That, however, isn't 'morality and environmental issues' at play. It's bottom-line accounting. There was a huge human impact, so prices were manipulated to prevent the problem in the future.
That sort of 'cost accounting' doesn't cut it when American interests engage in it. It shouldn't when the Chinese do either.
First of all it breaks all of their marketing bollocks
Second it is threatening their sales to customers in
It sure sounds like an Oracle problem to me. How the hell can they try to drag in a regulatory body, whose essential function would be to raise the barrier to market entry and protect and grow their market share?
Well, we *know* how they can try. No way in hell they will succeed.
"Cisco shipped proprietary Linux on their router", where there would be clear damages.
Where are the 'clear damages?'
Cisco made money with the Linux they shipped? The people claiming 'damages' were giving it away for free.
Somebody 'making money' from your work is not defined as 'damages' unless by that it is mean 'damage to your ego for not selling it yourself.' ("Jack's buddies all chuckle now when they see him at the tavern buying the cheapest beer on tap. It's all the damn fool can afford!")
That might be true, except for the fact that in a world without copyright, there would be thuggish practices carried out to 'protect' closed software made out of formerly GPL'd code. "Want the new augmented version of the Media Player needed to watch our films? It was once based on GPL'd code, but we've added 'features' so that if you don't enter a 'key' that we charge for, it will erase your hard drive at some random interval." The 'augmentation' would include all sorts of nasties to screw people over. Want to defeat it? Go ahead! The codes are updated with each new movie you view.
Plain regular folks would just buckle and pay the fees.
If there was "no copyright to begin with," the world wouldn't suddenly transform into a sunny world of butterflies flitting from blossom to blossom. That's a utopian myth.
The only way Google could be up by an order of magnitude 20 years from now is if they even more completely dominated the market they are presently in. That would mean they would be a virtual cartel on the Internet. Let's get real, and admit that for Google to become that, we would have to be in a business climate in which they were a deeply entrenched monopoly.
Things will go the other way. There isn't room on the net for a single entity to wield ALL the power, search-wise. Not unless it's a public utility. But where are your Google shares if that happens?
Lots of other companies have. Most of them are not hype-based, though, so their real products carry them on and they don't have to maintain an astroturfing excercize using Open Source advocates.
Sun has contributed significantly to open source. So has IBM. So has Apple. They all are product-based, not marketing operations. They all have their detractors and defenders, but nobody who defends them is backed into a corner where 'but they support open-source' is the strongest arguement made in their defense. There's real stuff there with those companies.
Toyota can afford to be very open with GM about how they produce their cars. It is organizationally impossible for GM to use those methods. GM is held in a chokehold by their legacy of entrenched management and the sucker deals they've made with the Union Bosses. GM can in no way practice 'the Toyota way' so there's no danger in being open with GM. Now, does Toyota let Hyundai or Nissan engineers walk the corridors of their buildings freely??
The point being made is that doing nothing would have made almost as big a difference as the Montreal Protocol.
And since the Montreal Protocol had very substancial costs, maybe doing nothing would have been more prudent.
Your last sentence about 'pissing in a can because science enjoys a slightly broader defintion' makes no sense at all. Do you even know what the definition of science is? Have you ever taken a philosophy course on the nature of science? Read Scheffler's _Science and Subjectivity_. Read Poincare' _Science and Hypothesys_. For god's sake, stop using a rubber truncheon that you have nicknamed 'science' to beat other people around in arguements.
No, the Macs did not come equipped with the 'someone to tell you...' people.
Those accumulate on and around the Mac with time, like the dried gunk on the bottom of anything that rolls around on casters in a public school cafeteria.
Also, a lot of the shitty third party 'Windows Optimizers' and add-ins never supported Windows Me. So you have your regular sNorton fUtility/symantec/'drive cleansweep'/'fuck-wit-it (enhanced edition)' fans, who are often the loudest to advocate or trash something. With Me, suddenly all their third party crap wouldn't install or was incompatible. There were rows and rows of those boxes of kludge utilities at retail operations, and (apparently) tons of people who bought into it. Most end users who didn't have a 'whiz-kid' meddler come over and fuck the system up used/use Me without any real difficulty.
I remember CompuServe, too. I remember the $12 per hour connect charges for the fast 1200/2400 baud line. You could also connect at 300 baud for $6. And the 300 baud charge was the better deal, because CompuServe put layers of prompts between anything you would want to connect to. Many layers. So it would take two or three prompts to get from one message board to another, and prompts between messages.
There was eventually Software that streamlined through some of these prompts, but a lot of people went online with 'plain vanilla' terminals or terminal emulators on machines that couldn't run said software.
The CompuServe online experience was unpleasant and as quick as you could manage it, for anybody whose company wasn't paying the bill for the connect time. Quite a few of the 'regulars' on CS were those who loafed from work on connections they didn't pay for directly.
That assertion is contradicted by the simple evidence of Bill Gates. Contrary to 'wannabe-hacker' folklore, Gates slung pretty good assembly code back when he had to. He personally wrote the Word Processing program for the TRS-80 Model 100, for instance. In 8085 Assembly Language.
that was considered shameful back then, while today having a monkey-boy deserter/AWOLEE in the White House - who never succeeded at anything in his life, together with his draft-dodging, college-flunkount vice-president, is NOT CONSIDERED SHAMEFUL??????!!!!@##@%$
I'll take the opportunity here to bring up Ted Kennedy.
Oh, and let's not delve too far into any of the 'unauthorized biographies' of Bill Clinton or Ted's big brother John. . . (whose father made the fortune used to propel his son's political careers by bootlegging liquor)
Slashdot Mirror
The economy isn't strong in Europe.
And that withers away a lot of the points you made subsequent to that assumption.
That, however, isn't 'morality and environmental issues' at play. It's bottom-line accounting. There was a huge human impact, so prices were manipulated to prevent the problem in the future.
That sort of 'cost accounting' doesn't cut it when American interests engage in it. It shouldn't when the Chinese do either.
Duh, or maybe they could expand into or even create new markets,
Indeed. They could become a multi-market octopus like Microsoft.
First of all it breaks all of their marketing bollocks
Second it is threatening their sales to customers in
It sure sounds like an Oracle problem to me. How the hell can they try to drag in a regulatory body, whose essential function would be to raise the barrier to market entry and protect and grow their market share?
Well, we *know* how they can try. No way in hell they will succeed.
If deforestation from centuries ago didn't make the sky fall, why does chicken little think it will now?
That's right. Because editing bitmaps has radically changed in the last four years.
Do you work for a software company?
"Cisco shipped proprietary Linux on their router", where there would be clear damages.
Where are the 'clear damages?'
Cisco made money with the Linux they shipped? The people claiming 'damages' were giving it away for free.
Somebody 'making money' from your work is not defined as 'damages' unless by that it is mean 'damage to your ego for not selling it yourself.' ("Jack's buddies all chuckle now when they see him at the tavern buying the cheapest beer on tap. It's all the damn fool can afford!")
The judicial definition of damage is interpreted on a case by case basis, and also subject to appeal.
So positing a ridiculous case does not win you the arguement.
That might be true, except for the fact that in a world without copyright, there would be thuggish practices carried out to 'protect' closed software made out of formerly GPL'd code. "Want the new augmented version of the Media Player needed to watch our films? It was once based on GPL'd code, but we've added 'features' so that if you don't enter a 'key' that we charge for, it will erase your hard drive at some random interval." The 'augmentation' would include all sorts of nasties to screw people over. Want to defeat it? Go ahead! The codes are updated with each new movie you view.
Plain regular folks would just buckle and pay the fees.
If there was "no copyright to begin with," the world wouldn't suddenly transform into a sunny world of butterflies flitting from blossom to blossom. That's a utopian myth.
The only way Google could be up by an order of magnitude 20 years from now is if they even more completely dominated the market they are presently in. That would mean they would be a virtual cartel on the Internet. Let's get real, and admit that for Google to become that, we would have to be in a business climate in which they were a deeply entrenched monopoly.
Things will go the other way. There isn't room on the net for a single entity to wield ALL the power, search-wise. Not unless it's a public utility. But where are your Google shares if that happens?
Not totally, if you were in early (IPO) you made money,
If you were in early with VA Linux (or Cabbage Patch Dolls, for that matter) you made money.
Lots of other companies have. Most of them are not hype-based, though, so their real products carry them on and they don't have to maintain an astroturfing excercize using Open Source advocates.
Sun has contributed significantly to open source. So has IBM. So has Apple. They all are product-based, not marketing operations. They all have their detractors and defenders, but nobody who defends them is backed into a corner where 'but they support open-source' is the strongest arguement made in their defense. There's real stuff there with those companies.
Toyota can afford to be very open with GM about how they produce their cars. It is organizationally impossible for GM to use those methods. GM is held in a chokehold by their legacy of entrenched management and the sucker deals they've made with the Union Bosses. GM can in no way practice 'the Toyota way' so there's no danger in being open with GM. Now, does Toyota let Hyundai or Nissan engineers walk the corridors of their buildings freely??
Large swaths of the earth (i.e. a large part of China) were deforested centuries ago.
The conceit of many people who think 'we've screwed it all up in the last century' is staggering.
The point being made is that doing nothing would have made almost as big a difference as the Montreal Protocol.
And since the Montreal Protocol had very substancial costs, maybe doing nothing would have been more prudent.
Your last sentence about 'pissing in a can because science enjoys a slightly broader defintion' makes no sense at all. Do you even know what the definition of science is? Have you ever taken a philosophy course on the nature of science? Read Scheffler's _Science and Subjectivity_. Read Poincare' _Science and Hypothesys_. For god's sake, stop using a rubber truncheon that you have nicknamed 'science' to beat other people around in arguements.
Listen to yourself.
And, uh, you haven't spent your life studying the phenomena, then, have you?
The 'Clik!' product name had incredibly unfortunate connotations that Iomega had to have understoood, considering the 'click of death phenomna.'
No, the Macs did not come equipped with the 'someone to tell you...' people.
Those accumulate on and around the Mac with time, like the dried gunk on the bottom of anything that rolls around on casters in a public school cafeteria.
it lets you install XP
Now, hold on right there!
It was assumed that everybody in the discusson meant 'a good use.'
Also, a lot of the shitty third party 'Windows Optimizers' and add-ins never supported Windows Me. So you have your regular sNorton fUtility/symantec/'drive cleansweep'/'fuck-wit-it (enhanced edition)' fans, who are often the loudest to advocate or trash something. With Me, suddenly all their third party crap wouldn't install or was incompatible. There were rows and rows of those boxes of kludge utilities at retail operations, and (apparently) tons of people who bought into it. Most end users who didn't have a 'whiz-kid' meddler come over and fuck the system up used/use Me without any real difficulty.
I remember CompuServe, too. I remember the $12 per hour connect charges for the fast 1200/2400 baud line. You could also connect at 300 baud for $6. And the 300 baud charge was the better deal, because CompuServe put layers of prompts between anything you would want to connect to. Many layers. So it would take two or three prompts to get from one message board to another, and prompts between messages.
There was eventually Software that streamlined through some of these prompts, but a lot of people went online with 'plain vanilla' terminals or terminal emulators on machines that couldn't run said software.
The CompuServe online experience was unpleasant and as quick as you could manage it, for anybody whose company wasn't paying the bill for the connect time. Quite a few of the 'regulars' on CS were those who loafed from work on connections they didn't pay for directly.
Similarly, parakeets often show signs of nervousness when taken out of their cage.
That assertion is contradicted by the simple evidence of Bill Gates. Contrary to 'wannabe-hacker' folklore, Gates slung pretty good assembly code back when he had to. He personally wrote the Word Processing program for the TRS-80 Model 100, for instance. In 8085 Assembly Language.
that was considered shameful back then, while today having a monkey-boy deserter/AWOLEE in the White House - who never succeeded at anything in his life, together with his draft-dodging, college-flunkount vice-president, is NOT CONSIDERED SHAMEFUL??????!!!!@##@%$
I'll take the opportunity here to bring up Ted Kennedy.
Oh, and let's not delve too far into any of the 'unauthorized biographies' of Bill Clinton or Ted's big brother John. . . (whose father made the fortune used to propel his son's political careers by bootlegging liquor)
When you buy a DVD, all you buy is a 'ticket to watch.'
Sick mind? Gee whiz.