Re: "the far the most successful and profitable Linux distribution to date."
Yes, Red Hat was about to go under, that's why IBM paid 34,000 millions to buy it.
900 posts • joined 8 Jan 2010
On the other hand you seem to believe that people whose politics you don't like shouldn't be allowed their day in court.
If they have won a case in Oregon, that the the "laws that elected representatives put in place" are on their side, why shouldn't they sue for their legitimate rights?
At work we pay subscriptions for a few packages we wouldn't be able to do without and I am fine with it, but for my personal computer I don't, I wouldn't pay a subscription even if I weren't into Linux.
And it is not just software, if it is not essential, like electricity, I avoid subscriptions like a plague, I don't understand how they can market something being only as expensive as 'a cup of coffee a day', my mind inmediately translates that as 'really expensive'.
And I do drink coffee.
"Apart from the fact I've never bought into the superior efficiency of Private Enterprise"
You see, if instead of Lidl it was a goverment they would still be throwing good money after bad.
That's were the superior efficiency comes from, private companies can be as stupid as any goverment, but they either stop willingly or they go broke and stop anyway.
No, that quote can't really be checked, it says 'sooner or later', so it can't only be checked after the collapse.
Like all good prophecies from omens throughout history it is intentionally vague, if 5000 years from now civilization insists on not collapsing, well, he said 'sooner or later' so it may just be going to happen.
Also, like all good prophecies, it makes the point of making the rubes, in this case educated rubes, on the receiving end feel superior so they will repeat it.
"Whether it's ever been actually tried anywhere in the world is open to debate."
Indeed, just because you have heard socialists and comunists praising the regimes in some countries during the last hundred years, doesn't mean those regimes were implementing socialism.
After all, when they can no longer deny those countries have been, pretty much, destroyed they will insist on how those regimes had nothing whatsover to do with it.
Nothing at all, of course not.
After all, there are still many countries to destroy while they learn to implement it right.
"Why? If we dont want to make a border then its not our problem"
Of course not, the EU may start blocking, or set big tariffs, to imports from the UK, but that doesn't mean the UK can't allow anything to go from the Republic of Ireland to the UK uncontrolled and untariffed.
Actually, you know, the EU may very well agree to your plan.
"The problem is that it had no time limit"
And the European Court recently ruled that if an international treaty has no time limit it means that any party can withdraw from it at any time.
And, what is the EU going to do if the UK says "We have had enought of this backstop, by next month we consider it nulled"? Declare war on the UK?
The idea of opposing the withdrawal treaty because the backstop has no time limit is so utterly stupid it defies belief.
Or it would if I didn't have enough experience with political fans to know they will believe any shit that makes them feel good.
"IBM and have been doing Big Data stuff for the past 10 years."
A few years ago my father told me about how the company he worked at the time bought an IBM computer, part of the sales pitch was how they would be able to analyze the data to predict future trends and what not.
Plot twist: he only worked there until the middle of the seventies.
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2020