Small Government People know that you can not have small government with corporations. Corporations are not natural entities but protected entities created by government regulations. A small government would eliminate the corporation. Not the business, just the protected status. Corporations only enjoy their protected status by the largess of government.
Look at your city, your county, your state. Almost all corporations.
People like you need to realize that it isn't the "big business" mentality, it is the fact that government provides special immunities and benefits to corporations through the use of the corporate charter itself. Step one in effecting positive change in big business practices is the elimination of corporate charters. Period. You can even start by using it as a punishment for braking the law: revoke the charter.
If the companies lacked the protections afforded by the corporate charter much of people's gripes about them would be actionable.
On the other hand, Linux has it's foundations and also the direct and clear support of major companies that are more and more depending on it. From consumer electronics consortiums/companies to companies like IBM, HP, RedHat, and many more that run their systems on Linux.
I'm not saying either has a more "assured survival", just that the methods used are different. A central command structure is a clearly attackable point.
And no I've no ill will to the BSDs either. The BSDs have their issues (just as Linux has it's issues), and thus the level of uptake should not be that suprising.
The cultural shift favors Linux over BSD precisely due the the allegations of encumbrance. The BSD license has it's encumbrance, it's just hidden. Companies such as IBM clearly are not interested in adding to an OS kernel that allows their competitors to take their changes and use them while not sharing back. The "encumbrance" of the GPL has shown to be one of Linux' strengths in the terms of adoption rate.
Has Yahoo! made changes to their installed BSD to improve it? If so have they released those changes? If not, then if/when MS shuts those BSD servers down rest assured that those changes will be lost to the BSD world, though they *might* remain as buried stuff in later MS products.
While the BSD community has a strong technical capability, I've never seen the encouragement of sharing that a GPL community provides. Indeed, in my experience people go to the BSD licensing precisely because they want to take what others have done, and go proprietary. This is reflected in the BSD distributions as well. Some are open and the rest are proprietary and often flat out hidden.
That last bit also serves as a hindrance to expanding adoption. If people/companies can simply take the open BSD code, close it and release their products on it, nobody needs know. If nobody knows, perception of use is lower than actual and has no bearing on further adoption.
On the contrary, Linux adoption is clearly more open by the force of the GPL.
Whether one agrees or not with the underpinnings of the GPL vs. the BSD licensing models, they do show their presence in adoption rates and reasons.
The cultural change we are undergoing is one of interop and of cooperation, even coopetition. The BSD license does not culturally fit, while GPL does. Maybe that will change one day. But I wouldn't hold my breath. Neither "Linux" nor BSD will be on a death bed any time soon. But their cultures will play a major role in how widespread each becomes. Neither can change their cultural underpinnings without becoming the other.
Really? You mean you have millions of dollars in campaign funding available? You have delegates to the RP convention?
No, you don't have as much of a chance. Since this is slashdot: Romney, McCain, and Huckabee all get hit by a bus and are unable to continue their run. Who is the next RP presidential candidate? Ron Paul. Not you.
It doesn't even have to be that extensive. If Huckabee drops, then Romney gets hit, it would be a two way race between the not-so-hidden-Democrat McCain versus Paul. Paul then gets a strong shot at it.
Even if Ron Paul got hit by the bus, you still have no chance.
Your comment is not insightful, it is flat out wrong. It demonstrates a fundamental lack of how the mechanics of elections work.
Seriously? Uh it's called async routing. AKA legitimate spoofing. Your outbound transmission is via land line. Satellite did this a decade ago. Your system has two IPs: in and out. Your outbound transmission essentially spoofs your inbound IP.
And since we are all supposed to be good little consumers, we won't need much outbound-only bandwidth, right?
That aside there is a long list of Internetworkable features/capability that one-way transmission serves well. For example, what if they "broadcast" stock, weather, and news, or RSS feeds?
Just use a little bit of history and perhaps some imagination (old school virtual reality) and you can see quite a it of use for this type of arrangement.
By letting broadband be defined as download speed only, we've lost the first battles. At a minimum if you define a certain bandwidth as broadband, it should be defined as the lower of the two directions. Oh so you get 6 meg down but 64k up? Call it 64k then.
"Why in the world does NASA contract out the construction of its vehicles to begin with??!"
Your question is akin to asking "Why does Fedex buy (contract out) it's airplanes from someone else, instead of building their own.
Because FedEx isn' tin that business.
Thus NASA, which isn't chartered (in the business) to make rockets purchases (contracts out) to people who do it for a living.
It's less expensive. If FedEx had to have the necessary talent and infrastructure to build their own planes it would fail to break even let alone make a profit. Why? Because when you design and make planes for yourself only your per-unit cost is far higher than when you sell them to companies who are smart enough to know better.
You wanna know why? Do you really wanna know why? Do you? Huh? I'll tell you why.
The same reason that when someone is shot or killed in an accident, friends, family, and passersby will describe the victim in every possibly positive manner.
You'll never see a report on a shooting at the mall where people say "Old Jack was killed. He was a sorry excuse for a man with a disposition that would make Satan's toes curl. Oh and he killed puppies. A lot." Even if it is all true.
No, "journalists" of today, by and large, did not go into journalism to report events. They went into it to "change the world" or "make a difference" - the two dead giveaways that person should not be in journalism. So they spin the report in whatever direction they feel helps their intended desire.
A supporting factor is an increasing lack of ability to actually write. This is the reason you see stuff like: "Joe Blacke (31) was hit by a van while riding his bicycle today".
Truthfully, many "news stories" aren't actually newsworthy or there is very little to them. So "journalists" feel they have to "add facts" to pad it out. yes, often they are told that by their early editors and it becomes habit. It is like giving a speech and deliberately writing in "uhh"s and "Uhhhmmm"s.
Logic doesn't say any of that. Talk about a need for transparency. Claiming "logic says" without listing the premises and assumptions for the argument is a fallacy in that it is an appeal to a blind authority.
After all, otherwise one could do this: Logic says that the man who makes the laws should work to minimize his own interests as often as he can while aligning his own interests with the plebes who vote him in based on name.
Neither that statement nor yours are logical by themselves. The arguments ned to be put forth. For example: Assertion A)
Doing what the voters are eager for you to do will keep you in office Assertion B)
By working to minimize your interests in office you can write books and do speaking gigs and guest appearances that show you to be the better office holder Assertion C)
People will buy books written by you that demonstrate "the right way" to govern. Assertions D)
You would like to make more money than just your congressional salary
Argument:
Given these assertions, the man who makes the laws should work to minimize his own interests as often as he can while aligning his own interests with the plebes who vote him in based on name.
Logic says that if the assertions are true, and the argument based on those assertions contains no logical fallacies, then it is logical for the man who makes the laws should work to minimize his own interests as often as he can while aligning his own interests with the plebes who vote him in based on name.
"Logic says..." is no different than "[Bush,Gore,Streisand,Chrichton,Clinton,Kerry,Paul] says...". Except that in the latter it can be verified by reference.
You know what is really funny. A group of people saying Bush is stupid, dumb as a box of rocks, and a dunce all while claiming he masterminded a grand conspiracy and is pulling it off.
Even funnier: They don't see the contradiction.
If you s/funny/sad/ or s/funni/sadd/ it holds just as well.
But here is a newsflash for the poster: a decade ago the SEC and FCC were filled with Clinton appointees. And *he* did that with knowledge and forethought. a decade before that, the FCC and SEC were filled with Reagan appointees; *he* did that with knowledge and forethought.
Are we seeing a pattern here? G uess what, 5 years from now the SEC and FCC will be filled with appointees of the next president who will do with knowledge and forethought.
Can you see the pattern yet?
Furthermore, do you want a President appointing people to the SEC and FCC without knowledge and forethought? Wouldn't you think about putting people into those posts? While it can be argued these posts should be eliminated, I hold it rational to assume that if they are going to exist that qualified individuals should hold those positions.
That's one of the differences, IMO, between a mere malcontent[1] and a genuine dissident. A malcontent will just make thing sup that sound important or impressive, and label his or her target with whatever epithet sounds denigrating at the time. If it suits a malcontent's argument to say the target (in this case the POTUS) is stupid, he or she will do so. The next day if it suits the malcontent to say the target is a criminal mastermind, he or she will do so. Why? The point is not discussion and resolution. It is about bitching, whining, or an agenda to make oneself (or political allies) feel or look better. And for some it is about blog ad revenue.
A dissident however, has no need to make such contradictory claims. A dissident doesn't care whether he or she likes the POTUS, he or she knows the POTUS gets neither blame nor credit for the economy by right (for example), or can see good and bad, agreeable and disagreeable in, for example, the POTUS regardless of party, state of origin, campaign contributor beliefs, sex, or whatever else.
And finally, there is no "The American People". We are a very diverse bunch. We do not all agree on pretty much any given political or social matter. Malcontents like to portray this fiction because it lets them imply or claim that their target is not among the group. It's a form of the logical fallacy known as appeal to popularity. It is particularly popular for nationalist malcontents to portray a country's population as a people; and for the same reasons.
1: malcontent (a person who is discontented or disgusted); not the Shakespearean/English theater Malcontent.
At first I thought of a sarcastic reply:
"Do we really want a 'perfect replacement' of Exchange?".
I chuckled.
Then I came up with a serious reply:
"Do we really want a 'perfect replacement' of Exchange?".
Calendaring is becoming less of the key. I know that's hard to hear and believe now, give it a few years. Organizations have started analyzing how much calendaring (and it's various pieces) is actually used in their environments and finding that the numbers are rather low. In many cases less than half of their users actually utilize Exchange calendaring. Then they start looking for alternatives that will cost them less (support, licensing, hardware, etc.).
Further, laws like Sarbanes-Oxley are changing the face of corporate email. For some cases, "I am not in the office" auto replies are getting banned while in others they are limited to the organization (see features in 2007 for this). Inter-organization calendaring isn't used much at all and visibility into another corporation's scheduling is not very common now and only decreasing in the future as it becomes more of a legal/liability issue.
So where does that leave us vis a vis an Exchange Calendaring replacement? It's an interesting future. One possible option is that non-Exchange orgs move to non-email based calendaring, and possibly some of the larger Exchange users trial it. Why? Because it won't be email. If that doesn't make you go "ah, I see why" you might consider reading up on SoX and its ramifications. Or not and save yourself some painful boredom and loss of a few points of san.
I've got a gut feeling that we'll see Email and Calendaring file for divorce in the near future (2-5 years). Of course, when that happens MS will keep it as part of Exchange for a couple revs while they figure it out all over again. But we will all be better off for it IMO.
Just because it is by microsoft people hate the product even if they never used it before.
Maybe you need a new line and some experience. I work in a very large global enterprise messaging environment. The Exchange side of the house dislikes/hates it. In many cases more than the Linux side does. Some of our guys know more about what it does and how it works than our engineers at MS. They like it the least (or hate it the most depending).
Thus your claim that those who don't like it do so just because it came from MS is demonstrably false, uninteresting, and almost a knee-jerk reaction.
As I said for years "Exchange was an outgrowth of Sendmail. Is it any wonder it was/is so bad?". I hate sendmail as much as I dislike Exchange and for most of the same reasons.
It would be like someone from an other political party saying someone from the other party actually made a big difference and the world is better because of him/her. It just wont happen.
Maybe you need a new political party to hang with. Or maybe meet up with Ron Paul supporters. Democrats, Libertarians, Constitutionalists, even some Greens are all doing exactly that regarding Ron Paul. Indeed the primary anti-Paul vitriol is from Republicans. Or maybe you need some history education. Many members of the Democrat party had and have great things to say about Reagan, including that he made a big difference and we are all better for it.
Because that is how management thinks. I'll break It out for you.
Management types want more people to manage because it gives them a means to argue they deserve more money. Their management wants to see more money first. SO if your product is successful and growing, your management expects to be able to bring on more workers so they can be considered more important and worth more money. Think of it as HR bloat just like feature bloat in an application.
Since these "analysis" articles are done by people who are trained in, experienced in, or familiar with that model that is what they expect of everything. It's the notion that success brings growth. They are blissfully ignorant of the small world concepts, or how real work gets done, or how software is different from building a Model T, and only see the "business" side - especially since that is what pays their salary.
Which is fundamentally no different than today's "Climate Science" being based on models based on assumptions. At least economists are willing and ready to admit that their models are not fully accurate and should only be used roughly, not cast into stone.
The idea of peoples of one nation, or even a nations sponsored activity, going to a "new world" and reaping benefits from the resources available there is not new. It has happened every time mankind has expanded somewhere new. Why should Mozambique, for example, have any input on whether Britain, the US, or China go mine the asteroids or Luna?
"you can bet the profits aren't going to be distributed very widely."
You can bet they will be. Just not in the form of "here you did nothing to make this happen, have some money", which is what you seem to be talking about. The "profits" of the US (for example) going to Luna, mining some He3 and achieving fusion reactors that have an energy cost on par with today's energy, or even slightly more, are tremendous and are far more than mere dollars, assuming there would be much profit there.
Americans would have "clean" fusion energy. Which would mean (in theory) that we'd have far fewer regulations against an energy source that we can expand without "damage to the ecosphere". If American coal plants were cut in half, or eliminated, by being replaced with He3 fueled fusion reactors, then by simple and accurate deduction, the world benefits through reduced pollution.
It is even plausible that such a move may bring more manufacturing into the US. There would be a shift from coal mining and use to.... yup people would need new jobs. Would coal miners be willing to switch from mining coal to working in a factory? I'd say a good portion of them would.
At first, I'd expect these new factories to be more Lunar equipment factories. Increase and solidify the infrastructure, providing a gradual shift. With this increased capacity would come the ability to export the technology and He3. With that would be a continued decrease on dirty, or believed dirty, terrestrial power plants.
A cheap an abundant energy source (such as theoretically He3) could aid in solving the looming water shortage by powering desalination plants along the coasts.
Historically speaking, it would be a bad idea for countries not playing a part in it, to have any say whatsoever. It builds a false consensus that is then used as an appeal to the mob. It becomes "bad" because people who have neither the capacity nor the desire to go mine/occupy the moon say it is. Of course those who actually do benefit will do so. That is why those who can not often gather together to prevent those who can.
It would be like kids fresh out of junior high school banding together to prevent college graduates with physics from taking jobs as scientists. They can't have those jobs, but know that the graduates can, so they create an appearance of right that people should not be physicists.
Of course, their minds will change when it becomes possible for them. In the meantime, if successful, they would have missed out on advances and improvements made by those whom they prevented from taking those jobs.
Additionally, the US (or China) obtaining a source of energy that would be abundant and cheap enough to replace most of their oil consumption should in theory improve international relations by making the presence of oil a non-issue. If oil is driving US foreign policy as many claim, then the elimination of it as a critical resource should drastically alter said foreign policy. If it is not the driver of US foreign policy, and said policy does not change, then perhaps we will get closer to the actual reasons instead of assumed reasons. I'm not saying which is which, I'm not in the State Department and so not "know". However, the prospect for an improvement (international relations change ALL the time) due to elimination of oil dependence would be very high.
Finally, such an achievement (He3 fusion), would likely increase the energy available to mankind. Virtually every analysis of historical trends shows that as energy use increases, quality of life increases, and secondary damage decreases. The use of energy can not increase without an increase in the availability of energy. Think of the lives that could be saved in cold snaps from having more energy for heating, or the decrease fo heat related deaths due to air conditioning.
1) These guys did an impressive amount of work, but seem to be completely oblivious to proper statistical analysis. It would have been nice to have seen a p-value somewhere in there.
Sound like solid candidates for Global Warming "research" grants.
2) You don't get an edge in the lottery by picking numbers that are more likely to come up; you get it by picking numbers that other players are less likely to choose (e.g. >31), so that you don't have to split your win with as many others.
Not sure about that. I would rather share a payout where I get more than I bought in for then get no payout.
Assumption 1:
There is a distribution of numbers that tend to come up more frequently than others. Assumption 2:
Anyone who selects the winning numbers, shares in the payout Assumption 3:
If nobody else won, you get all of it.
Given these assumptions, the real question is whether or not it is to your advantage to pick less-frequent numbers others tend to not pick at a lower chance of payout versus picking numbers others are likely to pick because they come up more often.
My suspicion is that it would be variable based on the total payout, and whether or not the payout increases if nobody wins. Also one would need to decide if it is a one-shot, or a multiple-play strategy.
I suspect based on previous studies in other fields (with similar conditions) that most people would in fact pick from the smaller but more frequent number set to increase the chances of winning, even if it's a smaller amount.
Personally, as long as you enjoy it and don't take it to excess, play the lottery how you see fit, numbers be damned.
What? How dare you suggest that computer models don't provide an accurate substitute for reality, and are not a solid substitute for real science! Next thing you know people might question Global Climate Models. That could lead to demanding publicly available data instead of "proprietary" data and scrutiny of the millions of dollars spent on models instead of things like updating the proxies, auditing the monitoring stations, and perhaps even demanding open debate.
There is nothing politically charged about black holes, or even supermassive ones. As such, the quote above about the models being proven wrong by reality is easily accepted and non-controversial. Unlike, say GCM that fail to predict say El Nino. The physicists understand that models are a useful tool for seeing what you don't know, but are not science, nor are they to be accepted as reality.
1) Support cross-platform development languages so developers could choose their platform (think Java) above others.
Think Python, Perl, Ruby, QT4, C++, hell even Objective-C - the first time I saw it was on a Linux system a decade or so ago. Will you get everything you can do with OSX stuff? Hell no, why should they implement CoreData, for example, for Windows?
But to say because you have problems with JAVA means you don't have cross-platform options, is really to extrapolate your preference to apply to all. Don't confuse your problems as the same as everyone else's.
4) Make laptops that don't burn the users' genitals.
Perhaps your computer and your genitals should not be in such close proximity? It's OK to love your Mac, but don't LOVE your Mac.
I'm only a recent Mac user, so I can't comment intelligently on Mac's history with digital signatures. However, RPM had digital signing prior to Windows 98. All signing is is a key based encryption method. It's hardly an innovation for anyone to make the "leap" from signing a message or file to uhh signing a file..
Lotus Notes, IIRC, had code signing from version 1.
But in any case "signing" a file to verify it is what it is supposed to be according to the originator old hat UNIX stuff and not worthy of being considered innovative by Apple or Microsoft. That said, OSX has been using code signing for updates from the beginning.
That was an awful lot of text to avoid the fact that you incorrectly claimed people don't use transparent/translucent materials in the real world. Regarding transparent windows, just because you see tha as useful in one rather limited way.
As a woodmaker (yeah I said that on/.) I can tell you that the examples I cited regarding making things are not what you described. You do not composite the data into a single unit, in fact it is replication of data. This thing we call tracing or transferring, or in some places siply visually comparing. Tac plates I doubt you've even seen, but they are not compositing of data into a single unit. Indeed, to combine these into a single unit would violate the intention and integrity of the "components". Combining the data, which you see so keen on, is the opposite of what is desired. Same thing with map overlays in military usages.
So while you clearly are concerned about integration of data, again that does not mean the rest of us are.
That said, MY usage and MY wants, which you went to great lengths to convince me of, are not about sharing data between transparent apps on the desktop. They are about effectively making the desktop larger by eliminating blocking overlap (which happens to be similar to same usage as transparent containers and chefs/cooks/housewives/househusbands). Often I have to reference some material while writing some more material. No, I don't want copy-paste, and no I don't want integration and sharing of data. My brain serves that purpose better than the computer can because it is going through a different kind of filter/transform. For this, I've use transparent windows when I had them and missed it when I didn't.
Additionally, viewing some windows with log files that I need to monitor (usually during an incident) while documenting the activity by using a translucent or transparent window in my main composition (as in writing) window with the logs immediately behind it is terribly productive after a few minutes for getting used to it.
We get it, you don't like them. Big deal. But to claim that based on your experience they are a sham and not of ANY use, is actually quite arrogant even though I don't believe you intended it to be.
In the end, however, you made the assertion that translucent windows materials were not great because nobody used translucent materials to write on in the real world. Yet we do. In fact there is a reason you can buy onion paper, to use your specific assertion. Sometimes you only want a visual, or apparent, "combining" of data, not an actual one.
Oh and by the way, Trolltech also has windows onto shared data. Not the specific and limited way you clearly think of, but it is there.
Oh and you are certainly welcome for the opportunity to demonstrate how further limited your views and thoughts on the subject are.;^D
And you've done what, exactly, with it? Your vision is where?
Just because you don't do things such as writing on translucent materials or glass things doesn't mean the rest of us don't. Not all technology is for every person. For example, those who actually build things by hand (quilters, seamstresses, wood workers, metal workers, etc.) quite frequently use translucent or clear materials for patterns, templates, and sometimes finished products. How about clear measuring cups? I've seen chefs use clear containers and mark various levels and information on them using erasable markers. Then there is the clear surfaces with map inlays used by tactical planners and tac-rooms. In the Army, decades ago, we would use clear or translucent materials over maps to create different plans and routes, and lay them over various maps. Oh, and waaay back in elementary, junior, and senior high school, and lo even in college, transparencies were used in classrooms with overhead projectors. I've seen the use of transparent or translucent overlay "technology" used in the real world by police, firefighters, medical personnel, construction crews, demolition crews, surveyors, etc..
So since many of us DO use it, translucency (or transparency by your reference to glass) by your own argument IS great, and you simply lack the vision to make use of it, right? It isn't translucency that is overrated, it's your post.
Slashdot Mirror
wow. Sounds like California.
Small Government People know that you can not have small government with corporations. Corporations are not natural entities but protected entities created by government regulations. A small government would eliminate the corporation. Not the business, just the protected status. Corporations only enjoy their protected status by the largess of government.
Look at your city, your county, your state. Almost all corporations.
People like you need to realize that it isn't the "big business" mentality, it is the fact that government provides special immunities and benefits to corporations through the use of the corporate charter itself. Step one in effecting positive change in big business practices is the elimination of corporate charters. Period. You can even start by using it as a punishment for braking the law: revoke the charter.
If the companies lacked the protections afforded by the corporate charter much of people's gripes about them would be actionable.
On the other hand, Linux has it's foundations and also the direct and clear support of major companies that are more and more depending on it. From consumer electronics consortiums/companies to companies like IBM, HP, RedHat, and many more that run their systems on Linux.
I'm not saying either has a more "assured survival", just that the methods used are different. A central command structure is a clearly attackable point.
And no I've no ill will to the BSDs either. The BSDs have their issues (just as Linux has it's issues), and thus the level of uptake should not be that suprising.
The cultural shift favors Linux over BSD precisely due the the allegations of encumbrance. The BSD license has it's encumbrance, it's just hidden. Companies such as IBM clearly are not interested in adding to an OS kernel that allows their competitors to take their changes and use them while not sharing back. The "encumbrance" of the GPL has shown to be one of Linux' strengths in the terms of adoption rate.
Has Yahoo! made changes to their installed BSD to improve it? If so have they released those changes? If not, then if/when MS shuts those BSD servers down rest assured that those changes will be lost to the BSD world, though they *might* remain as buried stuff in later MS products.
While the BSD community has a strong technical capability, I've never seen the encouragement of sharing that a GPL community provides. Indeed, in my experience people go to the BSD licensing precisely because they want to take what others have done, and go proprietary. This is reflected in the BSD distributions as well. Some are open and the rest are proprietary and often flat out hidden.
That last bit also serves as a hindrance to expanding adoption. If people/companies can simply take the open BSD code, close it and release their products on it, nobody needs know. If nobody knows, perception of use is lower than actual and has no bearing on further adoption.
On the contrary, Linux adoption is clearly more open by the force of the GPL.
Whether one agrees or not with the underpinnings of the GPL vs. the BSD licensing models, they do show their presence in adoption rates and reasons.
The cultural change we are undergoing is one of interop and of cooperation, even coopetition. The BSD license does not culturally fit, while GPL does. Maybe that will change one day. But I wouldn't hold my breath. Neither "Linux" nor BSD will be on a death bed any time soon. But their cultures will play a major role in how widespread each becomes. Neither can change their cultural underpinnings without becoming the other.
ping $(hostname)
Really? You mean you have millions of dollars in campaign funding available? You have delegates to the RP convention?
No, you don't have as much of a chance. Since this is slashdot:
Romney, McCain, and Huckabee all get hit by a bus and are unable to continue their run. Who is the next RP presidential candidate? Ron Paul. Not you.
It doesn't even have to be that extensive. If Huckabee drops, then Romney gets hit, it would be a two way race between the not-so-hidden-Democrat McCain versus Paul. Paul then gets a strong shot at it.
Even if Ron Paul got hit by the bus, you still have no chance.
Your comment is not insightful, it is flat out wrong. It demonstrates a fundamental lack of how the mechanics of elections work.
Seriously? Uh it's called async routing. AKA legitimate spoofing. Your outbound transmission is via land line. Satellite did this a decade ago. Your system has two IPs: in and out. Your outbound transmission essentially spoofs your inbound IP.
And since we are all supposed to be good little consumers, we won't need much outbound-only bandwidth, right?
That aside there is a long list of Internetworkable features/capability that one-way transmission serves well. For example, what if they "broadcast" stock, weather, and news, or RSS feeds?
Just use a little bit of history and perhaps some imagination (old school virtual reality) and you can see quite a it of use for this type of arrangement.
By letting broadband be defined as download speed only, we've lost the first battles. At a minimum if you define a certain bandwidth as broadband, it should be defined as the lower of the two directions. Oh so you get 6 meg down but 64k up? Call it 64k then.
"Why in the world does NASA contract out the construction of its vehicles to begin with??!"
Your question is akin to asking "Why does Fedex buy (contract out) it's airplanes from someone else, instead of building their own.
Because FedEx isn' tin that business.
Thus NASA, which isn't chartered (in the business) to make rockets purchases (contracts out) to people who do it for a living.
It's less expensive. If FedEx had to have the necessary talent and infrastructure to build their own planes it would fail to break even let alone make a profit. Why? Because when you design and make planes for yourself only your per-unit cost is far higher than when you sell them to companies who are smart enough to know better.
Seriously. Why should it matter?
You wanna know why? Do you really wanna know why? Do you? Huh? I'll tell you why.
The same reason that when someone is shot or killed in an accident, friends, family, and passersby will describe the victim in every possibly positive manner.
You'll never see a report on a shooting at the mall where people say "Old Jack was killed. He was a sorry excuse for a man with a disposition that would make Satan's toes curl. Oh and he killed puppies. A lot." Even if it is all true.
No, "journalists" of today, by and large, did not go into journalism to report events. They went into it to "change the world" or "make a difference" - the two dead giveaways that person should not be in journalism. So they spin the report in whatever direction they feel helps their intended desire.
A supporting factor is an increasing lack of ability to actually write. This is the reason you see stuff like: "Joe Blacke (31) was hit by a van while riding his bicycle today".
Truthfully, many "news stories" aren't actually newsworthy or there is very little to them. So "journalists" feel they have to "add facts" to pad it out. yes, often they are told that by their early editors and it becomes habit. It is like giving a speech and deliberately writing in "uhh"s and "Uhhhmmm"s.
Logic doesn't say any of that. Talk about a need for transparency. Claiming "logic says" without listing the premises and assumptions for the argument is a fallacy in that it is an appeal to a blind authority.
After all, otherwise one could do this:
Logic says that the man who makes the laws should work to minimize his own interests as often as he can while aligning his own interests with the plebes who vote him in based on name.
Neither that statement nor yours are logical by themselves. The arguments ned to be put forth. For example:
Assertion A)
Doing what the voters are eager for you to do will keep you in office
Assertion B)
By working to minimize your interests in office you can write books and do speaking gigs and guest appearances that show you to be the better office holder
Assertion C)
People will buy books written by you that demonstrate "the right way" to govern.
Assertions D)
You would like to make more money than just your congressional salary
Argument:
Given these assertions, the man who makes the laws should work to minimize his own interests as often as he can while aligning his own interests with the plebes who vote him in based on name.
Logic says that if the assertions are true, and the argument based on those assertions contains no logical fallacies, then it is logical for the man who makes the laws should work to minimize his own interests as often as he can while aligning his own interests with the plebes who vote him in based on name.
"Logic says..." is no different than "[Bush,Gore,Streisand,Chrichton,Clinton,Kerry,Paul] says...". Except that in the latter it can be verified by reference.
You know what is really funny. A group of people saying Bush is stupid, dumb as a box of rocks, and a dunce all while claiming he masterminded a grand conspiracy and is pulling it off.
Even funnier:
They don't see the contradiction.
If you s/funny/sad/ or s/funni/sadd/ it holds just as well.
But here is a newsflash for the poster:
a decade ago the SEC and FCC were filled with Clinton appointees. And *he* did that with knowledge and forethought.
a decade before that, the FCC and SEC were filled with Reagan appointees; *he* did that with knowledge and forethought.
Are we seeing a pattern here? G
uess what, 5 years from now the SEC and FCC will be filled with appointees of the next president who will do with knowledge and forethought.
Can you see the pattern yet?
Furthermore, do you want a President appointing people to the SEC and FCC without knowledge and forethought? Wouldn't you think about putting people into those posts? While it can be argued these posts should be eliminated, I hold it rational to assume that if they are going to exist that qualified individuals should hold those positions.
That's one of the differences, IMO, between a mere malcontent[1] and a genuine dissident. A malcontent will just make thing sup that sound important or impressive, and label his or her target with whatever epithet sounds denigrating at the time. If it suits a malcontent's argument to say the target (in this case the POTUS) is stupid, he or she will do so. The next day if it suits the malcontent to say the target is a criminal mastermind, he or she will do so. Why? The point is not discussion and resolution. It is about bitching, whining, or an agenda to make oneself (or political allies) feel or look better. And for some it is about blog ad revenue.
A dissident however, has no need to make such contradictory claims. A dissident doesn't care whether he or she likes the POTUS, he or she knows the POTUS gets neither blame nor credit for the economy by right (for example), or can see good and bad, agreeable and disagreeable in, for example, the POTUS regardless of party, state of origin, campaign contributor beliefs, sex, or whatever else.
And finally, there is no "The American People". We are a very diverse bunch. We do not all agree on pretty much any given political or social matter. Malcontents like to portray this fiction because it lets them imply or claim that their target is not among the group. It's a form of the logical fallacy known as appeal to popularity. It is particularly popular for nationalist malcontents to portray a country's population as a people; and for the same reasons.
1: malcontent (a person who is discontented or disgusted); not the Shakespearean/English theater Malcontent.
At first I thought of a sarcastic reply:
"Do we really want a 'perfect replacement' of Exchange?".
I chuckled.
Then I came up with a serious reply:
"Do we really want a 'perfect replacement' of Exchange?".
Calendaring is becoming less of the key. I know that's hard to hear and believe now, give it a few years. Organizations have started analyzing how much calendaring (and it's various pieces) is actually used in their environments and finding that the numbers are rather low. In many cases less than half of their users actually utilize Exchange calendaring. Then they start looking for alternatives that will cost them less (support, licensing, hardware, etc.).
Further, laws like Sarbanes-Oxley are changing the face of corporate email. For some cases, "I am not in the office" auto replies are getting banned while in others they are limited to the organization (see features in 2007 for this). Inter-organization calendaring isn't used much at all and visibility into another corporation's scheduling is not very common now and only decreasing in the future as it becomes more of a legal/liability issue.
So where does that leave us vis a vis an Exchange Calendaring replacement? It's an interesting future. One possible option is that non-Exchange orgs move to non-email based calendaring, and possibly some of the larger Exchange users trial it. Why? Because it won't be email. If that doesn't make you go "ah, I see why" you might consider reading up on SoX and its ramifications. Or not and save yourself some painful boredom and loss of a few points of san.
I've got a gut feeling that we'll see Email and Calendaring file for divorce in the near future (2-5 years). Of course, when that happens MS will keep it as part of Exchange for a couple revs while they figure it out all over again. But we will all be better off for it IMO.
The next headline from a Venusian lander will be "Lander finds newspaper with headline 'President claims Global Cooling a myth'".
;^)
There fixed that for you.
Insert flames below this line.
Just because it is by microsoft people hate the product even if they never used it before.
Maybe you need a new line and some experience. I work in a very large global enterprise messaging environment. The Exchange side of the house dislikes/hates it. In many cases more than the Linux side does. Some of our guys know more about what it does and how it works than our engineers at MS. They like it the least (or hate it the most depending).
Thus your claim that those who don't like it do so just because it came from MS is demonstrably false, uninteresting, and almost a knee-jerk reaction.
As I said for years "Exchange was an outgrowth of Sendmail. Is it any wonder it was/is so bad?". I hate sendmail as much as I dislike Exchange and for most of the same reasons.
It would be like someone from an other political party saying someone from the other party actually made a big difference and the world is better because of him/her. It just wont happen.
Maybe you need a new political party to hang with. Or maybe meet up with Ron Paul supporters. Democrats, Libertarians, Constitutionalists, even some Greens are all doing exactly that regarding Ron Paul. Indeed the primary anti-Paul vitriol is from Republicans. Or maybe you need some history education. Many members of the Democrat party had and have great things to say about Reagan, including that he made a big difference and we are all better for it.
Because that is how management thinks. I'll break It out for you.
Management types want more people to manage because it gives them a means to argue they deserve more money. Their management wants to see more money first. SO if your product is successful and growing, your management expects to be able to bring on more workers so they can be considered more important and worth more money. Think of it as HR bloat just like feature bloat in an application.
Since these "analysis" articles are done by people who are trained in, experienced in, or familiar with that model that is what they expect of everything. It's the notion that success brings growth. They are blissfully ignorant of the small world concepts, or how real work gets done, or how software is different from building a Model T, and only see the "business" side - especially since that is what pays their salary.
Which is fundamentally no different than today's "Climate Science" being based on models based on assumptions. At least economists are willing and ready to admit that their models are not fully accurate and should only be used roughly, not cast into stone.
The idea of peoples of one nation, or even a nations sponsored activity, going to a "new world" and reaping benefits from the resources available there is not new. It has happened every time mankind has expanded somewhere new. Why should Mozambique, for example, have any input on whether Britain, the US, or China go mine the asteroids or Luna?
.... yup people would need new jobs. Would coal miners be willing to switch from mining coal to working in a factory? I'd say a good portion of them would.
"you can bet the profits aren't going to be distributed very widely."
You can bet they will be. Just not in the form of "here you did nothing to make this happen, have some money", which is what you seem to be talking about. The "profits" of the US (for example) going to Luna, mining some He3 and achieving fusion reactors that have an energy cost on par with today's energy, or even slightly more, are tremendous and are far more than mere dollars, assuming there would be much profit there.
Americans would have "clean" fusion energy. Which would mean (in theory) that we'd have far fewer regulations against an energy source that we can expand without "damage to the ecosphere". If American coal plants were cut in half, or eliminated, by being replaced with He3 fueled fusion reactors, then by simple and accurate deduction, the world benefits through reduced pollution.
It is even plausible that such a move may bring more manufacturing into the US. There would be a shift from coal mining and use to
At first, I'd expect these new factories to be more Lunar equipment factories. Increase and solidify the infrastructure, providing a gradual shift. With this increased capacity would come the ability to export the technology and He3. With that would be a continued decrease on dirty, or believed dirty, terrestrial power plants.
A cheap an abundant energy source (such as theoretically He3) could aid in solving the looming water shortage by powering desalination plants along the coasts.
Historically speaking, it would be a bad idea for countries not playing a part in it, to have any say whatsoever. It builds a false consensus that is then used as an appeal to the mob. It becomes "bad" because people who have neither the capacity nor the desire to go mine/occupy the moon say it is. Of course those who actually do benefit will do so. That is why those who can not often gather together to prevent those who can.
It would be like kids fresh out of junior high school banding together to prevent college graduates with physics from taking jobs as scientists. They can't have those jobs, but know that the graduates can, so they create an appearance of right that people should not be physicists.
Of course, their minds will change when it becomes possible for them. In the meantime, if successful, they would have missed out on advances and improvements made by those whom they prevented from taking those jobs.
Additionally, the US (or China) obtaining a source of energy that would be abundant and cheap enough to replace most of their oil consumption should in theory improve international relations by making the presence of oil a non-issue. If oil is driving US foreign policy as many claim, then the elimination of it as a critical resource should drastically alter said foreign policy. If it is not the driver of US foreign policy, and said policy does not change, then perhaps we will get closer to the actual reasons instead of assumed reasons. I'm not saying which is which, I'm not in the State Department and so not "know". However, the prospect for an improvement (international relations change ALL the time) due to elimination of oil dependence would be very high.
Finally, such an achievement (He3 fusion), would likely increase the energy available to mankind. Virtually every analysis of historical trends shows that as energy use increases, quality of life increases, and secondary damage decreases. The use of energy can not increase without an increase in the availability of energy. Think of the lives that could be saved in cold snaps from having more energy for heating, or the decrease fo heat related deaths due to air conditioning.
I would have to imagine a beowulf cluster of tiny moon-mining robots.
That or be filled with laughter as people realized Google was serious.
1) These guys did an impressive amount of work, but seem to be completely oblivious to proper statistical analysis. It would have been nice to have seen a p-value somewhere in there.
Sound like solid candidates for Global Warming "research" grants.
2) You don't get an edge in the lottery by picking numbers that are more likely to come up; you get it by picking numbers that other players are less likely to choose (e.g. >31), so that you don't have to split your win with as many others.
Not sure about that. I would rather share a payout where I get more than I bought in for then get no payout.
Assumption 1:
There is a distribution of numbers that tend to come up more frequently than others.
Assumption 2:
Anyone who selects the winning numbers, shares in the payout
Assumption 3:
If nobody else won, you get all of it.
Given these assumptions, the real question is whether or not it is to your advantage to pick less-frequent numbers others tend to not pick at a lower chance of payout versus picking numbers others are likely to pick because they come up more often.
My suspicion is that it would be variable based on the total payout, and whether or not the payout increases if nobody wins. Also one would need to decide if it is a one-shot, or a multiple-play strategy.
I suspect based on previous studies in other fields (with similar conditions) that most people would in fact pick from the smaller but more frequent number set to increase the chances of winning, even if it's a smaller amount.
Personally, as long as you enjoy it and don't take it to excess, play the lottery how you see fit, numbers be damned.
What? How dare you suggest that computer models don't provide an accurate substitute for reality, and are not a solid substitute for real science! Next thing you know people might question Global Climate Models. That could lead to demanding publicly available data instead of "proprietary" data and scrutiny of the millions of dollars spent on models instead of things like updating the proxies, auditing the monitoring stations, and perhaps even demanding open debate.
There is nothing politically charged about black holes, or even supermassive ones. As such, the quote above about the models being proven wrong by reality is easily accepted and non-controversial. Unlike, say GCM that fail to predict say El Nino. The physicists understand that models are a useful tool for seeing what you don't know, but are not science, nor are they to be accepted as reality.
1) Support cross-platform development languages so developers could choose their platform (think Java) above others.
Think Python, Perl, Ruby, QT4, C++, hell even Objective-C - the first time I saw it was on a Linux system a decade or so ago. Will you get everything you can do with OSX stuff? Hell no, why should they implement CoreData, for example, for Windows?
But to say because you have problems with JAVA means you don't have cross-platform options, is really to extrapolate your preference to apply to all. Don't confuse your problems as the same as everyone else's.
4) Make laptops that don't burn the users' genitals.
Perhaps your computer and your genitals should not be in such close proximity? It's OK to love your Mac, but don't LOVE your Mac.
1) Relatively instant results if you know what you're doing.
Wouldn't it be nice if we could actually rely on the assumption that users know what they're doing?
I'm only a recent Mac user, so I can't comment intelligently on Mac's history with digital signatures. However, RPM had digital signing prior to Windows 98. All signing is is a key based encryption method. It's hardly an innovation for anyone to make the "leap" from signing a message or file to uhh signing a file..
Lotus Notes, IIRC, had code signing from version 1.
But in any case "signing" a file to verify it is what it is supposed to be according to the originator old hat UNIX stuff and not worthy of being considered innovative by Apple or Microsoft. That said, OSX has been using code signing for updates from the beginning.
That was an awful lot of text to avoid the fact that you incorrectly claimed people don't use transparent/translucent materials in the real world. Regarding transparent windows, just because you see tha as useful in one rather limited way.
/.) I can tell you that the examples I cited regarding making things are not what you described. You do not composite the data into a single unit, in fact it is replication of data. This thing we call tracing or transferring, or in some places siply visually comparing. Tac plates I doubt you've even seen, but they are not compositing of data into a single unit. Indeed, to combine these into a single unit would violate the intention and integrity of the "components". Combining the data, which you see so keen on, is the opposite of what is desired. Same thing with map overlays in military usages.
;^D
As a woodmaker (yeah I said that on
So while you clearly are concerned about integration of data, again that does not mean the rest of us are.
That said, MY usage and MY wants, which you went to great lengths to convince me of, are not about sharing data between transparent apps on the desktop. They are about effectively making the desktop larger by eliminating blocking overlap (which happens to be similar to same usage as transparent containers and chefs/cooks/housewives/househusbands). Often I have to reference some material while writing some more material. No, I don't want copy-paste, and no I don't want integration and sharing of data. My brain serves that purpose better than the computer can because it is going through a different kind of filter/transform. For this, I've use transparent windows when I had them and missed it when I didn't.
Additionally, viewing some windows with log files that I need to monitor (usually during an incident) while documenting the activity by using a translucent or transparent window in my main composition (as in writing) window with the logs immediately behind it is terribly productive after a few minutes for getting used to it.
We get it, you don't like them. Big deal. But to claim that based on your experience they are a sham and not of ANY use, is actually quite arrogant even though I don't believe you intended it to be.
In the end, however, you made the assertion that translucent windows materials were not great because nobody used translucent materials to write on in the real world. Yet we do. In fact there is a reason you can buy onion paper, to use your specific assertion. Sometimes you only want a visual, or apparent, "combining" of data, not an actual one.
Oh and by the way, Trolltech also has windows onto shared data. Not the specific and limited way you clearly think of, but it is there.
Oh and you are certainly welcome for the opportunity to demonstrate how further limited your views and thoughts on the subject are.
And you've done what, exactly, with it? Your vision is where?
Just because you don't do things such as writing on translucent materials or glass things doesn't mean the rest of us don't. Not all technology is for every person. For example, those who actually build things by hand (quilters, seamstresses, wood workers, metal workers, etc.) quite frequently use translucent or clear materials for patterns, templates, and sometimes finished products. How about clear measuring cups? I've seen chefs use clear containers and mark various levels and information on them using erasable markers. Then there is the clear surfaces with map inlays used by tactical planners and tac-rooms. In the Army, decades ago, we would use clear or translucent materials over maps to create different plans and routes, and lay them over various maps. Oh, and waaay back in elementary, junior, and senior high school, and lo even in college, transparencies were used in classrooms with overhead projectors. I've seen the use of transparent or translucent overlay "technology" used in the real world by police, firefighters, medical personnel, construction crews, demolition crews, surveyors, etc..
So since many of us DO use it, translucency (or transparency by your reference to glass) by your own argument IS great, and you simply lack the vision to make use of it, right? It isn't translucency that is overrated, it's your post.