Aren't you part of the faction that is claiming the BTC have monetary value?
I think the courts would entertain the notion of "illegal generation of bitcoins" just as well as any other illegal use of someone else's resources to produce a product.
This is a brilliant move to cause *everyone* to reduce usage. The people at 3GB feel safe because of the headroom. But if everyone cuts down to a max of 3GB, what then?
Top 5% baby! Ok, so *most* of those users cut down. Well, there's still a top 5% that gets throttled, unless *they* also cut down...
Truly a race to the bottom - whatever AT&T says they won't throttle at is eventually where almost all users will end up.
>>It used to be that the embedded marketplace was full of odd hardware with its own oddball C compiler.
This is not better, in my opinion.
>> Alternative software that does mostly the same thing gets crowded out of the market.
Especially *software that you have to pay for*. But I don't think that's a bad thing either.
>>Linux's success makes it hard for the BSDs to gain traction.
Yes, power laws applies to software projects, too. I'm sorry that's the case, but how do you propose to mitigate one of the fundamental observations of the 90's? Both developers and installs will track 'teh hotness'.
But, this also actually ensures there *will be* BSD developers, as it is a smaller, yet stable strange attractor, so to say.
So, you're blaming gcc for having "non-standard" extensions?
To, presumably other compiler writers, who can write their own if they wish?
So, your first culprit should be other compiler writers, for not supporting versions of these extensions, if so many people want to use the extensions with other compilers.
And then, you also blame gcc for widget makers who *also* wont recode to compiler independent formats.
No, I don't think so.
The end result occurred because gcc was good enough, and has had competition to become better (even from within the codebase).
>> But the end result is about the same as what Microsoft ended up doing with J++.
Really? As far as I know, J++ is not very widely used, while gcc is. So, it can hardly be claimed that this is true or both would have the same fate in the marketplace.
In fact, one might expect Microsoft J++ to have more market share than gcc if they are using the same strategies, since they have much more weight to leverage things.
On the other hand, you could be talking of some other type of 'end result', so please elucidate if that is the case.
>> If you have a dedicated key for switching between two workspaces, and the switching is instant and not laggy, that's almost as good as two monitors
And right in your argument you defeat it. Why would I want almost as good if I don't have to do that? Especially for something I use every day for multiple hours a day?
>>To a very large extent gcc has sucked the air out of the room
Yes, but why or how? Was it designed to kill off the other compliers? Did the gcc folks make any efforts to destroy complier companies or their compilers?
>>Still, there certainly are cases where GNU software uses its market share to help it compete.
Cite, please? I don't think this is the case with compilers, which you brought up as an example. I am just wondering if you have any other examples, or if you can provide more details on how gcc used it's market share to force other compiler makers out of business.
Well, in simple genetic terms, it is often better to be the product of a hybridization process.
The resultant mix is more likely, after generations, to include more of the individual beneficial features of each separate base stock as such would provide a higher survivability rate.
So, no, I don't think it would stop the white supremacists at all.
They just have to redefine what they mean by perfect to be the opposite of what they currently pin the meaning on.
Since this is a rational or logical dissonance, in the end, all you'd get is a *whoosh* as a new generation of supremacists argue that this genetic mixture is what defines their superiority.
I am sick and tired of your fear mongering , the rabid and ridiculous statements on nuclear power.
its a russian roulette with a 1000 shooter revolver instead of 6 shooter revolver - but, when it happens everything will end and there will be no return.
this is not something random - its something that when happens, may eradicate/distort life in a good swath of the planet.
a magnitude 9 quake under tokyo would cause a bigger mess, but does not have the possibility of making 1/4 of the world unlivable, and rest genetically mutated, poisoned, twisted.
you can argue that excessive toxic oil based wastes can also do genetic mutations in biosphere - but, the possibilities of that compared to direct radiation can not be even mentioned.
yet, 1/4 of the planet has not become unlivable. when a nuclear installation gets stricken with a 9 quake, it will.
however, no coal plant will make half a hemisphere unlivable for thousands of years, when a disaster hits one of these. there is no turning back from radiation.
Perhaps you feel that you need to distort the worst case scenario so people will "care". How's that turning out for the war on drugs?
If this is the case, just stop. Go back to reasonable arguments. Is Eastern Europe unoccupied because or Tschernobyl? Surely since Japan is a small island country it was totally evacuated due to the accident, then? People *do* pay attention to invalid predictions and will discount anything you actually are right about because of the amount of bullshit you spew. And they are right to.
Perhaps you actually believe what you are saying. If that's the case, you sould be able to find credible scientists who agree with you (after all - it's their planet too!). You should be able to back up the fact that "half" or "1/4" of the planet would be uninhabitable due to a single nuclear plant accident.
Or perhaps you believe that they are in collusion?
In this case, I believe that your fear of 'teh' Evils of Radiation were probably instilled in your matrix at a very young age, and you haven't broken those ill-thought chains of "reasoning" to look at the risks in an objective light.
Radiation isn't some mysterious force these days - we actually know quite a lot about the physics and biological issues involved.
In other words, your risk profile for nuclear energy seems COMPLETELY out of wack by orders of magnitudes.
I have to agree with you. Leaving aside every other issue from the RIAA to telecom immunity to the Patriot Act, etc., he is merely stating the truth here.
Every piece of automation that replaces a person puts that person out of work at that job. It remains to be sen if there will exist enough "jobs" to sustain capitalism once a bunch more is automated. I think that Obama is merely foreshadowing that, although he is blind as to it's end point.
He only sees the possibility of every one continuing to work! when the end goal is no one should need to work.
That FA you cite is basic hit piece, full of innuendo and supposition, including the first fucking line:
Is US Chief Information Officer (CIO) Vivek Kundra a Phony?
and such gems as:
The emergence of Kundra is something that needs more research.
I have not verified it, but itâ(TM)s probably true.
I first suspected something was fishy about this fellow by listening to him on CSPAN where he simply did not sound like someone who studied computers or technology.
But, to be honest about it, and despite the possible fraudulent bios and non-existent degrees, the kicker for me was that even if he was squeaky clean he has no business being the USA CIO controlling billions and billions of dollars in government contracts.
I think that's enough of that shit.
Now, as far as what has actually happened during his term:
From Wikipedia:
Mr. Kundra published a 25-point implementation plan [32]to reform how the Federal government manages information technology. The execution plan follows his decision to reevaluate some of the government's most troubled IT projects.[33] Of 38 projects reviewed, four have been canceled,[34] 11 have been rescoped and 12 have cut the time for delivery of functionality down by more than half, from two to three years down to an average of 8 months, achieving a total of $3 billion in lifecycle budget reductions.
Why cannot my ethical system rely on individual case by case basis as a primary component of the decision making process instead of a secondary one? Or at least ce-Equal with the Ethical Guidelines.
What I mean is, why must an arbitrary (however well "thought out") set of Rules be hierarcically more important than the details of the Event? The Event is reality, the rules merely a behavioural map to navigate this.
Most problems I see with "ethical systems" is that they try to shoehorn inappropriate Events into Systemitized Categories. This either ends up distorting or dropping the actual details involved, and this is a mistake.
It just gets worse when you get your ethical Hammer and decide you must apply it to every situation a priori - that is without having an actual detailed situation that you have skin in.
This is what I see by advocating that if an individual ethical decision is made one MUST rest on THIS framework, and therefore one is WRONG, because when applied to these OTHER cases it turns out to be a horrible idea.
When you make an ethical stance on one item- you have to make any ethical stance on all items. Because if you don't, it isn't a fair process and is no longer ethical.
Only by your code of ethics. See? Done.
Unless you can prove that all ethical systems must, in order to be considered ethical systems, create stances on all "items" under that ethical system's consideration.
I'm pretty sure that there are a lot of ethical systems which have failed to enumerate all possible "items" that fairly fall under their consideration. It seems that ethical systems are still enumerating these.
So, perhaps it is just the case that there is no such thing as an ethical system, if your requirement has to be met.
wrote short descriptions of how to use them and what they did
Or are you saying that technical help documentation cannot be copyrighted?
I imagine there are a few other people who would disagree with that as well.
Note - this is entierly seperate from a discussion on what *should* be able to be copyrighted, much less what goals we wish with the laws and whether they accomplish those goals.
Slashdot Mirror
Now wait a minute.
Aren't you part of the faction that is claiming the BTC have monetary value?
I think the courts would entertain the notion of "illegal generation of bitcoins" just as well as any other illegal use of someone else's resources to produce a product.
Why do you think it is not so?
Regards.
So...
Apple should be able to sue other companies over this because... they have made the most money of the old old concept in the present age?
That doesn't sound like much of a basis for a lawsuit.
But then, I'm not I lawyer.
Regards.
cubes are not the projection of planes in 3d space
regards.
So, by your stance you should not own any computer, or probably any product produced by a corporation.
Please list those computer products you own, so that we may begin telling you how the companies involved have done the same thing.
Or perhaps you just unreasonably hate Apple?
Lol.
There will always be a top five percent.
This is a brilliant move to cause *everyone* to reduce usage. The people at 3GB feel safe because of the headroom. But if everyone cuts down to a max of 3GB, what then?
Top 5% baby! Ok, so *most* of those users cut down. Well, there's still a top 5% that gets throttled, unless *they* also cut down...
Truly a race to the bottom - whatever AT&T says they won't throttle at is eventually where almost all users will end up.
Nice. For them, at least.
Regards.
It is used to tie you to other Identities that they may not currently associate with your real name.
They don't particularly care if it is useful to *you*, but it is very useful to *them*.
So, now you are seeing what their priorities are. Of course, this should probably already be obvious to everyone.
Regards.
Yes, of course they have to track you to know that you have opted out of tracking.
How else do think it would work?
This pattern is depressingly similar to how the whole legal system is going.
Because they were the ones who were buying, perhaps?
I suppose that Slashdot could have gotten together and bought them...
>>It used to be that the embedded marketplace was full of odd hardware with its own oddball C compiler.
This is not better, in my opinion.
>> Alternative software that does mostly the same thing gets crowded out of the market.
Especially *software that you have to pay for*. But I don't think that's a bad thing either.
>>Linux's success makes it hard for the BSDs to gain traction.
Yes, power laws applies to software projects, too. I'm sorry that's the case, but how do you propose to mitigate one of the fundamental observations of the 90's? Both developers and installs will track 'teh hotness'.
But, this also actually ensures there *will be* BSD developers, as it is a smaller, yet stable strange attractor, so to say.
Regards.
So, you're blaming gcc for having "non-standard" extensions?
To, presumably other compiler writers, who can write their own if they wish?
So, your first culprit should be other compiler writers, for not supporting versions of these extensions, if so many people want to use the extensions with other compilers.
And then, you also blame gcc for widget makers who *also* wont recode to compiler independent formats.
No, I don't think so.
The end result occurred because gcc was good enough, and has had competition to become better (even from within the codebase).
>> But the end result is about the same as what Microsoft ended up doing with J++.
Really? As far as I know, J++ is not very widely used, while gcc is. So, it can hardly be claimed that this is true or both would have the same fate in the marketplace.
In fact, one might expect Microsoft J++ to have more market share than gcc if they are using the same strategies, since they have much more weight to leverage things.
On the other hand, you could be talking of some other type of 'end result', so please elucidate if that is the case.
Regards.
>> If you have a dedicated key for switching between two workspaces, and the switching is instant and not laggy, that's almost as good as two monitors
And right in your argument you defeat it. Why would I want almost as good if I don't have to do that? Especially for something I use every day for multiple hours a day?
Regards.
>>To a very large extent gcc has sucked the air out of the room
Yes, but why or how? Was it designed to kill off the other compliers? Did the gcc folks make any efforts to destroy complier companies or their compilers?
>>Still, there certainly are cases where GNU software uses its market share to help it compete.
Cite, please? I don't think this is the case with compilers, which you brought up as an example. I am just wondering if you have any other examples, or if you can provide more details on how gcc used it's market share to force other compiler makers out of business.
Regards.
Sorry, I prefer the solutions goal found The Culture myself, but you can definitely go to Venus if you desire, instead.
Well, in simple genetic terms, it is often better to be the product of a hybridization process.
The resultant mix is more likely, after generations, to include more of the individual beneficial features of each separate base stock as such would provide a higher survivability rate.
So, no, I don't think it would stop the white supremacists at all.
They just have to redefine what they mean by perfect to be the opposite of what they currently pin the meaning on.
Since this is a rational or logical dissonance, in the end, all you'd get is a *whoosh* as a new generation of supremacists argue that this genetic mixture is what defines their superiority.
Regards.
That takes a bit of space, and can hardly be determined in term's of todays 'intelligence' tests.
Perhaps different species have different kinds of 'intelligence', particular to some 'test' as derived from a filter of some "scientist".
That is, we select which species are "intelligent" dependent upon the type(s) of tests we provide training to.
Regards.
Not in the slightest.
I think fake geeks are dooming other fake geeks, since they both end up knowing how fake they are being.
Regards
I am sick and tired of your fear mongering , the rabid and ridiculous statements on nuclear power.
its a russian roulette with a 1000 shooter revolver instead of 6 shooter revolver - but, when it happens everything will end and there will be no return.
this is not something random - its something that when happens, may eradicate/distort life in a good swath of the planet.
a magnitude 9 quake under tokyo would cause a bigger mess, but does not have the possibility of making 1/4 of the world unlivable, and rest genetically mutated, poisoned, twisted.
you can argue that excessive toxic oil based wastes can also do genetic mutations in biosphere - but, the possibilities of that compared to direct radiation can not be even mentioned.
yet, 1/4 of the planet has not become unlivable. when a nuclear installation gets stricken with a 9 quake, it will.
however, no coal plant will make half a hemisphere unlivable for thousands of years, when a disaster hits one of these. there is no turning back from radiation.
Perhaps you feel that you need to distort the worst case scenario so people will "care". How's that turning out for the war on drugs?
If this is the case, just stop. Go back to reasonable arguments. Is Eastern Europe unoccupied because or Tschernobyl? Surely since Japan is a small island country it was totally evacuated due to the accident, then? People *do* pay attention to invalid predictions and will discount anything you actually are right about because of the amount of bullshit you spew. And they are right to.
Perhaps you actually believe what you are saying. If that's the case, you sould be able to find credible scientists who agree with you (after all - it's their planet too!). You should be able to back up the fact that "half" or "1/4" of the planet would be uninhabitable due to a single nuclear plant accident.
Or perhaps you believe that they are in collusion?
In this case, I believe that your fear of 'teh' Evils of Radiation were probably instilled in your matrix at a very young age, and you haven't broken those ill-thought chains of "reasoning" to look at the risks in an objective light.
Radiation isn't some mysterious force these days - we actually know quite a lot about the physics and biological issues involved.
In other words, your risk profile for nuclear energy seems COMPLETELY out of wack by orders of magnitudes.
Regards.
The Supreme Court and Big Business want information to be free?
So be it.
Regards.
I have to agree with you. Leaving aside every other issue from the RIAA to telecom immunity to the Patriot Act, etc., he is merely stating the truth here.
Every piece of automation that replaces a person puts that person out of work at that job. It remains to be sen if there will exist enough "jobs" to sustain capitalism once a bunch more is automated. I think that Obama is merely foreshadowing that, although he is blind as to it's end point.
He only sees the possibility of every one continuing to work! when the end goal is no one should need to work.
Regards.
You fail.
That FA you cite is basic hit piece, full of innuendo and supposition, including the first fucking line:
Is US Chief Information Officer (CIO) Vivek Kundra a Phony?
and such gems as:
The emergence of Kundra is something that needs more research.
I have not verified it, but itâ(TM)s probably true.
I first suspected something was fishy about this fellow by listening to him on CSPAN where he simply did not sound like someone who studied computers or technology.
But, to be honest about it, and despite the possible fraudulent bios and non-existent degrees, the kicker for me was that even if he was squeaky clean he has no business being the USA CIO controlling billions and billions of dollars in government contracts.
I think that's enough of that shit.
Now, as far as what has actually happened during his term:
From Wikipedia:
Mr. Kundra published a 25-point implementation plan [32]to reform how the Federal government manages information technology. The execution plan follows his decision to reevaluate some of the government's most troubled IT projects.[33] Of 38 projects reviewed, four have been canceled,[34] 11 have been rescoped and 12 have cut the time for delivery of functionality down by more than half, from two to three years down to an average of 8 months, achieving a total of $3 billion in lifecycle budget reductions.
Regards.
You do understand that the Parent is not using the Standard Model don't you?
Please either justify your response using his model, or examine what makes his model incorrect, and not just "different".
Regards
The Patriot Act wasn't created after 911.
It was dreamt up by the neo-cons quite a few decades before that. Including published stragegy and goals that more or less match, if not precisely.
I am too lazy to find the docs, but *I* don't have to - i did that once already and was disgusted enough.
They simply waited until the crisis. When things heat up, people's choices get plastic. Lay down a new Law Pattern, then stomp.
Nice new waffle imprint on the faces of the Citizens.
Regards
Why cannot my ethical system rely on individual case by case basis as a primary component of the decision making process instead of a secondary one? Or at least ce-Equal with the Ethical Guidelines.
What I mean is, why must an arbitrary (however well "thought out") set of Rules be hierarcically more important than the details of the Event? The Event is reality, the rules merely a behavioural map to navigate this.
Most problems I see with "ethical systems" is that they try to shoehorn inappropriate Events into Systemitized Categories. This either ends up distorting or dropping the actual details involved, and this is a mistake.
It just gets worse when you get your ethical Hammer and decide you must apply it to every situation a priori - that is without having an actual detailed situation that you have skin in.
This is what I see by advocating that if an individual ethical decision is made one MUST rest on THIS framework, and therefore one is WRONG, because when applied to these OTHER cases it turns out to be a horrible idea.
I hope that this makes my point clearer.
Regards.
When you make an ethical stance on one item- you have to make any ethical stance on all items. Because if you don't, it isn't a fair process and is no longer ethical.
Only by your code of ethics. See? Done.
Unless you can prove that all ethical systems must, in order to be considered ethical systems, create stances on all "items" under that ethical system's consideration.
I'm pretty sure that there are a lot of ethical systems which have failed to enumerate all possible "items" that fairly fall under their consideration. It seems that ethical systems are still enumerating these.
So, perhaps it is just the case that there is no such thing as an ethical system, if your requirement has to be met.
Regards.
I, on the other hand, believe it would be.
Here's the original authorship:
wrote short descriptions of how to use them and what they did
Or are you saying that technical help documentation cannot be copyrighted?
I imagine there are a few other people who would disagree with that as well.
Note - this is entierly seperate from a discussion on what *should* be able to be copyrighted, much less what goals we wish with the laws and whether they accomplish those goals.
Regards.