Re:The first $ contribution to Linux from Portland
on
Linus Interviewed
·
· Score: 1
The full story here. I sent Linus a $200 check for beer money about the time of the 386 port(I'm honestly not sure if he ever cashed the check-he didn't remember it when I asked once). I can't swear it was the first money sent-but it was sure sent early on. I was working at Sun at the time and felt that was the best contribution I could make. I was director of tiny non-profit organization which also made a small donation to the Wine Project--which clearly did register.
Re:Betraying what he ran for last time
on
The Nader Factor
·
· Score: 1
I plan on voting for Ralph this year. Why? Because he raised issues like the corporate use of Guest worker visas to lower wages. I never saw Cobb bother much on issues like that.
Re:Every political story on Slashdot has a Dem. sl
on
The Nader Factor
·
· Score: 1
Immigration: Bush: Lets have Open Borders-but not change not let these folks vote Democratic.
Kerry: Lets expand my voter base by giving another Amnesty, we'll talk tough and actually enforce the immigration law(really this time-even though it has n't been done before), but we'll also expand guest worker visas.
What the article misses fundamentally: The current terms of trade are held up by 0.5 Trillion dollar annual trade deficits financed by foreign borrowing-and immigration policies that are extremely predatory upon the US middle class. This is _not_ a free market but a decision make by highly centralized authorities.
There is a real question of what the software market will look like after the trade issue resolves itself-as it eventually will.
Python isn't a Swiss Army Chain saw-more like a table saw. Both Python and Perl have their place. I've used Perl happily when doing my own projects-but I've found that Python is _much_ easier to adapt newbies to using-and much easier for process oriented managers to deal with who otherwise might consider Java. I have personally seen older Cobol programmer who were utterly intimidated by VB,Java and other newer languages look and Python and relate easily to Python.
One place where I can imagine these things might _develop_ a market is the military. I can see how these things might be more stable, safer than and go places a motorcycle can't(with the right development).
Still that's _not_ the hype these things were introduced with.
The wheelchair segway was significant IMHO-I had one relative that could have benefited from it. These other vehicles just aren't living up the hype. Unlike what John Doehr claimed, cities _aren't_ going to be built around these things. Most people need to get more exercise-not more toys.
The original idea of the US House of Representatives was that it would accurately represent the population. Voting methods like Single Transferrable Vote and Party Lists hadn't been invented when the constitutional was created.
The Senate _has_ done an ok job of representing established interests--the house has failed to represent the people-which is why the system has no checks and balances and is degenerating into a corporate oligarchy.
Personally, I would Love to see Nader, Peroutka, Badnerik and Cobb all in the debates. If not as actual participants, as part of a panel that could ask questions. Major issues like immigration are simply not part of the political debate today because the role of money in politics has become so very huge. I honestly think that if we had a house of representatives that really represented the public in minaiture(which is what the founding fathers intended) we have some debate. As it is, one of the few tools open for injecting debate on real issues are these third party presidential campaigns.
Microsoft was created largely by some changes in IP law that created a niche for a software monopoly.
Containing that would be simple: Require that all software for which the developer wants IP protection have source code escrowed that would go into the public domain after some finite time(say 5-10 years).
Use Constitutional authority to regulate interstate commerce to move taxes from the broad public onto companies that have a measurable degree of monopoly power.
Now this isn't being done because congress is intent on selling their offices to the highest bidder.
I've been an IT manager. The basic problem with the job in most organizations is the ratio of responsibility to authority is out of line-that is why the folks that tend to stick around as IT managers are extremely adept at corporate politics.
The government has proposed recently. I would also suggest that they put in place requirements that all future material that is to be copyrighted present appropriate copies in machine readable form so this will be cheaper in the future.
I tend to think that before wireless really "takes off" in urban areas we'll see it even more common in rural areas than it is now--much as the automobile was popular in rural areas before it became popular in the cities. Cities had alternative transportation like street cars before the automobile.
I know we have stuff like PDX wireless in the urban areas now-but those services aren't really things the community depends on. I think the first communities we'll see seriously depend on wireless networks will be rural communities.
I'm glad to see these folks moving in this direction. I think they'll find that creating good objective prize criteria in a lot of important areas is rather difficult though. Sometimes in medicine for example it takes _decades_ to reach a real consensus whether a particular therapy really works though.
Still, some of the prize awards I'd like to see:
a prize for demonstration of a medical test that can reliably diagnose autism(the tests commonly used today are behavioral tests).
a prize for demonstration of an obesity treatment protocol that when followed reliably means that 50% of obese patients so treated loose weight and keep it off for more than a year under "real world" conditions.
Demonstration of self-replicating infrastructure capable of being teleoperated. A lathe for example is a tool that can be used to replicate itself--when combined with a blacksmith's shop and mining tools. Space migration might be helped along by demonstration of something similar that could be teleoperated and used on the asteroid belt/moon. This is sort of like a von Neumann machine but without requiring that it be totally robotic(i.e. operator intervention would be acceptable).
Prize for a rotovator or other low energy mechanism for transporting payload to orbit.
----------------- The other thing I'd like to see here: Something similar to www.ideosphere.com that would help sort out what the key technologies are that would change the world in a positive way.
They'll probably make money on space ship one-but I think whoever gets to orbital first will make a whole bunch _more_ money. My own main concern here: the space tourism stuff may have some accidents(i.e. like Hindenberg) that will turn folks off from the idea of commercial space development even though these suborbital technologies are rather different than what you need to go orbital.
Well, there are some things that _could_ be done here. Change the intellectual property laws so that if they wanted IP protection at some point their stuff would automatically go Open Source for example(i.e. require escrowing of the source code for say 4 years).
Open Source Key to Cheap Access to Space
on
Win the X-Prize Cup
·
· Score: 1
What is really needed is a basic design for orbital craft where the fabrication procedure and avionics are Open Source. At that point we can see a variety of teams starting to incrementally refine the design so it becomes safe and access to space is more routine. Maybe something like the Rotovator will get done and make space _really_ cheap-but just a decent orbital system might facilitated stuff like robotic development of the asteroid belt.
Tourism may be the main result of the Ansari X prize. However, some of the contestants, have been designing systems with clear orbital capabilities(i.e. John Carmacks's team). Once things go orbital, a lot of commercial options open up beyond tourism. Satellites get cheap. We can start to look seriously at material science applications.
First off, most of what you talk about aren't strict necessities. A country should learn to live within its means-borrowing in international markets to finance luxuries doesn't help global economic development or the American people.
Since many of these businesses involve either illegal activities(i.e. "full body" massage) or cash payments--illegal immigrants really are preferred for these jobs. With different incentive structures, the US performed the same work without massive immigration or massive debt.
I suggest you check out this piece. States with large levels of immigration in the US generally have deteriorating economic stability(as measured by their bond ratings).
The US needs to create an economy that works for its citizens _and_ to cease borrowing much needed capital in the world markets that should instead by used for global economic development.
There is a serious question of how to regulate companies like Microsoft when they have such concentration of wealth they can basically afford to buy congress and the leadership of major political parties. It really does sound like these companies are destroying the very people and institutions that allowed them to become successful.
protectionism is much older than that. Abe Lincoln was a protectionist(i.e. it was a major part of his politics). My own view here: it is one thing to borrow from abroad for capital improvements. It is another to borrow for operating expenditures-which is what the US is now doing.
Slashdot Mirror
The full story here. I sent Linus a $200 check for beer money about the time of the 386 port(I'm honestly not sure if he ever cashed the check-he didn't remember it when I asked once). I can't swear it was the first money sent-but it was sure sent early on. I was working at Sun at the time and felt that was the best contribution I could make. I was director of tiny non-profit organization which also made a small donation to the Wine Project--which clearly did register.
I plan on voting for Ralph this year. Why? Because he raised issues like the corporate use of Guest worker visas to lower wages. I never saw Cobb bother much on issues like that.
Immigration:
Bush: Lets have Open Borders-but not change not let these folks vote Democratic.
Kerry: Lets expand my voter base by giving another Amnesty, we'll talk tough and actually enforce the immigration law(really this time-even though it has n't been done before), but we'll also expand guest
worker visas.
What the article misses fundamentally:
The current terms of trade are held up by 0.5 Trillion dollar annual trade deficits financed by foreign borrowing-and immigration policies that are extremely predatory upon the US middle class. This is _not_ a free market but a decision make by highly centralized authorities.
There is a real question of what the software market will look like after the trade issue resolves itself-as it eventually will.
Python isn't a Swiss Army Chain saw-more like a table saw. Both Python and Perl have their place. I've used Perl happily when doing my own projects-but I've found that Python is _much_ easier to adapt newbies to using-and much easier for process oriented managers to deal with who otherwise might consider Java. I have personally seen older Cobol programmer who were utterly intimidated by VB,Java and other newer languages look and Python and relate easily to Python.
One place where I can imagine these things might _develop_ a market is the military. I can see how these things might be more stable, safer than and go places a motorcycle can't(with the right development).
Still that's _not_ the hype these things were introduced with.
The wheelchair segway was significant IMHO-I had one relative that could have benefited from it. These other vehicles just aren't living up the hype. Unlike what John Doehr claimed, cities _aren't_ going to be built around these things. Most people need to get more exercise-not more toys.
The original idea of the US House of Representatives was that it would accurately represent the population. Voting methods like Single Transferrable Vote and Party Lists hadn't been invented when the constitutional was created.
The Senate _has_ done an ok job of representing established interests--the house has failed to represent the people-which is why the system has no checks and balances and is degenerating into a corporate oligarchy.
Personally, I would Love to see Nader, Peroutka, Badnerik and Cobb all in the debates. If not as actual participants, as part of a panel that could ask questions. Major issues like immigration are simply not part of the political debate today because the role of money in politics has become so very huge. I honestly think that if we had a house of representatives that really represented the public in minaiture(which is what the founding fathers intended) we have some debate. As it is, one of the few tools open for injecting debate on real issues are these third party presidential campaigns.
Microsoft was created largely by some changes in IP law that created a niche for a software monopoly.
Containing that would be simple:
Require that all software for which the developer
wants IP protection have source code escrowed that would go into the public domain after some finite time(say 5-10 years).
Use Constitutional authority to regulate interstate commerce to move taxes from the broad public onto companies that have a measurable degree of monopoly power.
Now this isn't being done because congress is intent on selling their offices to the highest bidder.
No, the question is why should anyone provide copyright protection in that case?
I've been an IT manager. The basic problem with the job in most organizations is the ratio of responsibility to authority is out of line-that is why the folks that tend to stick around as IT managers are extremely adept at corporate politics.
The government has proposed recently. I would also suggest that they put in place requirements that all future material that is to be copyrighted present appropriate copies in machine readable form so this will be cheaper in the future.
I tend to think that before wireless really "takes off" in urban areas we'll see it even more common in rural areas than it is now--much as the automobile was popular in rural areas before it became popular in the cities. Cities had alternative transportation like street cars before the automobile.
I know we have stuff like PDX wireless in the urban areas now-but those services aren't really things the community depends on. I think the first communities we'll see seriously depend on wireless networks will be rural communities.
I'm glad to see these folks moving in this direction. I think they'll find that creating good objective prize criteria in a lot of important areas is rather difficult though. Sometimes in medicine for example it takes _decades_ to reach a real consensus whether a particular therapy really works though.
Still, some of the prize awards I'd like to see:
a prize for demonstration of a medical test that can reliably diagnose autism(the tests commonly used today are behavioral tests).
a prize for demonstration of an obesity treatment protocol that when followed reliably
means that 50% of obese patients so treated loose weight and keep it off for more than a year
under "real world" conditions.
Demonstration of self-replicating infrastructure capable of being teleoperated. A lathe for example is a tool that can be used to replicate itself--when combined with a blacksmith's shop and mining tools. Space migration might be helped along by demonstration of something similar that could be teleoperated and used on the asteroid belt/moon. This is sort of like a
von Neumann machine but without requiring that it be totally robotic(i.e. operator intervention would be acceptable).
Prize for a rotovator or other low energy mechanism for transporting payload to orbit.
-----------------
The other thing I'd like to see here:
Something similar to www.ideosphere.com that would help sort out what the key technologies are that would change the world in a positive way.
Check out ideosphere.
These are market based odds.
They'll probably make money on space ship one-but I think whoever gets to orbital first will make a whole bunch _more_ money. My own main concern here: the space tourism stuff may have some accidents(i.e. like Hindenberg) that will turn folks off from the idea of commercial space development even though these suborbital technologies are rather different than what you need to go orbital.
Well, there are some things that _could_ be done here. Change the intellectual property laws so that if they wanted IP protection at some point their stuff would automatically go Open Source for example(i.e. require escrowing of the source code for say 4 years).
What is really needed is a basic design for orbital craft where the fabrication procedure and avionics are Open Source. At that point we can see a variety of teams starting to incrementally refine the design so it becomes safe and access to space is more routine. Maybe something like the Rotovator will get done and make space _really_ cheap-but just a decent orbital system might facilitated stuff like robotic development of the asteroid belt.
Why not shoot for orbital? Carmack's stuff looks like he's going in that direction.
Tourism may be the main result of the Ansari X prize. However, some of the contestants, have been designing systems with clear orbital capabilities(i.e. John Carmacks's team). Once things go orbital, a lot of commercial options open up beyond tourism. Satellites get cheap. We can start to look seriously at material science applications.
First off, most of what you talk about aren't strict necessities. A country should learn to live within its means-borrowing in international markets to finance luxuries doesn't help global economic development or the American people.
Since many of these businesses involve either illegal activities(i.e. "full body" massage) or cash payments--illegal immigrants really are preferred for these jobs. With different incentive structures, the US performed the same work without massive immigration or massive debt.
I suggest you check out this piece. States with large levels of immigration in the US generally have deteriorating economic stability(as measured by their bond ratings).
The US needs to create an economy that works for its citizens _and_ to cease borrowing much needed capital in the world markets that should instead by used for global economic development.
There is a serious question of how to regulate companies like Microsoft when they have such concentration of wealth they can basically afford to buy congress and the leadership of major political parties. It really does sound like these companies are destroying the very people and institutions that allowed them to become successful.
protectionism is much older than that. Abe Lincoln was a protectionist(i.e. it was a major part of his politics). My own view here:
it is one thing to borrow from abroad for capital improvements. It is another to borrow for operating expenditures-which is what the US is now doing.