not in oversaturated markets. When these started springing up around DC with different neighborhood/town names in the same style I leaped to the conclusion the article draws. It is good to see it confirmed though. Additionally, since the geographical granularity is so hilariously fine, it seemed less than likely that non-transplant locals were behind it. (Of course it could have been non-transplant franchisees getting buffaloed by their franchise distributor.)
Franchise distributors have a strong proclivity to assume your market is like the market where they come from and bully you into making decisions that are more valid for that market than yours. E.g. I knew a Blimpie franchise owner who was bullied by the franchiser into following a NY-NJ business model for a fast food restaurant: find an office building and rely on the building to supply the majority of your customers. The problems with this in the DC area are several, but here are two of the biggest:
-most DC buildings are smaller than NY buildings (esp in DC itself due to the convention of not building higher than the Washington monument.)
-due to lower population density and poorer public transit, parking is usually needed in DC whereas NY restaurants can ignore this, relying on foot traffic.
These and others contributed to the failure of the franchise.
As an aside, knowledge of how to sleuth out domain registration and correlation is somewhat de rigeur for most of us in the Slashdot audience, and as such should reduce the newsworthiness of the story.
Maryland was not founded (directly) out of the religious intolerance of its members. It became untenable to be a Catholic in England around that time, and so they were shown the door... err... ship. While some Catholics were politically or religiously motivated to return Catholicism as the state religion in England and some of those planned or carried out violence, the situation was much more complex than simple one-sided religious intolerance.
Pennsylvania was also not founded as much by the intolerance of its members as it was by the intolerance of English society. Quakers and other egalitarians were seen as a threat to the peerage (hereditary nobility) system of government. It was a crime in England to be a "leveller" or someone who believed in equality of people and thus of opportunity. http://answers.google.com/answers/threadview/id/178185.html
nice try with the blanket anti-religious statements, though.
What you really mean to say (if you intend to keep any objectivity at all) is that Mass and Conn colonies were founded by Puritans who wanted out as badly as their former English countrymen wanted them out. Yes, RI is one of the most positive things to come out of the Puritan movement.
For both major party candidates, it's Keynesians. I like the Austrian economists, so I really have no one to support on this issue. e.g. They both would have done the bailout or some variant. What's the difference? It's which companies are the favorites.
"Typically throughout history it's done by declaring them heretics and torturing them to death. That's the history of the Christian religion, Islam and Judaism as well.. Hopefully it's obvious to you now why the founding fathers were so adamant and so absolutely correct that religion can have no place in the government of a free society."
Uggh... you argue against yourself, conveniently omitting the proof. Firstly, however, the Constitution prohibits the establishment of a state religion, it does not say anything like religion having no place in a free society. In fact the entire philosophy of natural rights which the founders based the thing on is a descendant of then modern intellectual Christianity mixed up with native American belief systems. The reason the Constitution prohibits the establishment of a state religion is that many states were comprised of people of differing sects of Christianity. Each had arrived there as a result of intolerance on the part of the Brittish (mostly for the feared economic or political impacts of their continued presence, not as a matter of their religious beliefs in their own right.) E.g. Maryland was founded as a Catholic colony by the lord Baltimore. Mass by the puritans. RI by a derivative group split off from the puritans.
You assign much more meaning and intent to the founders' actions than is evident, when in fact they were tabling and neutralizing the issue so that people of all religions, atheists included, would feel free and willing to join together as a nation.
As an aside, the whole history of the Brittish American colonies and our formation into a country is a glaring counter-example to your assertions regarding discourse on religious differences.
clearly that's the strategy. i question its validity. as a fiscal conservative i certainly will not be voting for the party that brought us geometric growth in our nation's debt during its 6 years of power. the republican party makes little more pretense than echoing empty platitudes towards the fiscal conservatives and it behooves us to show them the same contempt they show us. as sad as it is, the closest practical home we have is in the blue dog dem caucus and/or alone with Ron Paul. at least the blue dogs force the congress to look at the flow of dollars as they waive pay-go for the pork barrel bills like the bailout and military funding. in the end, for now both alternatives serve little other purpose than as unwanted warning signposts for the magic wand of inflation crowd to ignore.
as to Limbaugh, i don't think that example serves your argument well.
[sarcasm] because Rush Limbaugh is known for always telling the complete truth all of the time, never omits or circumvents stronger arguments against his positions, and never, ever exercises hyperbole before the fact in order to exert influence on the outcome of something like a presidential primary. [/sarcasm]
he may have some limited leeway to express his preferences, but in the end as now he was going to exhort the base to get to the ballot box in Nov. No matter who the second name on the ticket was, even if it had been Lieberman, or (though he may have choked on it had it happened) Paul. This means he is malleable and will not get what he claims to want. This last means he can claim to want things he may not actually want were they within the realm of the politically possible.
umm... if republicans hate him, why would they bother to get off their duffs to go vote for him? If they hate him, he should be down double digits because of this. Especially with as few material differences as there are between him and Obama on policy (both supporting bailout, etc.) Your argument makes no sense. It would make more sense for republicans to send their party a message by not voting for McCain in order to get someone they like next time. It is abundantly clear that the republican machine is quite happy with McCain. It's all part and parcel with his carefully cultivated "maverick" image. He's not a maverick at all, but apparently if you pay enough people to say it enough times it becomes true somehow.
Mac: But our shenanigans are cheeky and fun.
Thorny: Yeah, his shenanigans are cruel and tragic.
Foster: Which wouldn't make them shenanigans, at all, really.
Mac: (Irish voice) Evil shenanigans!
O'Hagen: I swear to God, I'll pistol whip the next guy that says 'shenanigans!'
Mac: Hey Farva, what's the name of that restaurant you like with all the goofy shit on the walls and the mozzarella sticks?
Farva: You mean Shenanigan's?
Mac, Foster and Thorny: Oh, no! (Laughing) (Mac hands O'Hagen his gun.)
Farva: You're talking about Shenanigan's, right?
O'Hagen: Put those away!
Copyright makes a *temporary* artificial property out of people's words and other art. People with vastly distorted views of the world and what they can get away with unnoticed built their business on the model of making governments remove the temporary nature of the artificial property. This is why it it amoral and unethical. It is a very similar situation to the financial crisis in that the governments are in essence propping up a business model that otherwise could not exist. It will eventually collapse under its own weight, but will continue to do a great deal of damage in its death throes. In the meanwhile they will pursue their old tactic of changing the rules to suit their wishes, and extort us.
Dammit, Edna St. Vincent Millay ought to be in the public domain by now! The only reason she isn't is that there is a large franchise whose author died after her (Walt Disney). Hint: come up with something new and we'll buy it while your royalty period is still active.
12 year flat Copyright will fix this. But that's not going to happen.
if i use gentoo on my personal LHC, will i have to build the LHC from quarks? and how will i get through all those package incompatibilities? (i love gentoo, but had to poke fun anyways.)
if your control system is that poorly designed that you pass all your data through it and make it publicly accessible, then you deserve the consequences.
*Control* systems ought to be separate from publicly accessible
*Data presentation* systems to the extent possible.
i.e. presentation systems with external availability should take orders from the control system but not communicate back to the control system. If you need data in your control loop, then you make a separate data collection system for that purpose. alternatively, one could get (an) optical network card(s) and only connect the TX fiber(s) on the collection system, thereby making data only flow out into the analysis network.
Maybe if IBM had been in the LHC business rather than the computer business in the 70s, they'd have been right to dismiss the personal LHC in favor one or two LHCs worldwide that everyone uses.
I generally agree with you with respect to labor unions. However, it is evident that you conflate unions and their behavior with professional licensure / regulatory bodies. While it is true that a variety of outside forces including unions and employers have schemed to game those bodies to their own ends at various points, their function and history behind them is quite different than that of labor unions. Professional licensure (for lawyers with the state bars (which you mistake the ABA for), or state engineering licensure boards, etc.) came about as a result of failures on the part of those respective professions to police themselves. These failures made themselves evident in the form of massive miscarriages of justice (for lawyers), and in the failures of large structures causing high human casualties (for engineers). It would seem from your animosity towards these groups (which seems rooted in a mistaken impression that they are analogous to unions) that you advocate allowing any person or group of people to build a bridge. Unfortunately, we tried this as a society and got incidents as bad or worse than the failures of the school buildings in China from the recent earthquakes. Even licensed professionals have lapses or blind spots in judgment, thus the Tacoma Narrows bridge catastrophe. State licensure boards provide a formal tracking mechanism of the person who takes personal and professional responsibility for the safety of the works wrought under their seal.
Clearly, other than a very few sorts of systems, there is no need to so license and verify the competency of IT professionals. If I write an erroneous CORBA interface for e commerce or design a terrible UI for a company's website, there is manifestly no acute public safety risk. As you can see from the considerations in these examples, there is no real discussion of advantage for the licensed professional. Typically there are only drawbacks to being a PE, including professional liability insurance and a possibility of making a reasonable mistake with catastrophic consequences which the public officials will hang you out to dry for. Also, to reduce the burden on the public (you) most states require PEs only for structures over a certain size and/or expected occupancy. Also, your right to represent yourself in court is preserved, though given the complexity of our various legal codes, it is difficult to do so effectively. In other words, your expressed concern about licensed professionals like lawyers and engineers is not nearly as valid as your concern about trade unions. And it stems from the origins of the two things.
Slashdot Mirror
not in oversaturated markets. When these started springing up around DC with different neighborhood/town names in the same style I leaped to the conclusion the article draws. It is good to see it confirmed though. Additionally, since the geographical granularity is so hilariously fine, it seemed less than likely that non-transplant locals were behind it. (Of course it could have been non-transplant franchisees getting buffaloed by their franchise distributor.)
Franchise distributors have a strong proclivity to assume your market is like the market where they come from and bully you into making decisions that are more valid for that market than yours. E.g. I knew a Blimpie franchise owner who was bullied by the franchiser into following a NY-NJ business model for a fast food restaurant: find an office building and rely on the building to supply the majority of your customers. The problems with this in the DC area are several, but here are two of the biggest:
-most DC buildings are smaller than NY buildings (esp in DC itself due to the convention of not building higher than the Washington monument.)
-due to lower population density and poorer public transit, parking is usually needed in DC whereas NY restaurants can ignore this, relying on foot traffic.
These and others contributed to the failure of the franchise.
As an aside, knowledge of how to sleuth out domain registration and correlation is somewhat de rigeur for most of us in the Slashdot audience, and as such should reduce the newsworthiness of the story.
Maryland was not founded (directly) out of the religious intolerance of its members. It became untenable to be a Catholic in England around that time, and so they were shown the door... err... ship. While some Catholics were politically or religiously motivated to return Catholicism as the state religion in England and some of those planned or carried out violence, the situation was much more complex than simple one-sided religious intolerance.
Pennsylvania was also not founded as much by the intolerance of its members as it was by the intolerance of English society. Quakers and other egalitarians were seen as a threat to the peerage (hereditary nobility) system of government. It was a crime in England to be a "leveller" or someone who believed in equality of people and thus of opportunity.
http://answers.google.com/answers/threadview/id/178185.html
New York was taken by from the Dutch by the English as a purely economical hegemony power play. http://www.usahistory.info/colonies/New-York.html
and of course you can peruse wikipedia
nice try with the blanket anti-religious statements, though.
What you really mean to say (if you intend to keep any objectivity at all) is that Mass and Conn colonies were founded by Puritans who wanted out as badly as their former English countrymen wanted them out. Yes, RI is one of the most positive things to come out of the Puritan movement.
and algae is the most abundant carbon-based vegetation, not trees and grass.
because she did wonders for HP...
For both major party candidates, it's Keynesians. I like the Austrian economists, so I really have no one to support on this issue. e.g. They both would have done the bailout or some variant. What's the difference? It's which companies are the favorites.
nice Total Recall ref!
"Typically throughout history it's done by declaring them heretics and torturing them to death. That's the history of the Christian religion, Islam and Judaism as well.. Hopefully it's obvious to you now why the founding fathers were so adamant and so absolutely correct that religion can have no place in the government of a free society."
Uggh... you argue against yourself, conveniently omitting the proof. Firstly, however, the Constitution prohibits the establishment of a state religion, it does not say anything like religion having no place in a free society. In fact the entire philosophy of natural rights which the founders based the thing on is a descendant of then modern intellectual Christianity mixed up with native American belief systems. The reason the Constitution prohibits the establishment of a state religion is that many states were comprised of people of differing sects of Christianity. Each had arrived there as a result of intolerance on the part of the Brittish (mostly for the feared economic or political impacts of their continued presence, not as a matter of their religious beliefs in their own right.) E.g. Maryland was founded as a Catholic colony by the lord Baltimore. Mass by the puritans. RI by a derivative group split off from the puritans.
You assign much more meaning and intent to the founders' actions than is evident, when in fact they were tabling and neutralizing the issue so that people of all religions, atheists included, would feel free and willing to join together as a nation.
As an aside, the whole history of the Brittish American colonies and our formation into a country is a glaring counter-example to your assertions regarding discourse on religious differences.
clearly that's the strategy. i question its validity. as a fiscal conservative i certainly will not be voting for the party that brought us geometric growth in our nation's debt during its 6 years of power. the republican party makes little more pretense than echoing empty platitudes towards the fiscal conservatives and it behooves us to show them the same contempt they show us. as sad as it is, the closest practical home we have is in the blue dog dem caucus and/or alone with Ron Paul. at least the blue dogs force the congress to look at the flow of dollars as they waive pay-go for the pork barrel bills like the bailout and military funding. in the end, for now both alternatives serve little other purpose than as unwanted warning signposts for the magic wand of inflation crowd to ignore.
as to Limbaugh, i don't think that example serves your argument well.
[sarcasm]
because Rush Limbaugh is known for always telling the complete truth all of the time, never omits or circumvents stronger arguments against his positions, and never, ever exercises hyperbole before the fact in order to exert influence on the outcome of something like a presidential primary.
[/sarcasm]
he may have some limited leeway to express his preferences, but in the end as now he was going to exhort the base to get to the ballot box in Nov. No matter who the second name on the ticket was, even if it had been Lieberman, or (though he may have choked on it had it happened) Paul. This means he is malleable and will not get what he claims to want. This last means he can claim to want things he may not actually want were they within the realm of the politically possible.
umm... if republicans hate him, why would they bother to get off their duffs to go vote for him? If they hate him, he should be down double digits because of this. Especially with as few material differences as there are between him and Obama on policy (both supporting bailout, etc.) Your argument makes no sense. It would make more sense for republicans to send their party a message by not voting for McCain in order to get someone they like next time. It is abundantly clear that the republican machine is quite happy with McCain. It's all part and parcel with his carefully cultivated "maverick" image. He's not a maverick at all, but apparently if you pay enough people to say it enough times it becomes true somehow.
Not this year. Bob Barr might as well be McCain.
the GP is also including grad students, you insensitive clod! :p
But they're OOXML Shenanigans! they must be cruel and tragic.
Mac: But our shenanigans are cheeky and fun.
Thorny: Yeah, his shenanigans are cruel and tragic.
Foster: Which wouldn't make them shenanigans, at all, really.
Mac: (Irish voice) Evil shenanigans!
O'Hagen: I swear to God, I'll pistol whip the next guy that says 'shenanigans!'
Mac: Hey Farva, what's the name of that restaurant you like with all the goofy shit on the walls and the mozzarella sticks?
Farva: You mean Shenanigan's?
Mac, Foster and Thorny: Oh, no! (Laughing) (Mac hands O'Hagen his gun.)
Farva: You're talking about Shenanigan's, right?
O'Hagen: Put those away!
Copyright makes a *temporary* artificial property out of people's words and other art. People with vastly distorted views of the world and what they can get away with unnoticed built their business on the model of making governments remove the temporary nature of the artificial property. This is why it it amoral and unethical. It is a very similar situation to the financial crisis in that the governments are in essence propping up a business model that otherwise could not exist. It will eventually collapse under its own weight, but will continue to do a great deal of damage in its death throes. In the meanwhile they will pursue their old tactic of changing the rules to suit their wishes, and extort us.
Dammit, Edna St. Vincent Millay ought to be in the public domain by now! The only reason she isn't is that there is a large franchise whose author died after her (Walt Disney). Hint: come up with something new and we'll buy it while your royalty period is still active.
12 year flat Copyright will fix this. But that's not going to happen.
'nuf said.
Thank you Vernor Vinge.
if i use gentoo on my personal LHC, will i have to build the LHC from quarks? and how will i get through all those package incompatibilities? (i love gentoo, but had to poke fun anyways.)
if your control system is that poorly designed that you pass all your data through it and make it publicly accessible, then you deserve the consequences.
*Control* systems ought to be separate from publicly accessible
*Data presentation* systems to the extent possible.
i.e. presentation systems with external availability should take orders from the control system but not communicate back to the control system. If you need data in your control loop, then you make a separate data collection system for that purpose. alternatively, one could get (an) optical network card(s) and only connect the TX fiber(s) on the collection system, thereby making data only flow out into the analysis network.
http://begthequestion.info/
Grid computing for data analysis and control system *should be* two different things.
we want one interface. for each interface i find on this LHC, i will kill you.
remember: everything PhDs do is art. everything. including using their alma mater's mascot name as their password. art, i tell you!
Maybe if IBM had been in the LHC business rather than the computer business in the 70s, they'd have been right to dismiss the personal LHC in favor one or two LHCs worldwide that everyone uses.
or somesuch.
Ring a bell?
it's 12345. please.
it's so /.ers can pat themselves on the back variously for:
- the dramatic conclusions of our tendencies towards baseless vindictive behaviour
- pushing away people with different worldviews than the internet norm
- generally laughing at others to calm our own insecurities.
yay us. we're so mature/bigger/badder/whatever/
fill in the blank.
I generally agree with you with respect to labor unions. However, it is evident that you conflate unions and their behavior with professional licensure / regulatory bodies. While it is true that a variety of outside forces including unions and employers have schemed to game those bodies to their own ends at various points, their function and history behind them is quite different than that of labor unions. Professional licensure (for lawyers with the state bars (which you mistake the ABA for), or state engineering licensure boards, etc.) came about as a result of failures on the part of those respective professions to police themselves. These failures made themselves evident in the form of massive miscarriages of justice (for lawyers), and in the failures of large structures causing high human casualties (for engineers). It would seem from your animosity towards these groups (which seems rooted in a mistaken impression that they are analogous to unions) that you advocate allowing any person or group of people to build a bridge. Unfortunately, we tried this as a society and got incidents as bad or worse than the failures of the school buildings in China from the recent earthquakes. Even licensed professionals have lapses or blind spots in judgment, thus the Tacoma Narrows bridge catastrophe. State licensure boards provide a formal tracking mechanism of the person who takes personal and professional responsibility for the safety of the works wrought under their seal.
Clearly, other than a very few sorts of systems, there is no need to so license and verify the competency of IT professionals. If I write an erroneous CORBA interface for e commerce or design a terrible UI for a company's website, there is manifestly no acute public safety risk. As you can see from the considerations in these examples, there is no real discussion of advantage for the licensed professional. Typically there are only drawbacks to being a PE, including professional liability insurance and a possibility of making a reasonable mistake with catastrophic consequences which the public officials will hang you out to dry for. Also, to reduce the burden on the public (you) most states require PEs only for structures over a certain size and/or expected occupancy. Also, your right to represent yourself in court is preserved, though given the complexity of our various legal codes, it is difficult to do so effectively. In other words, your expressed concern about licensed professionals like lawyers and engineers is not nearly as valid as your concern about trade unions. And it stems from the origins of the two things.