I think what this user means is this: So long as virtual games are distracting people from the problems in the real world, the Bush and Blair administrations are all for it.
You totally don't get the point. People using IE are ignorant of the problems that non-windows users experience. They dismiss the complaints of those in the other position. I think you need to watch the documentary A Class Divided (for free online) to get a better handle of the type of problems such ignorance creates.
Until IE users "walk a mile in another person's moccasins", they will just continue to accept and perpetuate IE's ostracizing of non-windows users.
Seriously. And that guy down the street? The homeless guy who just yells into a tape recorder all day as he holds out his hand for change? Why is he not in this coalition?
You're making a false claim-by-association. China's Human Rights problems are not because it is a "communist" country. They are because it is a dictatorship that doesn't account for the common interest of its people.
Communism and capitalism are economic systems; dictatorships and democracy are political systems.
Most of the innovation being stymied by chinese piracy is non-Chinese. Once there is a critical mass of true native Chinese innovation being affected by piracy (or at least the economy in general), I suspect that they will tighten their laws and enforcement thereof.
I'm sure they also realize that letting people steal stuff from factories is cheaper than paying them more than 13 cents an hour (I believe 86c/h is deemed "fair", if my recollection of No Logo is correct:P)
Back when my PocketPCs still worked, I'd use Outlook 2002 (or was it 2000?). I liked being able to print out a one-page monthly calendar for my luddite friends. However; I didn't like the lack of control over "hiding" (rather, not hiding) personal or non-important events.
Since my PocketPCs cacked out (the batteries would run out because I primarily used my laptop), I started relying on my previously-misused brain, and countless miscellaneous pieces of scrap paper ("lists") that I kept in my pockets. Now I rely on my cell phone. I may have also used my laptop, but it is now non-mobile.
What I like about my cellphone is that it comes with me everywhere, it is always charged up. However, I like my cell phones to be cell phones, not cameras, video players, or any of that other crap (actually, it does have a flashlight, but I had to transfer all data from my old cell phone to it manually). So the calendar function on my Nokia is limited, and I can only view events one day at a time. However, I know it's always nearby, so I don't have to be at a computer to put something in. Also, I know it will remind me of important events; the PocketPCs were picky when it came to whether they would automatically turn on to remind me of something.
However, I'll be checking out the Google calendar.
Why is everyone so optimistic about the slight change of a potential possibility that this doesn't necessarily mean that Microsoft Windows will be the way to go on this?
In every international relations issue in the last few years--particularly those involving (1) US multinationals, (2) US government, or (3) US foreign policy--the pessimistic version, that is, the worst possible outcome, seems to be a fairly accurate depiction of what actually happens.
Actually, I'm worried (well, not too much, since I'm not in Australia) that there will be too many false positives, and ISPs will fall back on "well, the law says we have to". When my ISP switched to a Yahoo-based e-mail server, and instituted spam guards automatically, all without telling me, it completely screwed up my existing spam settings, which had been set to avoid false positives.
Although now I primarily use gmail, I still have my yahoo-based account, because it's tough to switch completely.
I used a laptop in high school back in 2000, and a PDA with keyboard later on, then got a new laptop in second year.
Without it, I would never have learned to type, much less touchtype. Not having to look at the screen, or the paper, helped me take notes more efficiently. I had gained the ability to type what was posted on the screen, while being able to concentrate on what the teacher/professor was saying.
Since my laptop's screen broke last summer, though, I've reverted to handwritten notes, and for the most part, I prefer it. I notice how annoying it is when other people play games--or even just fiddle with their paragraph settings--in my (social sciences) classes.
Put in neo-liberal terms (nyuk nyuk...French and Neo-liberal in one sentence!), the French are protecting the ability of companies in *France* paying taxes in france, and thus contributing to the French economy.
It's bad enough that popular music sucks the culture out of non-US countries.
I don't know whether multinationals have to pay taxes on revenue earned in foreign countries to those governments, but I would expect it to be "very no."
The same problem arises with news media, and with many others.
If it is subscription-only, then it will cater to the desires of the subscribers.
If it is advertiser-only, then it will cater to the desires of the advertisers.
If it is a mix of advertiser-based and subscriber-based, then there will always be a conflict between the desires/needs of the users and those of the advertisers.
In my view, if you can't get people to pay for it (or to contribute to it, as in many OSS products), then you move to being advertiser supported, and you acknowledge that the advertisers (as a cohort) are the ones with true editorial control. Often, when it's mixed (like with most daily newspapers and cable news channels) there is a clear conflict between providing a "fair and balanced" view of the news and not pissing off your advertisers.
How, exactly, this applies to MMOGs, I'm not completely certain, but the theory can still apply.
About 97% of the people who have commented on this didn't read the article and/or didn't read the comments and/or made really, really stupid assumptions. You anger me, because your ignorance directly leads to your decision to deride my country. In Canada, we believe that one's rights should not inpinge on another's rights. In Canada, we believe that the notion free speech should not be bastardized to be used as a justification for rallying support to kill groups of people.
Perhaps the ISP was asked to take the content down, but since the ISP owner was the guy who posted the comments, he probably didn't want to!
white supremacistn.
One who believes that white people are racially superior to others and should therefore dominate society. (dictionary.com)
In Canada, the Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees equality in the forms of freedom from discrimination and from hate. In practise, there is a lot of inequality. Symptomatic of this is the fact that upper/middle class English-speaking white men are far better represented in positions of power and wealth than they are in the general population. Any conflict theorist will tell you that the natural (i.e. unless something is done to prevent it) future of a group in a position of power is in a position of even greater dominance.
This is fuelled in part (to varying implicit or explicit degrees) by people who spread myths that one type of person is inherently superior to another type.
Having such opinions is usually stupid, but not a breach of freedoms. But once you start saying, "hey, let's all come on over to my place and we'll kill some blacks/jews/etc.!" you are posing a serious hazard to society.
...you have to knowingly commit yourself into service in the united states military. When you do so, you are made to understand that your life no longer belongs to you at that point.
Sure. That's all fine for the soldiers, but what about the increasing number of private soldiers and civilians on duty in such conflicts? Have they also signed their lives away? What about those who work for defense contractors back on U.S. territory? We shouldn't hurt their morale, either, should we? Such tactics were precisely what allowed Hitler to commit the atrocities he did. He didn't start off with "hey, let's kill the Jews", he started with "don't question Hitler, because it's bad for national morale."
Rush is... an idiot [who] isn't constantly saying "Pull the troops out now, they're fighting an illegal war, etc, etc".
You're right, he's not. Instead he's saying "we shouldn't be saying this because it's bad for soldiers' morale". So not only can citizens not say it on the mainland, but anyone who does dare to say it isn't heard by soldiers anyway, however logical the arguments.
- RG>
--
Proud to not be from the US, but still ashamed of living in the western hemisphere.
You may only use 10% of the fundamental features of any office suite, and so may everyone else, but the question is which 10%?
You only ever use, at most, 20% of your brain at any given time, but that doesn't mean you can get by with a brain-ectomy.
Many of the things under the belt of OpenOffice.org assist in getting past the 90% of the market that can deal with the core suite, to the 10% who, for example, speak a language that is only spoken by a few thousand people, or who can't afford a proprietary Operating System (much less the office suite), or who have a now-defunct processor that was only produced for two months. All of these people belong to markets that are simply too small for Microsoft to profitably adapt its programs for, so instead of reaching out to them, the users must learn English and buy a new computer and OS (or, as the case may be, simply not be able to use the suite).
The same goes for all the features in the above-the-belt part of the office suite. Even if only 1% of the users only ever use feature X, if they need that feature and can't find it in OOo, they'll switch to MSO or something else (assuming they can afford it). 99% of the (potential) users don't use it, so you take it out. Multiply by all of the different features that people use, and all of a sudden you get people who simply don't use OOo because they might need features Y and Z in the future, but aren't confident in OOo's ability to deliver them.
Besides, look at it this way: with OOo, if you need something that it doesn't do, you can write a macro, ask for help on the forums, submit a bug report, suggest it as a feature for future editions, etc. With MSO, if it doesn't do what you want it to, you can go you-know-what yourself.
With OOo, development is focused on making those 1% individual features accessible. With MSO, development is focused on changing the 99% enough so that people will feel compelled to buy the new version.
When I buy something from my local merchant, it keeps him or her in business, and their store will help pay the taxes to my local government to keep my community's infrastructure as nice as it is.
When I shop at a large store like WAL-MART (or an internet-based company, although this is a different kind of "internet company" than the topic at hand), these taxes either don't come in at all (internet), are reduced by "economy" of scale, or WAL-MART has been *paid* by the local government to bring their 'glorious' store to the region. On top of this, more roads must be built and maintained to handle the greater traffic from larger distances to the WAL-MARTs, and the increased cost has to be covered by residential taxes, and not commercial. (and then there's the fact that most WAL-MART workers are on social assistance, and the effect on the unemployment rate...)
The price of goods at the local shops is the price of living in a good neighbourhood. If you don't like it, move next door to a frickin' WAL-MART.
What does this have to do with censorship and Google? Not a whole bunch.
Tough to say. The other day, a columnist in my local paper opened up with some sarcasm along the lines of "We all know that God invented the car and God never makes mistakes." There's a lot of wahoos out there who would believe this, if not literally, at least figuratively, so I sent him an angry e-mail chastising him. He replied saying "it was sarcasm" (the perfect defense, really. Bush should try it sometime!). This was print, so I can only assume his editors were the aforementioned wahoos.
But then, I'm an undergrad student, so maybe my response was consistent with your hypothesis.
I do work with a lot of older (than I am, e.g. 30-50yo) volunteers, and I've learned to be extra careful when writing things. Although the principle of charity applies when reading a message, you have to recognize that non-hostility as a potential interpretation to apply it. Sometimes, you only see it as an attack. Writers should take the referse stance and not leave any room for negative interpretation.
The tactic I've used with some more touchy people (who are often the people who piss me off too) is to type my reply, see what accusations I've made, and then completely rewrite. You'd be surprised how much of what you flame comes from your interpretation (_and_ the assumptions you draw from it), and not what was said.
Smileys can be ambiguous. My preferred one is 8P, but sometimes people don't recognize it as a smiley (esp, in this default font: 8P).
Slashdot Mirror
How will this affect the keyless entry to my bicycle? Will people be able to use their laptops to activate its drivetrain?
- RG>
Useless, useless, etc.
I think what this user means is this: So long as virtual games are distracting people from the problems in the real world, the Bush and Blair administrations are all for it.
- RG>
You totally don't get the point. People using IE are ignorant of the problems that non-windows users experience. They dismiss the complaints of those in the other position. I think you need to watch the documentary A Class Divided (for free online) to get a better handle of the type of problems such ignorance creates.
Until IE users "walk a mile in another person's moccasins", they will just continue to accept and perpetuate IE's ostracizing of non-windows users.
- RG>
Seriously. And that guy down the street? The homeless guy who just yells into a tape recorder all day as he holds out his hand for change? Why is he not in this coalition?
- RG>
You're making a false claim-by-association. China's Human Rights problems are not because it is a "communist" country. They are because it is a dictatorship that doesn't account for the common interest of its people.
Communism and capitalism are economic systems; dictatorships and democracy are political systems.
I'll leave it there.
- RG>
The bright side is that:
Well, I would if I were an Amazon.com shareholder or customer. Since I'm not, I could care less what he gets paid.
In fact, why am I even reading this?!?
- RG>
Someone asked why a Microsoft employee's blog is on Google's Blogger? This is why.
- RG>
Most of the innovation being stymied by chinese piracy is non-Chinese. Once there is a critical mass of true native Chinese innovation being affected by piracy (or at least the economy in general), I suspect that they will tighten their laws and enforcement thereof.
I'm sure they also realize that letting people steal stuff from factories is cheaper than paying them more than 13 cents an hour (I believe 86c/h is deemed "fair", if my recollection of No Logo is correct:P)
- RG>
Back when my PocketPCs still worked, I'd use Outlook 2002 (or was it 2000?). I liked being able to print out a one-page monthly calendar for my luddite friends. However; I didn't like the lack of control over "hiding" (rather, not hiding) personal or non-important events.
Since my PocketPCs cacked out (the batteries would run out because I primarily used my laptop), I started relying on my previously-misused brain, and countless miscellaneous pieces of scrap paper ("lists") that I kept in my pockets. Now I rely on my cell phone. I may have also used my laptop, but it is now non-mobile.
What I like about my cellphone is that it comes with me everywhere, it is always charged up. However, I like my cell phones to be cell phones, not cameras, video players, or any of that other crap (actually, it does have a flashlight, but I had to transfer all data from my old cell phone to it manually). So the calendar function on my Nokia is limited, and I can only view events one day at a time. However, I know it's always nearby, so I don't have to be at a computer to put something in. Also, I know it will remind me of important events; the PocketPCs were picky when it came to whether they would automatically turn on to remind me of something.
However, I'll be checking out the Google calendar.
- RG>
Some of the stories on Slashdot can be a bit dated, but this happened fifty years ago and /. is only reporting on it now?
- RG>
Good, now the OpenOffice.org help forums (www.oooforum.org) will finally start to see a decline in the complaints of "but it doesn't have Outlook!"
- RG>
Why is everyone so optimistic about the slight change of a potential possibility that this doesn't necessarily mean that Microsoft Windows will be the way to go on this?
In every international relations issue in the last few years--particularly those involving (1) US multinationals, (2) US government, or (3) US foreign policy--the pessimistic version, that is, the worst possible outcome, seems to be a fairly accurate depiction of what actually happens.
- RG>
Now if they could only do this for job ads, so when I search for "not telemarketing", crap like "enumeration-type work" doesn't show up.
- RG>
I can't force myself to read this article. Call me back when they get a proofreader.
- RG>
I dunno, but here on Earth, mergers of Supermassive companies usually end up in additional service charges.
- RG>
Oh, good. I've found the section for hackneyed comments. I would like to contribute:
"My mother always told me to beware of geeks wearing gifts."
- RG>
Actually, I'm worried (well, not too much, since I'm not in Australia) that there will be too many false positives, and ISPs will fall back on "well, the law says we have to". When my ISP switched to a Yahoo-based e-mail server, and instituted spam guards automatically, all without telling me, it completely screwed up my existing spam settings, which had been set to avoid false positives.
Although now I primarily use gmail, I still have my yahoo-based account, because it's tough to switch completely.
- RG>
I used a laptop in high school back in 2000, and a PDA with keyboard later on, then got a new laptop in second year.
Without it, I would never have learned to type, much less touchtype. Not having to look at the screen, or the paper, helped me take notes more efficiently. I had gained the ability to type what was posted on the screen, while being able to concentrate on what the teacher/professor was saying.
Since my laptop's screen broke last summer, though, I've reverted to handwritten notes, and for the most part, I prefer it. I notice how annoying it is when other people play games--or even just fiddle with their paragraph settings--in my (social sciences) classes.
-RG>
Put in neo-liberal terms (nyuk nyuk...French and Neo-liberal in one sentence!), the French are protecting the ability of companies in *France* paying taxes in france, and thus contributing to the French economy.
It's bad enough that popular music sucks the culture out of non-US countries.
I don't know whether multinationals have to pay taxes on revenue earned in foreign countries to those governments, but I would expect it to be "very no."
- RG>
The same problem arises with news media, and with many others.
If it is subscription-only, then it will cater to the desires of the subscribers.
If it is advertiser-only, then it will cater to the desires of the advertisers.
If it is a mix of advertiser-based and subscriber-based, then there will always be a conflict between the desires/needs of the users and those of the advertisers.
In my view, if you can't get people to pay for it (or to contribute to it, as in many OSS products), then you move to being advertiser supported, and you acknowledge that the advertisers (as a cohort) are the ones with true editorial control. Often, when it's mixed (like with most daily newspapers and cable news channels) there is a clear conflict between providing a "fair and balanced" view of the news and not pissing off your advertisers.
How, exactly, this applies to MMOGs, I'm not completely certain, but the theory can still apply.
- RG>
About 97% of the people who have commented on this didn't read the article and/or didn't read the comments and/or made really, really stupid assumptions. You anger me, because your ignorance directly leads to your decision to deride my country. In Canada, we believe that one's rights should not inpinge on another's rights. In Canada, we believe that the notion free speech should not be bastardized to be used as a justification for rallying support to kill groups of people.
Perhaps the ISP was asked to take the content down, but since the ISP owner was the guy who posted the comments, he probably didn't want to!
white supremacist n.
One who believes that white people are racially superior to others and should therefore dominate society. (dictionary.com)
In Canada, the Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees equality in the forms of freedom from discrimination and from hate. In practise, there is a lot of inequality. Symptomatic of this is the fact that upper/middle class English-speaking white men are far better represented in positions of power and wealth than they are in the general population. Any conflict theorist will tell you that the natural (i.e. unless something is done to prevent it) future of a group in a position of power is in a position of even greater dominance.
This is fuelled in part (to varying implicit or explicit degrees) by people who spread myths that one type of person is inherently superior to another type.
Having such opinions is usually stupid, but not a breach of freedoms. But once you start saying, "hey, let's all come on over to my place and we'll kill some blacks/jews/etc.!" you are posing a serious hazard to society.
- RG>
Sure. That's all fine for the soldiers, but what about the increasing number of private soldiers and civilians on duty in such conflicts? Have they also signed their lives away? What about those who work for defense contractors back on U.S. territory? We shouldn't hurt their morale, either, should we? Such tactics were precisely what allowed Hitler to commit the atrocities he did. He didn't start off with "hey, let's kill the Jews", he started with "don't question Hitler, because it's bad for national morale."
Rush is ... an idiot [who] isn't constantly saying "Pull the troops out now, they're fighting an illegal war, etc, etc".
You're right, he's not. Instead he's saying "we shouldn't be saying this because it's bad for soldiers' morale". So not only can citizens not say it on the mainland, but anyone who does dare to say it isn't heard by soldiers anyway, however logical the arguments.
- RG>
--
Proud to not be from the US, but still ashamed of living in the western hemisphere.
You may only use 10% of the fundamental features of any office suite, and so may everyone else, but the question is which 10%?
You only ever use, at most, 20% of your brain at any given time, but that doesn't mean you can get by with a brain-ectomy.
Many of the things under the belt of OpenOffice.org assist in getting past the 90% of the market that can deal with the core suite, to the 10% who, for example, speak a language that is only spoken by a few thousand people, or who can't afford a proprietary Operating System (much less the office suite), or who have a now-defunct processor that was only produced for two months. All of these people belong to markets that are simply too small for Microsoft to profitably adapt its programs for, so instead of reaching out to them, the users must learn English and buy a new computer and OS (or, as the case may be, simply not be able to use the suite).
The same goes for all the features in the above-the-belt part of the office suite. Even if only 1% of the users only ever use feature X, if they need that feature and can't find it in OOo, they'll switch to MSO or something else (assuming they can afford it). 99% of the (potential) users don't use it, so you take it out. Multiply by all of the different features that people use, and all of a sudden you get people who simply don't use OOo because they might need features Y and Z in the future, but aren't confident in OOo's ability to deliver them.
Besides, look at it this way: with OOo, if you need something that it doesn't do, you can write a macro, ask for help on the forums, submit a bug report, suggest it as a feature for future editions, etc. With MSO, if it doesn't do what you want it to, you can go you-know-what yourself.
With OOo, development is focused on making those 1% individual features accessible. With MSO, development is focused on changing the 99% enough so that people will feel compelled to buy the new version.
- RG>
When I buy something from my local merchant, it keeps him or her in business, and their store will help pay the taxes to my local government to keep my community's infrastructure as nice as it is.
When I shop at a large store like WAL-MART (or an internet-based company, although this is a different kind of "internet company" than the topic at hand), these taxes either don't come in at all (internet), are reduced by "economy" of scale, or WAL-MART has been *paid* by the local government to bring their 'glorious' store to the region. On top of this, more roads must be built and maintained to handle the greater traffic from larger distances to the WAL-MARTs, and the increased cost has to be covered by residential taxes, and not commercial. (and then there's the fact that most WAL-MART workers are on social assistance, and the effect on the unemployment rate...)
The price of goods at the local shops is the price of living in a good neighbourhood. If you don't like it, move next door to a frickin' WAL-MART.
What does this have to do with censorship and Google? Not a whole bunch.
- RG>
But then, I'm an undergrad student, so maybe my response was consistent with your hypothesis.
I do work with a lot of older (than I am, e.g. 30-50yo) volunteers, and I've learned to be extra careful when writing things. Although the principle of charity applies when reading a message, you have to recognize that non-hostility as a potential interpretation to apply it. Sometimes, you only see it as an attack. Writers should take the referse stance and not leave any room for negative interpretation.
The tactic I've used with some more touchy people (who are often the people who piss me off too) is to type my reply, see what accusations I've made, and then completely rewrite. You'd be surprised how much of what you flame comes from your interpretation (_and_ the assumptions you draw from it), and not what was said.
Smileys can be ambiguous. My preferred one is 8P, but sometimes people don't recognize it as a smiley (esp, in this default font: 8P).