There is a huge difference between free speech and free action. I don't care if some f*cker shaves his head and shouts nazi propaganda; I don't have to listen or pay attention. I do care if the same bastard starts clubbing people in the streets. The law on how you express your opinions won't do much (from the article: Under French law, it is illegal to exhibit or sell objects with racist overtones). The same ideas can be expressed without being immediately obvious, just like the nazis didn't exactly win elections in Germany on the 'kill-the-Jews' platform. They did it by pushing socialist work reform and initially exploiting sentiments of national pride, not racial hatred. I think it's much more dangerous to allow partial exposure to certain ideas; better to expose them in their full foolishness. Even worse, technically under French law, you can kiss goodbye any chance of buying Hegel, Hobbes, Nietzsche, Twain, or any numerous others with 'questionable' content. This is not just a question of sensitivity to racial issues; it's a way to ignore anything even remotely unplesaant, and, IMHO, is going to create serious problems in the future.
Calm down, big guy; take a joke as it was intended. I'm living in Chicago, where they won't even allow the sale of handguns, much less armor-piercing shells. Back home, I've got an old Walther P-38, and I'm glad to say I've never needed more. Hell, I like Kentucky (which I can't say for all too many states in the Union), and still have a friend living down near Lexington; you try getting a decent freakin' mint julep up here. Sorry to hear about the break-in. Hope nobody got hurt.
I pack a S&W.357 with armor piercing shells 99% of the time.(Rattlesnakes are a daily occurance since I live out in the county...) Sweet merciful crap...armored snakes! I should get down to Kentucky more often.
Damn...it's now $5 for an indulgence for listening to Geeks in Space. I wonder what I'm gonna have to give for posting to the forum? At least it's not one of the deadly sins...
Actually, the theory isn't that serious. Chances are, the pipes becames rather rapidly calcified (I'm thinking of my shower-head after a few months of not cleaning it), and the amount of lead conveyed to the drinking water was pretty minimal.
I'm not suggesting the report is necessarily false, or that lead and PCB's don't have serious negative effects, but the page makes many sweeping statements without presenting the evidence or the evaluative methods used. The child in England with 'blood-lead level high enough for intelligence to be affected could be the result of immediate rather than widespread environmental levels. Similarly, if the Indian village is losing it's intelligent people, or they're moving out en masse, wouldn't the lack of an intellectually stimulating environment for the remainder affect the overall intelligence (however it was measured) more than the fluoride?
I'll happily wait until I read the full report, rather than vague generalities.
Think of the business world as a big sandbox filled with maliciously-minded 6-year olds. You can have government standing over them, threatening to take away milk and cookie hour if they don't share, telling them that the world will be a better place if they do (which, granted, it probably will). But, on the other hand, if I'm in the sandbox and don't want to give you my shovel and bucket, you really can't make me (at least, without being the sandbox rat who goes to the teacher for everything).
Voluntary association and distribution is one thing (and a good thing). Forcing it, however, sucks, and makes for a mean and disgruntled little Bezos (and everybody else, for that matter).
IMHO, I think Gore is much more dangerous than Bush because he is a semi-literate individual pushing pseudo-intellectually-backed policy. My only eventual hope is that Bush will be a personality, who will surround himself with intelligent people who will dictate the policy he represents (cf. Nixon and Kissinger). Gore on the other hand will charge straight ahead, pushing his own half-thought-out policies of increased governmental bureaucracy and involvement in everything, including internet regulation.
But, again, back to the topic; monopoly is not illegal. Using monopoly to affect the market in your favour is. Microsoft has been losing market share for quite some time now, to Linux and MacOS mainly, and will continue to do so even without the Department of Justice. They are in the interesting situation where the production of a superior product, and consequent increase in market share, could only hurt their defense.
In addition, even if you argue that a percentage of consumers has been hurt by Microsoft, that percentage is composed of a generally educated minority; slashdot readers are not a representative survey of consumers. As a whole, consumers want a product which will offer a simple, internally consistent system including basic applications, where modification is not an issue.
So who is being hurt? Linux users? Hardly. Netscape? Even if you assume unfair competition, Netscape is an inferior browser to Explorer right now. Mozilla is great, but won't be ready for mass consumption for quite some time yet. The consumer? Complaints seem to come mostly from the computer literate, Linux and MacOS users, all proving that competition for Microsoft is thriving and growing at phenomenal rates. I can honestly say I dislike Microsoft, but I don't feel like their existence is currently limiting my options; the biggest problem right now is what distribution to choose.
At least as I understand it, he will willingly donate as much as it takes to get the university running. It has precedent: J.D. Rockefeller poured money into the University of Chicago for over 20 years before it got on its feet. But for the project to succeed, it eventually has to become self-sufficient, without Saylor's or anyone else's continued donations. Viable, but difficult, especially without tuition. And how are you going to pay grad students? Here's hoping, though I won't hold my breath.
Slashdot Mirror
The law on how you express your opinions won't do much (from the article: Under French law, it is illegal to exhibit or sell objects with racist overtones). The same ideas can be expressed without being immediately obvious, just like the nazis didn't exactly win elections in Germany on the 'kill-the-Jews' platform. They did it by pushing socialist work reform and initially exploiting sentiments of national pride, not racial hatred.
I think it's much more dangerous to allow partial exposure to certain ideas; better to expose them in their full foolishness. Even worse, technically under French law, you can kiss goodbye any chance of buying Hegel, Hobbes, Nietzsche, Twain, or any numerous others with 'questionable' content.
This is not just a question of sensitivity to racial issues; it's a way to ignore anything even remotely unplesaant, and, IMHO, is going to create serious problems in the future.
Calm down, big guy; take a joke as it was intended. I'm living in Chicago, where they won't even allow the sale of handguns, much less armor-piercing shells. Back home, I've got an old Walther P-38, and I'm glad to say I've never needed more. Hell, I like Kentucky (which I can't say for all too many states in the Union), and still have a friend living down near Lexington; you try getting a decent freakin' mint julep up here.
Sorry to hear about the break-in. Hope nobody got hurt.
I pack a S&W .357 with armor piercing shells 99% of the time.(Rattlesnakes are a daily occurance since I live out in the county...)
Sweet merciful crap...armored snakes! I should get down to Kentucky more often.
Just go through the archives, browsing at -1.
Damn...it's now $5 for an indulgence for listening to Geeks in Space. I wonder what I'm gonna have to give for posting to the forum?
At least it's not one of the deadly sins...
Does this make you feel better?
I'm not suggesting the report is necessarily false, or that lead and PCB's don't have serious negative effects, but the page makes many sweeping statements without presenting the evidence or the evaluative methods used. The child in England with 'blood-lead level high enough for intelligence to be affected could be the result of immediate rather than widespread environmental levels. Similarly, if the Indian village is losing it's intelligent people, or they're moving out en masse, wouldn't the lack of an intellectually stimulating environment for the remainder affect the overall intelligence (however it was measured) more than the fluoride?
I'll happily wait until I read the full report, rather than vague generalities.
Voluntary association and distribution is one thing (and a good thing). Forcing it, however, sucks, and makes for a mean and disgruntled little Bezos (and everybody else, for that matter).
Easy: if they don't know who you are, how are you going to get your t-shirt?
IMHO, I think Gore is much more dangerous than Bush because he is a semi-literate individual pushing pseudo-intellectually-backed policy. My only eventual hope is that Bush will be a personality, who will surround himself with intelligent people who will dictate the policy he represents (cf. Nixon and Kissinger). Gore on the other hand will charge straight ahead, pushing his own half-thought-out policies of increased governmental bureaucracy and involvement in everything, including internet regulation.
But, again, back to the topic; monopoly is not illegal. Using monopoly to affect the market in your favour is. Microsoft has been losing market share for quite some time now, to Linux and MacOS mainly, and will continue to do so even without the Department of Justice. They are in the interesting situation where the production of a superior product, and consequent increase in market share, could only hurt their defense.
In addition, even if you argue that a percentage of consumers has been hurt by Microsoft, that percentage is composed of a generally educated minority; slashdot readers are not a representative survey of consumers. As a whole, consumers want a product which will offer a simple, internally consistent system including basic applications, where modification is not an issue.
So who is being hurt? Linux users? Hardly. Netscape? Even if you assume unfair competition, Netscape is an inferior browser to Explorer right now. Mozilla is great, but won't be ready for mass consumption for quite some time yet. The consumer? Complaints seem to come mostly from the computer literate, Linux and MacOS users, all proving that competition for Microsoft is thriving and growing at phenomenal rates. I can honestly say I dislike Microsoft, but I don't feel like their existence is currently limiting my options; the biggest problem right now is what distribution to choose.
Well, that ends that rant.
At least as I understand it, he will willingly donate as much as it takes to get the university running. It has precedent: J.D. Rockefeller poured money into the University of Chicago for over 20 years before it got on its feet. But for the project to succeed, it eventually has to become self-sufficient, without Saylor's or anyone else's continued donations. Viable, but difficult, especially without tuition. And how are you going to pay grad students? Here's hoping, though I won't hold my breath.