You've got the right spirit, but almost every one of your facts are wrong.
Remember that Saddam - Saddam has no more to do with this discussion than Hitler, patron of all Internet discussions. He wasn't even Shi'a (Bin Laden's demonination). Please stick to the point.
But Islam ("Peace") - No, not "Peace". 'The word Islam means "submission", or the total surrender of oneself to God.' (Wikipedia).
Islam... has the exact same religious fundamentals as both Christianity and Judaism - Only if you ignore the fundamentals.:-) Let's take a quick look.
Islam teaches that salvation is earned by adhering to the Five Pillars and performing good works; addresses every aspect of life (religious, social and political); and guarantees salvation only to those who die in Jihad (otherwise you're in or not as a result of the final judgement by Allah).
Christianity teaches that salvation is a free gift of God to all who believe; addresses primarily religious and social (but not political) belief; and offers "eternal security" (you can know if you'll go to heaven based on Biblical promises).
Judaism is the national religion of the Jewish people, based on principles and ethics embodied in the Hebrew Bible and the Talmud. It offers no consensus view of an afterlife at all.
These three religions have Abraham and a moral world-view in common; only the fundamentals differ.
Bin Laden is to Islam what a mafioso is to Catholicism - Well... no again. "The Sicilian Cosa Nostra is a loose confederation of about one hundred Mafia groups, also called cosche or families, each of which claims sovereignty over a territory." Their interest is primarily financial and the protection of family members; Bin Laden's is primarily "cleansing the lands of Allah" from non-Muslim influence through individual and organized terrorism. Bin Laden considers the Afghanistan Taliban to have been the only legitimate government in Arabia; mafiosi recognize (but operate independently of) the legitimate government of Italy.
But this has NOTHING to do with Islam - Only to extent that the Crusades had nothing to do with Christianity. (Hint: They certainly did, though ultimately both the later Crusades and the current Islamic Fatwahs come down to power struggles in the originating political organizations.)
As with most religions, the extremists/freaks attempt to redefine the religion in their own image... - I knew we'd find something on which to agree!:-)
At no point did I say or even imply that Bin Laden was representative of mainstream Islam. He's obviously not. The original poster, however, was asserting his theoretical "presidential administration" would base foreign policy on the goal of not encouraging Bin Laden (implied) to knock down any more buildings. Bin Laden is a radical, with his power rooted firmly is the radical fringe of Shi'a Islam. And he and his ilk will not be satisfied until Sharia law is the law of the land in the USA. Appease them not, or regret will be yours.
Alright. Bin Laden is a religious zealot, and unfortunately, also a well-funded, CIA trained terrorist.
Here we agree.
Terrorists don't hate freedom
Here we don't. "Bin Laden believes that the restoration of Sharia law will set things right in the Muslim world, and that all other ideologies - pan-Arabism, socialism, communism, democracy - must be opposed" (emphasis added). Terrorist organizations have openly called for Muslims to kill anyone who opposes imposition of Islamic law (i.e., favors Western-style "freedom"), including civilians. "Probably the most controversial part of Bin Laden's ideology is that civilians, including women and children, can be killed in jihad." From Wikipedia.
Our support for Israel and our involvement in the overthrown of the Afghan Taliban government have been great recruiting tools, but (I believe) were still very much in our best interest. Abandoning mutual support for our loyal friends and allies, and allowing a terrorist training camp to operate openly with government support, would be foolish invitations to more 9-11 style attacks.
Pulling all allied troops back to national borders, which I think is what your post advocates, is pretty much the best way to ensure that the worldwide movement toward democracy and freedom is defeated by the movement for Islamist theocracies. I favor the former. As Ben Franklin said, either we hang together, or we'll hang (or whatever the Taliban's latest favorite method of execution for Muslims and non-Muslims alike may be) separately.
Actually, this is the biggie in terms of terrorist recruiting. If we'd just let our most loyal ally in the Middle East (a democracy at that) be "driven into the sea" by the dictators and Islamic governments that surround it, as they keep screaming that they want to do, then either (1) they'd leave us alone, or (2) they'd be a lot less distracted from launching the kind of attacks against us on U.S. soil they keep saying they really want to make.
But the start of the thread was:
Quit doing things that make other people want to knock our buildings down.
That's an exceptionally poor foreign policy goal, IMHO, as it easily translates into "Ask terrorist states to lay out our policies for us so they're not offensive to Islamic radicals." I'm more in favor of "providing for the common defence" of the USA as our primary foreign policy goal at the moment. I don't believe appeasement has a very good track record at accomplishing that goal.
So you would pass the 'Let's All Become Muslim' Bill?
Show me one statement/website/whatever where ANY pseudo-legitimate group has even suggested such a thing
Not sure if you consider them "pseudo-legitimate", but you might try this BBC's report on a video statement made by Osama Bin Laden in September 2007:
The speaker tells the American public that there are two ways to end the war in Iraq: "The first is from our side, and it is to continue to escalate the killing and fighting against you."
The second way, he continues, is to reject America's democratic system and convert to Islam.
Sure sounds like he plans to keep knocking down buildings until we all embrace his religion to me. At least, I didn't notice a "we'll leave you alone if you leave us alone" clause anywhere in his statement.
Today, both parents need to work, and the kids work too (also in IT) and is hard to pay the bills.
I don't mean to preach, honest, but I've got to ask - what bills? To live, you need basic food, shelter, utilities, and whatever you need to support your employment (like a reliable car or a simple Internet connection). If you can't make enough to pay for that (about $35k in the USA, not sure in the UK) in IT, then you need to change jobs or self-employ.
I work 40 hours a week, no overtime. My wife stays home to run the household and volunteer to help the less fortunate. We have 3 kids, not one of which works. We have no debt (other than a mortgage), because we spend less than I make, give generously to church and charity, and save the rest for a "rainy day". I consider myself to be incredibly rich, because I have everything I want - but what I want can't be purchased with a credit card!
Hope I didn't offend - I don't know you, so I'm speaking only in general to encourage readers to consider "wants" versus "needs". Is a person happier with an XBox, HDTV, fleeced new car, super cell phone contract, an impressive house that consumes 40% of take home pay, and a stack of credit card bills to worry over each month? Or happier with the basics, a smaller house that fits the budget, a healthy savings account and growing retirement account, no other debt over which to fret, and regular opportunities to help those who are truly less fortunate?
...it automatically flashes me for.5 seconds the context of the opening brace of the block, even if it is off the screen. I like this feature, though I am not entirely sure why.
I'm suspicious that you like it because it allows you to quickly check whether your indentation matches your braces That's why *I* like it, at least. Except when I'm writing Python, of course.;-)
Just curious - in what way is the Cheeseshop not equivalent to CPAN? Not as many Python eggs as CPAN modules, of course, but otherwise I easy_install as easily as I ppm. Or maybe you mean something else?
You post doesn't make sense - or maybe I'm not following you? Anyone can write a Linux application and use any license they like (or stated another way, quite a few Linux applications are proprietary - the proprietary Flash plugin, for instance). McAfee wouldn't need to release their product under the GPL just to run it on Linux.
And if they want to write a kernel support function that compiles with Linux and is also part of their product, they can dual-license (GPL when it's compiled with Linux, proprietary when part of their product). As long as they hold copyright, they aren't limited at all.
What they seem to be saying is that they compile code written by someone else and released under only the GPL in their products. They can't change the license on code on which someone else holds copyright, so they are distributing that code in violation of the license (or, more precisely, in violation of copyright). Either they must "cure" the violation (e.g., by releasing their source code or replacing the GPL'd code), or acquire a commercial license from the copyright holder (if available).
I must be missing something between step 3 and 5 in your post.
Actually, distros with patch servers (such as Ubuntu and Fedora) can get a rough measure of installed base - by counting unique IP addresses downloading patches. By this measure, we know that between 6 and 12 million Ubuntu desktops are active on the Internet, and about 2 million unique IP addresses host Fedora machines. (And if you calculate those machines alone to handily exceed the claimed "0.63%" share calculated by NetApp, you're already smarter than they are!;-)
We hosted three Christian youth workers from England in our home a few months ago. They all had laptops, of course, but to my surprise, the laptops ran Ubuntu. When I expressed surprise (because I usually see technical people running Linux rather than Christian youth workers), one of them looked at me with a puzzled expression and said, "Linux doesn't crash so much."
I guess he told me!:-)
But I, too, noticed a much broader cross-section of the "normal" population discussing and using Linux than before.
Put a gun to their head and shout at the top of your lungs... they won't listen
Just out of curiosity, would you mind stating (1) where you live, and (2) what forms of public transportation you use to avoid having to rely on a car? It's an honest question.
In Texas (at least), we're so spread out that I can't work out any means of public transportation that would be even vaguely efficient for more than a few percent of my transportation needs. I've thought about it quite a bit - if it were more efficient than cars, it would be a major business opportunity!
I use intercity rail to reach certain sporting events - but reaching the rail station requires a drive almost as long as the train itself travels. I also tried the local bus system, but it doesn't pick up anywhere near my house, nor does it travel to within walking distance of most of my destinations. My local city tried "jitneys" (basically small buses with flexible routes), but they quickly proved too expensive to operate in a sprawling community.
Otherwise, until you can help me work out an efficient and practical public transportation system here, I don't agree that I'm among the "Selfish Idiots" - but rather, I suspect you're among the "Clueless Snobs".
I doubt the Perl community feels disenfranchised because of a week or month delay. After all, we've been waiting on Perl 6 since the turn of the millennium.
are there any other reasons for working on this project?
If Parrot becomes "efficient enough", then hosting Perl, Python and Ruby on Parrot should permit writing programs in a mixture of all three. Python has a very extensive library, but I certainly wouldn't mind having all of CPAN for which to choose as well - or access to Rails, for that matter. (Yes, I know, much of Rails' value is in its elegant fit to Ruby syntax, but I'd still like access from Python. Call me a library pack rat.:-)
For another example of recent interest to me, Perl and Ruby have excellent integrations with GraphicsMagick; Python has Python Image Library (PIL) instead. Why can't I choose the graphics library I want from any of the big three dynamic languages?
Nor would Parrot implementations of those languages need to replace the main implementations to be useful. The JVM has Jython and JRuby, granting access to Java libraries like Swing. Similarly, Microsoft's.NET has IronPython and IronRuby to avoid the much-maligned VB6. Interoperable implementations of Perl 6, Python 3, and Ruby 2 on Parrot would be very nice indeed.
Well, for a dynamic language junkie like me, at least.;-)
Somebody will point a gun at you. You know it will happen. What do you do about it?
Build a bigger gun?
Of course, once I have a bigger gun, I start thinking about all the ways to use it for personal gain other than for self defense. I wish I had an answer for that one.
But all in all, I'll take the bigger gun... er, giant airborne laser cannon.
It's not "your" nuclear power, it is theirs, and they will still screw you over if you remain dependent, and it doesn't matter how it is generated.
I'm a rather practical person. It's fun to fantasize about abstract solutions to self-generate the energy I need, but when I consider actually following your advice, I quickly hit reality.
The alternative sources of energy you suggested were geothermal, tidal, hydroelectric, and solar.
My house isn't located on a geothermal vent, next to the ocean, or beside a river, so the first three are pretty much non-starters if I want to have "my" own power. That leaves solar, which costs a *lot* to set up (I've checked) and doesn't generate anything at night or during snowstorms, when I want to use lights and heaters (not to mention computers:-). I could store the energy in batteries, but have you seen the price of batteries lately? And what powers my heaters when they run down?
If you're talking about a solution that I could actually implement in the next couple of decades, nothing you're proposing looks practical to me. Or perhaps you're assuming some major inventions on the near horizon? Am I missing something significant?
This level of energy consumption is not sustainable, and I would argue, not desirable.
You first.
Sell your computer and all other energy consuming devices. Move to an area with no power generation, communication facilities, or other evil technology. Chip out some stone tools, clear some land, and have at it.
Let me know how you make out.
As for me and my house, though, we'll stick with technology, thanks. (Hint: Technology and more meaningful relationships are not mutually exclusive.)
Supporters for Ogg/Theora are voting for a Ross Perot, assuring that we'll really get a George Bush. What we really need is an Al Gore: centrist, workable, functional, capable, and proven to work.
Your technical insight is far superior to your history.
People voting for Ross Perot enable Bill Clinton to win two terms as president with only 43% of the vote in 1992 and 49% in 1996; George (H.W.) Bush lost in 1992 largely because of Ross Perot drawing fiscal conservatives seeking a balanced budget from the Bush voter base.
Al Gore failed to win a majority of popular or electoral votes in 2000 primarily due to Ralph Nader winning almost 3% of the vote. Al Gore managed 48.4% of the popular vote (to George W. Bush's 47.9%), but lost in the Electoral College by 5 votes.
I certainly wouldn't call Al Gore a centrist - he's a liberal, and proud of it. "Populist" might be a good description, though.
None of which has the slightest relationship to codecs. Why did you bring up this rabbit trail again???;-)
Sorry, I wasn't clear. Since this was their last processor compatible with the motherboard, I would need to return the processor and motherboard. Since my second choice used different memory, I would also have to return the memory.
The processor and memory were "rung up" in the components department, in which a long line was now forming (I arrived at opening time on Friday to avoid the Christmas rush!), and all I had was a piece of paper to exchange at the cashier for the actual parts (after the debit card transaction was completed).
Thus, we'd have to cancel out the debit card paperwork, I'd have to walk the remaining components (hard drive, case, optical drive) out to my car, return to components to pick up the other motherboard from the shelf, and then re-queue to get a new piece of paper for the compatible CPU and memory.
That's a long process, and it would have been avoided if, when the clerk first rang up the processor, he had simply told me, "Oh, this will be an open box processor - any problem with that?" *sigh*
Why does Fry's think that their customers want something that has been returned by a customer, with no idea of how the item was abused/misused before being returned?
At least at my local Fry's,they allegedly re-wrap and sell only merchandise that the customer couldn't use (e.g., I bought a DVD RW drive with a SATA interface - the original purchaser undoubtedly didn't check and was expecting an EIDE drive), and return products to the manufacturer that the customer reports as defective. They usually knock about 10% off the price of a returned package, on the white sticker, which makes them slightly more attractive to the price-conscious. And they have always given me a refund or store credit (my choice) when I returned such an item, for any reason, and without the deal-breaker restocking fee.
They aren't perfect, though. I bought parts for a new computer for my daughter's Christmas present ("building it together is part of the gift":-), and after everything was signed and sealed, they delivered... a re-wrapped CPU. They asserted it was all they had left, so if I didn't want it at full price, we'd have to undo all of the paperwork, then go start over with the shopping. I quavered, but didn't really have time to start over. I had to straighten some bent pins, but the CPU does seem to work OK.
Since the CPU was reserved in their computer when I first selected it, they should have warned me in advance - and knocked off 10% so I didn't feel slighted. It's for those types of issues that I don't have a "favorite" electronics store. Yet.
I purchased a computer from Computer City just before CompUSA bought them out - and it had trouble reading CDs. It was transferred from Computer City's shop to CompUSA's shop, where it languished for 13 weeks while I pleaded, cajoled and threatened. Finally liberated, I fixed it myself with a CD-ROM from Fry's (discovering in the process I didn't need some big box store to build PCs for me).
Fast forward two years. I'm building a new computer, and Fry's doesn't have the graphics card I want. In a charitable mood, I buy one from CompUSA. It doesn't work. I return it to find they've sold out, too - but insist on charging me a 15% restocking fee, even after I complain to the manager. I asked him if he would enjoy my $30 (since it was the last dollar they'd ever see from me), and he simply assured me they would. He never even apologized for the trouble they caused.
I never set foot in CompUSA again.
Perhaps I'm not the only potentially loyal customer they drove away through sheer greed and incompetence.
Virtually everyone agrees with this point. Everyone is "working for peace", at least in public. But do you get peace by unilateral disarmament? Or by building better weapons than your likely opponents, so that the rational ones (at least) won't attack you?
As much as I hate war (and I grew up in an area where the scars of a lost war were very evident on both humans and material), I'll bet on better weapons to keep my family safe.
I would need to manually inspect every last line of source code...
Oh, it's not a bad as all that - just inspect the top of every source file. In a good application, they have a copyright notice (asserting ownership) and a distribution license (GPL, BSD, whatever) at the top of every file. So, build a spreadsheet with filename, version, owner and license for each file, then verify that all of the licenses are compatible (check the Free Software Foundation's discussion on this if you need help). Any files without the above information will require either further research, or replacement with a compatible file (custom or properly licensed). Any improperly licensed files must be replaced or deleted. If you've made any changes, rebuild your custom distribution, and ask an authorized agent of your employer to assume any remaining legal risk. Now you can claim "due diligence" if you're sued.
See? Not so hard. But potentially expensive given a large application (some have tens of thousands of files).
That means using Open Source software has just become about a thousand times more expensive.
Right you are. Well, right you sorta are. It depends on the cost of a comparable proprietary application, of course, and the value of the differences in functionality to you, and whether you can pay a distribution vendor to assume the legal risk of the open source option for you. What, you thought IT folks just impeded your work?;-)
In the corporate world - well, at least mine (Fortune 50) and those at similarly sized companies with whom I've talked - we'd much rather pay for a commercially supported (and legally indemnified) distribution of an open source application than to do the necessary due diligence on every file in an open source application ourself.
Most of the open source applications we've analyzed had at least some licensing issues that we needed to address in a custom distribution before using, too.
Note that I'm *not* saying that proprietary applications have fewer source file licensing issues than open source applications. However, performing due diligence on a proprietary application is cheap, because you (typically) only have access to a single license and none of the source files. They may or may not assume liability for copyright infringements (EULAs are such slippery creatures), but that's one of the considerations in selecting an application for corporate use.
Open source offers a lot of advantages, but "download and use without thinking" just isn't one of them.
You're absolutely right (and KDE4's application portability may well be a huge benefit to KDE-oriented developers). Many large IT departments have been adopting free software products such as Eclipse in large numbers, and targeting free cross-platform technologies such as Java, AJAX and Python for their in-house applications.
One great thing about this trend is that, once a company has migrated to FOSS for its commercial and custom applications, the operating system becomes almost irrelevant. So Linux, Mac and Windows can compete on a more even playing field, with the commercial application base playing a much smaller role.
None of this is to downplay Microsoft's excellent support for Windows-only developers - but wise IT departments should think long and hard before marrying any proprietary technology. Anybody remember the Vax?:-)
Slashdot Mirror
You've got the right spirit, but almost every one of your facts are wrong.
These three religions have Abraham and a moral world-view in common; only the fundamentals differ.
At no point did I say or even imply that Bin Laden was representative of mainstream Islam. He's obviously not. The original poster, however, was asserting his theoretical "presidential administration" would base foreign policy on the goal of not encouraging Bin Laden (implied) to knock down any more buildings. Bin Laden is a radical, with his power rooted firmly is the radical fringe of Shi'a Islam. And he and his ilk will not be satisfied until Sharia law is the law of the land in the USA. Appease them not, or regret will be yours.
Here we agree.
Here we don't. "Bin Laden believes that the restoration of Sharia law will set things right in the Muslim world, and that all other ideologies - pan-Arabism, socialism, communism, democracy - must be opposed" (emphasis added). Terrorist organizations have openly called for Muslims to kill anyone who opposes imposition of Islamic law (i.e., favors Western-style "freedom"), including civilians. "Probably the most controversial part of Bin Laden's ideology is that civilians, including women and children, can be killed in jihad." From Wikipedia.
Our support for Israel and our involvement in the overthrown of the Afghan Taliban government have been great recruiting tools, but (I believe) were still very much in our best interest. Abandoning mutual support for our loyal friends and allies, and allowing a terrorist training camp to operate openly with government support, would be foolish invitations to more 9-11 style attacks.
Pulling all allied troops back to national borders, which I think is what your post advocates, is pretty much the best way to ensure that the worldwide movement toward democracy and freedom is defeated by the movement for Islamist theocracies. I favor the former. As Ben Franklin said, either we hang together, or we'll hang (or whatever the Taliban's latest favorite method of execution for Muslims and non-Muslims alike may be) separately.
Actually, this is the biggie in terms of terrorist recruiting. If we'd just let our most loyal ally in the Middle East (a democracy at that) be "driven into the sea" by the dictators and Islamic governments that surround it, as they keep screaming that they want to do, then either (1) they'd leave us alone, or (2) they'd be a lot less distracted from launching the kind of attacks against us on U.S. soil they keep saying they really want to make.
But the start of the thread was:
That's an exceptionally poor foreign policy goal, IMHO, as it easily translates into "Ask terrorist states to lay out our policies for us so they're not offensive to Islamic radicals." I'm more in favor of "providing for the common defence" of the USA as our primary foreign policy goal at the moment. I don't believe appeasement has a very good track record at accomplishing that goal.
Not sure if you consider them "pseudo-legitimate", but you might try this BBC's report on a video statement made by Osama Bin Laden in September 2007:
Sure sounds like he plans to keep knocking down buildings until we all embrace his religion to me. At least, I didn't notice a "we'll leave you alone if you leave us alone" clause anywhere in his statement.
I don't mean to preach, honest, but I've got to ask - what bills? To live, you need basic food, shelter, utilities, and whatever you need to support your employment (like a reliable car or a simple Internet connection). If you can't make enough to pay for that (about $35k in the USA, not sure in the UK) in IT, then you need to change jobs or self-employ.
I work 40 hours a week, no overtime. My wife stays home to run the household and volunteer to help the less fortunate. We have 3 kids, not one of which works. We have no debt (other than a mortgage), because we spend less than I make, give generously to church and charity, and save the rest for a "rainy day". I consider myself to be incredibly rich, because I have everything I want - but what I want can't be purchased with a credit card!
Hope I didn't offend - I don't know you, so I'm speaking only in general to encourage readers to consider "wants" versus "needs". Is a person happier with an XBox, HDTV, fleeced new car, super cell phone contract, an impressive house that consumes 40% of take home pay, and a stack of credit card bills to worry over each month? Or happier with the basics, a smaller house that fits the budget, a healthy savings account and growing retirement account, no other debt over which to fret, and regular opportunities to help those who are truly less fortunate?
And yes, I do listen to Dave Ramsey. :-)
I'm suspicious that you like it because it allows you to quickly check whether your indentation matches your braces That's why *I* like it, at least. Except when I'm writing Python, of course. ;-)
Just curious - in what way is the Cheeseshop not equivalent to CPAN? Not as many Python eggs as CPAN modules, of course, but otherwise I easy_install as easily as I ppm. Or maybe you mean something else?
TFA said:
Young Indiana Jones said:
You post doesn't make sense - or maybe I'm not following you? Anyone can write a Linux application and use any license they like (or stated another way, quite a few Linux applications are proprietary - the proprietary Flash plugin, for instance). McAfee wouldn't need to release their product under the GPL just to run it on Linux.
And if they want to write a kernel support function that compiles with Linux and is also part of their product, they can dual-license (GPL when it's compiled with Linux, proprietary when part of their product). As long as they hold copyright, they aren't limited at all.
What they seem to be saying is that they compile code written by someone else and released under only the GPL in their products. They can't change the license on code on which someone else holds copyright, so they are distributing that code in violation of the license (or, more precisely, in violation of copyright). Either they must "cure" the violation (e.g., by releasing their source code or replacing the GPL'd code), or acquire a commercial license from the copyright holder (if available).
I must be missing something between step 3 and 5 in your post.
Actually, distros with patch servers (such as Ubuntu and Fedora) can get a rough measure of installed base - by counting unique IP addresses downloading patches. By this measure, we know that between 6 and 12 million Ubuntu desktops are active on the Internet, and about 2 million unique IP addresses host Fedora machines. (And if you calculate those machines alone to handily exceed the claimed "0.63%" share calculated by NetApp, you're already smarter than they are! ;-)
We hosted three Christian youth workers from England in our home a few months ago. They all had laptops, of course, but to my surprise, the laptops ran Ubuntu. When I expressed surprise (because I usually see technical people running Linux rather than Christian youth workers), one of them looked at me with a puzzled expression and said, "Linux doesn't crash so much."
I guess he told me! :-)
But I, too, noticed a much broader cross-section of the "normal" population discussing and using Linux than before.
Just out of curiosity, would you mind stating (1) where you live, and (2) what forms of public transportation you use to avoid having to rely on a car? It's an honest question.
In Texas (at least), we're so spread out that I can't work out any means of public transportation that would be even vaguely efficient for more than a few percent of my transportation needs. I've thought about it quite a bit - if it were more efficient than cars, it would be a major business opportunity!
I use intercity rail to reach certain sporting events - but reaching the rail station requires a drive almost as long as the train itself travels. I also tried the local bus system, but it doesn't pick up anywhere near my house, nor does it travel to within walking distance of most of my destinations. My local city tried "jitneys" (basically small buses with flexible routes), but they quickly proved too expensive to operate in a sprawling community.
Otherwise, until you can help me work out an efficient and practical public transportation system here, I don't agree that I'm among the "Selfish Idiots" - but rather, I suspect you're among the "Clueless Snobs".
But please prove me wrong! :-)
There, fixed that for ya. ;-)
If Parrot becomes "efficient enough", then hosting Perl, Python and Ruby on Parrot should permit writing programs in a mixture of all three. Python has a very extensive library, but I certainly wouldn't mind having all of CPAN for which to choose as well - or access to Rails, for that matter. (Yes, I know, much of Rails' value is in its elegant fit to Ruby syntax, but I'd still like access from Python. Call me a library pack rat. :-)
For another example of recent interest to me, Perl and Ruby have excellent integrations with GraphicsMagick; Python has Python Image Library (PIL) instead. Why can't I choose the graphics library I want from any of the big three dynamic languages?
Nor would Parrot implementations of those languages need to replace the main implementations to be useful. The JVM has Jython and JRuby, granting access to Java libraries like Swing. Similarly, Microsoft's .NET has IronPython and IronRuby to avoid the much-maligned VB6. Interoperable implementations of Perl 6, Python 3, and Ruby 2 on Parrot would be very nice indeed.
Well, for a dynamic language junkie like me, at least. ;-)
Build a bigger gun?
Of course, once I have a bigger gun, I start thinking about all the ways to use it for personal gain other than for self defense. I wish I had an answer for that one.
But all in all, I'll take the bigger gun... er, giant airborne laser cannon.
I'm a rather practical person. It's fun to fantasize about abstract solutions to self-generate the energy I need, but when I consider actually following your advice, I quickly hit reality.
The alternative sources of energy you suggested were geothermal, tidal, hydroelectric, and solar.
My house isn't located on a geothermal vent, next to the ocean, or beside a river, so the first three are pretty much non-starters if I want to have "my" own power. That leaves solar, which costs a *lot* to set up (I've checked) and doesn't generate anything at night or during snowstorms, when I want to use lights and heaters (not to mention computers :-). I could store the energy in batteries, but have you seen the price of batteries lately? And what powers my heaters when they run down?
If you're talking about a solution that I could actually implement in the next couple of decades, nothing you're proposing looks practical to me. Or perhaps you're assuming some major inventions on the near horizon? Am I missing something significant?
You first.
Sell your computer and all other energy consuming devices. Move to an area with no power generation, communication facilities, or other evil technology. Chip out some stone tools, clear some land, and have at it.
Let me know how you make out.
As for me and my house, though, we'll stick with technology, thanks. (Hint: Technology and more meaningful relationships are not mutually exclusive.)
Your technical insight is far superior to your history.
People voting for Ross Perot enable Bill Clinton to win two terms as president with only 43% of the vote in 1992 and 49% in 1996; George (H.W.) Bush lost in 1992 largely because of Ross Perot drawing fiscal conservatives seeking a balanced budget from the Bush voter base.
Al Gore failed to win a majority of popular or electoral votes in 2000 primarily due to Ralph Nader winning almost 3% of the vote. Al Gore managed 48.4% of the popular vote (to George W. Bush's 47.9%), but lost in the Electoral College by 5 votes.
I certainly wouldn't call Al Gore a centrist - he's a liberal, and proud of it. "Populist" might be a good description, though.
None of which has the slightest relationship to codecs. Why did you bring up this rabbit trail again??? ;-)
Sorry, I wasn't clear. Since this was their last processor compatible with the motherboard, I would need to return the processor and motherboard. Since my second choice used different memory, I would also have to return the memory.
The processor and memory were "rung up" in the components department, in which a long line was now forming (I arrived at opening time on Friday to avoid the Christmas rush!), and all I had was a piece of paper to exchange at the cashier for the actual parts (after the debit card transaction was completed).
Thus, we'd have to cancel out the debit card paperwork, I'd have to walk the remaining components (hard drive, case, optical drive) out to my car, return to components to pick up the other motherboard from the shelf, and then re-queue to get a new piece of paper for the compatible CPU and memory.
That's a long process, and it would have been avoided if, when the clerk first rang up the processor, he had simply told me, "Oh, this will be an open box processor - any problem with that?" *sigh*
At least at my local Fry's,they allegedly re-wrap and sell only merchandise that the customer couldn't use (e.g., I bought a DVD RW drive with a SATA interface - the original purchaser undoubtedly didn't check and was expecting an EIDE drive), and return products to the manufacturer that the customer reports as defective. They usually knock about 10% off the price of a returned package, on the white sticker, which makes them slightly more attractive to the price-conscious. And they have always given me a refund or store credit (my choice) when I returned such an item, for any reason, and without the deal-breaker restocking fee.
They aren't perfect, though. I bought parts for a new computer for my daughter's Christmas present ("building it together is part of the gift" :-), and after everything was signed and sealed, they delivered... a re-wrapped CPU. They asserted it was all they had left, so if I didn't want it at full price, we'd have to undo all of the paperwork, then go start over with the shopping. I quavered, but didn't really have time to start over. I had to straighten some bent pins, but the CPU does seem to work OK.
Since the CPU was reserved in their computer when I first selected it, they should have warned me in advance - and knocked off 10% so I didn't feel slighted. It's for those types of issues that I don't have a "favorite" electronics store. Yet.
I purchased a computer from Computer City just before CompUSA bought them out - and it had trouble reading CDs. It was transferred from Computer City's shop to CompUSA's shop, where it languished for 13 weeks while I pleaded, cajoled and threatened. Finally liberated, I fixed it myself with a CD-ROM from Fry's (discovering in the process I didn't need some big box store to build PCs for me).
Fast forward two years. I'm building a new computer, and Fry's doesn't have the graphics card I want. In a charitable mood, I buy one from CompUSA. It doesn't work. I return it to find they've sold out, too - but insist on charging me a 15% restocking fee, even after I complain to the manager. I asked him if he would enjoy my $30 (since it was the last dollar they'd ever see from me), and he simply assured me they would. He never even apologized for the trouble they caused.
I never set foot in CompUSA again.
Perhaps I'm not the only potentially loyal customer they drove away through sheer greed and incompetence.
Virtually everyone agrees with this point. Everyone is "working for peace", at least in public. But do you get peace by unilateral disarmament? Or by building better weapons than your likely opponents, so that the rational ones (at least) won't attack you?
As much as I hate war (and I grew up in an area where the scars of a lost war were very evident on both humans and material), I'll bet on better weapons to keep my family safe.
Oh, it's not a bad as all that - just inspect the top of every source file. In a good application, they have a copyright notice (asserting ownership) and a distribution license (GPL, BSD, whatever) at the top of every file. So, build a spreadsheet with filename, version, owner and license for each file, then verify that all of the licenses are compatible (check the Free Software Foundation's discussion on this if you need help). Any files without the above information will require either further research, or replacement with a compatible file (custom or properly licensed). Any improperly licensed files must be replaced or deleted. If you've made any changes, rebuild your custom distribution, and ask an authorized agent of your employer to assume any remaining legal risk. Now you can claim "due diligence" if you're sued.
See? Not so hard. But potentially expensive given a large application (some have tens of thousands of files).
Right you are. Well, right you sorta are. It depends on the cost of a comparable proprietary application, of course, and the value of the differences in functionality to you, and whether you can pay a distribution vendor to assume the legal risk of the open source option for you. What, you thought IT folks just impeded your work? ;-)
In the corporate world - well, at least mine (Fortune 50) and those at similarly sized companies with whom I've talked - we'd much rather pay for a commercially supported (and legally indemnified) distribution of an open source application than to do the necessary due diligence on every file in an open source application ourself.
Most of the open source applications we've analyzed had at least some licensing issues that we needed to address in a custom distribution before using, too.
Note that I'm *not* saying that proprietary applications have fewer source file licensing issues than open source applications. However, performing due diligence on a proprietary application is cheap, because you (typically) only have access to a single license and none of the source files. They may or may not assume liability for copyright infringements (EULAs are such slippery creatures), but that's one of the considerations in selecting an application for corporate use.
Open source offers a lot of advantages, but "download and use without thinking" just isn't one of them.
You're absolutely right (and KDE4's application portability may well be a huge benefit to KDE-oriented developers). Many large IT departments have been adopting free software products such as Eclipse in large numbers, and targeting free cross-platform technologies such as Java, AJAX and Python for their in-house applications.
One great thing about this trend is that, once a company has migrated to FOSS for its commercial and custom applications, the operating system becomes almost irrelevant. So Linux, Mac and Windows can compete on a more even playing field, with the commercial application base playing a much smaller role.
None of this is to downplay Microsoft's excellent support for Windows-only developers - but wise IT departments should think long and hard before marrying any proprietary technology. Anybody remember the Vax? :-)