalist," etc., because almost all of us - including myself - attach feelings to these words that make it difficult to approach objectively the subjects related to them.
Having spent all that wind - and hoping that I have come across, at least to this point, as being objective - I will say that I am in the "Indie" camp so that I don't have to keep arguing both sides.:)
I pay taxes because I believe the government exists to defend my home and my rights against anyone who would presume to take them away. I do not believe that I should be legally obligated to be generous to whatever the majority - or the representatives thereof - decide is imperative at the time. If I have a moral disagreement or a religious belief against a course of action, money that I have earned should not go to fund that action. So rather than trying to decide which programs match what the majority consider "the greatest good," let the people decide for themselves and fund them on their own. People will do so; goodwill is part of what is good about being a human being.
I have more that I could say, but I've gone on just about long enough. Let me sum up by saying that each person should have an equal part in both the benefits and the responsibilty of running the country. That means each of us contributes the same amount, not more for some and less for others.
I'm voting for Harry Browne. You should check him out. --- --- --- --- ---
Kenneth Eppers: "Open source is a great service, but if you just do open source, it's hard to make enough money to pay everybody."
While I'm all for people producing closed source apps if they want (sorry, RMS - I believe people can be secretive if they so desire;), I don't think these guys Get It. Open Source isn't just about releasing source code. It also represents a different business model: the possibility to make dough without sequestering the man-behind-the-curtain.
On the other hand, I hope they succeed in bolstering the desktop app market.;)
I don't know about its being called "expressive content," but I did always think it ludicrous to tell someone, "No, no, I'm afraid you're not allowed to decode my encryption. Shame on you."
I wonder if it's too late for Nazi Germany to sue the British for breaking their code in WWII?
I bought it just a couple weeks ago, and I'm already pleased as punch with it. Paged through the O'Reilly ("mSQL and MySQL" or vice versa) and didn't like it a bit. However, the cover on my "MySQL" book has also rapidly picked up a sheet of grime (but then, that happens to all the books I read on the subway).
Slashdot Mirror
I wonder if this is a Mozilla bug. I played with the HTML, but I can't seem to get the names to appear. Does Mozilla not have a mouseover event for image maps?
Campaign finance reform has little to do with corporations' hold over the government. If individuals (myself included, I admit) would utilize the representative system already in place, we would be able to wield the influence we think is to be had only the the rich and the corporate.
Write your congressman. Use your right to vote. If everyone who wanted to see Linux used in the government would write to all of their local, regional, and national representatives, we would see a lot more Linux used in the government. What John Weathersby is doing is good and necessary, but that doesn't mean we should expect him to do it alone.
Write. Vote. The power is and always has been in our hands.
Second, Microsoft - and Sun, to be honest - is a corporation whose primary objective is to make money for itself. The execs in Redmond don't care if something is innovative or even technically impressive, so long as it is popular and profitable. (Yes, that is an exaggeration - MS may be the Empire, but there are real, live people there, too.)
Finally - and most importantly - Microsoft's .NET platform is going to be attractive primarily to developers and companies who are already using Windows-based products. They already have a large user base and a brand name that will attract new customers. All they have to do is keep coming out with new things often enough to keep people's interest.
MS doesn't expand its user base by developing creative new products, it wins people over by marketing a perception that its products are easy (or at least easier) to use. It's up to the developers to wrestle technical shortcomings under control so that the users never know there's a problem.
But that will always be our job: keep technology looking like magic. ;)
--- --- --- --- ---
This argument is old and tired, and I believe the basic problem is that one group - let's call them Bandies - believe that each person should contribute as much as possible to what the Bandies believe is the greater good of society, while the other group - I'll call them Indies - believe that each person is morally responsible for .
The Bandies see a successful person's resources as having been gained either 1) because of the support structure of the community or 2) from the combined resources of the rest of the community. The moral obligation for every successful person then, say the Bandies, is to return to the community whatever level of resources are held that are greater than the median - or at least a significant portion thereof - so that the community as a whole will benefit and grow.
The Indies, rather, believe that each person is responsible for their own life. Each person should live their life in whatever manner they choose, so long as they do not interfere with the right of each other person to live their life the way they choose.
A Spreader believes an Indie is selfish and detrimental to society, while an Indie sees Bandies as oppressive and irresponsible. They cannot persuade each other by simple merit of their points-of-view, because their positions are skew: they are neither parallel nor intersecting.
As for how this relates to taxes, it should be easy to see why the two groups would take such a different view. Each group's beliefs describe the strength of humanity as living in a different aspect: Bandies' have it in community; Indies' have it in each person. Therefore, a Bandie would believe that those with the greatest resources (I hesitate to use the term "Top [or bottom] x%," because I don't believe a measure of someone's wealth places them above or below any other) should contribute a larger portion of their earnings. An Indie, on the other hand, would say that each person's should be proportionally the same so that each person would share equal responsibility.
I have avoided using more common terms such as "socialist," "communist," "capitalist," etc., because almost all of us - including myself - attach feelings to these words that make it difficult to approach objectively the subjects related to them.
Having spent all that wind - and hoping that I have come across, at least to this point, as being objective - I will say that I am in the "Indie" camp so that I don't have to keep arguing both sides. :)
I pay taxes because I believe the government exists to defend my home and my rights against anyone who would presume to take them away. I do not believe that I should be legally obligated to be generous to whatever the majority - or the representatives thereof - decide is imperative at the time. If I have a moral disagreement or a religious belief against a course of action, money that I have earned should not go to fund that action. So rather than trying to decide which programs match what the majority consider "the greatest good," let the people decide for themselves and fund them on their own. People will do so; goodwill is part of what is good about being a human being.
I have more that I could say, but I've gone on just about long enough. Let me sum up by saying that each person should have an equal part in both the benefits and the responsibilty of running the country. That means each of us contributes the same amount, not more for some and less for others.
I'm voting for Harry Browne. You should check him out.
--- --- --- --- ---
While I'm all for people producing closed source apps if they want (sorry, RMS - I believe people can be secretive if they so desire ;), I don't think these guys Get It. Open Source isn't just about releasing source code. It also represents a different business model: the possibility to make dough without sequestering the man-behind-the-curtain.
On the other hand, I hope they succeed in bolstering the desktop app market. ;)
--- --- --- --- ---
I don't know about its being called "expressive content," but I did always think it ludicrous to tell someone, "No, no, I'm afraid you're not allowed to decode my encryption. Shame on you."
I wonder if it's too late for Nazi Germany to sue the British for breaking their code in WWII?
I bought it just a couple weeks ago, and I'm already pleased as punch with it. Paged through the O'Reilly ("mSQL and MySQL" or vice versa) and didn't like it a bit. However, the cover on my "MySQL" book has also rapidly picked up a sheet of grime (but then, that happens to all the books I read on the subway).
--
Hey, where is that list of servers from whom I can refuse? Is it a configuration file, or can I find it in the menus?