Actually in my opinion this was the biggest waist. It could have been a good idea, but instead I think it just shows some of ESR's misguided beliefs. From this Loki source the libertarian government he envisioned was...
Libertarian goverrnments will not be able to move military units outside of their home territory, but will receive large science and production bonuses. Once a libertarian government is chosen, all fascist and communist civilizations will immediately declare war on it.
What kind of cinderella notion of Libertarianism does that represent? I'm a libertarian, and it seems to me that the main cost of libertarianism is more civil unrest, and less population growth, and much less production and wealth. Unless the populace is very educated. Think of all the drug addicts, and other things this society would have since it didn't consider anything as evil if it only harmed the person doing it (as proliferated in the current Libertarian platform).
If anything the Ecotarian "back to the earth" society is already a pretty much a good embodyment of Libertarianism of that order(IMHO). But it could be extended...
If one wanted to grant the benifits ESR suggested they should be more costly. It should require the same happiness level as a democracy (if not more), but require even more education to maintain a productive society. Potential rebellion would be greater also.
And definately, I don't think that communist and fascist governments really care about a libertarian order next door. It would be much easier to conquer a country where no one had to join the military anyway. In fact they tend to come in and fill a vacuum left by the lack of leadership from a week government. Remember the Articles if Confederation?
(Btw, not to sound like I'm haranging my party. I am Libertarian because I believe a government is a collaberation inside a society built to preserve the liberties of those in that society. And that less is more when it comes to government on average. Not becuase of unrealistic beliefs that if the government removes its laws and consequences then we can truely be free and without law.)
And kudos to those who did enter, on the most part I really liked hearing about the cool things they did with the code. ^~~^~^^~~^~^~^~^^~^^~^~^~~^^^~^^~~^~~~^~~^~
You've hit on something thats been kicking at me
on
Gartner Slams Linux
·
· Score: 1
for a while now...
Microsoft is bringing mindshare on a product by attacking other products. But this article is from Gartner you say? That is true but the gartner group is basing its assesment on what Linux isn't as if NT is (what Linux isn't.) Its all up and down the Gartner article, but I can exemplify it best with these examples. Once you see what I'm saying you will see hundreds of these things jump out at you when you read the Gartner report.
"Linux does not have a commercial quality Journaling File System." --myth of linux
Somehow that statement, about Linux actually turns into a beleif that NT does have a journaling file system (which if it does it does not ship with it.) Linux right now can read and write to every filesystem I'm aware of that NT can.
Another is that Linux was not designed from the gound up with a graphical user interface. NT wasn't either, the windows95 GUI had to be ported to it by a hired by Microsoft (the same company that wrote Softwindows but the name excapse me). NT's GUI came around 3.0... Anyone seen NT 2.0 or 1.0? Weren't they based on OS/2 which also had a console in mind first?
The last in these myths (the one that Gartner really harrangues) is that Linux is like UNIX and is therefore difficult. This makes it sound like NT is, as in anyone can just pick up and use it. That is not true, it takes a learning curve just like anything else. This learning curve isn't as small as one thinks either, for example If an NT machine can't get out to the internet, how do I do a traceroute --the most important and basic tool in diagnosing this common problem? How easy was it to learn? Could it be done with NT using a GUI?
Whats worse is this learning curve costs someone six weeks (most of the time) and around $2000. Even then they do not know how to remotely administer NT or how to set it to do "timed" tasks (its not in the MCSE course material at least) write intelligent scripts to do repeated tasks, or to help junior administrators maintain the system etc...
As a side note: How do we fight this? Its easy, just keep stating truth and facts about what Linux is. Its a UNIX like operating system that is truely POSIX compliant, that can act as a NT server without the server liscence fees. It can also serve Macintosh machines as well as UNIX machines at the same time. As well as serve as an internet firewall and mail server. All this happens efficient enough as to not require extrememly costly hardware, and runs even quicker on that costly hardware.
It works on hardware ranging from dec alphas to palm pilot. The design model is open to more ideas and critisizm, and that has provided more bang for the buck. This provides companies like RedHat, LinuxCare, and anyone else who consults on Linux complete information, not just required information, to commercialy support these systems. This amount of information is much greater than Microsoft provides MCSE consultants and even those who teach them. This information is also provided freely with easier to access than Microsoft provides.
Security fixes are abundant and quick due to the open nature of the code. In comparison security problems like the Microsoft memory dumping password information into word documents go years without fixing.
Its fun to watch as the release date for Win2000 comes out how Microsoft starts pulling strings to see who still wants to ride their gravy train. ^~~^~^^~~^~^~^~^^~^^~^~^~~^^^~^^~~^~~~^~~^ ~
but you become ostracized by your peers. Is that the mark of a free and educated society?
All I see in that statement are people doing exactly that, excersizing there freedom. They are choosing who they hang out with.
It may not be fair to that person, but then I've never understood why people believe in this grand view of "fairness." I see all to often those who get hurt or offended then appeal to "fairness" as if they expect legions of angels of fairness come and do away with the evil they just located.
Where is the great Mommy who taught us all what is and isn't fair that we can run to and shout "The Government told me I shouldn't smoke marijuanna, thats not fair! The evil government and right wing dogmatic clergymen just told me that a marriage has to be between a man and a woman, thats not fair! I can't buy alcohol just becuase I'm not 21, but they can buy it in Europe, its not fair. My friend just died from a drunk driver its not fair!"...and so on
Sorry to go on like that but its kind of fun. I'm even more sorry if I've offended those who have these opinions I just mentioned and actually *do* have reasonable arguments for or against anything I've discussed. I'm only attacking the adolescent appeal to fairness, not those people who genuinely feel that way. ^~~^~^^~~^~^~^~^^~^^~^~^~~^^^~^^~~^~~~^~~^~
1) GPL 2) BSD 3) I can do whatever I want, no one should be able to tell me its bad. 4) I can do anything imagionable. 5) I have a right to obtain the resources needed in the individual and community pursuit of happiness. 6) Everyone must do what I want them to. 7) Other: (please specify)______________________
Jon Katz, how would you answer this? I admire your pursuit of freedom, and your faith in the nature of freedom that it can never really be taken away. But if I may offer a thought, Freedom is not an end but a means to an end. What is the use of being free to do something if you do not have any reason to do it? What is, what was and what will be the reason for freedom, what is the result that freedom is a means to? What is the purpose of freedom?
Answer these questions, dear reader and Mr Katz. I see this concept alone as the thread that binds, gags or slices every article on censorship, morality, and what technology has done for human-kind. ^~~^~^^~~^~^~^~^^~^^~^~^~~^^^~^^~~^~~ ~^~~^~
My roomate thinks Dot Planet is the next AOL, due to their rocketing network marketing stratagy.
I pointed out to him that Altavista's *free* ISP started later than them, and already has more members than them. I liked pointing it out to him. ^~~^~^^~~^~^~^~^^~^^~^~^~~^^^~^^~~^~~~^~~^~
Thanks for pointing that out to me. Your absolutely right. Judging by some slashdot posts, it seems many got that impression. They should (and I should) be more careful in what we read. ^~~^~^^~~^~^~^~^^~^^~^~^~~^^^~^^~~^~~~^~~^~
It seems that with the anti-trust case ond other cases wrapping up that MS has more PR resources available. Its not so much in the info as in the spin.
The info in the article is that the release day is slipped. The Slashdot mentions that this means Mozilla is shelved (Slashdot loves creating contraversy). Many have pointed out that win 2k (which was demonstrated to me almost two years ago as NT 5) has slipped also.
But Netscape is touted as a failure and win2k is ensuring stability. I beleive this is more evident with Mozilla, even to completely rewriting it to comply better with different standards, as well as all the debugging tools developed and released for it. We have no idea what the hold up is for Microsoft.
The article mentions releasing the souce code as a sublstitute for in house qualified staff, while JWZ (among others) mentions that it better serves the purpose of developing in a fishbowl. You get the benifit of many opinions, and bug fixes from other qualified people. The product is better, more stable and faster developed, but a substitute for your own workers I'm not sure it was ever intended to be that. Some might have dreamed that, but I don't think it was intended.
Oh well, people who want a good browser will still help develop Mozilla and others. JWZ pointed out on many occations that open source means (essentialy) that it will never die unless we ourselves put it on the shelf. ^~~^~^^~~^~^~^~^^~^^~^~^~~^^^~^^~~^~~~^~~^ ~
It seems that with the anti-trust case ond other cases wrapping up that MS has more PR resources available. Its not so much in the info as in the spin. The info in the article is that the release day is slipped. The Slashdot mentions that this means Mozilla is shelved (Slashdot loves creating contraversy). Many have pointed out that win 2k (which was demonstrated to me almost two years ago as NT 5) has slipped also. But Netscape is touted as a failure and win2k is ensuring stability. I beleive this is more evident with Mozilla, even to completely rewriting it to comply better with different standards, as well as all the debugging tools developed and released for it. We have no idea what the hold up is for Microsoft. The article mentions releasing the souce code as a sublstitute for in house qualified staff, while JWZ (among others) mentions that it better serves the purpose of developing in a fishbowl. You get the benifit of many opinions, and bug fixes from other qualified people. The product is better, more stable and faster developed, but a substitute for your own workers I'm not sure it was ever intended to be that. Some might have dreamed that, but I don't think it was intended. Oh well, people who want a good browser will still help develop Mozilla and others. JWZ pointed out on many occationsh that open source means (essentialy) that it will never die unless we ourselves put it on the shelf. ^~~^~^^~~^~^~^~^^~^^~^~^~~^^^~^^~~^~~~^~~^ ~
That reminds me, I heard of a coal mine exploding recently from a buildup of methane gas in Montana.
I also have a feeling some of the more extreme technophiles/ conservatives are going to chastise us for being alarmed by *this* sort of accident. Generally, after a coal mining mishap, the pattern goes like this:
1) BOOOM 2) a number of people are rushed to the hospital 3) liberals run around screaming "Look how awful coal Is!" 4) conservatives tilt their Laz-e-boys up a notch, puff on their pipes, and make devastating comments about "Luddites"
Wait, 3 and 4 don't happen. I'm sorry. I guess hundreds of coal workers dieing every year just isn't as news worthy as 19 Japanese people with radiation burns. Millions of Tobacco smokers dying horrible deaths is maybe as news worthy, but just barely.
Well then, at least watching the tape of the Space Shuttle Challenger and its seven deaths was enough to convince me never to go up into space. Never mind that that is less than the average number of high school kids that die in drunk driving accidents over a four year period of a high school. Lets have a party!
/* end of sarcasm */ ^~~^~^^~~^~^~^~^^~^^~^~^~~^^^~^^~~^~~~^~~^~
Isaac Asimov's Foundation series had one stage of the Foundation deal directly with this problem. The (dang what was the name of the professor again, Henry Sobol?) answer to having uneducated people deal with the dangers of nuclear reactors was to use theological rules and constructs to instruct them how to use safe nuclear procedure.
The only difference I assume between this and a tolalitarian society is that the nuclear device is preached as the punisher of not wearing the priestly nuclear suit, rather than the government. ^~~^~^^~~^~^~^~^^~^^~^~^~~^^^~^^~~^~~ ~^~~^~
I was of the notion that @home recently lost a court case allowing them to tie there @home service with the cable modem. The service was the main bread and butter of the product, as I understand. I think they posted a loss accordingly on the stock market when the decision in the court was announced.
I was wondering what they would do to, what the new stratagy would be. I guess its "If you can't beat them, join them." ^~~^~^^~~^~^~^~^^~^^~^~^~~^^^~^^~~^~~~^~~^ ~
That was cute. Wrong, and entirely opposite of what I mean, but cute none the less. I'll clarify...
I'm not saying we need to punish Drug users more. What punishment is there more than an agonizingly long death? At best a drug user OD's and gets it over with quickly.
Laws and the enforcement of them offer a smaller punishment in hopes that someone does not have to face the larger more unavoidable punishment. It is a law we make and live by to keep us from breaking a more dangerous and unrepealable law.
I hope this makes it more clear that its actually lesser punishment I would rather, not the greater one. And luckily it is still possible within our law system to face the greater one. No one has taken away your right to choose. No one can stop you from doing something you know already is wrong.
I emplore anyone who uses them to see the evidence that they are destructive and stop, and although they will face unpleasent consequences there whole lives, they will be absolutely happier they did quit. Laws may help people realize this, but they won't stop you from destroying yourself if you really want to. ^~~^~^^~~^~^~^~^^~^^~^~^~~^^^~^^~~^~~~^~~^~
He has scientific evidence, and you are providing inadequate congecture. Argue with him. But in the mean time I'll take a few quickies...
1) Duh, but I think you'll find if you look at the study that there is a higher rate of "secondary" crimes among non-users too.
2 & 3) I don't see where you are getting with your comment, It has the taste of simple FUD (as in you offers no evidence, only creates a story of a doctor you should fear, and then point to him as if we should fear him too.) When you can't fight it just complain?
Also this comment directly refutes the posters assumption that smoking marijuana makes a happier more productive employee. Others I'd refute if he only offered any reason to believe him in the first place.
4) You are still assuming that people are only imagioning marijuana to have bad side effects. This is the problem I keep running up against in the two maybe three people who responded to my post. You (and them) have no proof other than vain imagionation, and the author has scientific studies that you can argue with scientificaly. It isn't our imagionation that Marijana is bad, we aren't sugjecting the label of deviant. Illegal drug use is bad, and endorsement of it is deviant.
5.1,2&3) Exactly, but it is higher than the average of non-users showing a correlation. You'll learn about correlations in Statistics class. But at least you want to delve into the research at this point and maybe conduct your own scientific study and argue with him scientificaly. This offers me hope that you are inclined to actually study the truth. Feel free to do so, feel free to email me with what you find. I think you'll just find (as I did) that the evidence against you is insurmountable.
And, by no means did I ever infer the previous posters age. Adolescent ramblings can come out of very juvinile adults.
I may be short, and I may be lazy in supplying evidence to my statements. I hope this helps you understand I don't consider the current laws on drugs should be repealed. (not that I'm not open to another way to restrict there use.) I definately don't see that pointing to the cost of enforcement as adequate reasoning for dismissal of the laws. (This is all I see when someone says "But if it weren't a law then it wouldn't be bad and they wouldn't be breaking a law.")
The evidence against the use of these drugs show that even without the imposed law, there are natural laws and the natural concequences to them you cannot repeal revoke or change. And those are consequences I would rather not face, or see others face without my warning on the matter. The laws in place I think are a strong enough warning. They are based in scientific and socialogical fact.
This isn't just a place where I feel my libertarian ideals are justifiably set aside, this is a place where they start screaming for a fight against these drugs that only rob liberty from its subscibers. ^~~^~^^~~^~^~^~^^~^^~^~^~~^^^~^^~~^~~ ~^~~^~
There is even a link to an article that directly refutes your stupid assumption that smoking Marijuana is at all benificial to an employee. I wish I had time to list and refute all of your adolescent attempts at justification of dangerous behaviour, I really do. But the websight does it all well enough for me and in a less inflamatory way.
I like what you say... it is an interesting point but one to take up the labeling of good and bad drugs with the FDA. I for one think they have plenty of evidence to back up there descisions.
Just remember those narcotics you described are more harmful, and *legal* through perscription.
Besides laws are not enforcement. Enforcement is something you do with laws, and frankly the natural laws that punish the body of a drug abuser more strictly enforced (no judge to repeal, no jury to persuade) than the laws we use to protect people from them. So once again I'm not the one to argue with.
Here let me help you construct another arguement with her.... "Mother Nature, your not fair, I smoking shouldn't give you Lung Cancer! Smoking isn't wrong!"
If she doesn't change for you, go around to all your friends and keep complaining "Mother Nature is just unfair! Its a monopoly, a conspiracy that always helps out big buisness! She's so UNFAIR!"
I said I was Libertarian, not Anarchist. ^~~^~^^~~^~^~^~^^~^^~^~^~~^^^~^^~~^~~~ ^~~^~
1: laws are restrictions, outlawing something only restricts its use.
2: No drug dealer is benifiting society. Placating peoples problems doesn't help them deal with them. More often acts to keep them looking for quick escapes, and not deal with problems. Check with the FDA, C Everett Koop, American Medical Acssociation, and other places to see numbers on how harmful these products are to yourself and society. If you refuse to see this incontravertable evidence, if can't look at reasonable facts then you are blind to reason and further argument is futile. If you think illegal drugs are good for you, you may be using them too much and then become a physical proof of what you are arguing against.
3: The use of science fiction is secondary to the fact that simply adding a sales tax to harmful drugs is creating a government that is feeding off its people, rather than being for the people. Again its a simple truth, and inability to see it warrants this as being useless.
My point still stands, legalizing the drug use you suggest would create a welfare state, with citizens less able to act for themselves. (Think chemical dependancy and how much that hampers one from acting for themself.)
Sorry if this has reached an unpleasent end so soon. ^~~^~^^~~^~^~^~^^~^^~^~^~~^^^~^^~~^~~~^~~^~
Intuitively, this doesn't seem to be the mark spoken of. Think on this,
This isn't a very secure individual marking system, any tatoo can be replicated. One can merely have access to your account after taking a picture of your hand. So as a unique identification a mark on your hand is very poor.
However, taking the reference to Revelations "save he that had the mark, or the name of the beast, or the number of his name" would denote that one isn't being identified as individual but as part of a society with a mark and two passwords.
These marks and passwords are used to authenticate that someone can make an economic transaction with another member of a particular society, not as an individual access method to their own money (we will always have cash, or gold or other monitary exchange system. And as long as that is around there is no enforcable "mark" system.
It has been said that "causing all" is a reference to the government making a law. However this is a hasty reaction since there are many economic and political motivators that such a society can use to "causeth all...to recieve a mark". And by no means does it say that they will be successful in causing "everybody" to get it. But it will entice people in a way that is offencive to God, hence his utter cursing of the mark (boils and blisters).
In otherwords this isn't a clear reference to government.
Why some people, in fear of such a society might be motivated to mark themselves to entrust that who they are speaking to are "safe" from the other mark. Others might be setting up a secret economic order where you are essentialy creating a silent monopoly or mafia like order, and you need to know who else is involved so you won't try to steal from them (but will try from everyone else.)
Also remember, the 144,000 also recieve a mark in there foreheads....
I'm welcome to further email discussion on the topic. (just remove the SPshieLD) ^~~^~^^~~^~^~^~^^~^^~^~^~~^^^~^^~~^~~~^ ~~^~
argument 1: two stars(**) And alcohol produces broken families, dangerous accidents, reduced income, poor work performance and bad breath. Smoking causes lung cancer second hand. Excessive reading of Slashdot reduces your work productivity. Yet we still allow, in one degree or another, the consumption of alcohol, tobacco, and Slashdot. Why? Because we are, in theory, a free soceity.
And there are restrictions on the use of each of these. You need to be over 18 (21 is some areas) to purchase alchohol, and some age for cigarettes too (and might I add they cause lung cancer and kill you). Slashdot is filtered by many corporate firewalls to help increase productivity of employees. I've actually been censored for wating time with slashdot at work, and adequately so. I'm not getting paid by them to read Slashdot. That would be a dole or what some describe *welfare*.
argument 2: one star(*) (paragraph 3)
Cmdr Taco provides a very informative service that to me generaly benifits society. He is not a criminal. However, no drug dealer (except a pharmacist) can argue that he is at all benifiting society. Lets not confuse the two, shall we?
Argument 3: no stars() (paragraph 5) I don't fail to consider the economic benifit. How many science fiction novels have been writen where a government actually uses drugs to placate its citizens while they economicaly rape them. That to me is no different than legalizing drugs so we can "get in on the profitable drug buisness" ourselves.
Drug selling is a real crime, it contributes to a welfare state where its citizens are less cabable of acting for themselves. I don't think I can be clearer than that. ^~~^~^^~~^~^~^~^^~^^~^~^~~^^^~^^~~^~~~^~~^~
Not as much to protect them from there stupidity as there ignorance. But also to protect the state. Drug use in general produces, Doctors with short memory loss, operators of heavy machinery with impaired judgement, accountants that are addicted to getting high more than a value of not stealing, and bosses with really cranky shifting attitudes. And lazy workers or not workers who need welfare.
Now there are many causes of these symptoms, that isn't an issue. Drug use *is* at least one cause of these symptoms which is preventable. So in this way it tries to prevent a welfare state, since drug users on average require more welfare than people not on drugs.
I think you have spewed too soon yourself, becuase however much I am a Libertarian, refusing to consider drug dealers as criminals creates a worthless state requireing welfare. ^~~^~^^~~^~^~^~^^~^^~^~^~~^^^~^^~~^~~~^~ ~^~
Natural Selection is proven and will be taught (prove me wrong) as something that happens in species. But (prove me wrong instead of calling it silly, Mr Rabbit) Natural selection does not adequately explain new species, so it shouldn't be mandated.
I saw MSNBC still milking this this morning. "They [teachers in Kansas] will be free to teach creation in the schools." Where did they get that? Where did the school boards say that was okay? They can't even post the ten commandments in school. This is media hype, and you took it hook line and sinker, or there is something I haven't seen.
I'm just sitting back hoping to find somewhere an official statement from the Kansas School Board to be sure. This yellow journalism.
You seem to also think that everything that points out holes in evolution is creationist. I'd call it creationist arguments if it actualy supported creation. Something like "God showed me that he did it, and you'll be sorry if you don't believe it" would be arguing for creation.
In the mean time, leave the bad labeling job to polititions and radio talk shows. ^~~^~^^~~^~^~^~^^~^^~^~^~~^^^~^^~~^~~~^~~^ ~
Than craming Prologue, completing NP (All I know is that I'm not NP complete), while spreading sugar in my cLisp, and figuring out how to make a date with Perl.
Besides, who ever got into pure research for the money? ^~~^~^^~~^~^~^~^^~^^~^~^~~^^^~^^~~^~~~^~~^ ~
Slashdot Mirror
Actually in my opinion this was the biggest waist. It could have been a good idea, but instead I think it just shows some of ESR's misguided beliefs. From this Loki source the libertarian government he envisioned was...
~
Libertarian goverrnments will not be able to move military units outside of their home territory, but will receive large science and production bonuses. Once a libertarian government is chosen, all fascist and communist civilizations will immediately declare war on it.
What kind of cinderella notion of Libertarianism does that represent? I'm a libertarian, and it seems to me that the main cost of libertarianism is more civil unrest, and less population growth, and much less production and wealth. Unless the populace is very educated. Think of all the drug addicts, and other things this society would have since it didn't consider anything as evil if it only harmed the person doing it (as proliferated in the current Libertarian platform).
If anything the Ecotarian "back to the earth" society is already a pretty much a good embodyment of Libertarianism of that order(IMHO). But it could be extended...
If one wanted to grant the benifits ESR suggested they should be more costly. It should require the same happiness level as a democracy (if not more), but require even more education to maintain a productive society. Potential rebellion would be greater also.
And definately, I don't think that communist and fascist governments really care about a libertarian order next door. It would be much easier to conquer a country where no one had to join the military anyway. In fact they tend to come in and fill a vacuum left by the lack of leadership from a week government. Remember the Articles if Confederation?
(Btw, not to sound like I'm haranging my party. I am Libertarian because I believe a government is a collaberation inside a society built to preserve the liberties of those in that society. And that less is more when it comes to government on average. Not becuase of unrealistic beliefs that if the government removes its laws and consequences then we can truely be free and without law.)
And kudos to those who did enter, on the most part I really liked hearing about the cool things they did with the code.
^~~^~^^~~^~^~^~^^~^^~^~^~~^^^~^^~~^~~~^~~^
for a while now...
^ ~
Microsoft is bringing mindshare on a product by attacking other products. But this article is from Gartner you say? That is true but the gartner group is basing its assesment on what Linux isn't as if NT is (what Linux isn't.) Its all up and down the Gartner article, but I can exemplify it best with these examples. Once you see what I'm saying you will see hundreds of these things jump out at you when you read the Gartner report.
"Linux does not have a commercial quality Journaling File System." --myth of linux
Somehow that statement, about Linux actually turns into a beleif that NT does have a journaling file system (which if it does it does not ship with it.) Linux right now can read and write to every filesystem I'm aware of that NT can.
Another is that Linux was not designed from the gound up with a graphical user interface. NT wasn't either, the windows95 GUI had to be ported to it by a hired by Microsoft (the same company that wrote Softwindows but the name excapse me). NT's GUI came around 3.0... Anyone seen NT 2.0 or 1.0? Weren't they based on OS/2 which also had a console in mind first?
The last in these myths (the one that Gartner really harrangues) is that Linux is like UNIX and is therefore difficult. This makes it sound like NT is, as in anyone can just pick up and use it. That is not true, it takes a learning curve just like anything else. This learning curve isn't as small as one thinks either, for example If an NT machine can't get out to the internet, how do I do a traceroute --the most important and basic tool in diagnosing this common problem? How easy was it to learn? Could it be done with NT using a GUI?
Whats worse is this learning curve costs someone six weeks (most of the time) and around $2000. Even then they do not know how to remotely administer NT or how to set it to do "timed" tasks (its not in the MCSE course material at least) write intelligent scripts to do repeated tasks, or to help junior administrators maintain the system etc...
As a side note: How do we fight this? Its easy, just keep stating truth and facts about what Linux is. Its a UNIX like operating system that is truely POSIX compliant, that can act as a NT server without the server liscence fees. It can also serve Macintosh machines as well as UNIX machines at the same time. As well as serve as an internet firewall and mail server. All this happens efficient enough as to not require extrememly costly hardware, and runs even quicker on that costly hardware.
It works on hardware ranging from dec alphas to palm pilot. The design model is open to more ideas and critisizm, and that has provided more bang for the buck. This provides companies like RedHat, LinuxCare, and anyone else who consults on Linux complete information, not just required information, to commercialy support these systems. This amount of information is much greater than Microsoft provides MCSE consultants and even those who teach them. This information is also provided freely with easier to access than Microsoft provides.
Security fixes are abundant and quick due to the open nature of the code. In comparison security problems like the Microsoft memory dumping password information into word documents go years without fixing.
Its fun to watch as the release date for Win2000 comes out how Microsoft starts pulling strings to see who still wants to ride their gravy train.
^~~^~^^~~^~^~^~^^~^^~^~^~~^^^~^^~~^~~~^~~
but you become ostracized by your peers. Is that the mark of a free and educated society?
...and so on
All I see in that statement are people doing exactly that, excersizing there freedom. They are choosing who they hang out with.
It may not be fair to that person, but then I've never understood why people believe in this grand view of "fairness." I see all to often those who get hurt or offended then appeal to "fairness" as if they expect legions of angels of fairness come and do away with the evil they just located.
Where is the great Mommy who taught us all what is and isn't fair that we can run to and shout "The Government told me I shouldn't smoke marijuanna, thats not fair! The evil government and right wing dogmatic clergymen just told me that a marriage has to be between a man and a woman, thats not fair! I can't buy alcohol just becuase I'm not 21, but they can buy it in Europe, its not fair. My friend just died from a drunk driver its not fair!"
Sorry to go on like that but its kind of fun. I'm even more sorry if I've offended those who have these opinions I just mentioned and actually *do* have reasonable arguments for or against anything I've discussed. I'm only attacking the adolescent appeal to fairness, not those people who genuinely feel that way.
^~~^~^^~~^~^~^~^^~^^~^~^~~^^^~^^~~^~~~^~~^~
What is your definition of Freedom...
~ ~^~~^~
1) GPL
2) BSD
3) I can do whatever I want, no one should be able to tell me its bad.
4) I can do anything imagionable.
5) I have a right to obtain the resources needed in the individual and community pursuit of happiness.
6) Everyone must do what I want them to.
7) Other: (please specify)______________________
Jon Katz, how would you answer this? I admire your pursuit of freedom, and your faith in the nature of freedom that it can never really be taken away. But if I may offer a thought, Freedom is not an end but a means to an end. What is the use of being free to do something if you do not have any reason to do it? What is, what was and what will be the reason for freedom, what is the result that freedom is a means to? What is the purpose of freedom?
Answer these questions, dear reader and Mr Katz. I see this concept alone as the thread that binds, gags or slices every article on censorship, morality, and what technology has done for human-kind.
^~~^~^^~~^~^~^~^^~^^~^~^~~^^^~^^~~^~
hahaha, this i just becuse...
My roomate thinks Dot Planet is the next AOL, due to their rocketing network marketing stratagy.
I pointed out to him that Altavista's *free* ISP started later than them, and already has more members than them. I liked pointing it out to him.
^~~^~^^~~^~^~^~^^~^^~^~^~~^^^~^^~~^~~~^~~^~
Thanks for pointing that out to me. Your absolutely right. Judging by some slashdot posts, it seems many got that impression. They should (and I should) be more careful in what we read.~
^~~^~^^~~^~^~^~^^~^^~^~^~~^^^~^^~~^~~~^~~^
It seems that with the anti-trust case ond other cases wrapping up that MS has more PR resources available. Its not so much in the info as in the spin.
^ ~
The info in the article is that the release day is slipped. The Slashdot mentions that this means Mozilla is shelved (Slashdot loves creating contraversy). Many have pointed out that win 2k (which was demonstrated to me almost two years ago as NT 5) has slipped also.
But Netscape is touted as a failure and win2k is ensuring stability. I beleive this is more evident with Mozilla, even to completely rewriting it to comply better with different standards, as well as all the debugging tools developed and released for it. We have no idea what the hold up is for Microsoft.
The article mentions releasing the souce code as a sublstitute for in house qualified staff, while JWZ (among others) mentions that it better serves the purpose of developing in a fishbowl. You get the benifit of many opinions, and bug fixes from other qualified people. The product is better, more stable and faster developed, but a substitute for your own workers I'm not sure it was ever intended to be that. Some might have dreamed that, but I don't think it was intended.
Oh well, people who want a good browser will still help develop Mozilla and others. JWZ pointed out on many occations that open source means (essentialy) that it will never die unless we ourselves put it on the shelf.
^~~^~^^~~^~^~^~^^~^^~^~^~~^^^~^^~~^~~~^~~
It seems that with the anti-trust case ond other cases wrapping up that MS has more PR resources available. Its not so much in the info as in the spin. The info in the article is that the release day is slipped. The Slashdot mentions that this means Mozilla is shelved (Slashdot loves creating contraversy). Many have pointed out that win 2k (which was demonstrated to me almost two years ago as NT 5) has slipped also. But Netscape is touted as a failure and win2k is ensuring stability. I beleive this is more evident with Mozilla, even to completely rewriting it to comply better with different standards, as well as all the debugging tools developed and released for it. We have no idea what the hold up is for Microsoft. The article mentions releasing the souce code as a sublstitute for in house qualified staff, while JWZ (among others) mentions that it better serves the purpose of developing in a fishbowl. You get the benifit of many opinions, and bug fixes from other qualified people. The product is better, more stable and faster developed, but a substitute for your own workers I'm not sure it was ever intended to be that. Some might have dreamed that, but I don't think it was intended. Oh well, people who want a good browser will still help develop Mozilla and others. JWZ pointed out on many occationsh that open source means (essentialy) that it will never die unless we ourselves put it on the shelf.^ ~
^~~^~^^~~^~^~^~^^~^^~^~^~~^^^~^^~~^~~~^~~
/* begin sarcasm */
That reminds me, I heard of a coal mine exploding recently from a buildup of methane gas in Montana.
I also have a feeling some of the more extreme technophiles/ conservatives are going to chastise us for being alarmed by *this* sort of accident. Generally, after a coal mining mishap, the pattern goes like this:
1) BOOOM
2) a number of people are rushed to the hospital
3) liberals run around screaming "Look how awful coal Is!"
4) conservatives tilt their Laz-e-boys up a notch, puff on their pipes, and make devastating comments about "Luddites"
Wait, 3 and 4 don't happen. I'm sorry. I guess hundreds of coal workers dieing every year just isn't as news worthy as 19 Japanese people with radiation burns. Millions of Tobacco smokers dying horrible deaths is maybe as news worthy, but just barely.
Well then, at least watching the tape of the Space Shuttle Challenger and its seven deaths was enough to convince me never to go up into space. Never mind that that is less than the average number of high school kids that die in drunk driving accidents over a four year period of a high school. Lets have a party!
/* end of sarcasm */
^~~^~^^~~^~^~^~^^~^^~^~^~~^^^~^^~~^~~~^~~^~
Isaac Asimov's Foundation series had one stage of the Foundation deal directly with this problem. The (dang what was the name of the professor again, Henry Sobol?) answer to having uneducated people deal with the dangers of nuclear reactors was to use theological rules and constructs to instruct them how to use safe nuclear procedure.
~ ~^~~^~
The only difference I assume between this and a tolalitarian society is that the nuclear device is preached as the punisher of not wearing the priestly nuclear suit, rather than the government.
^~~^~^^~~^~^~^~^^~^^~^~^~~^^^~^^~~^~
argh, bad english
~ ^~~^~
Make that, they can no longer tie the @home service with there cable modem service as a product of the judges ruling.
Thinking in programing language and then writing produces strange code and sentances.
^~~^~^^~~^~^~^~^^~^^~^~^~~^^^~^^~~^~~
I was of the notion that @home recently lost a court case allowing them to tie there @home service with the cable modem. The service was the main bread and butter of the product, as I understand. I think they posted a loss accordingly on the stock market when the decision in the court was announced.
I was wondering what they would do to, what the new stratagy would be. I guess its "If you can't beat them, join them."
^~~^~^^~~^~^~^~^^~^^~^~^~~^^^~^^~~^~~~^~~
That was cute. Wrong, and entirely opposite of what I mean, but cute none the less. I'll clarify...
I'm not saying we need to punish Drug users more. What punishment is there more than an agonizingly long death? At best a drug user OD's and gets it over with quickly.
Laws and the enforcement of them offer a smaller punishment in hopes that someone does not have to face the larger more unavoidable punishment. It is a law we make and live by to keep us from breaking a more dangerous and unrepealable law.
I hope this makes it more clear that its actually lesser punishment I would rather, not the greater one. And luckily it is still possible within our law system to face the greater one. No one has taken away your right to choose. No one can stop you from doing something you know already is wrong.
I emplore anyone who uses them to see the evidence that they are destructive and stop, and although they will face unpleasent consequences there whole lives, they will be absolutely happier they did quit. Laws may help people realize this, but they won't stop you from destroying yourself if you really want to.
^~~^~^^~~^~^~^~^^~^^~^~^~~^^^~^^~~^~~~^~~^~
He has scientific evidence, and you are providing inadequate congecture. Argue with him. But in the mean time I'll take a few quickies...
~ ~^~~^~
1) Duh, but I think you'll find if you look at the study that there is a higher rate of "secondary" crimes among non-users too.
2 & 3) I don't see where you are getting with your comment, It has the taste of simple FUD (as in you offers no evidence, only creates a story of a doctor you should fear, and then point to him as if we should fear him too.) When you can't fight it just complain?
Also this comment directly refutes the posters assumption that smoking marijuana makes a happier more productive employee. Others I'd refute if he only offered any reason to believe him in the first place.
4) You are still assuming that people are only imagioning marijuana to have bad side effects. This is the problem I keep running up against in the two maybe three people who responded to my post. You (and them) have no proof other than vain imagionation, and the author has scientific studies that you can argue with scientificaly. It isn't our imagionation that Marijana is bad, we aren't sugjecting the label of deviant. Illegal drug use is bad, and endorsement of it is deviant.
5.1,2&3) Exactly, but it is higher than the average of non-users showing a correlation. You'll learn about correlations in Statistics class. But at least you want to delve into the research at this point and maybe conduct your own scientific study and argue with him scientificaly. This offers me hope that you are inclined to actually study the truth. Feel free to do so, feel free to email me with what you find. I think you'll just find (as I did) that the evidence against you is insurmountable.
And, by no means did I ever infer the previous posters age. Adolescent ramblings can come out of very juvinile adults.
I may be short, and I may be lazy in supplying evidence to my statements. I hope this helps you understand I don't consider the current laws on drugs should be repealed. (not that I'm not open to another way to restrict there use.) I definately don't see that pointing to the cost of enforcement as adequate reasoning for dismissal of the laws. (This is all I see when someone says "But if it weren't a law then it wouldn't be bad and they wouldn't be breaking a law.")
The evidence against the use of these drugs show that even without the imposed law, there are natural laws and the natural concequences to them you cannot repeal revoke or change. And those are consequences I would rather not face, or see others face without my warning on the matter. The laws in place I think are a strong enough warning. They are based in scientific and socialogical fact.
This isn't just a place where I feel my libertarian ideals are justifiably set aside, this is a place where they start screaming for a fight against these drugs that only rob liberty from its subscibers.
^~~^~^^~~^~^~^~^^~^^~^~^~~^^^~^^~~^~
check out www.drug-abuse.com/information
/ mar7.html^ ~~^~
There is even a link to an article that directly refutes your stupid assumption that smoking Marijuana is at all benificial to an employee. I wish I had time to list and refute all of your adolescent attempts at justification of dangerous behaviour, I really do. But the websight does it all well enough for me and in a less inflamatory way.
http://www.drug-abuse.com/information/marijuana
^~~^~^^~~^~^~^~^^~^^~^~^~~^^^~^^~~^~~~
whiner^ ~
^~~^~^^~~^~^~^~^^~^^~^~^~~^^^~^^~~^~~~^~~
I like what you say... it is an interesting point but one to take up the labeling of good and bad drugs with the FDA. I for one think they have plenty of evidence to back up there descisions.
~ ^~~^~
Just remember those narcotics you described are more harmful, and *legal* through perscription.
Besides laws are not enforcement. Enforcement is something you do with laws, and frankly the natural laws that punish the body of a drug abuser more strictly enforced (no judge to repeal, no jury to persuade) than the laws we use to protect people from them. So once again I'm not the one to argue with.
Here let me help you construct another arguement with her....
"Mother Nature, your not fair, I smoking shouldn't give you Lung Cancer! Smoking isn't wrong!"
If she doesn't change for you, go around to all your friends and keep complaining "Mother Nature is just unfair! Its a monopoly, a conspiracy that always helps out big buisness! She's so UNFAIR!"
I said I was Libertarian, not Anarchist.
^~~^~^^~~^~^~^~^^~^^~^~^~~^^^~^^~~^~~
1: laws are restrictions, outlawing something only restricts its use.
~
2: No drug dealer is benifiting society. Placating peoples problems doesn't help them deal with them. More often acts to keep them looking for quick escapes, and not deal with problems. Check with the FDA, C Everett Koop, American Medical Acssociation, and other places to see numbers on how harmful these products are to yourself and society. If you refuse to see this incontravertable evidence, if can't look at reasonable facts then you are blind to reason and further argument is futile. If you think illegal drugs are good for you, you may be using them too much and then become a physical proof of what you are arguing against.
3: The use of science fiction is secondary to the fact that simply adding a sales tax to harmful drugs is creating a government that is feeding off its people, rather than being for the people. Again its a simple truth, and inability to see it warrants this as being useless.
My point still stands, legalizing the drug use you suggest would create a welfare state, with citizens less able to act for themselves. (Think chemical dependancy and how much that hampers one from acting for themself.)
Sorry if this has reached an unpleasent end so soon.
^~~^~^^~~^~^~^~^^~^^~^~^~~^^^~^^~~^~~~^~~^
Intuitively, this doesn't seem to be the mark spoken of. Think on this,
This isn't a very secure individual marking system, any tatoo can be replicated. One can merely have access to your account after taking a picture of your hand. So as a unique identification a mark on your hand is very poor.
However, taking the reference to Revelations "save he that had the mark, or the name of the beast, or the number of his name" would denote that one isn't being identified as individual but as part of a society with a mark and two passwords.
These marks and passwords are used to authenticate that someone can make an economic transaction with another member of a particular society, not as an individual access method to their own money (we will always have cash, or gold or other monitary exchange system. And as long as that is around there is no enforcable "mark" system.
It has been said that "causing all" is a reference to the government making a law. However this is a hasty reaction since there are many economic and political motivators that such a society can use to "causeth all...to recieve a mark". And by no means does it say that they will be successful in causing "everybody" to get it. But it will entice people in a way that is offencive to God, hence his utter cursing of the mark (boils and blisters).
In otherwords this isn't a clear reference to government.
Why some people, in fear of such a society might be motivated to mark themselves to entrust that who they are speaking to are "safe" from the other mark. Others might be setting up a secret economic order where you are essentialy creating a silent monopoly or mafia like order, and you need to know who else is involved so you won't try to steal from them (but will try from everyone else.)
Also remember, the 144,000 also recieve a mark in there foreheads....
I'm welcome to further email discussion on the topic. (just remove the SPshieLD)
^~~^~^^~~^~^~^~^^~^^~^~^~~^^^~^^~~^~~~
argument 1: two stars(**)
And alcohol produces broken families, dangerous accidents, reduced income, poor work performance and bad breath. Smoking causes lung cancer second hand. Excessive reading of Slashdot reduces your work productivity. Yet we still allow, in one degree or another, the consumption of alcohol, tobacco, and Slashdot. Why? Because we are, in theory, a free soceity.
And there are restrictions on the use of each of these. You need to be over 18 (21 is some areas) to purchase alchohol, and some age for cigarettes too (and might I add they cause lung cancer and kill you). Slashdot is filtered by many corporate firewalls to help increase productivity of employees. I've actually been censored for wating time with slashdot at work, and adequately so. I'm not getting paid by them to read Slashdot. That would be a dole or what some describe *welfare*.
argument 2: one star(*)
(paragraph 3)
Cmdr Taco provides a very informative service that to me generaly benifits society. He is not a criminal. However, no drug dealer (except a pharmacist) can argue that he is at all benifiting society. Lets not confuse the two, shall we?
Argument 3: no stars()
(paragraph 5)
I don't fail to consider the economic benifit. How many science fiction novels have been writen where a government actually uses drugs to placate its citizens while they economicaly rape them. That to me is no different than legalizing drugs so we can "get in on the profitable drug buisness" ourselves.
Drug selling is a real crime, it contributes to a welfare state where its citizens are less cabable of acting for themselves. I don't think I can be clearer than that.
^~~^~^^~~^~^~^~^^~^^~^~^~~^^^~^^~~^~~~^~~^
If I might add a correction,
~ ~^~
What is the primary nature of many drug laws?
Not as much to protect them from there stupidity as there ignorance. But also to protect the state. Drug use in general produces, Doctors with short memory loss, operators of heavy machinery with impaired judgement, accountants that are addicted to getting high more than a value of not stealing, and bosses with really cranky shifting attitudes. And lazy workers or not workers who need welfare.
Now there are many causes of these symptoms, that isn't an issue. Drug use *is* at least one cause of these symptoms which is preventable. So in this way it tries to prevent a welfare state, since drug users on average require more welfare than people not on drugs.
I think you have spewed too soon yourself, becuase however much I am a Libertarian, refusing to consider drug dealers as criminals creates a worthless state requireing welfare.
^~~^~^^~~^~^~^~^^~^^~^~^~~^^^~^^~~^~~~^
Natural Selection is proven and will be taught (prove me wrong) as something that happens in species. But (prove me wrong instead of calling it silly, Mr Rabbit) Natural selection does not adequately explain new species, so it shouldn't be mandated.
^ ~
I saw MSNBC still milking this this morning. "They [teachers in Kansas] will be free to teach creation in the schools." Where did they get that? Where did the school boards say that was okay? They can't even post the ten commandments in school. This is media hype, and you took it hook line and sinker, or there is something I haven't seen.
I'm just sitting back hoping to find somewhere an official statement from the Kansas School Board to be sure. This yellow journalism.
You seem to also think that everything that points out holes in evolution is creationist. I'd call it creationist arguments if it actualy supported creation. Something like "God showed me that he did it, and you'll be sorry if you don't believe it" would be arguing for creation.
In the mean time, leave the bad labeling job to polititions and radio talk shows.
^~~^~^^~~^~^~^~^^~^^~^~^~~^^^~^^~~^~~~^~~
would single user mode help here?~
^~~^~^^~~^~^~^~^^~^^~^~^~~^^^~^^~~^~~~^~~^
Than craming Prologue, completing NP (All I know is that I'm not NP complete), while spreading sugar in my cLisp, and figuring out how to make a date with Perl.
^ ~
Besides, who ever got into pure research for the money?
^~~^~^^~~^~^~^~^^~^^~^~^~~^^^~^^~~^~~~^~~
more than meets the eye.....~ ~^~
^~~^~^^~~^~^~^~^^~^^~^~^~~^^^~^^~~^~~~^