Fair point, I concede. Microsoft did (and does not) make many friends in that department. Personally, (though I'm being a bit idealistic here), the creators of web browsers should standardize (though it may not be viable) on certain common aspects, and diverge on others. This I believe would be better solution, as certain features that a particular company choose not to support could be added or dropped at will.
Well if you consider "complacent and ignorance" as one who (a) does not like the way FF / Opera / or Safari displays web pages; (2) does not care for some independent party designing some "standard" when it should be left to the creator of the product to dictate a standard; (3) have never had anywhere near the problems most people complain about (I won't even be rude enough to question the reproducibility and / or
validity of these claims), then I guess that would be me.
Though I'm not gonna dismiss FF's record as it is significant and praise-worthy, but of no real interest in the grand scheme of my computer usage (since I'm a firm believer of bundling -- it adds value, and provides a total package). You are welcome to proselytize if you wish though.
"I am personally all for fines. A standard dollar amount won't do it. It should be a "special tax." If a corporation is found guilty of wrongdoing it should pay higher taxes for x number of years. If a corporation is found guilty of mass murder, it should pay a 100% tax for the rest of the life of the company. Basically, a corporate death sentence."
And who would pay the salaries and benefits of the workers (i.e. programmers, human resources, janitors, etc.) at this company? What you state borders on absurdity.
Considering the fact that our leader (that is if you live in the U.S.) was a "C" student in school, I can understand why we are in this predicament. Personally, I think its stupid. Call me elitist if you wish, but I'm a firm believer that if you mix students with who perform academically well with students who don't you are going to generally lose both students. The high achiever is going to be bored and potentally goof off because he (she) is bored. The low achiever is going think the high achiever is a snob or ass-kisser, and both are not going to do well.
In otherwords, stop trying to put a square peg into a round hole. This is why they need to bring back vocational schools, not student is college-bound or college-minded. Some of the richest people in the world did not go to college. This is not to say education is not important. All students do need certain basic skills (reading, writing, arithmetic, some basic science, etc.) But kids who show an apitude for these subjects may be better on a college track than others. Some students need prodding others don't. But again, trying to force all students into the same learning mold is going to alienate more students than not.
Some people shoot for the stars, others for the moon... and some are just comfortable staying on the ground. There is places and opportunities for all three, and in our society one can overcome their status with their own personal drive and ambition.
Personally, I think this is well overdue. A common health record system that all hospitals and patients is highly beneficial. I think any digtial system has the potential to be abused, so perhaps a third-party organization could oversee this, but truthfully I don't see that happening, as everyone wants to kill it before it can be effective.
While a private company developing technology like this could seem questionable; what I'd like to know is why has the medical industry NOT took the initative to create such a system themselves?
I have to disagree with your last argument. Just because a parent does not choose to send their children to private schools does not mean they value education any less. Some parents cannot afford to send their child to private schools (even with vouchers and / or grants). Additionally, not all public schools are bad (either through untrained teachers, or unwilling to learn students).
"The solutions is to make the workers and the shareholders the exact same people, so that the people who generate wealth get to benefit from it..."
Here is the fallacy I see with this, a corporation does not come into being with small amounts of capital. In otherwords, the amount of money a corporation requires would be diluted by the number of workers hired. So outside capital is required. Those individuals who provide that capital are going to want to get paid back (with interest) for loaning that money out. If the employees could loan that type of money out, then more than likely they would either start their own business. And while yes, there are individuals who would work towards building something bigger than themselves, at the end of the day it still comes down to shelter, food, transportation, and entertainment.
Ok, so what happens when you get employees and clients who just want to make money? I'm not knocking your idea per se, because its actually an interesting tangent. But the bottom line is that our society on a whole is based upon improving one's status. The effective way (currently) to do so is via maximizing the amount of cash in your pocket (however that individual or group) chooses to do so.
Last time I checked, you could not just wish your way into a car, house, vacation, etc. (and i'm not even talking about the fancy ones), it takes money. We could all hope that the system changes, but I know personally, I aspire to have a big house, big car (bentley would be preferrable), and be able to eat well (fancy resturants all of the time). So do most people who work at corporations, though the majority never reach those dreams. Look at SAIC. They are run like a cooperative, yet they get their lunch taken all the time by companies who are more effective at doing business. Xerox is another great example, they practically invented most of the tools we use today (GUI, mice, copy machines, etc) and yet they failed to understand how to leverage their creations, which allowed others who were more business savvy, to profit from it.
You may dislike corporations, but history has shown they are very effective at making money, and at the end of the day that is what matters to the shareholders.
Maybe this will sound jacked up, but I was hoping that J&J would win this case. Considering that both companies have been around for near equal amounts of time (one commercial and one non-commercial) for the Red Cross to decide they now want to licence their trademark like a commercial entity, validates J&J's point of view. J&J wasn't asking for the Red Cross to not use the "red cross", they just wanted them not to be able to licence it out (since it would reduce the value of their trademark), and in that case J&J is right.
Perhaps the ARC should have considered this application when negotiating in 1895 or so... or at the least recompense J&J for the dilution of their brand.
"Also you totally missed the point about the rights of the consumer in France, seeing your sig you are obviously from the US which is probably why you never heard of consumer rights.
"
On the contrary, I respect consumer rights. But one right is not more important than another. Being from the US has nothing to do with it.
No, people exercising their rights is fine. No one should be ripped off. What I'm saying however, is if the vendor did not sell her the product the way she wanted it, why would she buy it just to sue? I'm more than certain that she had alternative choices. The best and LEGAL way to change a company is not to patronize them. They will either change (to earn revenue, goodwill, profit, etc.) or they will die.
Using the court system force a company to change (at least in this matter to me) smacks of cowardice.
(1) She bought the computer knowing it had Windows XP on the system and decided that she didn't like the terms after she bought it, ergo she (and the court / law is wrong) because you should not be able to modify the terms of a contract after it has been executed. (Even if you don't want to be party to the other party's outside deal.) You know the terms, deal with it.
Or (2) she bought a computer without regard to the specs (highly unlikely, but for the sake of arguement we'll go with it). She gets it home and finds it has something she didn't like. So she sued (after probably asking the company to refund it, which in my opinion they rightly and justifably denied). The law / court failed again, because there are vendors who sell computers without an OS (or an alternative OS) and she could have patronized their business. Yet she unjustifiably cried foul and forced a company give her a refund (essentially, saying that the company needs to sell its product her way, which is bullshit). Granted, however if France already has a law saying that a company HAS to sell computers without OS (which I don't think any particular country does, but again for sake of arguement I'll assume they do), then ASUS is in the wrong.
Truthfully, if it were my company I'd analyze how much profit is actually earned from that country and if it wasn't a mid to substantial amount (> than 15%) I'd tell the country (in this case, France) go fuck themselves (politely of course). If the government feels so strongly about it, let them sell computers they way they want them sold.
Do I personally think Linux is ready for the desktop. Emphatically no. However, I respect the fact that, that is just my opinion. A lot of people (some smarter and some not) think so. Personally, I don't like dicking around with command lines. Nor do I care if I don't have access to the source code for the OS (which in my case would probably be a good thing, since I'd probably hose it or worse).
That being said however, it IS a perspective thing. And a bunch of overpaid hacks (called analysts) who say what is (or is not) ready can go pound sand for I care. The question is: What do YOU think?
"But really, if you're writing serious software for Windows CE, you're going to have to loose your inhibitions and learn to use Visual Studio."
No, he's going to have to LOSE (not LOOSE) his inhibitions. Sorry to nit-pick, but my stats homework is kickin my ass right now and I need to vent (10 Monster "BFGs" are also running through me right now, so that could be a factor too).
The best way to beat something is to let them have the choice. They can choose to use Linux or not choose to. Either way, all of the negative energy because people have been given a choice seems strange to me. First, you claim you want Linux to be an option to buy, now that its Windows thats an option (rather than the default for once), you complain. Choice is a dual-edged sword. Not everyone wants to be a part of the "free as in speech" camp, just like not everyone wants to pay for software.
Besides, I know people would claimed foul if MS gave it away for free, so Linux DOES have an advantage here.
Dude, they are getting free publicity? How much more compensation do you want? Granted, someone has to look them up and they are aggregated with other businesses, but at some point, one has to look at the bigger picture.
"Sometimes just because something can be done does not mean it should be done."
That's what I think about the Google Street Maps. Personally, at least for me it would be a perfect tool (as I was born in NYC but haven't been back home in 9 years), so being able to plan a trip
would be awesome. That being said, however a lot of people (perhaps rightly or wrongly) have deep fear and differing views of privacy, so we have to accomodate the "lowest common denominator" of the population; which for Google would be low-quality images and / or blurring of faces.
It is too bad really, because its a faboulous tool, but there are ethical / moral questions that should be asked / evaluated first.
You know while on the surface this sounds funny, I can't help but think that this technology combined with attempts of AI research, could possibly just lead to a Borg / Replicator / Terminator situation.
Ok, I could just go back to my statistics homework now...
Er, thats not freedom then. I'm hoping your being sarcastic... but sadly I believe you're serious.
Freedom, means I am able to choose or not choose free software. (In my case, I use as little free software as possible.) That is my conscious choice. You're free to try and convince
me (and others) otherwise, though you'll have a better chance with the others than me, as I truly enjoy my Windows experience. But getting back your statement, there is no such thing as
"right freedom". Who defines right? Everyone's opinon is different.
When you look at all of the costs in the supply chain, textbooks updates (new proofs, spelling, questions, pictures, etc.) orders received, manufacturing and distribution costs, merchandising, etc. And while not all aspects of that example may apply; I believe yes, there is some justification for the price.
"For more current books, perhaps lecturers should just make their books available electronically and bypass the publishing houses completely. They'd probably make more money by having a "donate" button on their website."
See here is the problems with that. (1) If your a professor, you have no guarantee that all of students in the course will purchase the book, which means courses would have to be designed to
be book independent, now while that is not a problem per se, it does take longer for course design, and there is no general reference that the students and professor can refer to. (2) While some students will probably donate, more than likely most will not. Again, one does not (or at least should not) invest time and effort without due compensation (most professor's salary is not due compensation). (3) Lastly, making it available electronically, will more than likely have the effect of (especially without a DRM system) everybody copying the book, in which the professor can kiss his "donations" right out the window. Or worse, some pissed off student decides he doesn't like the professor, so he "modifies" the electronic copy (similar to Wikipedia), so that students
no longer have a "clean" copy. Granted, the professor will have a clean copy, but after a while it will get old, re-uploading the correct copy, over and over again.
I do (even though I get them for free through my university) because I believe that information is a chargeable asset and not a commodity. One of things that frustrates me is the fact that people believe that if someone invests the time and energy to create / compile / design / or market, that it should be sold for next to nothing. I'm sorry but I don't have an altristic view of society. Time is money. If I'm not making money than its not worth my time. If you like giving away your work, then great. I'm happy you can afford to do so. But if you cannot afford to do so, then it it is an investment. And when people invest, they hope to get something more than their expediture. (That's also the reason I buy software, because I know the cost of developing it is high).
Perhaps one day we will move to a world where everything is shared for free. Of course, by that time, humantity as we know it will more than likely be far different, since the current iteration has need to acquire (some more than others).
Define reasonable? Your reasonable may not be another's reasonable. Another thing to consider is the software load on the system. A bare Vista installation (with the recommended specs) works just fine. Start adding software and depending on the quality of that software and whether or not it was developed for Vista (with those recommend specs in mind), depends on whether you have a turtle or a deer (bad analogy aside).
Hmmm, ok I'll look at it a slightly different way. If MS own application cannot meet MS's OOXML standard, then perhaps (going out on a limb here), just perhaps this is a viable standard.
Before, penguins and chairs come my way here me out. We have a *cough* standard, that right now, nobody is meeting. So in other words, all parties involved (MS and everyone else) at least
on the application side, are on equal footing. Has anyone tried (painful as it might sound) to write an application (or file format) that writes to MS (and now ISO's) standard? I mean a standard
can't be a standard (at least as I see it) if nobody is using it (or attempting to).
I mean it wouldn't hurt to attempt make a bridge here, would it?
Slashdot Mirror
Fair point, I concede. Microsoft did (and does not) make many friends in that department. Personally, (though I'm being a bit idealistic here), the creators of web browsers should standardize (though it may not be viable) on certain common aspects, and diverge on others. This I believe would be better solution, as certain features that a particular company choose not to support could be added or dropped at will.
Well if you consider "complacent and ignorance" as one who (a) does not like the way FF / Opera / or Safari displays web pages; (2) does not care for some independent party designing some "standard" when it should be left to the creator of the product to dictate a standard; (3) have never had anywhere near the problems most people complain about (I won't even be rude enough to question the reproducibility and / or validity of these claims), then I guess that would be me.
Though I'm not gonna dismiss FF's record as it is significant and praise-worthy, but of no real interest in the grand scheme of my computer usage (since I'm a firm believer of bundling -- it adds value, and provides a total package). You are welcome to proselytize if you wish though.
Maybe, just maybe we can begin to harness some clean energy into wider usage.
"I am personally all for fines. A standard dollar amount won't do it. It should be a "special tax." If a corporation is found guilty of wrongdoing it should pay higher taxes for x number of years. If a corporation is found guilty of mass murder, it should pay a 100% tax for the rest of the life of the company. Basically, a corporate death sentence."
And who would pay the salaries and benefits of the workers (i.e. programmers, human resources, janitors, etc.) at this company? What you state borders on absurdity.
Considering the fact that our leader (that is if you live in the U.S.) was a "C" student in school, I can understand why we are in this predicament. Personally, I think its stupid. Call me elitist if you wish, but I'm a firm believer that if you mix students with who perform academically well with students who don't you are going to generally lose both students. The high achiever is going to be bored and potentally goof off because he (she) is bored. The low achiever is going think the high achiever is a snob or ass-kisser, and both are not going to do well.
In otherwords, stop trying to put a square peg into a round hole. This is why they need to bring back vocational schools, not student is college-bound or college-minded. Some of the richest people in the world did not go to college. This is not to say education is not important. All students do need certain basic skills (reading, writing, arithmetic, some basic science, etc.) But kids who show an apitude for these subjects may be better on a college track than others. Some students need prodding others don't. But again, trying to force all students into the same learning mold is going to alienate more students than not.
Some people shoot for the stars, others for the moon... and some are just comfortable staying on the ground. There is places and opportunities for all three, and in our society one can overcome their status with their own personal drive and ambition.
Personally, I think this is well overdue. A common health record system that all hospitals and patients is highly beneficial. I think any digtial system has the potential to be abused, so perhaps a third-party organization could oversee this, but truthfully I don't see that happening, as everyone wants to kill it before it can be effective.
While a private company developing technology like this could seem questionable; what I'd like to know is why has the medical industry NOT took the initative to create such a system themselves?
I have to disagree with your last argument. Just because a parent does not choose to send their children to private schools does not mean they value education any less. Some parents cannot afford to send their child to private schools (even with vouchers and / or grants). Additionally, not all public schools are bad (either through untrained teachers, or unwilling to learn students).
"The solutions is to make the workers and the shareholders the exact same people, so that the people who generate wealth get to benefit from it..."
Here is the fallacy I see with this, a corporation does not come into being with small amounts of capital. In otherwords, the amount of money a corporation requires would be diluted by the number of workers hired. So outside capital is required. Those individuals who provide that capital are going to want to get paid back (with interest) for loaning that money out. If the employees could loan that type of money out, then more than likely they would either start their own business. And while yes, there are individuals who would work towards building something bigger than themselves, at the end of the day it still comes down to shelter, food, transportation, and entertainment.
Ok, so what happens when you get employees and clients who just want to make money? I'm not knocking your idea per se, because its actually an interesting tangent. But the bottom line is that our society on a whole is based upon improving one's status. The effective way (currently) to do so is via maximizing the amount of cash in your pocket (however that individual or group) chooses to do so.
Last time I checked, you could not just wish your way into a car, house, vacation, etc. (and i'm not even talking about the fancy ones), it takes money. We could all hope that the system changes, but I know personally, I aspire to have a big house, big car (bentley would be preferrable), and be able to eat well (fancy resturants all of the time). So do most people who work at corporations, though the majority never reach those dreams. Look at SAIC. They are run like a cooperative, yet they get their lunch taken all the time by companies who are more effective at doing business. Xerox is another great example, they practically invented most of the tools we use today (GUI, mice, copy machines, etc) and yet they failed to understand how to leverage their creations, which allowed others who were more business savvy, to profit from it.
You may dislike corporations, but history has shown they are very effective at making money, and at the end of the day that is what matters to the shareholders.
Maybe this will sound jacked up, but I was hoping that J&J would win this case. Considering that both companies have been around for near equal amounts of time (one commercial and one non-commercial) for the Red Cross to decide they now want to licence their trademark like a commercial entity, validates J&J's point of view. J&J wasn't asking for the Red Cross to not use the "red cross", they just wanted them not to be able to licence it out (since it would reduce the value of their trademark), and in that case J&J is right.
Perhaps the ARC should have considered this application when negotiating in 1895 or so... or at the least recompense J&J for the dilution of their brand.
"Also you totally missed the point about the rights of the consumer in France, seeing your sig you are obviously from the US which is probably why you never heard of consumer rights. " On the contrary, I respect consumer rights. But one right is not more important than another. Being from the US has nothing to do with it.
No, people exercising their rights is fine. No one should be ripped off. What I'm saying however, is if the vendor did not sell her the product the way she wanted it, why would she buy it just to sue? I'm more than certain that she had alternative choices. The best and LEGAL way to change a company is not to patronize them. They will either change (to earn revenue, goodwill, profit, etc.) or they will die .
Using the court system force a company to change (at least in this matter to me) smacks of cowardice.
I look at it one of two ways:
(1) She bought the computer knowing it had Windows XP on the system and decided that she didn't like the terms after she bought it, ergo she (and the court / law is wrong) because you should not be able to modify the terms of a contract after it has been executed. (Even if you don't want to be party to the other party's outside deal.) You know the terms, deal with it.
Or (2) she bought a computer without regard to the specs (highly unlikely, but for the sake of arguement we'll go with it). She gets it home and finds it has something she didn't like. So she sued (after probably asking the company to refund it, which in my opinion they rightly and justifably denied). The law / court failed again, because there are vendors who sell computers without an OS (or an alternative OS) and she could have patronized their business. Yet she unjustifiably cried foul and forced a company give her a refund (essentially, saying that the company needs to sell its product her way, which is bullshit). Granted, however if France already has a law saying that a company HAS to sell computers without OS (which I don't think any particular country does, but again for sake of arguement I'll assume they do), then ASUS is in the wrong.
Truthfully, if it were my company I'd analyze how much profit is actually earned from that country and if it wasn't a mid to substantial amount (> than 15%) I'd tell the country (in this case, France) go fuck themselves (politely of course). If the government feels so strongly about it, let them sell computers they way they want them sold.
Do I personally think Linux is ready for the desktop. Emphatically no. However, I respect the fact that, that is just my opinion. A lot of people (some smarter and some not) think so. Personally, I don't like dicking around with command lines. Nor do I care if I don't have access to the source code for the OS (which in my case would probably be a good thing, since I'd probably hose it or worse).
That being said however, it IS a perspective thing. And a bunch of overpaid hacks (called analysts) who say what is (or is not) ready can go pound sand for I care. The question is: What do YOU think?
"But really, if you're writing serious software for Windows CE, you're going to have to loose your inhibitions and learn to use Visual Studio."
No, he's going to have to LOSE (not LOOSE) his inhibitions. Sorry to nit-pick, but my stats homework is kickin my ass right now and I need to vent (10 Monster "BFGs" are also running through me right now, so that could be a factor too).
The best way to beat something is to let them have the choice. They can choose to use Linux or not choose to. Either way, all of the negative energy because people have been given a choice seems strange to me. First, you claim you want Linux to be an option to buy, now that its Windows thats an option (rather than the default for once), you complain. Choice is a dual-edged sword. Not everyone wants to be a part of the "free as in speech" camp, just like not everyone wants to pay for software.
Besides, I know people would claimed foul if MS gave it away for free, so Linux DOES have an advantage here.
Dude, they are getting free publicity? How much more compensation do you want? Granted, someone has to look them up and they are aggregated with other businesses, but at some point, one has to look at the bigger picture.
"Sometimes just because something can be done does not mean it should be done."
That's what I think about the Google Street Maps. Personally, at least for me it would be a perfect tool (as I was born in NYC but haven't been back home in 9 years), so being able to plan a trip would be awesome. That being said, however a lot of people (perhaps rightly or wrongly) have deep fear and differing views of privacy, so we have to accomodate the "lowest common denominator" of the population; which for Google would be low-quality images and / or blurring of faces. It is too bad really, because its a faboulous tool, but there are ethical / moral questions that should be asked / evaluated first.
You know while on the surface this sounds funny, I can't help but think that this technology combined with attempts of AI research, could possibly just lead to a Borg / Replicator / Terminator situation.
Ok, I could just go back to my statistics homework now...
Er, thats not freedom then. I'm hoping your being sarcastic... but sadly I believe you're serious.
Freedom, means I am able to choose or not choose free software. (In my case, I use as little free software as possible.) That is my conscious choice. You're free to try and convince me (and others) otherwise, though you'll have a better chance with the others than me, as I truly enjoy my Windows experience. But getting back your statement, there is no such thing as "right freedom". Who defines right? Everyone's opinon is different.
When you look at all of the costs in the supply chain, textbooks updates (new proofs, spelling, questions, pictures, etc.) orders received, manufacturing and distribution costs, merchandising, etc. And while not all aspects of that example may apply; I believe yes, there is some justification for the price.
"For more current books, perhaps lecturers should just make their books available electronically and bypass the publishing houses completely. They'd probably make more money by having a "donate" button on their website."
See here is the problems with that. (1) If your a professor, you have no guarantee that all of students in the course will purchase the book, which means courses would have to be designed to be book independent, now while that is not a problem per se, it does take longer for course design, and there is no general reference that the students and professor can refer to. (2) While some students will probably donate, more than likely most will not. Again, one does not (or at least should not) invest time and effort without due compensation (most professor's salary is not due compensation). (3) Lastly, making it available electronically, will more than likely have the effect of (especially without a DRM system) everybody copying the book, in which the professor can kiss his "donations" right out the window. Or worse, some pissed off student decides he doesn't like the professor, so he "modifies" the electronic copy (similar to Wikipedia), so that students no longer have a "clean" copy. Granted, the professor will have a clean copy, but after a while it will get old, re-uploading the correct copy, over and over again.
I do (even though I get them for free through my university) because I believe that information is a chargeable asset and not a commodity. One of things that frustrates me is the fact that people believe that if someone invests the time and energy to create / compile / design / or market, that it should be sold for next to nothing. I'm sorry but I don't have an altristic view of society. Time is money. If I'm not making money than its not worth my time. If you like giving away your work, then great. I'm happy you can afford to do so. But if you cannot afford to do so, then it it is an investment. And when people invest, they hope to get something more than their expediture. (That's also the reason I buy software, because I know the cost of developing it is high).
Perhaps one day we will move to a world where everything is shared for free. Of course, by that time, humantity as we know it will more than likely be far different, since the current iteration has need to acquire (some more than others).
Define reasonable? Your reasonable may not be another's reasonable. Another thing to consider is the software load on the system. A bare Vista installation (with the recommended specs) works just fine. Start adding software and depending on the quality of that software and whether or not it was developed for Vista (with those recommend specs in mind), depends on whether you have a turtle or a deer (bad analogy aside).
Hmmm, ok I'll look at it a slightly different way. If MS own application cannot meet MS's OOXML standard, then perhaps (going out on a limb here), just perhaps this is a viable standard. Before, penguins and chairs come my way here me out. We have a *cough* standard, that right now, nobody is meeting. So in other words, all parties involved (MS and everyone else) at least on the application side, are on equal footing. Has anyone tried (painful as it might sound) to write an application (or file format) that writes to MS (and now ISO's) standard? I mean a standard can't be a standard (at least as I see it) if nobody is using it (or attempting to).
I mean it wouldn't hurt to attempt make a bridge here, would it?
Does this mean that they are re-releasing Vista? I mean most people consider it a oversized calclator anyway...
(Yes, even Microsoft users can poke fun at themselves too...)